>•■-■.- 
 
't Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/baptismtreatiseo01summ 
 
BAPTISM: 
 
 A TREATISE 
 
 NATURE, PERPETUITY, SUBJECTS, ADMINISTRATOR, 
 MODE, AND USE 
 
 INITIATING ORDINANCE 
 
 ffifjrtsttatt OMjurrf)- 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX, 
 
 CONTAINING STRICTURES ON DR. HOWELl/s " EVILS OF INFANT 
 BAPTISM," ETC. 
 
 THOMAS 0. SUMMERS. 
 
 RICHMOND, VA. & LOUISVILLE, KY.: 
 PUBLISHED BY JOHN EARLY, 
 
 FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 
 
 1853. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1852, by 
 
 JOHN EAKLY, 
 
 in tho Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia. 
 
 STEREOTYPED BY L. JOHNSON AND CO. 
 PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 PRINTED BY SMITH & PETERS. 
 

 
 
 j TO BISHOP ANDREW. 
 
 Reverend and dear Sir: 
 
 So numerous are the works on Baptism at the 
 present day — so worthless are the most of them — so 
 humble are the claims of the author of the following 
 treatise, that he has not been without some unplea- 
 sant apprehensions in regard to its fate, if committed 
 to the press. He has, therefore, concluded to adopt 
 an expedient, not unfrequently resorted to in similar 
 cases : that is to say, to send forth his unpretending 
 little book under the protection of a name, far wider 
 known and more esteemed than his own. When it 
 is seen that the patronage of one of the Bishops of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, is thus far 
 extended to the work, the public perhaps may con- 
 sider it not altogether unworthy of notice. The 
 author, indeed, has other reasons for this inscription, 
 but they are of such a complexion as to justify their 
 omission in this place, as considerations of personal 
 esteem and the like need not be detailed in the front 
 of a volume. 
 
 Being somewhat acquainted with his inclinations 
 and aversions, you may wonder, perhaps, that he 
 should write a work on Baptism. He has but little 
 
 3 
 
TO BISHOP ANDREW. 
 
 taste for polemic theology, especially when "mint, 
 and anise, and cummin" are the subjects of debate ; 
 and yet he is plunging into a controversy which 
 seems to involve nothing else, having apparently but 
 a remote relation to "the weightier matters of the 
 law, judgment, mercy, and faith." To say the least, 
 he has placed himself in a paradoxical position ; and 
 a word or two in regard to this point may not be 
 uncalled for or considered in bad taste. 
 
 The question may be asked, Have we not already 
 works enough on Baptism ? He of course will give 
 a negative answer, otherwise the following treatise 
 would not be added to the catalogue. The reasons 
 which have influenced him in the premises are briefly 
 these : — 
 
 1. He has been earnestly requested, by those 
 whose opinion he holds in high esteem, to write a 
 work on Baptism. 
 
 2. For several years he has been collecting ma- 
 terials on this subject, and canvassing it in its various 
 relations — at first, for the rectifying or confirming 
 of his own mind, and then for the more intelligent 
 and profitable exercise of his functions as a minister 
 of Christ, who ought " to know the certainty of those 
 things wherein" he has "been instructed" himself, 
 and wherein he has to instruct others. The result 
 of this prolonged investigation is an approach to 
 "certainty," as near perhaps as can be admitted in 
 a question of this sort. He is satisfied with the ar- 
 guments adduced in favor of the views which he 
 entertains in regard to the Nature, Perpetuity, Sub- 
 
TO BISHOP ANDREW. 
 
 jects, Administrator, Mode, and Use of Baptism ; and 
 he can hardly imagine that they will not prove equally 
 satisfactory to any one else who will give them a 
 candid and careful examination. In the hope and 
 belief that some inquiring minds of this character 
 will peruse this treatise, he has complied with the 
 importunity of his friends in allowing it to appear in 
 print. 
 
 3. Many of the works on Baptism which teem 
 from the press are utterly worthless — the most of 
 them advocating erroneous principles, sometimes, 
 indeed, affecting the fundamentals of Christianity. 
 The style and spirit too, in not a few instances, are 
 highly objectionable — not the slightest regard being 
 given to the apostolic rule of speaking the truth in 
 love. The spread of such works is of most per- 
 nicious tendency; and if the issue of the present 
 volume will, to any extent, restrict their circulation, 
 the author has not labored in vain. 
 
 4. Although there are many valuable tracts and 
 treatises on the Subjects of Baptism and also on the 
 Mode, yet, so far as the author is aware, there is no 
 manual in circulation which discusses all the matters 
 embraced in the following treatise; and he is of 
 opinion that there are points involved in the ques- 
 tion of the Administrator of Baptism of no small 
 interest to Christians in general and to ministers in 
 particular ; and the Use of Baptism ought not to be 
 considered of comparatively small importance ; yet 
 these topics are scarcely ever noticed in the popular 
 works on Baptism, and in none of them are they 
 
 l* 
 
6 TO BISHOP ANDREW. 
 
 adequately discussed. The present work is the re- 
 sult of an humble effort to supply this vacancy in our 
 theological literature. 
 
 5. In most of the works on Baptism which the 
 author has noticed, there is either a servile copying 
 of what others have said before, or else an attempt 
 at originality by far-fetched arguments and hyper- 
 critical interpretations of Scripture, which not un- 
 frequently jeopard the interests they are designed to 
 defend. The author has endeavored to avoid both 
 these extremes. He has made himself familiar with 
 the proofs and illustrations of those who are entitled 
 to a hearing, and he has passed them all through his 
 own mind, subjecting them to the impress of his own 
 reason and judgment. He is not greatly concerned 
 to know to what extent he is indebted to others for 
 the conclusions to which he has been conducted, or 
 for the logical processes by which they have been 
 reached. In a work like this, to adduce authorities 
 for every position advanced, would be a simple ab- 
 surdity. He has, indeed, given full and correct 
 quotations — the ipsissima verba — in every instance 
 in which the circumstances of the case seem to re- 
 quire that this should be done, whether the pas- 
 sages are introduced to be controverted or endorsed. 
 
 6. Some works on Baptism, in many respects 
 valuable, are sadly defective on the score of method. 
 To this point the author has paid considerable atten- 
 tion, and hopes that his work will not prove unsatis- 
 factory in the mode of its arrangement. A glance 
 
TO BISHOP ANDREW. 
 
 at the Table of Contents and Index will show that 
 this matter has not been disregarded. 
 
 The foregoing reasons, with others that need not 
 be stated, justify to his own mind the publication of 
 this treatise. He devoutly prays that it may be 
 the means of satisfying some doubtful and inquiring 
 mind — allaying to some extent the fierceness of the 
 baptismal controversy — promoting the cause of truth, 
 and advancing the glory of the ever-blessed Trinity, 
 to whom we have been solemnly consecrated in the 
 holy ordinance of Baptism. 
 
 It may not be improper to observe that the friendly 
 relations which the author maintains with Christians 
 who dissent from the views set forth in this treatise 
 respecting the Subjects and Mode of Baptism, show 
 that he does not consider those views so set forth in 
 the Scripture, as that good men may not fail to find 
 them there. But while he recognizes, in the courtesy 
 of Christian intercourse, the title which they have 
 seen proper to claim, yet he hopes they will take no 
 offense at a variation from this course in a formal 
 treatise on a Christian Institution. Humbly con- 
 ceiving that they have no scriptural charter for the 
 monopoly of this ordinance — believing, indeed, that 
 they are not so properly "Baptists" as those whom 
 they cannot style even "Pedobaptists" but by a 
 stretch of politeness for which they sometimes apolo- 
 gize — the author has seen proper to style them 
 Antipedobaptists, when speaking of them in refer- 
 ence to the Subjects of Baptism — Immersionists, in 
 regard to the Mode of Baptism — and Anabaptists, 
 
8 TO BISHOP ANDREW. 
 
 in respect to their repetition of Baptism. As to the 
 title, "fedobaptists," he does not affect it for him- 
 self and those who symbolize with him in the pre- 
 mises, especially as, like the apostles, they baptize 
 adults as well as children ; and so far as this ordi- 
 nance is concerned, they want no title more specific 
 than that of Baptist, which properly belongs to no 
 one but the administrator of the ordinance. In this 
 acceptation the title has been appropriated to the 
 forerunner of Christ: they, therefore, prefer the 
 name which the disciples received at Antioch, de- 
 rived from our only Master and Lord, the latchet 
 of whose shoes the Baptist did not consider himself 
 worthy to unloose. 
 
 The author of this treatise, as those who read it 
 will perceive, does not undervalue the ordinance of 
 Baptism ; nevertheless, he assigns it an immeasura- 
 bly lower place than that of the Baptism of the 
 Holy Ghost, of which it is the expressive symbol. He 
 feels very certain that his venerated friend, whom he 
 has presumed to address in the present style, will 
 unite with him in praying that the church, including 
 Christians of every name, may receive a more copious 
 baptism of the Spirit; and that the time may soon 
 come when the blood of sprinkling shall be applied 
 to the conscience and heart of every child of man. 
 
 Instead of writing a brief Dedication, the author 
 finds that he has been betrayed into an Introduc- 
 tion — so much so, indeed, as to supersede the ne- 
 cessity of writing a formal one for a volume so 
 unpretending as the present. Invoking, therefore, 
 
TO BISHOP ANDREW. 9 
 
 the blessing of Heaven on the publication, and be- 
 speaking the candor of the reader in regard to its 
 teachings, and his generosity in respect to its lite- 
 rary merits, he will add nothing more, except to beg 
 permission to write himself, 
 
 With very great affection and esteem, 
 Reverend and dear Sir, 
 Your fellow-laborer in the Gospel of Christ, 
 
 The Author. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, May 20, 1852. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Chap. I. NATURE' OF BAPTISM 13 
 
 H. PERPETUITY OF BAPTISM 16 
 
 HI. SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM 21 
 
 Sect. I. Believing Adults 21 
 
 II. Infants 22 
 
 1. They are the subjects of redeeming grace 25s 
 
 2. They are embraced in the Abrahamic Covenant 23 
 
 3. Their Church-memhership is recognized in the New 
 
 Testament 27 
 
 4. They were baptized by the Apostles 32 
 
 5. They were baptized by the Fathers 34 
 
 6. They have been baptized in every succeeding age 39 
 
 III. Objections to Infant Baptism answered 45 
 
 1. Infants cannot understand the meaning of Baptism 46 
 
 2. Infants cannot perform the conditions of Baptism... 46 
 
 3. Infants cannot discharge the obligations of Baptism 46 
 
 4. Infants cannot embrace the benefits of Baptism 47 
 
 5. Infants can be saved without Baptism 47 
 
 6. There is no Scriptural command to baptize Infants.. 48 
 
 7. There is no Scriptural precedent for the Baptism of 
 
 Infants 48 
 
 8. Infant Baptism is the occasion of numerous evils .... 50 
 IT. ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM 53 
 
 Sect. I. JDonatist, Puritan, and Anabaptist extremes 53 
 
 n. Patristic, Romish, and Protestant extremes 59 
 
 III. Via Media 64 
 
 V. MODE OF BAPTISM 78 
 
 Sect. I. Presumptions in favor of Affusion 78 
 
 II. Proofs of Affusion 79 
 
 m. Demonstrations of Affusion 88 
 
 IV. Objections to Affusion answered 92 
 
 1. Baptismal terms imply only Immersion 92 
 
 2. Prepositions used with baptismal terms imply only 
 
 Immersion 99 
 
 3. The account of John's Baptism implies only Immer- 
 
 sion 102 
 
 4. Allusions to burial with Christ in Baptism imply 
 
 only Immersion 109 
 
 5. Immersion was practised in the primitive Church... 113 
 
 6. Im m ersion alone is admitted by all parties to be valid 119 
 
 11 
 
12 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Chap. VI. USE OF BAPTISM , 124 
 
 Sect. I. Baptism not Regeneration, nor its necessary condition 
 
 or instrument 124 
 
 1. Baptismal Regeneration, as held by Fathers, Pa- 
 
 pists, and Protestants 124 
 
 2. Baptismal Regeneration false, absurd, and unscrip- 
 
 tural 148 
 
 II. Three-fold End of Baptism 153 
 
 1. Baptism considered as a Sign 154 
 
 2. Baptism considered as a Seal 155 
 
 3. Baptism considered as a Means of Grace 158 
 
 m. Objections answered . 159 
 
 1. Church-membership is secured by an act subse- 
 
 quent to Baptism, -which is not a Church Or- 
 dinance 159 
 
 2. Church-membership is secured by an arrange- 
 
 ment antecedent to Baptism, and is prerequi- 
 site to the Ordinance 161 
 
 IV. Conclusion 169 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Strictures on Dr. Howell's Evils of Infant Baptism 175 
 
 Classical and Scriptural Use of Baptismal Terms 220 
 
 Illustrations of the Primitive Mode of Baptism 241 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 245 
 
 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS .... 251 
 

 baptism: 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 NATURE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Baptism is an ordinance instituted by Christ, consist 
 ing in the application of water by a Christian minister 
 to suitable persons, for their initiation into the visible 
 church, and consecration to the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 The word baptism, like almost all of our other theolo- 
 gical terms, has been transferred into the English lan- 
 guage, as indeed into all other modern tongues, from the 
 Greek. As used in the New Testament, it properly de- 
 notes purification by water, whether the subject is applied 
 to the element, or the element to the subject. When 
 there arose a question between some of John's disciples 
 and 'the Jews about 'purifying, they came to John and 
 proposed it to him for solution. The question, according 
 to their statement, had reference to the prerogative of ad- 
 ministering baptism, showing plainly in what acceptation 
 they employed the term. 
 
 As the ordinance of purification, it does not effect " the 
 putting away of the filth of the flesh •" but it is emblem- 
 atical of sanctification, stipulates its production as a duty, 
 pledges the grace through which alone it can be realized, 
 introduces to its agencies and instrumentalities, and thus 
 ministers to its accomplishment. 
 
 It is therefore federal in its nature, being, as it were, a 
 seal to the covenant in which God and the subject of the 
 
 2 13 
 
14 NATURE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ordinance are the contracting parties. " For as many of 
 you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 
 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and 
 heirs according to the promise." Gal. iii. 27-29. It 
 thus sustains the same relations to the Abrahamic cove- 
 nant which circumcision formerly sustained. And whereas 
 circumcision, under the Mosaic dispensation, had respect 
 to the supplementary privileges and obligations of that 
 economy, so baptism has respect to all the promises and 
 precepts of the Christian dispensation, which is antitypical 
 uf the Mosaic and coraplemental of the Abrahamic. 
 
 As baptism initiates a man into the visible church, it is 
 a kind of new birth, and is so styled by our Lord : " Ex- 
 cept a man be horn of water and of the Spirit, he cannot 
 enter into the kingdom of God." We enter into this 
 world by natural birth : so by a new birth we enter into 
 the new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth right- 
 eousness. Externally, symbolically, we are born again 
 by water, as baptism brings us into the visible kingdom 
 of God : internall} 1 -, morally, we are born again by the 
 Holy Ghost, as by his grace we are brought into the invi- 
 sible kingdom, the kingdom of grace, which is the incho- 
 ation of the kingdom of glory. 
 
 Baptism is therefore a symbol of " the renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost," with which it is associated by St. Paul, 
 who accordingly calls it, not " regeneration," but, the 
 " washing," or bath, by which it is symbolized. 
 
 It is not the agent of regeneration, not the inseparable 
 antecedent of the new birth unto righteousness. A man 
 may be born of water, like Simon the sorcerer, and not be 
 born of the Spirit ; or he may be born of the Spirit, like 
 Cornelius, without being born of water. It is a means 
 of grace, and therefore of regeneration, only as it ministers 
 to it in the respects already noticed. 
 
 It is essential to Christianity, as it was instituted by the 
 Author and Finisher of our faith. 
 
 It is a saving ordinance, as is every thing else that per- 
 tains to the gospel of our salvation. 
 
 It is necessary to salvation ; as no one can be saved who 
 
NATURE OF BAPTISM. 15 
 
 neglects a known duty ; but it is not so necessary but that 
 a man may be saved without it, if nothing but invincible 
 ignorance or insuperable obstacles occasion the neglect. 
 
 Its advantages accrue from a comprehension of its de- 
 sign and a practical recognition of the interests it exhibits 
 and involves. It is therefore constantly associated with 
 the spiritual agencies and exercises of which it is the ex- 
 ponent and ally. Thus, in addition to the texts already 
 cited, we read : u Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
 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 commanded you." Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. 
 " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." 
 Mark xvi. 16. " 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." Acts ii. 
 38. <-* And the eunuch said, See, here is water, what doth 
 hinder me to be baptized ? And Philip said, If thou he- 
 lievest with all thine heart, thou rnayest." Acts viii. 36, 37. 
 u Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling 
 on the name of the Lord." Acts xxii. 16. " Baptism doth 
 also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the 
 flesh, but the answer of a, good conscience before God,) by 
 the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. iii. 21. 
 
 These references to the design and effect of baptism, 
 in connection with the definition we have given, clearly 
 enough show the Nature of this initiatory and symbolical 
 ordinance. It is marvellous, how it ever could be mis- 
 taken. 
 
 The discussion of other points, particularly the Use of 
 baptism, will more fully develop its Nature, 
 
16 PERPETUITY OF BAPTISM 
 
 CHAPTER n. 
 PERPETUITY OF BAPTISM. 
 
 The perpetual obligation of this institution has been 
 gainsaid by some, though a very few : this point, there- 
 fore, deserves notice, but a very brief one. 
 
 The ordinance of baptism was instituted by the Author 
 and Finisher of our faith, without any hint of its tempo- 
 rary obligation. We can scarcely suppose that he would 
 have associated baptism with other parts of ministerial 
 duty, intending the latter to be of perpetual force and 
 the former to be presently laid aside, without making the 
 discrimination ; but we look in vain for the slightest in- 
 timation of the kind. Indeed, there ought to have been 
 not merely a hint, but a plain, specific instruction, if the 
 ordinance was not designed to be perpetual. The precise 
 period when it should be laid aside ought to have been 
 designated. It must have been foreseen that without this 
 limitation, as to time, the ministers of the church would 
 perpetuate the observance ; and yet there is no such limita- 
 tion. The inference is patent and unanswerable. 
 
 As the Divine Author of the Christian dispensation 
 gave no hint of the temporariness of this institution, when 
 he appointed it, so he never repealed it at any subsequent 
 period. We search the Acts and Epistles of the apostles, 
 in vain, to find an abrogation of the law of baptism. And 
 no great wonder we do not find it, for the same authority 
 which imposes an obligation is required for the repeal 
 thereof; and the great Legislator did not see fit to enact 
 any law for the government of his church, except in his 
 own proper person. This was a matter too weighty to 
 be intrusted even to the inspired apostles. The charter 
 put into their hands by the ascending Saviour reads thus : 
 " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them 
 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 
PERPETUITY OF BAPTISM. 17 
 
 Holy Grhost : teaching them to observe all things what- 
 soever I have commanded yon." Accordingly, there is 
 not a dogma or a precept in the Acts and Epistles that 
 is not in the Gospels. The twelve apostles had been 
 thoroughly indoctrinated during their educational course 
 under the great Teacher; and as for St. Paul, who was 
 a supernumerary in the sacred college, he was in like 
 manner instructed by the Saviour, in several personal in- 
 terviews, both on earth and in paradise. He says him- 
 self, u I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was 
 preached of me is not after man. For I neither received 
 it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation 
 of Jesus Christ." No apostle would have had the presump- 
 tion to originate an ordinance for the church of Christ ; 
 and, by parity, no apostle would have made the sacrile- 
 gious attempt to abrogate an institution of Divine appoint- 
 ment. 
 
 It is in vain to say that no special act of abrogation 
 was needed, the dictates and decisions of reason being 
 sufficient to justify its repeal. Reason is an uncertain 
 guide and an unauthorized legislator in religion. Its only 
 province is to enable us to find out what has been authori- 
 tatively revealed. It is not competent to make revela- 
 tions itself. 
 
 It is impertinent to urge that though the ordinance 
 may have been of use in founding the New Dispensation, 
 it subserves no valuable purpose now ; and, as it has been 
 perverted to superstitious and unholy ends, it ought to be 
 abolished. 
 
 The position assumed is palpably false. If one man 
 imagines that baptism does not suit the genius of the 
 Christian religion, being a weak and beggarly element, a 
 carnal ordinance, incongruous to the spiritual nature of 
 the kingdom of Christ, it is perhaps sufficient to say that 
 there are a thousand to that one who entertain a different 
 opinion. They believe that Christianity would not be 
 suited to man, as a complex being, if it had not positive 
 institutions as well as dogmatic and ethical principles. 
 They are obviously correct in their belief. The senses 
 
 2* 
 
18 PERPETUITY OE BAPTISM. 
 
 are not to be neglected in religion, merely because there 
 is danger of assigning them too great prominence. We 
 must not let them usurp authority over reason and reve- 
 lation ; but then we cannot dispense with their services. 
 The first Christians needed them in matters of religion, 
 and we need them too. 
 
 The action in baptism is emblematical ; and when the 
 ordinance is duly administered, it is impressive, solemn, 
 and edifying. The ceremonial application of water to the 
 person represents in a lively and instructive manner the 
 internal application of Divine grace to cleanse the soul 
 from the impurities of sin. The water strikingly symbol- 
 izes that extraneous influence — that power which is not- 
 inherent in our nature, for ice cannot bring a clean thing 
 out of an unclean — that efficacy of the Holy Ghost, by 
 which the conscience is purged from dead works to serve 
 the living God. « 
 
 Submitting to the ordinance by our own choice, or that 
 of our natural and moral representatives if we are infants 
 — for baptism is never to be administered by priestly 
 coercion — we declare our determination to lead a holy life, 
 symbolically separating ourselves from the antichristian 
 world, assuming the obligations and claiming the privi- 
 leges of the disciples of Christ. Such a service is very 
 far from being an empty ceremony. And as the apostles 
 so frequently challenged the obedience of Christians by 
 referring to their baptism, it may be of equal service to 
 us, calling to our minds the responsibilities we have 
 assumed, stimulating us to discharge our Christian duties 
 and not to forfeit the privileges they entail. We always 
 realize this advantage whenever we seriously revert to 
 our baptism, particularly when present at the solemn 
 administration of the ordinance — an argument, by the 
 way, for its public celebration. 
 
 In view of these considerations, it is not to be wondered 
 at that the church in every age has perpetuated this 
 institution ; and as it will ever need its advantages, so we 
 are very sure it will perpetuate the ordinance to the <?i?d 
 of time. 
 
PERPETUITY OF BAPTISM. 19 
 
 As extended argument on this subject would be utterly 
 superfluous, we shall add nothing to the foregoing, except 
 the following ingenious observations of Bp. Warburton. 
 The learned author of The Divine Legation remarks, 
 Booh vi., see. i.: — 
 
 "There is a sect, and that no inconsiderable one, 
 which, being essentially founded in enthusiasm, hath, 
 amongst other of its strange freaks, thrown out the insti- 
 tution of water baptism from its scheme of Christianity. 
 It is very likely that the illiterate founder, while rapt in 
 his fanatic visions, did not reflect that of all the institu- 
 tions of our holy religion, this of water baptism was least 
 proper to be called in question, being most invincibly 
 established by the practice both of Paul and Peter. This 
 latter, finding that the household of Cornelius the Gentile 
 had received the Holy Ghost, regarded it as a certain 
 direction for him to admit them into the church of Christ, 
 which he did by the initiatory rightof water baptism. Acts 
 x. 47. Paul, in his travels through the Lesser Asia, 
 finding some of the Jewish converts, who had never heard 
 of the Holy Ghost, and, on inquiry, understanding they 
 had been only baptized by water unto John's baptism, 
 thought fit to baptize them with water in the name of the 
 Lord Jesus, that is, to admit them into the church ; and 
 then laying his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came 
 upon them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied. 
 Acts xix. In spite of these two memorable transactions, 
 the Quakers have notwithstanding rejected water baptism. 
 What is the pretence? 'Water baptism/ it seems, 'is 
 John's baptism, and only a type of baptism by the Holy 
 Ghost or by fire : so that when this last came in use, the 
 former ceased and was abolished.' Yet in the two his- 
 tories given above, both these fancies are reproved, and 
 in such a manner as if the stories had been recorded for 
 no other purpose j for in the adventure of Paul, the water 
 baptism of Jesus is expressly distinguished from the water 
 baptism of John ; and in that of Peter, it appears that 
 water baptism was necessary for admittance into the 
 church of Lhrist, even after the ministration of baptism 
 
20 PERPETUITY OF BAPTISM. 
 
 by fire, or the communicated power of the Holy Ghost. 
 It is further observable, that these two heads of the mis- 
 sion to the two great divisions of mankind, the Jews and 
 Gentiles, here acted in one another's province : Peter, the 
 apostle of the Jews, administering baptism to the Gentile 
 household of Cornelius, and Paul, the apostle of the Gen- 
 tiles, administering the same rite to the Jewish converts. 
 And why was this crossing of hands, but to obviate that 
 silly evasion that water baptism was only partial or tem- 
 porary ?" 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 21 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 SECTION I. — BELIEVING ADULTS. 
 
 The subjects of baptism are of two classes. The first 
 class comprehends all persons of mature years, who make 
 a credible profession of repentance toward God and faith 
 toward our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 It were absurd and sacrilegious to extend the rite to 
 any who are manifestly impenitent and unbelieving. 
 " Repent, and be baptized," says Peter. " And the eu- 
 nuch said, See, here is water : what doth hinder me to 
 be baptized ? And Philip said, If thou believest with all 
 thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I 
 believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." The pagan 
 must renounce his heathenism — the Hebrew, his Judaism 
 — the sinner, his sins, before he is prepared to pledge his 
 fealty to the King of Zion ; and baptism is itself a pro- 
 fession of faith in Christ. It is an act of consecration to 
 the Triune God. It is an assumption of all the obliga- 
 tions of Christianity • and no man is qualified to take the 
 vows of Christ's religion upon him until he is persuaded 
 of its Divine original. 
 
 We do not mean to say that no one is eligible to bap- 
 tism who has not an assurance of the pardon of his sin 
 and the regeneration of his nature, through faith in Christ 
 and by the power of the Holy Ghost. Far from it. Of 
 course, those who enjoy the witness of adoption are proper 
 candidates for the ordinance ; but so also are all those 
 who do not enjoy it ; yet are desirous of attaining it and 
 are seeking its possession. Indeed, baptism is admirably 
 suited to their case. It symbolizes the grace which they 
 seek, and thus assists them in their efforts to acquire it : 
 the ordinance thus proves a means whereby the penitent 
 
22 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 subject receives the inward and invisible grace which it is 
 designed to represent. Thus, while Cornelius and his 
 friends first obtain the gift of the Holy Ghost, and then 
 receive the ordinance which represents it, the thousands 
 of penitents at Pentecost are exhorted by Peter to receive 
 the ordinance in connection with repentance, in order to 
 obtain the spiritual benefit : " Piepent, 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." 
 
 SECTION II. — INFANTS. 
 
 The second class of baptismal subjects comprehends all 
 young children that are sincerely and voluntarily pre- 
 sented for the ordinance. 
 
 That infants are proper subjects of baptism is demon- 
 strated by the following considerations : — 
 
 1. They are all the subjects of redeeming grace, and 
 they do not place any bar to the blood-bought privileges 
 of the gospel to exclude themselves from participation in 
 them. 
 
 They are not baptized because their parents are be- 
 lievers in Christ. Their right to the ordinance is of a 
 higher investiture. They claim by a nobler entail. 
 Dying in infancy, they enter heaven, not on the ground 
 of their Christian descent — the piety of their parents — 
 but because of their personal connection with the Second 
 Adam, by whose righteousness the free gift is come upon 
 them unto justification of life. Upon the very same 
 basis are they admitted to membership in the kingdom 
 of grace and to baptism, as the rite of initiation into the 
 church of God. If there be any for whom Christ did 
 not die — any for whom he did not purchase the sanctify- 
 ing grace of the Holy Ghost — any whom he designed and 
 decreed never to save — such are obviously ineligible to 
 baptism, which is the exponent of those great benefits 
 which flow from the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 
 But if he tasted death for every man — if the free gift has 
 
INFANTS. 23 
 
 come upon all who are involved in the condemnation of 
 the pristine offense — there can be no reason to justify the 
 exclusion of any from the sign and seal of the Divine 
 mercy, except such as exclude themselves by their obsti- 
 nate impenitency — and infants are not of that number. 
 
 2. They are specifically embraced in the gospel cove- 
 nant. 
 
 When that covenant was made with Abraham, his 
 children were brought under its provisions, and the same 
 seal that was administered to him was administered also 
 to them — including both those that were born in his 
 house and those that were bought with his money. They 
 were all alike circumcised in token of their common in- 
 terest in that covenant of which circumcision was the ap- 
 pointed symbol. That covenant is still in force. "Know 
 ye therefore/' says the apostle, " that they which are of 
 faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the 
 Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen 
 through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, 
 saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they 
 which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." 
 Gal. iii. To say, therefore, that the Abrahamic covenant 
 was confined exclusively to national and temporal privi- 
 leges and obligations, has the singular infelicity of con- 
 tradicting the apostle. 
 
 Besides, what national and temporal privileges and 
 obligations were confirmed to Ishmael and his posterity 
 by the Abrahamic covenant, of which they received the 
 sign and seal ? Did they, or was it intended that they 
 should, receive any inheritance in the promised land ? 
 Were they brought thereby under the bond of the Mosaic 
 covenant ? The Israelites were ; but it must be remem- 
 bered that "circumcision is not of Moses, but of the 
 fathers." It signed and sealed a covenant which was 
 made hundreds of years before the Jewish ceremonial law 
 was given. " And this I say," observes the apostle, 
 " that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in 
 jChrist, the law which was four hundred and thirty years 
 after cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of 
 
24 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is 
 no more of promise ; but God gave it to Abraham by 
 promise." Can language be more explicit, more deter- 
 minate than this? Does not St. Paul tell us plainly that 
 the Abrahamic covenant is substantially and essentially 
 identical with the Christian covenant? And if children 
 were embraced in the provisions of the former, what but 
 a Divine interdict can exclude them from the provisions 
 of the latter? And no such interdict has ever been given. 
 If, therefore, the children of the covenant were admitted 
 to its symbolical rite under the old dispensation, why 
 may they not be admitted under the new ? Are the pro- 
 visions of the latter less liberal, less extensive than those 
 of the former? 
 
 We do not know how any unprejudiced person can 
 read the Scriptures without seeing that the church of 
 God is essentially one and the same under every dispen- 
 sation. 
 
 The term church, txxi.r^Lu, in the New Testament, cor- 
 responds with congregation, kahal, in the Old ; and the 
 latter is frequently so rendered in the Septuagint, which 
 sometimes interchanges it with synagogue, a word of the 
 same import. St. Stephen, accordingly, speaking of 
 Moses, says, "This is he that was in the church in the wil- 
 derness," (Acts vii. 45) — not in a promiscuous assembly, 
 as the word exx^oCa sometimes denotes, but a regular 
 ecclesiastical organization, called by St. Paul " a house," 
 in which Moses acted as a servant, and afterward Christ 
 as u a Son," " whose house," says the apostle, " are we." 
 Heb. iii. Compare Ps. xxii. 12, lxx., and Heb. ii. 12. 
 
 This church is often spoken of under the notion of a 
 kingdom — "the kingdom of God," or, as Matthew fre- 
 quently has it, " the kingdom of heaven." Matt. xx. 
 1-16, xxii. 1-14. This church, or kingdom, our Lord told 
 the Jews should be taken from them, and given to a na- 
 tion bringing forth the fruits thereof. Matt. xxi. 43. Com- 
 pare Matt. viii. 11, 12, where the Jews are styled "the 
 children of the kingdom," and, because of their disobedi- 
 ence, threatened with a fearful expulsion. They were 
 
INFANTS. 25 
 
 in possession of the privileges of the kingdom of God, as 
 it existed in its introductory state, and they had a pre- 
 emption right to the privileges of that kingdom, in its 
 perfected state; in which sense it was said by John the 
 Baptist and by Christ to be nigh at hand. It was there- 
 fore offered first to them by our Lord himself and by his 
 apostles, as Paul and Barnabas said to the Jews : " It was 
 necessary that the word of God should first have been 
 spoken to you; but seeing ye put it from you, and judge 
 yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to 
 the Gentiles. " Acts xiii. 46. Thus was the prediction of 
 Christ verified. 
 
 The church is compared by St. Paul to an olive-tree, 
 which, planted by God in patriarchal times, continued to 
 grow throughout the period of the Jewish dispensation; 
 but some of the natural branches, being unfruitful, were 
 broken off, and the branches of a wild olive-tree were, 
 " contrary to nature," grafted in their place, and were 
 thus made to " partake of the root and fatness of the 
 olive-tree." Provision is however made, on a prescribed 
 contingency, for the " natural branches" to " be grafted 
 into their own olive-tree/' "for God is able to graft them 
 in again." Rom. xi. Compare Jer. xi. 16. If this does 
 not establish the essential identity of the church under 
 the different dispensations — no matter to what circumstan- 
 tial changes it may have been subjected — it is not possible 
 to establish any point, by any reasoning, illustration, or 
 authority. Indeed, it does it so fully, so forcibly, so obvi- 
 ously as to forestall all objections and to preclude all argu- 
 ment. 
 
 This great truth pervades the New Testament, particu- 
 larly the Pauline epistles, being frequently brought to 
 view in an incidental, matter-of-course manner, and not 
 as a point concerning which there might be any contro- 
 versy. Accordingly, we know of no controversy on this 
 subject, until it was superinduced by the emergencies of 
 antipedobaptist divines. 
 
 That baptism is the ordinance of initiation into the 
 church ; and the sign and seal of the covenant now, a ,b cir- 
 
26 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 cumcision was formerly, is evident. Thus St. Paul, in 
 connection with the passages we have cited from his epistle 
 to the Galatians, uses this language : " As many of you 
 as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. 
 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor 
 free, there is neither male nor female ; but ye are all one 
 in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abra- 
 ham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." And 
 so also in another place : " In whom also ye are circum- 
 cised with the circumcision made without hands, in put- 
 ting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumci- 
 sion of Christ : buried with him in baptism." Col. ii. 
 11, 12. 
 
 Alluding to this text, Justin Martyr says, " We have 
 not received that circumcision according to the flesh, but 
 that circumcision which is spiritual; and, moreover, for 
 indeed we were sinners, we have received this circumci- 
 sion in baptism, for the purpose of God's mercy ; and it 
 is enjoined on all to receive it in like manner." 
 
 Fidus hesitated to baptize children before the eighth 
 day after their birth, the period at which circumcision was 
 administered. He wrote to Cyprian for his opinion, and 
 that father gave the judgment of sixty-six bishops in 
 council, that infants might be baptized before the eighth 
 day. This question never could have been raised had 
 they not understood that baptism has taken the place of 
 circumcision. 
 
 Chrysostom says emphatically, " There was pain and 
 trouble in the practice of Jewish circumcision ; but our 
 circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, gives cure 
 without pain; and this for infants as well as men." 
 
 Basil, in allusion to St. Paul's language, says, "Dost 
 thou put off the circumcision made without hands, in put- 
 ting off the flesh, which is done in baptism, when thou 
 hearest our Lord say, ' Except a man be born of water 
 and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 God' ?" 
 
 As external circumcision symbolizes the " circumcision 
 of the heart, in the spirit," so baptism symbolizes the same 
 
INFANTS. 27 
 
 great act, the moral purification of the soul. Baptism, 
 being a less rigorous rite than circumcision, is more con- 
 genial to the Christian economy than the latter, which was 
 not inappropriate to the earlier and less benign dispensa- 
 tions. Nevertheless, as it is of the same mystical import, 
 it signs and seals the same promise of mercy and pledge 
 of obedience. And as that promise extends to our chil- 
 dren as well as to us, it is our duty to do all in our power 
 to make them parties to the covenant, as did also our fa- 
 ther Abraham. " For the promise," says Peter, " is unto 
 you and to your children." As God has not excluded them 
 from the covenant, it seems a daring act of presumption 
 in us to exclude them from the sign by which it is set 
 forth and the seal by which it is ratified. 
 
 3. The membership of children in the Christian church 
 is formally recognized in the New Testament. 
 
 " They brought young children to Christ, that he should 
 touch them ; and his disciples rebuked those that brought 
 them. And when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, 
 and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come 
 unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom 
 of God. Verily, I say unto you, whosoever shall not re- 
 ceive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not 
 enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his 
 hands upon them, and blessed them." Mark x. 13-16. 
 
 Let it be observed that the little children, ta 7t<xihia, of 
 Matthew and Mark, are styled td pptyijj in Luke, (xviii. 
 15,) and the term j3pi$os means an infant, a babe, or suck- 
 ling. It is properly used of children not weaned. The 
 Greek authorities say that the period of lactation extend- 
 ed to four years — among the Jews, it extended to three 
 years : during this time the child was called by this name, 
 brcphos. 
 
 The children that were brought to Christ must have 
 been very young, as he took them up in his arms, put his 
 hands upon them, and blessed them. It must be a press- 
 ing emergency that makes adults of these infants. But, 
 apart from all hypercritical analysis or torturing of the 
 text, can any unprejudiced man read this passage, and yet 
 
28 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 believe that Christ intended to exclude children from mem- 
 bership in his church ? Those to whom he spoke knew 
 that children were members of the Jewish church, and 
 that millions of infant souls have been admitted into the 
 kingdom of God above ; and could they imagine that the 
 Saviour would ostracize these little ones from the Chris- 
 tian church, the kingdom of God upon earth ? Even if 
 he meant to say, Let the children come, for persons like 
 them are to be members of my church — this does not ex- 
 clude the little ones themselves : it rather includes them, 
 especially as it is assigned as a reason why they should 
 not be prevented from being brought to him to receive 
 his blessing. But if this establishes their eligibility to 
 membership in the church, it confirms, by necessary se- 
 quence, their claim to baptism, through which alone they 
 can be admitted to the visible kingdom of God. 
 
 To the same effect is the language of St. Paul : " For 
 the unbelieving husband is sanctified by, or to the wife, 
 and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by, or to the hus- 
 band : else were your children unclean ; but now are they 
 holy." 1 Cor. vii. 1-4. 
 
 This cannot mean inherently righteous, for none are 
 holy in this sense until they are born again. 
 
 Nor does it mean legitimate, as Dr. Gill, and some 
 others, including Albert Barnes, affirm ; for this is no 
 meaning of the word. It is used some five hundred times 
 in the New Testament, and always in the sense of sancti- 
 fication — reputed, relative, or real. Besides, the matter in 
 question had nothing to do with legitimate and illegiti- 
 mate unions; and of course the legitimacy or illegitimacy 
 of their offspring has no place in the argument. 
 
 Furthermore, the word cannot mean persons with whom 
 Christians may have familiar intercourse, according to the 
 still more novel theory of Dr. Dagg — who, by the way, 
 manifests no small ingenuity in its construction and learn- 
 ing in its defense. He supposes the children in question 
 were the children of all the Christians in the Corinthian 
 church — as if there were any parallel between the case 
 of believing parents living with their children and that of 
 
INFANTS. 29 
 
 a believing husband living with an unbelieving wife or a 
 believing wife with an unbelieving husband. Against the 
 latter there had been a positive law of Divine enactment : 
 against the former there never had been any law, human 
 or divine. No hypercritical analysis of the text, or cor- 
 rection of the translation, can make it appear that because 
 it is lawful for believing parents to live with their children 
 it is lawful for a believing husband or wife to live with 
 an unbelieving consort. What curious logic ! We ven- 
 ture to say, neither Jewish nor Gentile believers would 
 be satisfied with the lawfulness of living with unbelieving 
 husbands or wives, merely because Christian parents 
 were not obliged to turn their children out of doors ! 
 
 We do not think Dr. Dagg's philological criticisms 
 give much support to his cause. As to the change of 
 address from the third person to the second — " your 
 children" — it is enough to say, that transitions of this 
 character are common in the Scriptures, and this chapter 
 abounds with them. The same parties are spoken of 
 and spoken to, interchangeably, a dozen times in a para- 
 graph. In regard to the subjunctive rendering of the 
 indicative, latl, " were unclean," grammarians tell us that 
 the indicative frequently has a subjunctive force, particu- 
 larly in Hellenistic Greek, in imitation of the Hebrew, 
 which has no subjunctive form — and the sense requires it 
 in the present case.* Our argument, however, has not 
 much concern with these hair-splitting niceties. 
 
 With respect to the alleged identity of the holiness 
 predicated of the unbelieving consort and that of the 
 children, as being fatal to the common interpretation of 
 this passage, it may suffice to say, that there is an iden- 
 tity, but there is also a diversity. There are in fact three 
 kinds of holiness involved in the premises, corresponding 
 to the three parties involved : the first is a real holiness, 
 
 * Accordingly, the Vulgate reads : " alioquinjilii vestri immundi ea- 
 st nt ;" and Tertullian : "ceterum immundi nascerentur" Ds Anima, 
 c. xxxix. Compare 1 Cor. iv. 6; xv. 12, 35, 50; Gal. iv. 17; and see 
 
 Macknight's Essays, iv. 9. 
 
 3* 
 
30 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 appertaining to the believing husband or wife — the second 
 is a relative holiness, appertaining to the children, in view 
 of their baptism — and the third is a reputed holiness, ap- 
 pertaining to the unbelieving husband or wife, in view of 
 the relation sustained to a believing consort. A family 
 thus constituted would be considered a Christian family, 
 whereas in a parallel case among the Jews, the family 
 would not be considered a Jewish family, but the chil- 
 dren would remain heathens like the heathen parent, not 
 being admitted to circumcision until the latter became a 
 proselyte, or until they became old enough to make a 
 formal renunciation of heathenism for themselves. Such 
 mongrel matrimonial alliances were not tolerated by the 
 Jewish law, and they were accordingly dissolved by Ezra 
 and others. But Christianity is more liberal in its pro- 
 visions. While, on the ground of expediency, it forbids 
 believers to be "unequally yoked together with unbeliev- 
 ers," yet in cases where such unions subsist — in conse- 
 quence of the conversion of one of the parties — it doe3 
 not exclude their children from its pale. Instead of 
 dealing with them and their Christian parent as heathens, 
 because of the heathenism of the unbelieving parent, it 
 embraces the former in its fold as cordially as if the latter 
 were also a Christian. 
 
 The term hoi?/, as used of such children, does not there- 
 fore imply that they were morally righteous, or lawfully 
 begotten, or fit for parental fellowship; but that they 
 were ceremonially clean or pure. The word is always 
 used in the Septuagint in this sense, as the rendering of 
 the Hebrew Tcadosh. 
 
 The argument is briefly this : — If the children of a 
 Christian parent, the husband or wife of a heathen, be 
 permitted to take rank with the saints, oiyta, that is, 
 Christians, or members of the church — as the word im- 
 ports in the New Testament — the conjugal relation has 
 been sanctified to a Christian husband or wife, so circum- 
 stanced, and must not be dissolved. This, as the context 
 shows, was the point in dispute in the Corinthian church ) 
 but it could not have been settled by such an argument 
 
INFANTS. 31 
 
 as this, bad not the church-membership of children been 
 an admitted fact. 
 
 We have not thought it necessary to cite authorities in 
 support of this construction of the passage, as there is 
 scarcely a critic — excepting, of course, the antipedobap- 
 tists, who have reason enough to consider it, as they evi- 
 dently do, a crux criticorum — who does not think that it 
 refers to the baptismal consecration of children. So Ter- 
 tullian, the oldest writer on the subject, believed; and 
 how could he believe otherwise, when he knew that the 
 term holy is never applied in the New Testament to any 
 person not a member of the church of Christ?* 
 
 The apostle evidently considers children members of the 
 church, and gives them instruction accordingly. u Chil- 
 dren, obey your parents in the Lord ; for this is right/' 
 Eph. vi. 1; Col. iii. 20. Here the natural duty of filial 
 obedience rises up into the importance of a Christian 
 obligation : the phrase, in the Lord, implying a recog- 
 nition of Divine authority. This epistle is directed to the 
 church at Ephesus, and in closing it, according to his 
 manner, the apostle gives instructions of a practical cha- 
 racter to the members of the church. Anions: them were 
 
 * After describing the idolatrous rites by which the Romans conse- 
 crated their children to their deities, Tertullian says, " Hinc enim et 
 apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait, tarn ex 
 8eminis prcerogativa, quam ex institution's diseiplina. Ceterum, inquit, 
 immundi nascerentur, quasi designatos tamen sanctitati, ac per hoc 
 etiam saluti, intelligi volens fidelium jilios." — "Hence, the apostla 
 says, either parent being sanctified, the offspring are holy, as well by 
 the privilege of descent as by the discipline of education. Otherwise, 
 he says, they were born unclean, yet they are, so to speak, appointed 
 to holiness, and by that also to be saved." This holiness is baptismal, 
 hence he adds, " unless any one be born of water and of the Spirit he 
 cannot enter into the kingdom of God — nd est, non erit sanctus, that 
 is, he cannot be holy." On which words the learned Rigaltius re- 
 marks, "Id est, Christianus. Etenim Christian!, fratres, fideles, sancti. 
 Sanctos, apostolus vocat eos, qui non sunt /oris, sive extra ecclesiam. 
 Sanctos opponit gentibus, ethnicis." — "That is, Christian. For saints are 
 Christians, brothers, faithful persons. The apostle calls those saints 
 who are not without, or out of the church. He contrasts saints with 
 gentiles or heathens." Vide Tertulliani, Be Anima, c. xxxix., Works, 
 page 294, Paris folio ed., 1675. 
 
32 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 wives and husbands, children and parents, servants and 
 masters ; and the duties belonging to those several rela- 
 tions are specified and enforced upon a Christian basis. 
 Accordingly, he says, " Children," — ra rixva, those of 
 you who are children — u obey your parents in the Lord." 
 And the fathers have a correspondent duty imposed upon 
 them — to bring up their children in the nurture and ad- 
 monition of the Lord. Does not this clearly show that 
 the children, as well as the parents, were members of the 
 household of faith, and, as such, must have been intro- 
 duced to the fellowship of the church by baptism, as the 
 Heaven-appointed ordinance of initiation ? 
 
 4. Children were baptized by the apostles — they an 
 therefore proper subjects of baptism. 
 
 When the apostle baptized Stephanas and Lydia, he bap- 
 tized also their families. The term oixos means family, 
 as distinct from oixla, household. It is so rendered by 
 Bloomfield, in 1 Cor. i. 16, who cites a passage from 
 Ignatius, in which the term is used in that sense, as under 
 it the wife and children are specifically embraced. The 
 apostle notes the distinction between these two terms. 
 Thus he baptized the oikos, the family, of Stephanas; but 
 he speaks of the oikia, the household of Stephanas, as 
 addicting themselves to the ministry of the saints, that is, 
 performing the duties of hospitality toward them. Such 
 services would not, of course, be restricted to Stephanas, 
 with his wife and children, the oikos of Stephanas, but 
 would be rendered also by the servants of the family, in 
 which case the word oikia is proper to be used, and it is 
 used accordingly. 1 Cor. xvi. 15. 
 
 This plain view of the subject explodes the notion that 
 all the members of the family of Stephanas, baptized by 
 St. Paul, must have been adults, because forsooth, six or 
 eight years afterward, they are spoken of as addicted to the 
 ministry of the saints. It is not said that this service 
 was rendered by the oikos, the family, of Stephanas; nor 
 is it said that the oikia, the household, of Stephanas 
 was baptized by the apostle. This distinction ought to be 
 noted in the translation. In like manner, it was not the 
 
INFANTS. 33 
 
 oih'a, the household of Lydia, but her oikos, her fa- 
 mily, that was baptized; and this embraced only her 
 children. It is preposterous to say that her oikos was her 
 "journeymen-dyers/' and that they were " the brethren" 
 spoken of, (Acts xvi. 40,) whom Paul and Silas comforted 
 after their imprisonment ! Nay, these brethren were neither 
 servants nor sons of Lydia : they were probably no other 
 than Luke and Timothy, who sojourned at Lydia' s house 
 during the imprisonment of Paul and Silas, and who were 
 left by them at Philippi. Compare Acts xx. 6. 
 
 When the Philippian jailer was baptized, "all his" were 
 baptized with him. This was exactly in accordance with 
 the Jewish custom. When they received proselytes by 
 circumcision, they administered the rite of initiation to 
 the male children of the family. And in their proselyte 
 baptisms, they included the children with their believing 
 parents. This is a dictate of nature, as well as a provision 
 of the old dispensation. It is very bold to say that there 
 were no infants in any of the numerous families that were 
 baptized by the apostles. The families baptized were more 
 likely to comprehend children than adults, for the latter 
 would not have been baptized except on their personal 
 profession of faith, whereas the children would be baptized 
 on the responsibility of their parents. Hence the frequency 
 of family baptisms. 
 
 This was the apostolic rule, as it is that of modern mis- 
 sionaries among the heathen. The apostles would very 
 naturally so construe the Saviour's command : " Go ye 
 therefore and teach all nations, 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 
 commanded you." Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. Suppose a simi- 
 lar command had been given in reference to the Jewish 
 religion, how would it have been understood ? Teach all 
 nations — or, rather, ixaOyittvaats, proselyte, make disciples 
 of all nations — circumcising them and instructing them 
 in the Hebrew faith. Would the rite have been restricted 
 to adults, on the ground that children are not specified ? 
 Pvather, would it not have been extended to children, on 
 
34 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 the ground that they are not excluded ? And, is not this 
 the most obvious way to accomplish the end in view ? If 
 we pledge our children to Christianity from their very 
 birth, by bringing them under the bond of the covenant, 
 and teach them the Saviour's commands as soon as they 
 can lisp his name, will they not be more likely to become 
 his disciples, than if they are abandoned as profane per- 
 sons, unlit for a name and a place among his followers ? 
 The idea of such abandonment is repulsive to our natural 
 sentiments and utterly contrary to the genius of our be- 
 nevolent and holy religion. 
 
 5. The fathers claimed apostolical authority for the 
 baptism of infants, and baptized them accordingly. 
 
 Justin Martyr, who wrote about forty years after the 
 death of St. John, says : " Many persons among us, sixty 
 or seventy years old, of both sexes, who were made disci- 
 ples to Christ in their infancy, ex xaiBtov, continue uncor- 
 rupted." He uses the very term which our Lord uses in 
 . xxviii. 19 — Ipa97;tsv9y;aav ; and as there is no other 
 v y to make infants disciples of Christ but by baptism, 
 which Justin expressly calls "the circumcision of Christ," 
 and as those of whom he speaks were baptized, a. d. 70 
 or 80, they were baptized by the apostles, or by their 
 contemporaries. In " Questions and Answers to the Or- 
 thodox," ascribed to Justin, occurs this passage, in keep- 
 ing with the foregoing : — "The children — rd j3^'<j»? — of the 
 good are deemed worthy of baptism, through the faith of 
 those who bring them to be baptized." 
 
 To the same effect is the testimony of Irenseus, Bishop 
 of Lyons, and disciple of Polycarp, who was intimately 
 acquainted with St. John. Ireiueus was born about the 
 time of the death of that apostle. He says, " Christ came 
 to save all persons by himself — all, I say, who by him are 
 born again to God — infants and little ones, and children, 
 and youths, and elder persons — rcnascuntur in Deum : 
 infantes, et jparvulos, et paeros, etjuvenes, et seniores." We 
 scarcely need state that the fathers constantly spoke of 
 baptism as regeneration, or at least included the former 
 in their idea of the latter. Irenaeus himself says : "When 
 
INFANTS. 35 
 
 Christ gave to his apostles the commission of regenerating 
 unto Grod — regeneration/is in Deum — he said to them, Go 
 and teach all nations, baptizing them." Yet he affirms 
 that children of all ages were regenerated or baptized. 
 
 Tertullian was born about sixty years after the death 
 of St. John. Embracing the strange notion that baptism 
 washes away all previous sins, this learned but visionary 
 father recommended a deviation from the established prac- 
 tice of the church by a delay of baptism, unless the life 
 of the child were in danger. He says : " According to 
 every one's condition and disposition, and also their age, 
 the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in 
 the case of little children. " For reasons equally valid, 
 he says, unmarried persons, who are likely to be visited 
 with temptation — both those who were never married and 
 those who are in a widowed state — and other persons oc- 
 cupied with the cares of life, ought to defer their baptism. 
 He adduces a variety of arguments — sufficiently silly — to 
 induce the postponement of baptism in the case of in- 
 fants;* but the one great conclusive argument he does 
 not so much as insinuate — to wit : that infant baptism 
 was a novelty in the church and had not been practised 
 by the apostles. There is but one way to account for this 
 omission : Tertullian could not deny a fact with which 
 everybody was acquainted. Indeed, notwithstanding his 
 
 * One of those arguments is worthy of note, as it contains the earliest 
 reference to sponsors in baptism: "Quid enim necesse est sponsores 
 etiatn pericido ingeri? quia et ipsi per mortalitatem destituere pro- 
 missiones suas possunt, et proventu malce indolia fcdli." "Why bring 
 the sponsors into danger ? because they may fail of their promises by 
 death, and they may be deceived by the child's proving wicked." On 
 this passage the learned annotator on Tertullian, Prior Philip, says : 
 '• Puerorum suscep>tores qui Grecis dvdioxoi, quasi Jidejussores sunt. 
 Eorum officium est infantem instruere, et ad bene vivendum adhortari 
 et hinc sensum auctoris edisccre potes." De Baptismo : c. xviii, "The 
 undertakers of children are a kind of sureties. Their office is to train 
 the children and exhort them to live well ; and from this you may learn 
 Tertullian's meaning." For any thing that appears in Tertullian's re- 
 ference to sponsors in baptism ; they may have been the parents of the 
 children, as they were in the times of the apostles, and as they always 
 ought to be — no others should be allowed as substitutes of the parents, 
 except when the latter arc dead, or otherwise unavailable. 
 
36 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 opposition to infant baptism on the grounds specified, he 
 never questioned the right of infants to the ordinance, but 
 allowed them to be baptized when their lives were in dan- 
 ger, and that too by a layman when a minister could not 
 be procured. It should be remarked, moreover, that his 
 recommendation of delay in ordinary cases, was not uni- 
 versally respected, nor permanently followed — though for 
 a century or two it wrought considerable mischief in the 
 church. His novel and superstitious speculations, how- 
 ever, afford triumphant proof of the apostolic practice of 
 infant baptism. 
 
 Origen was born at Alexandria, A. D. 185. His father, 
 grandfather, and great-grandfather were Christians : it is 
 likely the Origen family was brought into the church by 
 St. Mark, and the elder branches were for many years 
 contemporary with the " faithful men" whom that evan- 
 gelist placed over the Alexandrian church. Origen himself 
 was a very learned man, and he had lived in Greece, 
 Rome, Cappadocia, and Arabia, and for a long time in 
 Syria and Palestine. Surely if any one knew what was 
 apostolic doctrine on this subject, Origen must have known. 
 Yet he says expressly, speaking of original sin, "For this 
 cause the church received from the apostles an order to 
 give baptism even to infants : Pro hoc ecclesia ah apostolis 
 traditvcmem suscepit etiam parvulis haptismum dare." 
 He adds : " For they to whom the divine mysteries were 
 committed knew that there is in all persons the natural 
 pollution of sin, which must be done away by water and 
 the Spirit." The force of this testimony is seen in the at- 
 tempts of Antipedobaptists to evade it on the ground that 
 it occurs in a Latin translation by Ruffinus, who may have 
 manufactured the passage. A bright idea ! Ruffinus, who 
 had secret doubts on the subject of original sin, foisted 
 into Origen's work the strongest argument in its favor ! 
 What Ruffinus did for Origen in translating his Com- 
 mentary on Romans, we suppose Jerome did for him in 
 translating his Homily on Luke, though that learned father 
 protests he " changed nothing, but expressed every thing 
 as it was in the original." In this Homily, Origen says : 
 
INFANTS. 37 
 
 (c Infants are baptized for the remission of sins. And be- 
 cause by the sacrament of baptism our native pollution is 
 taken away, therefore infants may be baptized." He uses 
 this argument for original sin, in his Homily on Leviticus : 
 " Baptism is given to infants, according to the practice of 
 the church, when if there were nothing in infants that 
 needed forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would 
 be superfluous to them." In another place he propounds 
 a question concerning the guardian angels of children : 
 "When were the angels appointed to them? at their 
 birth, or at their baptism I" These, of course, are all 
 very bad translations ! So bad, that if they be permitted 
 to pass, and Origen be considered a competent witness in 
 regard to a plain matter of fact, the conclusion is certain — 
 the apostles and their successors baptized infants. 
 
 In the year 253, a council of bishops was held in Car- 
 thage. This assembly was called upon by Fidus, a coun- 
 try bishop, to decide whether or not infants might be bap- 
 tized before they were eight days old. The sentence of 
 the council was communicated to Fidus by Cyprian. He 
 says, " Whereas you judge that the rule of circumcision 
 is to be observed so that none should be baptized and 
 sanctified before the eighth day after he is born, we are all 
 in our assembly of a contrary opinion. It is not for us to 
 hinder any person from baptism and the grace of God, 
 who is merciful, and kind, and affectionate to all : which 
 rule, as it is to govern universally, so we think it more 
 especially to be observed in reference to infants and per- 
 sons newly born." It seems the quasi antipedobaptism of 
 Tertullian had but little influence with the council, the 
 members of which, sixty-six in number, must have known 
 what was the practice of the apostles, as they lived so 
 near their times. 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen, styled the Christian Isocrates, be- 
 cause of his eloquence, was born A. d. 330. He opposed 
 the postponement of baptism, and urged the administra- 
 tion of the ordinance to infants. "For," says he, "it is 
 better they be sanctified without their own sense of it, 
 than that they should be unsealed and uninitiated, and 
 4 
 
38 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 our reason for this is circumcision, which was performed 
 on the eighth day, and was a typical seal, and was prac- 
 tised on those who had no reason. " Unless there was 
 danger, however, he recommended the postponement of 
 their baptism until they were three years old. Gregory, 
 by the way, speaks with commendation of the baptism 
 of Basil in his infancy. 
 
 Ambrose speaks or the baptism of infants, and refers 
 the custom to the apostles' times. Chrysostom also speaks 
 of baptism, as Christian circumcision, and as conferred on 
 infants. So also does Jerome, and indeed nearly all the 
 fathers of that age ; but it is useless to give additional cita- 
 tions. 
 
 We must not, however, pass over the proof of the apos- 
 tolic, or rather Divine, origin of baptism, which is fur- 
 nished in the Pelagian controversy. By a singular coin- 
 cidence, Pelagius and his illustrious opponent were born 
 on the same day, Nov. 13, 354. Pelagius, having denied 
 original sin, was pressed by his antagonists with the ar- 
 gument in favor of that doctrine based upon the baptism 
 of infants. " The whole church," says Augustin, u has 
 of old constantly held, that baptized infants do obtain re- 
 mission of original sin by the baptism of Christ. For my 
 part, I do not remember that I ever heard any other thing 
 from any Christians that received the Old and New Tes- 
 taments, neither from such as were in the Catholic church, 
 nor yet from such as belonged to any sect or schism. I 
 do not remember that I ever read otherwise, in any writer 
 that I could ever find treating of these matters, that fol- 
 lowed the canonical Scriptures, or did mean, or pretend so 
 to do/' 
 
 Pelagius, in defending himself in his letter to Inno- 
 cent, says, " Men slander me, as if I denied the sacrament 
 of baptism to infants. I never heard even an impious 
 heretic say they ought not to be baptized. For who is so 
 ignorant of the evangelical writings as to have such a 
 thought ? Who can be so impious as to hinder infants 
 from being baptized ?" 
 
 His friend Celestius affirms : u We acknowledge infants 
 
INFANTS. 39 
 
 ought to be baptized for the remission A sins, according 
 to the rule of the universal church, and according to the 
 sentence of the gospel." 
 
 These men, be it remembered, were the most learned 
 men of the age. Pelagius was born in Britain, and edu- 
 cated at the celebrated seminary at Bangor, and he after- 
 ward travelled through the principal countries of Europe, 
 Asia, and Africa. So also did Celestius — and yet they 
 declared they never heard of any one that denied the 
 right of infants to baptism. They would gladly have de- 
 nied it, had there been any possibility of doing so, as it 
 constituted the basis of a formidable argument against 
 their peculiar notions ; but there was the stubborn fact, 
 known and read of all men, and the Pelagians could not 
 deny it. Yet if infant baptism had been foisted into the 
 church after the death of the apostles, they could not 
 have been ignorant of it. The novelty, like the paschal, 
 prelatical, and pontifical innovations, would have occa- 
 sioned some controversy, and the time of its introduction 
 would certainly have been known by somebody in the first 
 two centuries after the apostles. But not the slightest 
 difference on the subject of infant baptism — except the 
 vagary of Tertullian — is noted in any of the writings of 
 the fathers ; though every variation from apostolic rule is 
 set down in the lists of heresies compiled by Irenseus, 
 Epiphanius, Philastrius, Augustin, and Theodoret. 
 
 Let it be observed, we do not adduce "the unanimous 
 consent of the fathers," as authority for the practice of in- 
 fant baptism, as " we have a more sure word of prophecy ;" 
 nor do we endorse their opinions concerning the virtue of 
 baptism : we have nothing to do with their illogical argu- 
 ments or their erratic speculations. We cite the fathers 
 as witnesses to a fact, concerning which they were every 
 way competent to give testimony. That testimony abso- 
 lutely demonstrates the apostolic, or rather, Divine, origin 
 of infant baptism. 
 
 6. The church in every part of the world, and in every 
 age succeeding that of Augustin, endorsed by theory and 
 practice the claim of infants to this holy ordinance. 
 
40 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 It would be a waste of time to establish this position, as 
 ,he historical facts which it involves are known and read 
 of all men. 
 
 Nor does authentic history furnish an instance of defec- 
 tion from the apostolic usage until the Anabaptists arose 
 in the fifteenth century. Mr. Wall seems to attach undue 
 importance to the slanderous allegations of Peter of 
 Clugny against Peter Bruis, who was burned by the papists 
 at St. Giles in France, A. d. 1126. The ill-informed ab- 
 bot charged Bruis with certain errors, which Bossuet and 
 others magnified into the Manichean heresy. Among 
 those errors is a denial of infant baptism. But as he is 
 charged with a denial of other doctrines which he mani- 
 festly held, and only denied the superstitions which popery 
 had engrafted upon them, Mr. Faber, after a careful exami- 
 nation of the subject, concludes that it was so in reference 
 to this ordinance. 
 
 Indeed, it is impossible to reconcile the contradictory 
 allegations made against the Albigenses, by Peter of 
 Clugny, Bernard, Ecbert, Enervin, Beinerius, Guy, and 
 other papists ; or to ascertain from them what were the 
 real sentiments of the Albigenses. 
 
 Peter of Clugny represents them as saying to the 
 papists, " Christ, sending his disciples to preach, says in the 
 gospel, ( Go ye into alljthe world, and preach the gospel 
 to every creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, 
 shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be 
 damned.' From these words of our Saviour it is plain 
 that none can be saved unless he believe and be baptized : 
 that is, have both Christian faith and baptism. For not 
 one of these, but both together, do save. So that infants, 
 though they be by you baptized, yet, since by reason of 
 their age they cannot believe, are not saved. It is there- 
 fore an idle and vain thing for you to wash persons with 
 water, at such a time when you may indeed cleanse their 
 skin from dirt in a carnal manner, but not purge their 
 souls from sin. But we do stay till the proper time of 
 faith, and when a person is capable to know his God and 
 believe in him, then we do (not as you charge us, rebap- 
 
INFANTS. 41 
 
 tize him, but) baptize him. For he is to be accounted as 
 not yet baptized, who is not washed with that baptism 
 by which sins are done away." According to this, infants 
 cannot be saved, baptized, or not baptized. 
 
 Reinerius, however, attributes to them a doctrine pre- 
 cisely opposite to this. He was seventeen years a mem- 
 ber of the Catharistic community, and afterwards gave 
 the following account of their principles. We have the 
 Latin original before us. He says, " The opinions com- 
 mon to all the Cathari are these : This world, and all 
 things that are in it, were created by the devil. All the 
 sacraments of the church', to wit, the sacrament of bap- 
 tism by material water, and the other sacraments, profit 
 nothing to salvation, and are false sacraments, inasmuch 
 as they are not the true sacraments of Christ and his 
 church, but deceptive and diabolical, and appertaining only 
 to a church of malignants. Carnal matrimony is a mortal 
 sin ; and, in the future world, a person is not punished 
 more heavily for adultery and incest than for lawful wed- 
 lock. There is no future resurrection of the body. To 
 eat flesh or eggs or cheese, even in a case of urgent ne- 
 cessity, is a mortal sin. The secular authorities act sin- 
 fully when they punish with death malefactors or heretics. 
 No one can be saved except through their ministration. 
 All unhaptized infants suffer eternal punishment no less 
 severely than homicides and robbers. There is no pur- 
 gatory." He then goes on to state the additional opi- 
 nions held by some of the Cathari, viz. Manichean, An- 
 titrinitarian, and Universalist blasphemies and damnable 
 heresies. He writes with all the malignity of an apostate 
 and an inquisitor, and his charges are utterly unworthy 
 of credit — as are those also of Peter of Clugny, who ac- 
 knowledges that his statements were not made from his 
 own personal acquaintance with the doctrinal system of 
 the heretics whom he persecuted. 
 
 It is no part of our present duty to defend the Albi- 
 genses from these malicious and slanderous charges of their 
 enemies. We merely cite them to show their contradic- 
 
42 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 tory character — especially in regard to the baptism of 
 infants. 
 
 Roger Hoveden, a popish historian of those times, 
 gives an account of a council held at Lombers, near Albi, 
 in 1176, for the purpose of examining those reputed he- 
 retics, sometimes called Good Men, and also Albigenscs, 
 from Albi, the place at which many of them resided. At 
 this council, he says, they proclaimed their creed to the 
 assembled multitude. That creed, as reported by him, is 
 now before us, in Latin. One of the articles reads thus : 
 u Creel imus etiam : quod non sahutur quis, nisi qui Leip- 
 tizatur ; et parvulos salvari per baptUma. We believe 
 also, that no one is saved, unless he is baptized ; and that 
 infants are saved by baptism/' The Benedictine historian 
 of Languedoc, dates the time of this council, 11G5, and 
 says that the heretics there examined were Henricians, 
 or the followers of Henry, the famous disciple of Peter 
 Bruis. 
 
 Popliniere, a later historian, says, u That the religion of 
 the Albigenses differed very little from that now professed 
 by Protestants, appears from many fragments and monu- 
 ments, which, in the ancient language of their county, 
 have been written concerning the history of those times, 
 and also from the public and solemn disputation, held be- 
 tween the bishop of Pamiers, and Arnold Hot, one of 
 their ministers. The Acts of this Disputation, written in 
 a dialect approaching rather the Catalonian than to the 
 French, remain entire down to the present day. Indeed, 
 many have assured me, that they had seen the articles 
 of their faith, engraved on certain ancient tablets which 
 are at Albi, adding, that they were every where conform- 
 able to the doctrine of Protestants." 
 
 Yignier speaks of one of their Confessions, written in 
 the Basque language, which entirely agreed with the doc- 
 trine of the Waldenses. 
 
 Hoveden, moreover, gives an account or the examina- 
 tion of Raymund, Bernard Baymund, and other heresi- 
 axchs, in 1178, before Cardinal Peter, and a large body 
 of prelates, and other ecclesiastics. The Albigensean 
 
INFANTS. 43 
 
 heretics produced on that occasion, a paper on which 
 they had written the articles of their faith. From that 
 Confession, which is now before us, in Latin, we quote the 
 following article: — " Asserucrunt quoque, quod parvidi 
 vel adulti, nostro baptismate baptizati, salvantur ; et nul- 
 lus, sine eodem baptismo potest salvari. They also af- 
 firmed, that infants or adults, who are baptized by our 
 baptism, are saved, and that none can be saved without 
 the same baptism.'' 
 
 With all these testimonies before him, how can any 
 one believe that the Albigenses were antipedobaptists ? 
 It is obvious, however, that if any of them did repudiate 
 infant baptism it was a novelty in that age, for they 
 are represented by Peter of Clugny, as rebaptizing 
 those who had been baptized in their infancy. They 
 themselves solemnly protested that they believed in the 
 baptism of infants ; and the apostate Reinerius says that 
 they all maintained the damnation of unbaptized infants : 
 Which are we to credit ? It is not unlikely that some of 
 them did repudiate the baptisms administered by the 
 popish priests, and would rather their children should 
 have died without baptism than receive it from " a church 
 of nialignants." This, of itself, was sufficient material 
 out of which to fabricate the charges of antipedobaptism, 
 and indeed the Manichean heresy of the rejection of 
 baptism altogether. 
 
 Mr. Faber says, in his great work on the Vallenses and 
 Albigenses, p. 174 : " Judging from the language which 
 they are reported to have held on that topic, I am myself 
 satisfied, that they did nothing more than deny the spi- 
 ritual grace of regeneration to follow, ex opere ojierato, the 
 outward administration of the material sign in baptism, 
 and that this was miscontrued into an assertion, that in- 
 fants ought not to be baptized, inasmuch as infants cannot 
 by any proper faith of their own, be worthy recipients. " 
 
 As the followers of Peter Bruis were a branch of the 
 Albigenses, and as the Albigenses communed occasionally 
 with theWaldenses during that century, and were merged 
 into their churches in the next century, it seems impossi- 
 
44 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ble that they should be antipedobaptists. For the Wal- 
 denses always protested that they had never deviated from 
 the principles and usages of their ancestors of remote anti- 
 quity j and there is nothing in history to gainsay their 
 statement. 
 
 In the seventeenth article of the Confession of An- 
 grogna, 1535, the Waldenses say : " We receive the 
 Lord's supper to demonstrate our perseverance in the 
 faith, according to the promise we made in our baptism 
 in our infancy." As those who set forth this confession 
 were baptized before the Lutheran Reformation was be- 
 gun, the barbes, or ministers, who baptized them did not, as 
 some insinuate, adopt the practice of infant baptism from 
 the Reformers. 
 
 In the admirable Confession of the "Waldenses, presented 
 A. D. 1542, to Francis the First, King of France, they use 
 this language : " We believe and confess that our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, haviug abolished circumcision instituted 
 baptism, through which we are received into the church 
 of the people of God. This outward baptism exhibits to 
 us another inward baptism, namely, the grace of God 
 which cannot be seen with the eyes. The apostles and 
 other ministers of the church baptize, using the word of 
 God in order to a sacrament, and give only the visible 
 sign ; but the Lord Jesus Christ, the Chief Shepherd, 
 alone gives the increase and causes that we may receive 
 the things signified. They greatly err who deny baptism 
 to the children of Christians. " 
 
 That there may have been individual antipedobaptists 
 among the Waldenses may be admitted — though of this 
 we have no satisfactory proof* — that there were persons 
 
 * Bossuet is obliged to admit that the Waldenses or Vaudois prac- 
 ti- ied infant baptism? He says, Var. zL109: — " As fur baptism, not- 
 withstanding these ignorant heretics had cast off its most ancient cere- 
 monies with contempt, there is no doubt but they received it. Ono 
 might ofty be surprised at Ilenier's words, as uttered by the Vaudois, 
 'that ablution given to children, is of no advantage to them.' But, 
 whi reas this ablution is in the list of those ceremonies of baptism, 
 which were disapproved by these heretics, it is plain he speaks of the 
 wine given to children after their baptism : a custom that may be still 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 45 
 
 who denied baptism to children, when this Confession was 
 drawn up, is evident, and it is equally evident that they 
 received no sympathy from the Waldensean church. Who 
 they were is not hard to divine, upon a comparison of 
 dates : without doubt they were the Anabaptists, who at 
 that time were busily engaged in circulating their novel 
 notion. Hence, for the first time, the denial of baptism 
 to infants is condemned in the Confession of the Wal- 
 denses, it being their peculiar glory, as a virgin church, 
 to denounce the novelties of each succeeding age, and to 
 preserve inviolate the pure principles and apostolic prac- 
 tices of the " most ancient stock of religion." 
 
 We have thus established the position that the apostles 
 and their successors practised infant baptizm, as instituted 
 by Christ; and we may challenge any man to show a 
 church, in any part of the world, that diverged from the 
 apostolic usage, until the rise of the Anabaptists in the 
 sixteenth century. 
 
 SECTION III. — OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM 
 ANSWERED. 
 
 It seems almost superfluous to answer the objections 
 brought against the baptism of children. Were those ob- 
 jections a thousand-fold stronger and a thousand-fold 
 more numerous than they are, they could not affect this 
 question. Nothing can prove that false, whose truth has 
 been established. Nevertheless, we will test the strength 
 of those formidable objections. 
 
 seen in many ancient rituals, about that time, and which was a rem- 
 nant of the communion heretofore administered to them under the li- 
 quid species only. This wine, put into the chalice to he given to these 
 children, was called ablution, because this action resembled the ablu- 
 tion taken by the priest at Mass. Again, this word ablution is not to 
 be found in Renier as signifying baptism ; and at all events, if men 
 will persist to have it signify this sacrament, all they could conclude 
 from it would be for the worst, viz., that Reneir's Vaudois accounted 
 as null whatever baptism was given by unworthy ministers, such as they 
 believed all our priests were — an error so conformable to the principles 
 of the sect, that the Vaudois, whom we have seen approve our bap- 
 tism, could not do it without running counter to their own doctrine." 
 
46 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 1. It is urged that children cannot understand the 
 meaning of the ordinance, and therefore it ought not to 
 be administered to them. 
 
 On the same ground, Hebrew children ought not to 
 have been circumcised, because they could not compre- 
 hend the meaning of the rite. And yet God ordered their 
 circumcision. 
 
 2. It is said children should not be baptized, because 
 they cannot perform the condition of baptism, namely, 
 faith. 
 
 No adult would have been admitted to circumcision 
 without faith, yet the lack of faith was no bar to the ad- 
 mission of an infant. It is the same in regard to baptism. 
 Besides, if infants must not be baptized because they lack 
 faith, for the same reason they cannot be saved ; for while 
 it is said, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
 saved," it is also added, " He that believeth not shall be 
 damned." But infants are not excluded from salvation, 
 because they lack faith, which is necessary to adults : so 
 neither are they to be excluded from baptism, because 
 they are incapable of faith, without which adults are not 
 eligible to the ordinance. 
 
 3. It is contended that children should be excluded 
 from baptism, because they cannot respond to its obliga- 
 tions. 
 
 He that was circumcised under the Mosaic dispensation 
 was a debtor to do the whole law; but Jewish infants 
 could not respond to the obligations imposed by circum- 
 cision — nevertheless, they were circumcised. So with in- 
 fants under the Christian dispensation. Baptism does not 
 bind them to perform any thing which they will be at 
 liberty to decline when they shall be of age to comprehend 
 the obl'gation. Religion is not a matter of our own pick- 
 ing and choosing. It is a dispensation — a prescription — 
 a covenant, indeed, but one to which we are bound to be 
 parties, whether its terms be relished or not. In truth, 
 its terms are not relished by any man in a state of nature ; 
 and no one assumes the obligations of religion without 
 first doing violence to himself — superseding his own rea- 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 47 
 
 soilings and traversing his own inclinations. As there- 
 fore the Israelites not only covenanted for themselves, but 
 also for their children, who were not at liberty to cancel 
 the obligation assumed in their behalf, so Christians may 
 and ought to bind their children as well as themselves 
 with the bond of the covenant. Parents have the natural 
 right to make contracts for their children — as well in re- 
 ligion as in aught besides, provided no obligations be im- 
 posed except such as are Divine in their origin and salu- 
 tary in their effect; and such are the stipulations of 
 Christian baptism. 
 
 4. It is argued that infants ought not to be baptized, 
 because they cannot embrace the benefits of baptism. 
 
 St. Paul tells us there was much profit in circumcision, 
 and did not that profit inure to children, though they 
 comprehended it not ? May not a deed of gift be sealed 
 to a child, which shall be valid, though he cannot under- 
 stand it ? And will it be of no advantage to the child 
 when grown up to the use of reason, to know that from 
 his very birth he has been the consecrated and recognized 
 property of the Most High ? Will it not answer as a 
 check to evil propensities, a safeguard in temptation, an 
 incentive to piety and virtue, a ground of hope and confi- 
 dence in prayer ? It will, if all the parental responsibili- 
 ties involved in the baptismal consecration of children be 
 duly discharged. And indeed, when parents are neglect- 
 ful of their duty in this respect, the simple fact of our 
 baptism in infancy cannot be reflected upon by us without 
 bringing before our minds the blood-bought, birthright 
 privileges of the covenant of grace, of which our baptism 
 is the sign and seal. 
 
 5. It is said, furthermore, the baptism of infants is un- 
 necessary, as they can be saved without it. 
 
 And cannot adults be saved without it, if no one will 
 administer it to them ? Shall adult baptism be therefore 
 laid aside ? Your children, if they die in infancy, will 
 be saved'without your prayers, but will you, therefore, 
 postpone praying for them until they reach mature age ? 
 They may be saved without any effort on your part to 
 
48 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 promote their salvation, but will you therefore make no 
 effort on their behalf? What if the thought of your 
 pious concern for them, even while they were .hanging 
 upon the breast, should, in after life, rouse their moral 
 sense, and quicken them into religious feeling, and lead 
 to their salvation, are you quite sure that their baptism 
 would have nothing to do with their salvation ? Are you 
 indeed certain that they would be saved without it ? 
 
 G. But it is roundly asserted, there is no command to 
 baptize infants, and therefore it is will-worship to baptize 
 them. 
 
 Not quite so fast. Suppose there were no command to 
 baptize them, there is no precept forbidding it. And 
 there ought to be a positive interdict, if their admission 
 into the Christian church were not intended. Infants were 
 admitted to the Hebrew church, and nothing but a divine 
 interdict can lawfully exclude them from the Christian 
 church, which is only a development of the former, its 
 boundaries being enlarged, and its privileges increased 
 under the present dispensation. Among the natural 
 branches of the olive-tree were numerous twigs, partak- 
 ing of the root and fatness thereof — are there to be no 
 twigs among the grafted branches ? Where is the law 
 forbidding it? Besides, if all nations are to be discipled, 
 are not infants included ? And if they are to be made 
 disciples, are they not to be baptized ? if they are to be 
 incorporated into the church, must they not be subjected 
 to the ordinance of initiation ? So far then from its being 
 will-worship to baptize children, it is nothing but a modest 
 acquiescence in the divine will and a grateful recognition 
 of the divine goodness. It may not be " will-worship" to 
 prevent their baptism; but it looks very much like wil- 
 fulness — a bold attempt to reverse the legislation of Hea- 
 ven, as if man were wiser than God. 
 
 7. But it is still urged, that it is unlawful to baptize 
 children, because there is no apostolic precedent for infant 
 baptism. 
 
 Suppose this were admitted, it does not follow that 
 children are not to be baptized. It is no where recorded 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 49 
 
 that the apostles administered the Lord's Supper to wo- 
 men, yet no one doubts that they did, and no one thinks 
 of excluding women from this ordinance, because of this 
 omission in the record. Some, indeed, affirm that St. 
 ( Paul commands women to commune in 1 Cor. xi. 28 : 
 i " Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that 
 I bread, and drink of that cup." They ask, " Does not the 
 > term cu-0pwto?, there used, often stand as the name of our 
 1 species, without regard to sex V Undoubtedly it does. 
 ; But then it often stands for a man as distinguished from 
 a woman, as in the following texts: — Gen. ii. 18, 24; 
 xxvi. 11; xxxiv. 14; Lev. xix. 20; Num. xxv. 8; Deu. 
 xvii. 5; xx. 7; xxi. 15; xxii. 30; Est. iv. 11; Jer. xliv. 
 7 ; Matt. xix. 3, 5, 10 ; Mark x. 7 ; 1 Cor. vii. 1 ; Eph. 
 v. 31 ; llev. ix. 7, 8. The style of these texts is, "man 
 or woman" — " man and wife" — " the faces of men, and the 
 hair of women ;" and in none of them is ai^p employed, 
 but dvQpuTtos. In what sense it is used in 1 Cor. xi. 28, 
 can be ascertained only by analogy and inference, leaving 
 female communion far more remote from explicit scriptural 
 statement and apostolic precedent, than the baptism of 
 infants. It is, indeed, bold to say that there is no apos- 
 tolic precedent for infant baptism. When the apostles 
 baptized the families of their converts, did they not bap- 
 tize their children ? Where is the intimation that any 
 of the little ones were excluded ? Indeed, the baptism 
 of the families of those primitive converts is spoken of as 
 a matter of course, like the ceremonial initiation of the 
 families of Jewish proselytes. The family thus became a 
 Christian family : the tenderest infants were recognized as 
 relatively " holy," and were accordingly brought up in the 
 nurture and admonition of the Lord. Now, admitting that 
 the right of children to church-membership has never been 
 cancelled, but that it is as valid under the new, as it was 
 under the old dispensation, ought we to expect any thing 
 more determinate, more in detail, in regard to apostolic 
 practice in this matter than what the Acts and Epistles 
 afford ? Is not the brief, incidental, matter-of-course state- 
 ment, that the families of Christian converts were baptized 
 
50 Si EJECTS OE BAPTISM. 
 
 with them, exactly what might be expected in the record? 
 And is it not preposterous to look for, or demand, apos- 
 tolic precedents more specific? 
 
 8. It is objected, lastly, that the baptism of infants is 
 the occasion of superstition, formality, and other evils; 
 and, therefore, they ought not to be baptized. 
 
 And is not the baptism of adults ? Is not the institu- 
 tion of the Lord's Supper ? Is not the ordination of men 
 to the ministry ? In a word, has not every thing in 
 Christianity been abused to some evil purpose or other? 
 And have not the most sacred things been the most abused? 
 But are they, therefore, to be laid aside ? 
 
 We have thus, in a somewhat summary, but to our 
 mind, satisfactory manner, disposed of all the objections 
 of any consequence, that have been urged against the 
 baptism of children. Their examination, in connection 
 with the unanswerable arguments adduced in defence of 
 infant baptism, not only confirms us in our belief and 
 practice in the premises, but also impresses us more fully 
 with the evil of innovation in religion. The point, in 
 itself, may seem small : it may not be considered funda- 
 mental ; but it may logically involve other points of se- 
 rious moment and of pernicious consequence. This matter 
 is so well presented by the learned John G-oodwin in the 
 Preface to his great work, " Redemption Redeemed," that 
 we cannot in any other way so well close the present 
 chapter, as by transcribing the paragraph in question. 
 It must be borne in mind that it was written more than 
 two hundred years ago : — 
 
 " He that is entangled with the error of those who deny 
 the lawfulness of infant baptism, stands obliged, through 
 his engagement to this one error, to maintain and make 
 good these, and many the like erroneous and anti-evan- 
 gelical opiuions. 
 
 1. That God was more gracious to infants wider the 
 law, than now he is under the gospel; or, which is every 
 whit as hard a saying as this, that his vouchsafement of 
 circumcision unto them, under the law, was no argument 
 or sign at all of any grace or favour from him unto theni. 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 51 
 
 lea, 2. That- God more regarded, and made more li- 
 beral provision for the comfort and satisfaction of typical 
 believers, though formal and express unbelievers, in and 
 about the spiritual condition of their children, under the 
 law, than he does for the truest, soundest, and greatest 
 believers, under the gospel; or, which is of a like noto- 
 rious import, that the ordinance of God for the circum- 
 cising of infants under the law, was of no accommodation 
 or concernment for the comfort of the parents, touching 
 the spiritual condition of their children. 
 
 3. That the children of true believers under the gos- 
 pel, are more unworthy, more unmeet, less capable sub- 
 jects of baptism, than the children of the Jews were of cir- 
 cumcision under the law; or, which is of like uncouth no- 
 tion, that God accepted the persons of the children of the 
 Jews, though unbelievers, and rejects the persons of the 
 children of believers under the gospel, from the same or 
 the like grace, these being under no greater e;uilt or de- 
 ment than those other. 
 
 4. That baptism succeedeth not in the place, office, or 
 service of circumcision, 
 
 5 That when the initiatory sacrament was more grievous 
 and burdensome, in the letter of it, God ordered the ap- 
 plication of it unto children ; but after he made a change 
 ot it for that which is more gracious, and much more ac- 
 commodate to the tenderness and weakness of children 
 as baptism clearly is, in respect of circumcision, he hath 
 wholly excluded children from it. 
 
 6. That it was better and more edifying unto men un- 
 der the law, to receive the pledge of God's fatherly love 
 and care over them, whilst they were yet children; and 
 that now it is worse and less edifying to men, to receive 
 it at the same time, and better and more edifying unto 
 them to receive it afterwards, as, viz. when they come to 
 years of discretion. 
 
 7. That men are wiser and more providential than God, 
 as, viz in debarring or keeping children from baptism for 
 rear ot such and such inconveniences, when as God by no 
 law, or prohibition of his ; interposeth against their bap- 
 
52 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 tizing, nor yet insisteth upon, or mentioneth, the least in- 
 convenience any ways likely to come upon either the per- 
 sons of the children themselves, nor upon the churches of 
 Christ hereby. 
 
 8. And, lastly, (to pass by many other tenets and opi- 
 nions, every whit as exorbitant from the truth, and as un- 
 tenable as these, which yet must be maintained by those 
 who suffer their judgments to be encumbered with the 
 error of antipedobaptism, unless they will say and unsay, 
 deny in the consequent what they affirm and grant in the 
 antecedent,) and that which is more than what hath been 
 said yet : they must upon the account of their euthral- 
 ment under the said error, maintain many uncouth, harsh, 
 irrational, venturous, and daring interpretations and ex- 
 positions of many texts and passages of Scripture, and par- 
 ticularly of these, Gen. xvii. 7 ; 1 Cor. vii. 14 ; Acts ii. 
 39 ; xvi. 15 ; 1 Cor. i. 16 ; x. 2 ; — besides many others, 
 which frequently upon occasion are argued in way of de- 
 fense and proof of the lawfulness of infant baptism. Now 
 as the Greek epigram maketh it the highway to beggary 
 to have many bodies to feed and many houses to build, so 
 may it truly enough be said, that for a professor of Chris- 
 tianity to have many errors to maintain and many rotten 
 opinions to build up, is the next way to bring him to a 
 morsel of bread, not only in his name and reputation 
 amongst intelligent men, but also in the goodness of his 
 heart and conscience towards God. Nor is it of much 
 more desirable an interpretation, for such a man to appear 
 distracted in his principles, or divided in himself/' 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 53 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 
 
 SECTION I. DGNATIST, PURITAN, AND ANABAPTIST 
 
 EXTREMES. 
 
 The question has been agitated, Is the administrator 
 of baptism to be considered an essential part of the ordi- 
 nance — is it null and void if performed by any other than 
 a duly-accredited minister of the Word ? 
 
 Tertullian decided that the performance of baptism was 
 to be restricted to the bishop — summ.us saterdos, qui est 
 episcopus — but that, by his permission, presbyters and 
 deacons may administer the ordinance, and even laymen, 
 in cases of necessity — but not women. He considered the 
 baptism of heretics null and void, and that those who re- 
 ceived it ought to be rebaptizecl. 
 
 Agrippinus, who had received heretics' baptism, sub- 
 mitted to rebaptization; andNovatian made himself some- 
 what notorious by his zeal in rebaptizing heretics. 
 
 Indeed, Cyprian and the African clergy generally re- 
 pudiated their baptism, and repeated the ordinance on all 
 who had received it and wished to connect themselves with 
 the Catholic Church. They considered baptism the re- 
 mission of sins, and that this remission could be given by 
 the Church alone, and that heretics were no part of the 
 church : of course, on these premises, their duty was 
 patent. 
 
 In the next century, when Cecilian was ordained Bishop 
 of Carthage, many of the people were so scandalized at 
 the appointment of a traditor, — that is, one who had de- 
 livered up the sacred books in the Dioclesian persecution, 
 rather than lay down his life in defence of the Grospel, — 
 that they elected a rival bishop, one Majorinus, whose suc- 
 5* 
 
54 ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 
 
 cessor was Donatus, from whom a large body of schisma- 
 tics derived their name. This sect was distinguished by 
 great strictness — in particular, in not allowing any one to 
 join them without rebaptizing him, even if he had been 
 baptized by a Catholic bishop. Their exclusiveness, in 
 this respect, was reciprocated by some of the Catholic 
 clergy, who rebaptized the Donatists. 
 
 The Puritans of our mother country contended for re- 
 baptization in those cases where the ordinance had been 
 administered by laymen or women. Thus the famous 
 Cartwright : 
 
 " Seeing they only are bidden in the Scripture to ad- 
 minister the sacraments which are bidden to preach 
 the word, and that the public ministers have only this 
 charge of the word; and seeing that the administration of 
 both these are so linked together that the denial of license 
 to do one is a denial to do the other, as of the contrary 
 part, license to one is license to the other; considering 
 also that to minister the sacraments is an honor in the 
 church which none can take unto him but he which is 
 called unto it as was Aaron ; and further, forasmuch as 
 the baptizing by private persons, and by women especially, 
 confirm eth the dangerous error of the condemnation of 
 young children which die without baptism ; last of all, 
 seeing we have the consent of the godly learned of all 
 times against the baptism by women, and of the reformed 
 churches now against the baptism by private men, we con- 
 clude that the administration of this sacrament by pri- 
 vate persons, and especially by women, is merely both 
 unlawful and void." 
 
 The Directory of the Westminster Asse'mbly forbids 
 baptism " to be administered in any case by any private 
 person." The Puritans generally repudiated the baptism 
 administered by heretics, and, in particular, papists. 
 
 In this they are followed by the General Assembly of 
 the Presbyterian Church in the United States. They 
 contend that the Romish communion is no church, but 
 antichrist — therefore, its priests are no ministers of Christ 
 and stewards of the mysteries of God — they cannot of 
 
DONATIST AND OTHER EXTREMES. 55 
 
 course perform .any ministerial act — their baptisms are 
 consequently null and void. Some of the Presbyterian 
 divines contend, that were Romish priests gospel minis- 
 ters, their baptisms would be vitiated by the adulteration 
 of the element with oil, salt, spittle, etc., as well as the 
 superstitions and idolatrous additions to the evangelical 
 form. Other Presbyterians, however, consider this opinion 
 somewhat extreme. 
 
 The Anabaptists defend the practice of the Donatists 
 upon a somewhat peculiar basis. As they assert that there 
 is no baptism at all, unless there be an immersion of a 
 believer, and as all the Reformers had been baptized by 
 affusion, in their infancy, the Anabaptists, who arose at 
 the time of the Reformation, were obliged, as their name 
 indicates, to rebaptize themselves, or one another. On 
 their principles, those who took the initiative in this in- 
 novation, were neither ministers nor Christians at all, in 
 the formal sense — as no one is formally, externally, a 
 Christian, until he is baptized. 
 
 It was some years after Munzer had been pastor of a 
 Reformed church, that he broached the Anabaptist prin- 
 ciple. And Blaurock had been a monk before he pro- 
 claimed" the beginning of the baptism of the Lord/' — 
 which language shows that he rebaptized himself, or 
 caused himself to be rebaptized by one who had not been 
 immersed as a believer; or else, like another apostle, con- 
 sidered himself clothed with a dispensation to immerse 
 others, without being bound to be immersed himself, in 
 default of a proper administrator. 
 
 The first of these alternatives was adopted by one 
 Smith, a Brownist exile in Holland. On embracing the 
 Anabaptist principle, he left his brethren at Amsterdam, 
 and settled with his disciples at Ley. Not being able to 
 find an immersed believer to immerse him, he immersed 
 himself, and was hence called a JSe-bajjtist. He then im- 
 mersed his disciples. 
 
 Q^he second alternative was adopted by Roger Williams, 
 who introduced Anabaptism into this country. He first 
 caused himself to be dipped by one who had never been 
 
56 ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 
 
 dipped himself, and then, as one good turn deserves ano- 
 ther, Roger turned around and dipped his friend. This 
 was in 1639, about the same time that the first Anabap- 
 tist church was organized, by a similar process, in Eng- 
 land. The English Anabaptists, known by the name of 
 " particular Baptists," " were strict Calvinists," according 
 to Neal, " and were so called from their belief of the doc- 
 trines of particular election, redemption, etc. They sepa- 
 rated from the Independent congregation about the year 
 1638, and set up for themselves under the pastoral care of 
 Mr. Jesse ; and having renounced their former baptism, 
 they sent over one of their number, Mr. Blunt, to be im- 
 mersed by one of the Dutch Anabaptists of Amsterdam, 
 that he might be qualified to baptize his friends in Eng- 
 land after the same manner. A strange and unaccount- 
 able conduct/' says Neal, " for unless the Dutch Anabap- 
 tists could derive their pedigree in an uninterrupted line 
 from the apostles, the first reviver of this usage must have 
 been unbaptized, and consequently not capable of com- 
 municating the ordinance to others. Upon Mr. Blunt' s 
 return, he baptized Mr. Blacklock, a teacher, and Mr. 
 Blacklock dipped the rest of the society to the number of 
 fifty-three, in this present year, 1644." This was the 
 rise of the Anabaptists in those countries. They acted upon 
 the legal maxim, Necessity has no law ; and their poste- 
 rity approve their saying. Some of them, indeed, afiirm 
 that there must be, and there has been, an uninterrupted 
 succession of immersers from John the Baptist. But the 
 more intelligent and less adventurous, being mindful of 
 the admonitory cases of Williams, Smith, Blaurock, and 
 company, and the absence of all immersional diptychs be- 
 fore the sixteenth century, contend that as there has been 
 no succession, none is needed, and therefore baptism ad- 
 ministered by one who has not been baptized himself is 
 as valid as any other. 
 
 This question is blended with that of " mixed or open 
 communion," as it is styled, which was agitated in the first 
 Anabaptist church in England. " A difference," says 
 Dr. Toulmin, " arose between them about permitting an 
 
DONATIST AND OTHER EXTREMES. 57 
 
 individual to preach to them who had not been initiated 
 into the Christian church by immersion, as if the conscien- 
 tious omission on one side of a rite considered as an insti- 
 tution of Christ by the other party could vitiate the func- 
 tions of the minister, or as if a mutual indulgence to the 
 dictates of conscience could be a criminal connivance at 
 error." 
 
 Mr. Jesse himself adopted the liberal side of the con- 
 troversy. " The Lord," says he, u hath suffered some 
 ordinances to be omitted and lost in the Old Testament, 
 and yet owned the church. Though circumcision were 
 omitted in the wilderness, yet he owned them to be his 
 church, and many of the ordinances were lost in the cap- 
 tivity — yet he owns the second temple, though short of 
 the first, and filled it with his glory, and honoured it with 
 his Son, being a member and a minister therein. ' The 
 Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple/ 
 So in the New Testament, since their wilderness condi- 
 tion, and great and long captivity, there is some daikness 
 and doubts, and want of light in the best of the Lord's 
 people, in many of his ordinances, and that for several 
 ages; and yet how hath the Lord owned them for his 
 churches wherein he is to have glory and praise through- 
 out all ages." 
 
 John Bunyan follows in the same vein, scandalized at 
 what he considered a schismatical dogma. " See here/' 
 exclaims honest John, " see here the spirit of these men, 
 who, for the want of water baptism, [he means immersion,] 
 have at once unchurched all such congregations of God in 
 the world." " What say you to the church all along the 
 Revelation, quite through the reign of antichrist ? Was 
 that a New Testament church or no V " And are there 
 no public Christians, or public Christian meetings, but 
 them of your way ? I did not think that all but Baptists 
 should only abide in holes." 
 
 The majority of that communion, it is believed, at the 
 present time, sanction the immersions administered to 
 believers by those who have not been immersed themselves, 
 though they consider baptism by affusion, by whomsoever 
 
58 ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 
 
 administered, Dull and void. Their views are lucidly ex- 
 pressed in the following paragraph from the pen of one of 
 their most distinguished divines. Dr. Wayland, on being 
 interrogated on the subject, says : — 
 
 11 1 have not the shadow of doubt in regard to the ques- 
 tion of which you write. The only command is to be 
 baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Ghost : that is, as I suppose, in baptism (that is 
 immersion) to profess to submit ourselves in all things to 
 God. It is the outward manifestation of what we have 
 done before, in the recesses of a contrite heart. This is 
 the whole of the command. There is no direction given 
 beyond, nor have we a right to make any. It is conve- 
 nient as a matter of church order, that there should be 
 some general rule, and that this rite be administered by 
 a clergyman, and it would be naturally performed by one 
 who had been himself baptized by immersion. But if 
 these things be absent from necessity or ignorance they 
 alt t not the fact, that the person who has been immersed 
 on profession of faith, is, as I understand it, a baptized 
 believer. This is a very common case with us in this city. 
 Congregationalists, Episcopalians, and Methodists, here, 
 quite frequently baptize persons on professions of their 
 faith. "We consider them as baptized believers, and when 
 they request it, admit them upon a simple relation of their 
 experience. Indeed, were not this admitted, I know not 
 to what absurdities we should be reduced. If the obe- 
 dience of Christ depends upon the ordinance being admi- 
 nistered by a regular baptized administrator, where are we 
 to stop, and how shall we know who is regularly baptized; 
 or who has obeyed Christ ? All this looks to me absolutely 
 trivial and wholly aside from the principles which, as Pro- 
 testants and Baptists, we have always considered essential 
 to Christian liberty. It seems to me like assuming Pusey- 
 ism under another name ; or, in fact, going back to the 
 elements of the Catholic church. Such are my views. 
 Plow they meet the views of others I know not, but to 
 me these principles of Christian freedom are above all 
 price. It is time that we, above all others, should ' walk 
 
PATRISTIC AND OTHER EXTREMES. 59 
 
 in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and not 
 be entangled with any yoke of bondage/ " 
 
 SECTION n. — PATRISTIC, ROMISH, AND PROTESTANT 
 EXTREMES. 
 
 The great body of the Catholic church, in primitive 
 times, admitted the validity of baptism performed by 
 heretics, provided it was sincerely administered, the form, 
 element, and subject being lawful — as also that which was 
 administered by clergymen whose lives were impure. But 
 it did not stop here ; for it authorized laymen also to bap- 
 tize in ca„ses of emergency. This was done by the council 
 of Eliberis, in the fourth century. In the previous cen- 
 tury the bishop and church of Rome endorsed the baptism 
 of Novatian, who was baptized in his sick-bed by an ex- 
 orcist, a layman. 
 
 It does not appear that women were allowed to admi- 
 nister baptism under any circumstances, until the eleventh 
 century, when they were authorized to baptize in cases of 
 necessity, by a decree of Pope Urban II. In the year 
 1250, Pope Innocent I. decreed that all baptisms, provided 
 the intention, subject, form, and element were proper, 
 should be considered valid — except in cases where persons 
 baptized themselves. Rebaptization was absolutely for- 
 bidden as sacrilegious. Afterwards it became common, 
 in the Romish church, for the bishop to authorize mid- 
 wives by a formal license to administer baptism to infants, 
 in cases of necessity. 
 
 Luther and the other Reformers, though they considered 
 the Romish church antichrist and an awfully corrupt and 
 heretical communion, yet they did not repudiate its ordi- 
 nations or its baptisms. Not one of them submitted to 
 reordination or rebaptism ; nor did they rebaptize any who 
 abandoned Rome to join the Reformation. Some of the 
 Bohemians had set them a Donatistic example, but they 
 were not disposed to follow it. They felt perhaps the di- 
 lemma which the wily Bossuet did not forget to parade in 
 
60 ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 
 
 his Variations, (xi. 176.) Speaking of the Bohemians, 
 he says : — 
 
 I 1 Camerarius acknowledges their extreme ignorance, 
 but says what he can in excuse thereof. This we may 
 hold for certain, that God wrought no miracles to en- 
 lighten them. So many ages after the question of rebap- 
 tizing heretics had been determined by the unanimous 
 consent of the whole church, they were so ignorant as to re- 
 baptize ' all those that came to them from other churches.' 
 They persisted in this error for the space of a hundred 
 years, as they own in all their writings, and confess in the 
 Preface of 1558, that it was but a little while since they 
 were undeceived. This error ought not to be deemed of 
 trivial importance, since it amounted to this, that Baptism 
 was lost in the universal church, and remained only 
 amongst them. Thus presumptuous in their notions were 
 two or three thousand men, who had more or less equally 
 revolted against the Calixtins, amongst whom they had 
 lived, and against the church of Borne, from which both 
 of them had divided thirty or forty years before. So small 
 a parcel of another parcel, dismembered so few years from 
 the Catholic church, dared to rebaptize the remainder of 
 the universe, and reduce the inheritance of Jesus Christ to 
 a corner of Bohemia ! They believed themselves there- 
 fore the only Christians, since they believed that they 
 only were baptized; and whatever they might allege 
 in their own vindication, their rebaptization condemned 
 them. All they had to answer was, if they rebaptized 
 the Catholics, the Catholics also rebaptized them. But 
 it is well enough known, that the Church of Borne 
 never rebaptized any that had been baptized by any per- 
 son whatsoever, l in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost/ and supposing there had been, in Bohemia, such 
 very ignorant Catholics as not to know so notorious a thing, 
 ought not they who called themselves their Beformers to 
 know better ? After all, how came it to pass that these 
 new rebaptizers did not cause themselves to be rebaptized ? 
 If, at their coming into the world, Baptism had ceased 
 throughout all Christendom, that which they had received 
 
PATRISTIC AND OTHER EXTREMES 61 
 
 was no higher in value than that of their neighbours, and 
 by invalidating the baptism of those by whom they were 
 baptized, what became of their own ? They were then 
 obliged no less to cause themselves to be rebaptized than 
 to rebaptize the rest of the universe ; and in this there 
 was but one inconveniency, namely, that, according to 
 their principles, there was not a man on earth that could 
 do them this good turn, baptism being equally null what- 
 ever side it came from." 
 
 By endorsing the baptisms of Rome, the Reformers 
 sanctioned lay-baptisms. Such administrations were de- 
 fended by Luther, on a basis first laid down by Tertulliau. 
 Recognizing no distinction between the ministry and laity, 
 as of divine appointment, the great Reformer considered 
 that the power to preach and administer the ordinances in- 
 heres in the church at large — all the members being alike 
 qualified to exercise ministerial functions, except as the 
 power may be limited, by mutual consent, to one or more 
 in each particular church, for the sake of order and deco- 
 rum. His views are thus set forth in an " Address to the 
 German Nobility on the Reformation of Christianity :" — 
 
 " I maintain that we were all, by baptism, consecrated 
 priests, as St. Peter says : Ye are a royal priesthood and a 
 priestly or holy nation ; and in the Apocalypse St. John 
 says : Thou hast, by thy blood, made us kings and priests 
 unto our God. Hence, if there were no higher nor bet- 
 ter consecration in our hearts than that which the pope or 
 bishop imparts, no one could ever be made a priest by 
 their consecration, how often soever he held mass, preach- 
 ed, or absolved. The consecration imparted by a bishop 
 is therefore nothing else than the selecting of an indivi- 
 dual out of an assembly, all the members of which have 
 equal power, and the commanding him to exercise that 
 power in the name of and for the rest. Just as if ten 
 brothers, sons of a king and equal heirs, were to choose 
 one of their number to administer their inheritance for 
 them. All these sons would certainly be real kings 
 and possessed of equal power, and yet one only would be 
 the administrator of their common power; and that I 
 
 6 
 
62 ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 
 
 may illustrate this subject still more clearly, if a few pious 
 Christian laymen were taken and banished into a desert 
 place, and if, not having among them a priest consecrated 
 by a bishop, they should there agree to choose one of 
 their own number, married or unmarried, and were to 
 command him to baptize, read mass, absolve, and preach, 
 this man would be as truly a priest as if all the bishops 
 and popes in the world had consecrated him. The primi- 
 tive Christians chose, in this manner, and from among the 
 mass of the people, their priests and bishops, who were 
 then confirmed in their office by other bishops, without 
 that display and pomp so very prevalent at present on 
 such occasions. It was in this way that Augustin, Am- 
 brose, and Cyprian were made bishops. Since then the 
 laity also, as well as the priesthood, have received baptism, 
 have the same faith and gospel, we must allow them to 
 be priests and bishops, and regard their office as an office 
 that belongs to and is useful in the Christian church ; 
 for every one that has received baptism ma) 7 boast that he 
 is already a consecrated priest, bishop, and pope. But 
 although we are all equally priests, it does nevertheless 
 not become every one to exercise the priest's office, nor 
 to obtrude himself and assume to do, without our consent 
 and command, that which we all have equal power to do ; 
 for that which is common to all no one has a right to ar- 
 rogate to himself without the wish and command of all." 
 It seems almost impossible for any one to read the fore- 
 going extract without being struck with the inconclusive- 
 ness of the Reformer's reasoning, the irrelevancy of his 
 proofs, the incongruity of his illustrations, and the un- 
 scriptural and degraded character which he assigns to the 
 Gospel ministry. How strange that he should make all 
 Christians, priests and prelates, in an ecclesiastical sense, 
 because, forsooth, the Scriptures make them, in a mystical 
 sense, kings and priests unto God ! Strange too, that he 
 should see no difference between priests and prelates of 
 man's creation and the " pastors and teachers" who are 
 given to the church by its exalted Head — no difference be- 
 tween ecclesiastical agents, of mere human appointment^ 
 
VIA MEDIA. 6B 
 
 and the elders who are made overseers of the flock of God 
 by no less authority than that of th^ Holy Ghost ! How 
 completely did Luther ignore a Divine call to the minis- 
 try ! And what pernicious consequences have resulted 
 from this error, among his ecclesiastical posterity, in the 
 land which gave birth to the Reformation ! 
 
 It is worthy of remark that Luther's views on this sub- 
 ject have been revived in our own country by Alexander 
 Campbell and his followers, who consider every one that 
 has been baptized — though they limit the mode to plung- 
 ing — empowered to baptize others. Whether or not they 
 are aware that they have so respectable authority for their 
 opinion as that of the great Reformer ; and whether or not 
 they extend the right of baptizing to females, who cannot 
 be consistently excluded on Luther's platform — are ques- 
 tions with which we are not concerned ; nor are we called 
 upon to do more than suggest that the foregoing principles 
 are logically embraced in the Congregational or Inde- 
 pendent system, though they are rarely avowed by the 
 divines of that school. 
 
 Luther, we presume, derived his extravagant opinion 
 from Tertullian. That great innovator introduces it as the 
 basis of an argument against second marriages, in his " Ex- 
 hortations to Chastity." Assuming that St. Paul, in en- 
 joining that a bishop must be the husband of one wife, 
 meant that he must not be married but once, Tertullian 
 attempts to make capital out of this false interpretation, 
 in support of his ascetic doctrine that no Christian must 
 be married more than once. To gain this point, he asserts 
 that the difference between the clergy and laity — ordinem 
 et plebem — is not of divine, but of ecclesiastical authority : 
 bo that where no clergyman is present, a layman may cele- 
 brate the Lord's Supper and baptize — offers et Unguis. 
 Where three are, even of the laity, there is a church. If 
 therefore, he argues, the laity have priestly rights, they 
 must be subject to priestly obligations. What, exclaims 
 the enthusiast, shall one who has been married twice, per- 
 form priestly offices ? Digamus Unguis ? Digamus of- 
 fers? To prove that there is no scriptural distinction 
 
64 ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 
 
 between che clergy and laity, he cites the following pas- 
 sages : " He hath made us kings and priests unto God and 
 his Father." " Every one lives by his faith/' " God is 
 no accepter of persons." u Not the hearers of the law are 
 justified, but the doers." Marvellously pertinent proofs ! 
 They are in admirable keeping, however, with his fanati- 
 cal position and fallacious reasoning. — Vide Be Ex. 
 Cast. c. vii. We scarcely need say, that on other occa- 
 sions, he magnifies the office of the ministry, without stint, 
 allowiug nothing to be done without the permission of the 
 chief priest, as he judaically styles the bishop. 
 
 SECTION III. — VIA MEDIA. 
 
 The British Reformers fell upon a middle course in re- 
 ference to this vexed question. They could not, as they 
 thought, consistently repudiate the baptisms of Rome, and 
 therefore they sanctioned those irregular administrations, 
 so far as to admit their validity. On the other hand, 
 they could not, after the example of Rome, authorize and 
 empower the laity to baptize, as they could not find that 
 reason or Scripture furnishes any warrant for this. So 
 they forbade the laity to administer the ordinance, but at 
 the same time forbade also the rebaptization of those who 
 had received lay-baptism. 
 
 Women, however, continued occasionally to baptize 
 children until the time of James I. — especially midwives, 
 who exercised their profession under oath and by license 
 of the bishops. The oath is somewhat of a curiosity. 
 After binding them to exercise their office "faithfully and 
 diligently," it proceeds: "Also that in the ministration 
 of the sacrament of baptism, in the time of necessity, I 
 will use the accustomed words of the same sacrament: 
 that is to say, these words following, or to the like effect, 
 1 1 christen thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and 
 the Holy Ghost/ and none other profane words. And 
 that, in baptizing any infant born, and pouring water on 
 the head of the said infant, I will use pure and clear 
 
VIA MEDIA.. 65 
 
 water, and not any rose or damask water, or water made 
 of any confection or mixture. And that I will certify the 
 curate of the parish church of every such baptizing." 
 
 When king James excepted to women's baptisms, at the 
 Hampton Court Conference, some of the divines defended 
 it as a reasonable practice, " the minister not being of the 
 essence of the sacrament." Archbishop "Whitgift, how- 
 ever, notwithstanding the midwife's oath, assured the king 
 that baptism by women and lay persons was not allowed 
 by the Church of England. 
 
 Lord Bacon, in his u Considerations touching the Paci- 
 fication of the Church," observes : " For private baptism 
 by women, or lay persons, the best divines do utterly con- 
 demn it; and I hear it not generally defended; and I 
 have often marvelled that where the book in the preface 
 to public baptism doth acknowledge that baptism in the 
 practice of the primitive church, was anniversary, and but 
 at certain times, which showeth that the primitive church 
 did not attribute so much to the ceremony, as they would 
 break an outward and general order for it, the book 
 should afterwards allow of private baptism, as if the cere- 
 mony were of that necessity, as the very institution, which 
 committeth baptism only to the ministers, should be 
 broken in regard of the supposed necessity. And, there- 
 fore, this point of all others I think was but a Concession 
 propter duritiem cordis." It is marvellous that his lord- 
 ship should not have known, that the same hardness of 
 heart and the same concession because of it obtained in 
 the primitive church, by whose example the fathers of the 
 English Establishment defended themselves in allowing 
 private baptisms in cases of necessity, and in not rebap- 
 tizing those who had been baptized by laymen. 
 
 " Concerning ' permitting the administration of baptism 
 in this light of the Gospel to women/ be it spoken with 
 the reverence of our brethren," says Bridges, "it is most 
 untrue. When as it is not only given customarily in the 
 open charge of every visitation, whether any such thing be 
 done by them, as in the time of the popish darkness was 
 Uced ; but also if any such thing have happened, and be 
 
66 ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 
 
 found out, the parties that so have done are openly pu- 
 nished for the same." 
 
 "As touching the baptism by mid wives," says Bishop 
 Cooper, " I can assure you that the Church of England, 
 or any that I know of in place of government thereof, 
 doth not maintain either the baptism of midwives as a 
 thing tolerable in the church, or else the condemnation 
 of those children that depart this world unbaptized, but 
 doth account them both erroneous, and not according to 
 the word of God. For in the Convocation the matter was 
 debated amongst us, wherein some of those persons were 
 present to whom the drawing of the book was permitted, 
 who protested that neither the order of the book did allow 
 any such thing, neither that it was any part of their mean- 
 ing to approve the same. But for so much as baptizing 
 by women hath been aforetime commonly used, and now 
 also of rashness by some is done, the book only taketh 
 order and provideth, that if the child be baptized by the 
 midwife, rebaptizing be not admitted." 
 
 This via media is eloquently defended by Hooker — 
 Elcl. Pol. v. lxii. — "It behooveth generally all sorts of 
 men to keep themselves within the limits of their own 
 vocation. And seeing God, from whom men's several 
 degrees and pre-eminences do proceed, hath appointed 
 them in his church, at whose hands his pleasure is that we 
 should receive both baptism and all other public medici- 
 nable helps of soul, perhaps thereby the more to settle 
 our hearts in the love of our ghostly superiors, they have 
 small cause to hope that with him their voluntary ser- 
 vices will be accepted who thrust themselves into func- 
 tions either above their capacity or besides their place, 
 and over boldly intermeddle with duties whereof no charge 
 was ever given them. They that in any thing exceed the 
 compass of their own order do as much as in them lieth 
 to dissolve that order which is the harmony of God's 
 church. 
 
 " Suppose therefore that in these and the like consider- 
 ations the law did utterly prohibit baptism to be adminis- 
 tered by any other than persons thereunto solemnly con- 
 
VIA MEDIA. 67 
 
 secrated, what -necessity soever happen : are not many 
 things firm being done, although in part done otherwise 
 than positive rigor and strictness did require ? Nature 
 as much as possible inclineth unto validities and preserva- 
 tions. Dissolutions and nullities of things done, are not 
 only not favored, but hated when either urged without 
 cause, or extended beyond their reach. If therefore at 
 any time it come to pass that in teaching publicly or pri- 
 vately in delivering this blessed sacrament of regeneration, 
 some unsanctified hand, contrary to Christ's supposed ordi- 
 nance do intrude itself, to execute that whereunto the 
 laws of God and his church have deputed others, which 
 of these two opinions seemeth more agreeable with equity, 
 ours that disallow what is done amiss, yet make not the 
 force of the word and sacraments, much less their nature 
 and very substance, to depend on the minister's authority 
 and calling, or else theirs which defeat, disannul, and 
 annihilate both, in respect of that one only personal de- 
 fect, there being not any law of God which saith that if 
 the minister be incompetent his word shall be no word, 
 his baptism no baptism ? He which teacheth and is not 
 sent loseth the reward, but yet retaineth the name, of a 
 teacher : his usurped actions have in him the same nature 
 which they have in others, although they yield him not 
 the same comfort. And if these two cases be peers, the 
 case of doctrine and the case of baptism both alike, sith 
 no defect in their vocation that teach the truth is able to 
 take away the benefit thereof from him which heareth, 
 wherefore should the want of a lawful calling in them that 
 baptize make baptism to be vain V 
 
 And again : " The sum of all that can be said to defeat 
 such baptism is, that those things which have no being 
 can work nothing, and that baptism without the power of 
 ordination is as judgment without sufficient jurisdiction, 
 void, frustrate, and of no effect. But to this we answer, 
 that the fruit of baptism dependeth only upon the cove- 
 nant which God hath made : that God by covenant 
 requireth in the elder sort faith and baptism, in children 
 the sacrament of baptism alone, whereunto he hath also 
 
ADMINISTRATOR OF BArTISM. 
 
 given them right by special privilege of birth within the 
 bosom of the holy church : that infants therefore, which 
 have received baptism complete as touching the mystical 
 perfection thereof, are by virtue of his own covenant and 
 promise cleansed from all sin, forasmuch as all other laws 
 concerning that which in baptism is either moral or eccle- 
 siastical do bind the church which giveth baptism, and 
 not the infant which receiveth it of the church. So that 
 if any thing be therein amiss, the harm which groweth 
 by violation of holy ordinances must altogether rest 
 where the bonds of such ordinances hold. 
 
 (t For that in actions of this nature it fareth not as in 
 jurisdictions may somewhat appear by the very opinion 
 which men have of them. The nullity of that which a 
 judge doth by way of authority without authority, is 
 known to all men, and agreed upon with full consent of 
 the whole world, every man receiveth it as a general edict 
 of nature ; whereas the nullity of baptism in regard of the 
 like defect is only a few men's new, ungrounded, and as 
 yet unapproved imagination. Which difference of gene- 
 rality in men's persuasions on the one side, and their 
 paucity whose conceit leadeth them the other way, hath 
 risen from a difference easy to observe in the things them- 
 selves. The exercise of unauthorized jurisdiction is a 
 grievance unto them that are under it, whereas they that 
 without authority presume to baptize, offer nothing but 
 that which to all men is good and acceptable. Sacra- 
 ments are food, and the ministers thereof as parents or as 
 nurses, at whose hands when there is necessity but no 
 possibility of receiving it, if that which they are not 
 present to do in right of their office be of pity and com- 
 passion done by others, shall this be thought to turn 
 celestial bread into gravel, or the medicine of souls into 
 poison ? 
 
 " Jurisdiction is a yoke which law hath imposed on the 
 necks of men in such sort that they must endure it for 
 the good of others, how contrary soever it be to their own 
 particular appetites and inclinations : jurisdiction bridleth 
 men against their wills, that which a judge doth prevail- 
 
VIA MEDIA. 69 
 
 eth by virtue of his very power, and therefore not without 
 great reason, except the law have given him authority, 
 whatsoever he doth vanisheth. Baptism on the other 
 side being a favor which it pleaseth God to bestow, a 
 benefit of soul to us that receive it, and a grace which 
 they that deliver are but as mere vessels either appointed 
 by others or offered of their own accord to this service : 
 of which two if they be the one it is but their own honor, 
 their own offense to be the other : can it possibly stand with 
 equity and right, that the faultiness of their presumption 
 in giving baptism should be able to prejudice us, who by 
 taking baptism have no way offended V 
 
 With Hooker's exaltation of the virtue and necessity 
 of baptism we at present have nothing to do. In pursuing 
 his reasoning on the subject of non-ministerial baptisms, 
 he endorses the argument of St. Augustin, who in his 
 controversy with Parmenian in regard to the validity of 
 heretics' baptisms, which the latter repudiated, argues 
 from the analogy of lay baptisms. 
 
 Augustin says : — " I doubt whether any pious man can 
 say that the baptism administered in case of necessity, by 
 laymen, should be repeated. For to do it unnecessarily 
 is to usurp another man's office : if necessity urge, it is 
 either no fault at all, or a venial one. But if it be usurped, 
 there being no urgent necessity, and any man that pleases 
 gives baptism to any that choose to receive it, yet being- 
 given, it cannot be said that it has not been given, though 
 we may truly say, it has not been given lawfully. A peni- 
 tent affection must remedy the unlawful usurpation. If 
 this be not thus remedied, it shall remain to the hurt of 
 him who unlawfully gave or of him who unlawfully re- 
 ceived it; but it cannot be so reputed as if it had not 
 been given.*" 
 
 In further elucidation of the subject, Hooker says : — 
 u The grace of baptism cometh by donation from God 
 
 • This opinion of Augustin agrees with the maxim, Factum valet 
 fieri non debuit. It ought not to have been done, but being clone, it 
 is valid. 
 
70 ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 
 
 alone. That God hath committed the ministry of bap- 
 tism unto special men, it is for order's sake in his church, 
 and not to the end that their authority might give being, 
 or add force to the sacrament itself. That infants have 
 right to the sacrament of baptism we all acknowledge. 
 Charge them we cannot as guileful and wrongful posses- 
 sors of that whereunto they have right by the manifest 
 will of the donor, and are not parties unto any defect or 
 disorder in the manner of receiving the same. And if 
 any such disorder be, we have sufficiently before declared 
 that delictum cum cop itc semper ambulat, men's own faults 
 are their own harms." 
 
 He illustrates the case of baptism administered by wo- 
 men, by the circumcision performed by Zipporah, which, 
 though irregular, was valid — and thus concludes the anm- 
 ment : — 
 
 " These premises therefore remaining as hitherto they 
 have been laid, because the commandment of our Saviour 
 Christ, which committeth jointly to public ministers both 
 doctrine and baptism, doth no more by linking them to- 
 gether import that the nature of the sacrament dependeth. 
 on the minister's authority and power to preach the word 
 than the force and virtue of the word doth on license to 
 give the sacrament ; and considering that the work of ex- 
 ternal ministry in baptism is only a pre-eminence of honor, 
 which they that take to themselves and are not thereunto 
 called as Aaron was, do but themselves in their own per- 
 sons by means of such usurpation incur the just blame 
 of disobedience to the law of G-od : further also, inasmuch 
 as it standeth with no reason that errors grounded on a 
 wrong interpretation of other men's deeds should make 
 frustrate whatsoever is misconceived, and that baptism by 
 women should cease to be baptism as oft as any man will 
 thereby gather that children which die unbaptized are 
 damned, which opinion if the act of baptism administered 
 in such manner did enforce, it might be sufficient Cause 
 of disliking the same, but none of defeating or making it 
 altogether void : last of all, whereas general and full con- 
 sent of the godly learned in all ages doth make for valid- 
 
VIA MEDIA. 71 
 
 ity of baptism, yea albeit administered in private and 
 even by women, which kind of baptism in case of neces- 
 sity divers reformed churches do both allow and defend, 
 some others which do not defend tolerate, few in compari- 
 son and they without any just cause do utterly disannul and 
 annihilate — surely, howsoever, through defects on either 
 side, the sacrament may be without fruit, as well in some 
 cases to him which receiveth as to him which giveth it, 
 yet no disability of either part can so far make it frustrate 
 and without effect as to deprive it of the very nature of 
 true baptism, having all things else which the ordinance 
 of Christ requireth. Whereupon we may consequently 
 infer that the administration of this sacrament by private 
 persons, be it lawful or unlawful, appeareth not as yet to 
 be merely void." 
 
 This conclusion, together with the general course of 
 reasoning pursued by Hooker in reaching it, is favored by 
 the generality of Protestants, who are the more inclined 
 to it from the fact, that nearly all condemn rebaptism as 
 sacrilegious.* 
 
 This much may be said in addition to the foregoing, 
 and in corroboration of it. 
 
 First : There is no precept or precedent in the Scrip- 
 tures for lay-baptism — therefore, the church has good 
 reason not to empower the laity to baptize. 
 
 That the administration of baptism is a function of the 
 ministerial office appears from the Commission, Matt. 
 xxviii. 16-20 : " Then the eleven disciples went away into 
 Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 
 And when they saw him, they worshipped him ; but some 
 doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, 
 All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 
 
 * The text frequently adduced in opposition to rebaptism is Eph. 
 iv. 5 : " One baptism." This, however, does not yield the support for 
 which it is cited. There is but one Lord's Supper, yet every Christian 
 is bound to repeat its reception. The nature and design of baptism, as 
 the initiatory ordinance of Christianity, and the analogy which it bears 
 to circumcision, show that it is not to be repeated on any one who has 
 received it. No interdict more explicit is needed. 
 
72 ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy- 
 Ghost : teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
 have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you always 
 even unto the end of the world. " In this passage, the 
 administration of baptism is placed on the same basis 
 with that other exclusively ministerial work — the preach- 
 ing of the gospel. 
 
 And from 1 Cor. i. 12-17, it seems that this was not 
 only considered the function of a minister, but ordinarily 
 it was exercised on the subject by the minister who was 
 instrumental in his conversion ; for St. Paul instances 
 his own contrary course as an exception, for which he as- 
 signs a noble reason. He was the great apostle of the 
 Gentiles. His name was great, and there was danger that 
 some of his converts, if he was very ostensibly instru- 
 mental in their introduction to the visible fellowship of 
 the church, would substitute him in the place of his infi- 
 nitely greater Master. His language is, " Now this I 
 say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul ; and I of 
 A polios ; and I of Cephas ; and I of Christ. Is Christ 
 divided ? Was Paul crucified for you ? or were ye bap- 
 tized in the name of Paul ? I thank God that I baptized 
 none of you but Crispus and Gaius j lest any should say 
 that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized 
 also the household of Stephanas : besides, I know not 
 whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not 
 to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom 
 of words, lest the cross of Christ should be without ef- 
 fect. " His own statement shows that Christ did not for- 
 bid his baptizing at all, while his partial exception proves 
 the general rule that ministers baptized their own converts. 
 As Paul was always associated with elders or evangelists, 
 he could employ them to baptize his numerous catechu- 
 mens. And, as there is no text in the New Testament 
 in which the authority to baptize is communicated to the 
 laity, the church is warranted in considering it one of 
 the exclusive functions of the ministry. 
 
 The case of Ananias, who baptized Saul, Acts ix. 10-18, 
 
VIA MEDIA. 73 
 
 does not militate with this. Indeed, it is not said that 
 Ananias was the administrator. It is merely stated that 
 he delivered the message to Saul, and instructed him to 
 receive baptism, and he accordingly " arose and was bap- 
 tized." It is likely, however, that Ananias administered 
 the ordinance, and that he was empowered so to do, as an 
 elder of the church at Damascus. He possessed just such 
 a character as an elder should possess, according to the 
 apostolic canons, 1 Tim. iii. 1-7; Titus i. 5-9, especially 
 this : " He must have a good report from them that are 
 without," for St. Paul witnesses concerning him, that he 
 was " a devout man, according to the law, having a good 
 report of all the Jews which dwelt there. " Acts xxii. 
 12 — the very man to be made an elder in the church. 
 The mission, too, with which he was charged in the di- 
 vine vision was scarcely compatible with any other than 
 a ministerial standing in the church. He was chosen to 
 be the honoured instrument of introducing to the commu- 
 nion of the Christian society the distinguished convert 
 who was destined to be its brightest ornament. That he 
 was, therefore, an elder, though not so styled, is more 
 evident than that he baptized the illustrious catechu- 
 men whom he was sent to instruct. Neither point, how- 
 ever, can be reasonably disputed.* 
 
 It is, moreover, stated that Philip baptized, and this 
 Philip was not the apostle of that name. There is no 
 proof, however, that he baptized in virtue of his office as 
 one of the seven deacons of the church at Jerusalem, for 
 it is expressly stated, Acts xxi. 8, " We entered into the 
 house of Philip, the evangelist, one of the seven," and 
 to the evangelical office belonged the right of administer- 
 ing baptism and the kindred service, preaching the gos- 
 
 * Some indeed say that he was a presbyter, in virtue of his ordina- 
 tion by Christ, as one of the Seventy. This is sheer assumption. See 
 Jeremy Taylor, Episcopacy Asserted, Section vi. In his Discourse of 
 Confirmation, Section iv., he makes another assumption, viz., that An- 
 anias was an "extraordinary" minister, made for the nonce. " Christ" 
 says he, " gave a special commission to Ananias, to baptize and to 
 confirm St. Paul \" Such contradictions, however, are not uncommon 
 in the works of the eloquent and learned prelate. 
 
 7 
 
74 ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 
 
 pel — both of which duties he certainly performed. 
 Acts viii. 
 
 It is inferred by some that Cornelius and his friends 
 were baptized by laymen, because Peter did not baptize 
 them himself, but " commanded them to be baptized." 
 The service was, of course, performed by the " certain 
 brethren from Joppa," who accompanied him to Cesarea. 
 " These six brethren," in all likelihood, were elders, or 
 evangelists, for in the next chapter we find them with 
 Peter at Jerusalem ; and why they should thus accom- 
 pany him from place to place, if they were not his as- 
 sistants in the ministry, is not so easy to say. The fore- 
 going three cases are all that can be pressed into the 
 cause of lay-baptism, and not one of them amounts to a 
 precept or precedent. 
 
 Secondly. There is no scripture forbidding the laity to 
 baptize — therefore, if they should at any time administer 
 the ordinance, and it should appear that it was seriously 
 done — the subject, matter, and form, were according to 
 the institution — and the party baptized, or, if an infant, 
 his natural representatives, endorsed the act by assuming 
 the obligations of baptism, there ought to be no rebapti- 
 zation. 
 
 It is undoubtedly wrong for unclean men to handle the 
 vessels of the Lord. Such, whether numbered with the 
 laity or clergy, are obviously uncalled of God. But the 
 unworthiness of the minister does not invalidate the word 
 and ordinances by him administered. To say that it does, 
 is to endorse the schismatical dogma of the Donatists. 
 Under the profession and plea of superior purity, it un- 
 settles the faith and undermines the foundations of the 
 church. It makes it impossible for any man to know 
 that he has been baptized at all ; for the Searcher of hearts 
 alone knows who, of all the tens of thousands that mi- 
 nister in holy things, are really " set in the church," and 
 made " overseers of the flock of God," by the Holy Ghost. 
 And it is preposterous to say that we must be hopefully 
 content with our baptism until we ascertain that the party 
 who administered it, was not divinely called and qualified 
 
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT. 75 
 
 for the work, but, this ascertained, we must seek baptism 
 from a purer source. It does not require divine revela- 
 tion to satisfy us that no such inconvenience attaches to 
 the profession of Christianity. 
 
 It is very certain that the performance of the ordinance 
 by a true minister of Jesus Christ is not a sine qua non, 
 not essential to its validity, yet Scripture empowers none 
 besides to administer it — therefore, as an external, for- 
 mal, symbolical service, we may consider it valid in many 
 cases where it is sadly irregular. 
 
 SECTION IV. — SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT. 
 
 From all the lights of Scripture and reason, and from an 
 examination of the arguments of those who differ on this 
 question, it may be safely concluded that the church ought 
 not to suffer baptism to be administered by any except 
 true ministers of the word j yet, at the same time, it ought 
 not to rebaptize those who have been baptized in good 
 faith by others, provided the matter, form, and subject, 
 were according to the divine prescription. 
 
 To ascertain these points, in all doubtful cases, the most 
 careful investigation should be instituted, and the supposed 
 baptism should not be repudiated by the church and mi- 
 nisters of religion, if the subject thereof be satisfied with 
 it, and disposed to fulfil all the obligations involved in bap- 
 tismal consecration to God. 
 
 If, however, the subject of such baptism should not be 
 satisfied himself, and should not give satisfactory evidence 
 to the authorities of the church, that the foregoing essen- 
 tials obtained in his pretended baptism, let him be bap- 
 tized — that would be no rebaptism, for he was not bap- 
 tized before. We should place in this category the case 
 reported by Dionysius of Alexandria, in his letter to Xys- 
 tus, Bishop of Rome. * 
 
 " Really, brother," says he, "I need your counsel, and 
 I beg your opinion, on an affair that has presented itself 
 to me, and in which, indeed, I am afraid I may be de- 
 
76 ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM. 
 
 /eived. One of the brethren who collected with us, that 
 was considered a believer long since, even before my or- 
 dination — and who I think met with us before the appoint- 
 ment of the blessed Heraclas — this man happening to be 
 present with those that were immediately baptized, and 
 listening to the questions and answers, came to me weep- 
 ing and bewailing himself, casting himself also at my feet, 
 he began to acknowledge and abjure his baptism by the 
 heretics, because their baptism was nothing like this, nor, 
 indeed, had any thing in common with it, for it was filled 
 with impiety and blasphemies. He said also, that his 
 soul was now entirely pierced, and he had not confidence 
 enough to raise his eyes to God, coming from those exe- 
 crable words and deeds. Hence he prayed that he might 
 have the benefit of this most perfect cleansing, reception, 
 and grace, which indeed I did not dare to do, saying, that 
 his long communion was sufiicient for this. For one who 
 had been in the habit of hearing thanksgiving, and re- 
 peating the Amen, and standing at the table, and extend- 
 ing his hand to receive the sacred elements, and after re- 
 ceiving and becoming a partaker of the body and blood 
 of our Lord and Saviour Christ for a long time, I would 
 not dare to renew again any further. I exhorted him, 
 therefore, to take courage, and with a firm faith and good 
 conscience to approach and take part with the saints in 
 the solemnity of the holy supper. But he did not cease 
 lamenting. He shuddered to- approach the table, and 
 scarcely could endure it, e.ven when exhorted to be present 
 at prayers." 
 
 In a case like that, if truly reported, we should have 
 felt free to wash away the poor man's tears by a genuine 
 baptism, as that which he had received from the heretics 
 was obviously no baptism at all. 
 
 Nor should we have scrupled to rebaptize the playfel- 
 lows of Athanasius, who when a boy baptized them ac- 
 cording to the rites of the church, just for their amuse- 
 ment and his own — albeit the clergy of Alexandria pro- 
 nounced the pretended baptism valid and sufficient. That 
 can scarcely be considered a genuine and valid ordinance, 
 
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT. 77 
 
 which is neither administered nor received seriously and 
 in good faith. 
 
 If a case should occur in which there is room for doubt 
 in regard to the intention, subject, element, or form, and 
 the party involved should desire the ordinance to be truly 
 administered, he ought to be allowed the benefit of the 
 doubt : let him be baptized on the presumption that his 
 former supposed or pretended baptism was essentially de- 
 fective, and therefore null and void. 
 
 If the church be satisfied with a man's baptism, on the 
 basis we have laid down, and yet he should not be satisfied 
 with it himself, he must not be rebaptized. He ought to 
 give himself no concern about the fancied defectiveness 
 of his baptism, as it does not exclude him from any of the 
 privileges of the church ; and he ought the rather to make 
 himself easy about the matter, as no one is authorized to 
 baptize himself or to force any one else to baptize him ; 
 and he will not, therefore, be held accountable for con- 
 tempt or neglect of the divine ordinance, though he might 
 not consider himself " cleansed according to the purifica- 
 tion of the sanctuary." 
 
 7* 
 
78 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 SECTION I. — PRESUMPTIONS IN FAVOR OF AFFUSION. 
 
 The Mode of Baptism has reference to the application 
 of the subject to the element, as by plunging him into it ; 
 or the application of the element to the subject, as by 
 sprinkling him with it, or pouring it on him. 
 
 As neither mode is prescribed to the exclusion of the 
 other, both may be considered valid; yet on grounds of 
 convenience and congruity the latter is greatly preferable. 
 
 As baptism takes the place of circumcision, there is a 
 strong presumption in favor of affusion, as the more suit- 
 able mode of performing the rite. The rigors of the old 
 dispensation are done away in the new. This is alluded 
 to with great emphasis by St. Peter. In the council -of 
 apostles and elders convened at Jerusalem to discuss the 
 question of circumcision, he argued against the enforcing 
 of this rite, with the other rites of the Mosaic institute, 
 upon the Gentiles, on the ground of its burdensomeness — 
 at least, this was one of the reasons which he adduced. 
 He says : "God which knoweth the hearts beareth them 
 witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto 
 us, and put no difference between us and them, purifying 
 their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why tempt ye God, 
 to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither 
 our fathers nor we were able to bear ?"Acts xv. But we 
 submit, that nothing is gained on the score of ameliora- 
 tion, if, instead of circumcising every male received into 
 the church, every male and temale too is to be plunged 
 into water, over head and ears, no matter how cold may 
 be the season — how far the administrator and subjects may 
 Jiave to go for a river or pond — or how ill-prepared they 
 may be, mentally or physically, to submit to the plung- 
 ing operation. 
 
PROOFS OF AFFUSION. 79 
 
 Affusion is always and everywhere practicable and un- 
 injurious, as well as simple and decent; whereas plunging 
 is dangerous and indelicate in some cases, difficult in some 
 and impossible in others. The former, therefore, and not 
 the latter, exhibits the genius of a Christian ordinance, as 
 the church, being catholic, must be adapted in its institu- 
 tions to all ages, seasons, and climes — to every nation, 
 and kindred, and people, and tongue. How, it may be 
 asked, can invalids be baptized, except by sprinkling or 
 pouring ? It is absurd to talk about their being preserved 
 from the dangerous effects of immersion by a special pro- 
 vidence — that is to say, a miracle j for facts as well as 
 reason prove that God is not so profuse in his outlay of 
 miraculous influence. And we are sometimes called upon 
 to administer the ordinance to those who must receive 
 clinical baptism, or be debarred the privilege which they 
 earnestly desire, and to which they are undoubtedly en- 
 titled. Missionaries too may find it rather more convenient 
 to " sprinkle many nations," after the example of their 
 Master, than to immerse them — as, for instance, the de- 
 scendants of Ishmael in the arid territories of Arabia, and 
 the inhabitants of northern climes, the regions of " thick- 
 ribbed ice." Under such circumstances immersion is out 
 of the question ; yet all nations must be discipled— there- 
 fore the purifying ordinance of Christianity is not immer- 
 sion. 
 
 SECTION II. — PROOFS OF AFFUSION. 
 
 All the presumptions of the case are in favor of affu- 
 sion or pouring, as the more suitable mode of performing 
 the purifying ordinance of Christianity. But we have 
 proofs, positive proofs, as well as presumptions. 
 
 St. Paul, having alluded to the " divers washings," 5ia$>op<"s 
 Partticsfxois, literally various baptisms, of the Jewish econo- 
 my, says : " If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the 
 ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the 
 purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of 
 
80 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself with- 
 out spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works 
 to serve the living God." Heb. ix. Every attentive 
 reader of the Pentateuch knows that the purifications here 
 alluded to were effected by aspersion or affusion, as the 
 apostle affirms, and these sprinklings he calls baptisms. 
 The Hebrew word tubal, frequently rendered to dip, is 
 indeed never used when these ceremonial washings of the 
 person are enjoined. 
 
 The case specially adduced by the apostle is very preg- 
 nant. He alludes to the purification of unclean persons 
 by water, into which had been cast the ashes of a burnt 
 heifer. This water of separation was to be sprinkled upon 
 a man that had touched a corpse, to effect his purification, 
 Num. xix. ; and this sprinkling St. Paul expressly styles 
 baptism. 
 
 In like manner the baptism of Levites, of leprous per- 
 sons, and of the whole congregation of Israel was by 
 sprinkling. The priests, indeed, were to be icashed at the 
 door of the tabernacle, but not immersed. The water 
 was applied to their person, perhaps, more copiously than 
 in the ordinary baptisms — the superior dignity of their of- 
 fice occasioning greater formality in their consecration. 
 
 The Hebrew rahats, like its Greek representative, bap- 
 tizo, means to purify without any reference to mode. The 
 person purified may be immersed in a river, or affused by 
 a hyssop-sprinkler, and in either case these terms would 
 be appropriate to express the action — though the " various 
 baptisms" alluded to by the apostle were all effected by 
 affusion. 
 
 This appropriation of the term is in accordance with 
 the usus loquendi of the New Testament. 
 
 When cautioning the Corinthians against apostasy, St. 
 Paul adduces the pregnant case of the Israelites, and ap- 
 plies it by way of warning to Christians, lest they having 
 been baptized into Christ, that is, initiated by baptism 
 into his dispensation, might fall, as did the Jews, after 
 they had been symbolically initiated into the dispensation 
 of Moses. He says, "Moreover, brethren, I would not 
 
moors or affusion. 81 
 
 that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were 
 under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and 
 were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the 
 sea." 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. Now, Pharaoh and his host knew 
 that the Israelites were not immersed in either, though 
 they might be sprinkled with the mist and spray of both. 
 The Egyptians indeed were immersed, as Moses sang, 
 " The depths have covered them : they sank into the bot- 
 tom as a stone." " For the horse of Pharaoh went in 
 with his chariots and with his horsemen into the sea, and 
 the Lord brought again the waters of the sea upon them ; 
 but the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst 
 of the sea." Ex. xv. 
 
 The Anabaptists, therefore, make St. Paul contradict 
 Moses, by their translation : " And were all immersed into 
 Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Some, indeed, are 
 aware of this, and consequently content themselves with 
 contradicting common sense by certain unintelligible jargon 
 about a "figurative immersion" — not a quasi immer- 
 sion by the sea that was both sides of them, and the cloud, 
 which, by the way, was not above, but behind them, 
 while they "walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea, 
 and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand 
 and on their left" — an immersion in the water "though 
 they were not touched with it !" Rather than resort to 
 this pitiful shift, some immersionists resolve the whole 
 affair into a metaphor ! This is a plunging, with a wit- 
 ness. But what else can be done by those, who are de- 
 termined not to see, that this consecration of the Israelites 
 to the service of God under Moses, effected as it was by 
 sprinkling, is called baptism by the apostle ? — a baptism, 
 by the way, of men, women, and children — a clear case 
 of " baby-sprinkling," to borrow a favorite and classical 
 phrase from those who have courage enough to turn sacred 
 things into profane ridicule. 
 
 The ceremonial rite which John administered is styled 
 baptism, and yet it was performed by pouring or affusion. 
 
 Origen, who was a competent Greek scholar, speaking 
 of John the Baptist, as the Elias who was to come, as- 
 
82 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 signs pouring as the action or mode by which his baptism 
 was administered. He says : " How came you to think 
 that Elias when he should come would baptize, who did 
 not in Ahab's time baptize the wood upon the altar, but 
 ordered the priests to do that ? Not only once, says he, but 
 do it a second time, and they did it the second time, etc." 
 Another quasi immersion, we suppose, as the wood was 
 well drenched with the water ! But the account in 1 Kings 
 xviii. states that the water was poured on the wood at the 
 command of Elijah, not that the wood was plunged into 
 the water. So, says Origen, the Baptist, but in his own 
 person, baptized the people. He poured water upon them. 
 This agrees with engravings, mosaics, and sculptures of 
 Origen's time, which all represent John baptizing Christ 
 by pouring. 
 
 It is a curious fact that Mr. Wolff met with a sect of 
 Christians in Mesopotamia, calling themselves the follow- 
 ers of John the Baptist, who, because he baptized in the 
 Jordan, carry their children to a river when they are 
 thirty days old, and baptize them by sprinkling. 
 
 It should be observed that baptism was a Jewish rite, 
 and there is nothing to forbid the opinion that it was 
 administered by John in the modes common among the 
 Jews. By their methods of purification, it was possible 
 for him to baptize the immense multitudes that came 
 to his baptism — but not by immersing them : no, nor by 
 pouring water upon every person separately. His minis- 
 try lasted less than a year, during which time he bap- 
 tized, perhaps, two or three millions. It appears from 
 the record that he performed the rite in his own person, 
 (Matt. iii. 6,) as Moses baptized the Israelites in the wil- 
 derness; and why may not John have baptized the mul- 
 titudes in the same way ? He could marshal them in con- 
 venient order, and sprinkle them, either with or without 
 the bunch of hyssop which was employed by Moses. 
 
 It is stated by the evangelist: " Then went out to him 
 Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about 
 Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing 
 their sins." It was a physical impossibility that John 
 
PROOFS OF AFFUSION. 83 
 
 should immerse these vast multitudes ; and if it had been 
 possible, it would not have been proper, for it is alike 
 absurd and gratuitous to affirm that they all came pre- 
 pared with baptismal robes, and no one can suppose that 
 they were immersed without change of apparel ; and to 
 immerse promiscuous multitudes in a state of nudity is a 
 supposition so extravagant as well as indecent, that we 
 cannot feel called upon to refute it. 
 
 It is, indeed, generally affirmed that baptism was re- 
 ceived naked in the primitive church ; and that the dea- 
 conesses were had in requisition to prepare the female 
 candidates for the ceremony, so that the administrator 
 did not see them until they were in the water, when he 
 entered the baptistery and plunged them. We are aware 
 that superstition can overcome even the modesty of an 
 oriental virgin j but this case seems too incredible. 
 
 Mr. Salt, in describing the ceremonies connected with 
 the baptism of a boy in Abyssinia, says, that he was first 
 " washed all over carefully in a large basin of water, and 
 then brought to a smaller font, called me-te-mak," when the 
 baptismal pledges were given and the priest baptized him 
 by affusion, " dipping his own hand into the water, and 
 crossed him over the forehead, pronouncing at the same 
 moment, George, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost." The washing that preceded the 
 baptism in this case may perhaps illustrate the part per- 
 formed by the deaconesses in the ancient Greek church. 
 They may have washed the female candidates and clothed 
 them in white, preparatory to their baptism by the priest. 
 The Abyssinian boy, indeed, remained naked after the 
 preparatory washing, until he was baptized and anointed — 
 but there is some difference between male children and 
 female adults, even in Abyssinia. 
 
 We are not concerned to know whether John's prose- 
 lytes washed themselves all over carefully in a basin, 
 river, or spring, before he baptized them — it is enough 
 for us to know that the Baptist never immersed them. 
 Of this we have furnished proof that no counter testimony 
 can successfully rebut — no logic can possibly subvert. 
 
S4 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 The Jews, who were contemporary with John the Bap- 
 tist, attached the idea of purification to the word baptism, 
 and, like him, performed the oft-repeated ceremony by 
 aspersion. 
 
 In the Gospel according to St. John (c. iii.) we read i 
 " After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the 
 land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and bap- 
 tized. And John also was baptizing in xEnon, near to 
 Salim, because there was much water there; and they 
 came and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into 
 prison. Then there arose a question between some of 
 John's disciples and the Jews, about jmrifyitig. And they 
 came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was 
 with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, 
 behold, the same haptizeth, and all men come to him." 
 This question about 'purifying, therefore, was a question 
 concerning the baptism administered by John and that 
 administered by Jesus. The Jews accordingly understood 
 baptism to mean purification ; and such purification as was 
 effected by sprinkling. Hence we read in the preceding 
 chapter, of " six water-pots of stone," set in a house, " after 
 the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or 
 three firkins, /xstp-^tai, apiece" — enough for sprinkling 
 purposes, but not for immersion. 
 
 Agreeably to this, the evangelist says : " The Pharisees 
 and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat 
 not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they 
 come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. 
 And many other things there be, which they have received 
 to hold, as the washing of cups and pots, brazen vessels, 
 and of tables." Mark vii. 3, 4. In this passage there are 
 two Greek words, both rendered wash. The first, pC^amftUj 
 nipsontaij means to wash, and if any particular mode is 
 expressed by the word, it is that of shaking out, and fall- 
 ing down, as the distillation of dew or mist, and the de- 
 scension of rain — most likely in allusion to the ancient 
 custom of washing hands and feet by the assistance of a 
 servant, who poured out the water on the part to be 
 cleansed: hence 2 Kings iii. 11: "Here is Elisha, the 
 
PROOFS or AFFUSION. 85 
 
 son of Shaphat, which poured water on the hands of 
 Elijah." This must have been the common mode of ab- 
 lution, or the office of an attendant would not have been 
 so described. Indeed, it is common at this day among 
 the orientals, who do not change their customs as we 
 change ours. This word then describes particularly the 
 manner of the action, which is generally expressed in the 
 other word, parttiawtai, baptisontai, which by itself means 
 simply to purify. 
 
 Observe, too, the baptism in question was not confined 
 to the hands, cups, pots, and brazen vessels, but extended 
 also to the tables, xuvZv, clinon, properly, the beds or 
 couches, on which they reclined at meals. They attended 
 to the washing, fiaTttiofiovs, the baptism of these before 
 they ate. But a man must be insane, or at least blinded 
 by prejudice, who can suppose that these couches or beds 
 — each of which was large enough for the accommodation 
 of several persons — together with their occupants, were 
 immersed before every meal ! " Taken to pieces for the 
 purpose/' says a determined plunger ! A rare expedient, 
 truly ! We leave it to any unprejudiced person of com- 
 mon sense — to any child that can read the record — to de- 
 cide whether or not these Jewish purifications were per- 
 formed by sprinkling, and that with the water kept for 
 the purpose in their water-pots of stone. This certainly 
 was the manner of the purifying of the Jews — this was 
 the mode of their baptisms — for John and Mark say so. 
 
 It does not, indeed, follow that because the baptisms of 
 Moses and John and the Jews were administered by 
 aspersion or affusion, that therefore Christian baptism 
 must be so administered. It proves, however, that the 
 term baptism may be used of a purifying ordinance, when 
 this is the mode of its administration. That Christian 
 baptism was accordingly performed by affusion we have 
 ample proof. 
 
 The first recorded instance of the performance of bap- 
 tism, under the great apostolic commission, was on the 
 day of Pentecost. This baptism was by aspersion, or affu- 
 sion. There were no places in Jerusalem suitable for im- 
 8 
 
8Q MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 mersion, jxcept such as were under the control of the 
 Jews, who would not have allowed the apostles to use the 
 pool of Siloain, or the pool of Bethesda, where the sacri- 
 fices were washed, for the immersion of three thousand 
 Christian converts. To suppose they would is a simple 
 absurdity. The brook Kedron is dry at the time of Pen- 
 tecost; and when it is not dry it is no place for immer- 
 sion, as instead of gliding along as a " silver stream," as 
 one of our poets expresses it, it pours down its black 
 turbid waters, carrying off the filth of the northern por- 
 tion of the city. Kedron is a beautiful baptistery ! 
 
 Besides, it was impossible for the twelve apostles to 
 immerse such a multitude in some six or eight hours, for 
 they did not enter upon the work of baptizing until after 
 Peter's sermon, and he did not begin preaching until nine 
 o'clock. 
 
 It is perfectly gratuitous to associate the "seventy 
 disciples" with the twelve apostles in this work. The 
 seventy were sent out by our Lord, " two and two before 
 his face, into every city and place, whither he himself 
 would come," to prepare the people for his ministry 
 among them. After they returned to their Divine Em- 
 ployer, and reported the result of their peculiar mission, 
 not another word is said about them in the inspired re- 
 cord. Some of the fathers indeed pretend that the seven 
 deacons at Jerusalem, and also Matthias, Mark, Luke, 
 Barnabas, Sosthenes, Justus, Thaddeus, and others, real 
 or fictitious evangelists, were taken from the seventy. But 
 nobody knows any thing more about the seventy disciples 
 than the short account of their temporary ministry given 
 us in the tenth of Luke. They are not even alluded to 
 in any other part of Scripture. What became of them— 
 what were their names — we cannot tell ; for, as Eusebius 
 says, " no catalogue of them is anywhere given." 
 
 We do not see how Saul could be baptized by plunging 
 in the house of Judas, in the city of Damascus, in the 
 street called Straight, especially as it is said, " standing 
 up, avao-tas, he was baptized." Acts ix. The rite must 
 
TROOPS OF AFFUSION. 87 
 
 have been performed by the application of the element to 
 the subject — that is, by affusion. 
 
 It must have been so performed, also, in the case of St. 
 Peter's converts, in the hou:-e of Cornelius. Accordingly, 
 the apostle does not say, " Can any man forbid that these 
 should go to the water and be baptized V — but, " Can 
 any man forbid water, [evidently, to be brought,'] that 
 these should not be baptized, which have received the 
 Holy Ghost as well as we V* Acts x. 47. 
 
 Who can believe that Lydia and her family were im- 
 mersed in the river Strymon, near which prayer was 
 wont to be made, and where the apostle's sermon was 
 preached ? As soon as she was converted, she and her 
 children were baptized ; but not the slightest intimation 
 was given that there was a moment's delay for change of 
 apparel, and certainly she could not be immersed without 
 this. The immersion of a female by a person of the other 
 sex is revolting to us under any circumstances — it must be 
 exceedingly repulsive to the delicate sensibilities of a 
 woman. Yet Lydia was baptized by the apostle — surely 
 not immersed ! Acts xvi. 
 
 The Philippian jailer too must have been baptized by 
 affusion. His conversion took place in the prison — at 
 midnight — and he and all his were baptized straight- 
 way. We are sure Paul and Silas did not take them down 
 to the river — especially at that unseemly hour — and 
 plunge them into it; for the noble-minded prisoners 
 would not leave the precincts of the jail until they were 
 taken out, in daylight, by proper authority. And it is 
 equally gratuitous and absurd to say there was a bath or 
 tank in the prison, in which the jailer and his family 
 were immersed. A small portion of the water which he 
 brought into the prison to wash the apostle's " stripes," 
 was sufficient for his baptism, as, like all the other cases 
 of baptism of which any particulars are given in the New 
 Testament, it was administered by pouring or aspersion. 
 
88 MODE OF BtPTISM. 
 
 SECTION III. DEMONSTRATIONS OF AFFUSION. 
 
 The foregoing proofs are irrefutable. But we have 
 others, if possible, still stronger — proofs that have both 
 the form and force of positive demonstrations. 
 
 As baptism with water represents the application of 
 the Spirit's influences to believers in Christ, the meaning 
 of the term and the mode of the ordinance can be readily 
 ascertained by a reference to those passages of Scripture 
 which refer to the baptism of the Holy Ghost, in connec- 
 tion with water baptism. 
 
 In the third chapter of Matthew, John the Baptist 
 says : " I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance j 
 but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose 
 shoes I am not worthy to bear : he shall baptize you with 
 the Holy Ghost and with fire." 
 
 In the first of Acts, Luke tells us that Jesus " showed 
 himself alive after his passion, by many infallible proofs, 
 being seen of his disciples forty days, and speaking of the 
 things pertaining to the kingdom of God ; and being as- 
 sembled together with them, commanded them that they 
 should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the pro- 
 mise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me; 
 for John truly baptized with icater, but ye shall be hap. 
 tized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence. " And 
 "ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come 
 upon your 
 
 Accordingly, in the next chapter we read : "And when 
 the clay of Pentecost was fully come/' [ten days after the 
 Saviour's promise was given, which he said should be ful- 
 filled " not many days hence,"] " they were all with one 
 accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound 
 from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all 
 the house where they were sitting. And there appeared 
 unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon 
 each of them ; and they were all filled with the Holy 
 Ghost, and began to speak with tongues, as the Spirit 
 
DEMONSTRATIONS OF AFFUSION. 89 
 
 gave them utterance. " Commenting on this wonderful 
 transaction, St. Peter says : " This is that which was 
 spoken by the prophet Joel : And it shall come to pass 
 in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit 
 upon all flesh • and your sons and your daughters shall 
 prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your 
 old men shall dream dreams ; and on my servants and on 
 my hand-maidens I will pour out of my Spirit, and they 
 shall prophesy." 
 
 Now, if it be not admitted that this remarkable pente- 
 eostal transaction was a fulfilment of the promise which 
 was to take place not many days from the date of its de- 
 livery — " he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost" — it 
 is useless to cite apostolic authority in support of any 
 doctrine or any fact. But if St. Peter be a competent 
 witness, and the occurrence at Pentecost be, indeed, as he 
 asserts, a fulfilment of the predictions of Joel, John the 
 Baptist, and Christ, then it follows that the coming dovm 
 of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles, and the pouring out 
 of the Holy Ghost, is the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Alluding to the case of Cornelius and his company, 
 Acts xi., the apostle observes: "As I began to speak, 
 the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 
 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he 
 said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be 
 baptized with the Holy Ghost." We pronounce this A 
 demonstration. Nothing can be advanced against it 
 but utter cavilling. 
 
 How impertinent, how preposterous, to adduce texts 
 which speak of our being surrounded with God, and the 
 like, to prove that the disciples were immersed in the 
 Spirit, and in the sound of wind, and in the tongues of 
 fire which sat upon them I This is somewhat too absurd. 
 Such extraneous passages have nothing to do with bap- 
 tism : the various actions of which they speak are never 
 styled baptism ; but the outpouring of the Spirit is so 
 styled by Christ and his apostles, and so is that outpour- 
 ing of water by which it is represented. 
 
 Mr. Booth's " electrical bath," in which " the electrical 
 8* 
 
90 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 fluid surrounds the patient/' may do well enough to repre- 
 sent the toind which tilled all the house where the disci- 
 ples were sitting; but how it can represent the pouring out 
 of the Holy Ghost upon them, or even the filling, of them 
 with the Spirit, we cannot imagine. The rilling of the 
 house with wind and the filling of the disciples with the 
 Spirit were very different things, though the action in 
 either case was the coming down of the agent, and not the 
 plunging under of the subject. 
 
 Accordingly, Mr. Booth's scientific interpretation is not 
 much accounted of by some immersionists. Thus Dr. 
 Howell says, the baptism of the Spirit has no direct refer- 
 ence to the mode of baptism. And yet, we are told, the 
 word baptism always signifies mode — a mode, and nothing 
 but a mode ! No marvel that a somewhat more consistent 
 iminersionist exclaims, " From this view we totally dis- 
 sent. The baptism of the Spirit is but vaguely explained 
 by Dr. Howell's paraphrase : 'it is the act of putting men 
 under the influence of the Spirit/" Vaguely explained 
 indeed ! 
 
 But the critic himself is not much more perspicuous — 
 he is a little more eloquent perhaps, but not a whit nearer 
 the truth, when he says : — 
 
 "The propriety of the scriptural figure arises out of the 
 overwhelming nature of the influence which came down 
 like a mighty rushing wind from heaven, and filled all 
 the house in which the disciples were assembled, and 
 rolled its deep tide of light and rapture over every heart*" 
 
 Fine writing I Pity the criticism is not equal to the 
 eloquence, and that the logic does not keep pace with the 
 rhetoric ! It was not the wind that is said to have bap- 
 tized the disciples ; nor was it the Holy Ghost that is 
 said to have filled the house. How strange that these 
 should be confounded ! Whatever poetry may be perpe- 
 trated in regard to the rolling of a "deep tide of light 
 and rapture over every heart," a child can see that there 
 was no plunging in the pentecostal baptism. That bap- 
 tism was administered by the Holy Ghost's coming iij>on 
 the disciples — fTtti-dovtos t<p' vpcLs — siqwcenicntia, Acts 
 
 
DEMONSTRATIONS OF AFFUSION. 91 
 
 i. 8 — his being shed, forth or poured out — *f££«, effudit, 
 Acts ii. 33 — his /ailing upon them — S7tartsi3s in' avtov$, 
 cecidit super eos, Acts xi. 15. Compare Acts ii. 17; x. 
 44-47 — all forms of speech totally incompatible with the 
 notion of dipping or plunging. 
 
 This outpouring of the Spirit is repeatedly called the 
 baptism of the Spirit, and is associated with water baptism, 
 by which it is symbolized — therefore the mode of the 
 latter must be affusion, or it would be no representation 
 of the former. 
 
 Observe, the action is pouring or affusion — the amount 
 of the element applied in the administration is a mere 
 circumstance : the question has to do with nothing but 
 the mode. If the water were poured upon a person so 
 copiously, as that it would rise up around him and over 
 his head, so that he might be actually immersed in it, the 
 immersionists would not consider him baptized, as the 
 water would be applied to the subject, and not the subject 
 to the water : he would not be plunged into it j and with- 
 out plunging, they boldly affirm, there is no baptism. 
 
 One would think it must require no ordinary amount of 
 courage to make such an affirmation, so palpably contra- 
 dictory of the teachings of inspiration. 
 
 Mark how obviously St. Paul corroborates this rational 
 and scriptural view of the subject. He says: "Not by 
 works of righteousness which we have done, but accord- 
 ing to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regenera- 
 tion and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us 
 abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour." Titus iii. 
 5, 6. The loutron, here rendered washing, means a bath 
 or laver. 
 
 The cold bath was named indifferently by the ancient 
 authors, natatio, natatorium, piscina, baptisterium,puteus, 
 %ovtp6v, loutron. " The haptisterium is not a bath suffi- 
 ciently large to immerse the whole body, but a vessel or 
 lahrum, containing cold water for pouring over the head/' 
 See the Article "Baths/' in Anthon's Smith's Dictionary 
 of Greek and Roman Antiquities, where there are repre- 
 sentations of the aucient baths. 
 
92 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Now, if the internal renewing of the Holy Ghost be 
 effected by an influence coming down upon and applied to 
 the subject — a pouring out and a skidding on him — 
 surely the external washing of regeneration, the sign of 
 the inward grace, should be effected by a corresponding 
 modal application. Plunging a man into water can never 
 represent the pouring out of the Holy Ghost vpon him j 
 and this, we have seen, is the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 
 We are perfectly secure at this point, and are more than 
 willing to abide by the answer which any unprejudiced 
 man would render to the question : If God performs his 
 baptism by affusion, ought we to perform ours by immer- 
 sion ? 
 
 SECTION IV. — OBJECTIONS TO AFFUSION ANSWERED. 
 
 Were we not apprized of the pertinacity with which the 
 mind of man holds fast to an opinion once received, how- 
 soever clearly its erroneousness may be demonstrated, we 
 should certainly think it impossible that any one would 
 attempt to prove that to be false which by so many infal- 
 lible proofs has been shown to be true. But what mira- 
 cles will not some men attempt to perform ? 
 
 1. We have clearly shown that the term baptism, ac- 
 cording to the Scriptures, means purification, and that the 
 mode of performing the ordinance, so far as the inspired 
 records give testimony, is by affusion, and not by im- 
 mersion. Yet we are told that the Greek words paxm, 
 (3a7ttl£u, paTttiofin and (5arttLGfx6i, mean exclusively to 
 plunge, to immerse, plunging and immersion ; and some- 
 times we meet with long catalogues of names, representing 
 the theological literature of ancient and modern Christen- 
 dom, in favor of the position. 
 
 Now we must beg leave to say, that this contains a palpa- 
 ble misstatement, and what looks very much like " a pious 
 fraud." The authorities cited in favor of immersion have 
 never said that this is the only meaning of the word bap- 
 tisma, or baptismos; they have, nearly to a man, affirmed 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 93 
 
 directly tke contrary, and their practice has corroborated 
 their testimony. They have taught that baptism means 
 affusion as well as immersion ; and for reasons good and 
 sufficient to them, and good and sufficient to all other un- 
 prejudiced persons, they have performed the ordinance by 
 the former mode. And it is not very creditable to charge 
 them with errors with which they had no sympathy. But 
 their testimony on this subject is before the world; and 
 we do not feel it necessary to defend them from the un- 
 scrupulous attacks which some schismatical immersionists 
 have made upon them. Those great and holy men — the 
 burning and shining lights of the church of Christ — be- 
 lieved what they taught and practised in reference to bap- 
 tism j and it were well if their impugners would copy 
 their example, or at least make an honest use of their 
 authority. 
 
 Who ever denied that the word /Sa^rco, from which. 
 jSartft'Jftt is derived, sometimes means to immerse ? In- 
 deed, who ever denied that the derivative baptizo is some- 
 times used in the same sense, albeit as a derivative its 
 meaning varies considerably from the primitive word ? 
 
 How impertinent to adduce an imposing catalogue of 
 citations from profane authors to prove what nobody de- 
 nies, that ba/pto sometimes means to plunge ! It does 
 mean to plunge, in many places in profane Greek, but 
 it does not appear that it ever has that meaning in Scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 It means also to dip, as distinct from plunging — a 
 partial immersion being frequently intended by the 
 term. 
 
 It sometimes means, moreover, to steep or imbue — to 
 dye, stain, or color, no matter by what process. 
 
 It also signifies to wet, moisten, or sprinkle. Thus 
 " Nebuchadnezzar was driven from men, and did eat grass 
 as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven." 
 See Daniel iv. 33, or 30 in the Septuagint, and Daniel v. 
 21, in both of which places the word is tpdfrj, which our 
 translators render by the verb wet. Any child can tell 
 whether Nebuchadnezzar was plunged into the dew, or 
 
94 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 sprinkled tciih it* No matter how copious it was, he 
 was neither plunged nor immersed in it. The Greek 
 translators knew better than that. They knew that the 
 copious moisture came dozen upon the person of the un- 
 happy monarch ; yet they employ the word ebaphe to ex- 
 press this action. 
 
 But as this term is never used of the Christian ordi- 
 nance, we shall dismiss all inquiry about its meaning, with 
 this simple remark : that if the primitive word bapto has 
 so many significations — one of which is to sprinkle — it is 
 preposterous to confine the derivative, baptize^ to one sig- 
 nification. 
 
 The truth is, baptize, bapt/'sma, and baplismos, imply 
 plunging the whole person or thing — dipping a part of it — 
 immersing the whole or a part, with or without plunging 
 or dipping — overwhelming, by bringing water over the 
 person or thing. 
 
 Thus Aristotle speaks of certain " uninhabited lands, 
 v.Vch at the ebb-tide are not overflowed, pdrttiZtoSai ; but 
 when the tide is full the coast is quite inundated." In this 
 case, was the land plunged into the sea, or did the sea 
 overwhelm the land ? Was the subject applied to the 
 element, or was the element applied to the subject ? Who 
 does not see that, no matter how much water there was, 
 the land was neither plunged nor dipped into it ? 
 
 The word means, moreover, washing, cleansing, or 
 purifying, by whatever mode. Thus Judith (c. xii. 7) 
 " washed herself in a fountain of water by the camp." 
 She might, indeed, have plunged into the fountain, 
 if it was large enough, to wash herself; but the passage 
 has nothing to do with the mode, only with the fact 
 of her washing — hence it is said in the ninth verse, 
 
 * We never beard of any one's being dipped in dew, or with it, ex- 
 cept Milton's Comus : — 
 
 "And though not mortal, yet a cold shudd'ring dew 
 Dips me all o'er." 
 Not being "mortal," however, we cannot reason from his case to that 
 of Nebuchadnezzar. 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 95 
 
 u so she came m clean. " It is not, indeed, likely that 
 she was so immodest as to plunge into a fountain in the 
 soldiers' camp. She, doubtless, applied the water of the 
 fountain to her person, in the usual mode of performing 
 ablution. Indeed the text implies as much, l{Sa7tii£sto ev 
 ty, rtap Bfi^o-krj) srtt> tvjg rt^y^j tov v$ato$ } " she baptized her- 
 self in the camp, at the spring of water."* If she 
 plunged herself at all, she plunged herself into the spring, 
 and not at it ; but the text says, she washed herself at 
 the spring, not in it. The soldiers who drank out of it 
 would scarcely have allowed her to do that. 
 
 The word has a similar meaning, though with a cere- 
 monial application, in another place of the Apocrypha, 
 Ecclus. xxxiv. 25: "He that washeth himself after the 
 touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, what 
 availeth his washing V The word rendered washeth is 
 partti£oy.svos, baptlzeth • and the word rendered washing, 
 is "kovtpo, from "kovu, to cleanse or purify. The meaning 
 therefore, of pa,7tft,£o(jievos arfo vsxpov, "baptized from a 
 dead body/' is not immersed from a dead body, nor 
 bathed, nor sprinkled from it, but cleansed from it — its 
 touch having communicated legal defilement. Compare 
 Num. xix. ; Heb. ix. 
 
 In this sense, baptismos and baptisma are invariably 
 used when they refer to the Jewish and Christian ordi- 
 nances, as we have fully shown. 
 
 And let it be remembered, that we are to seek for the 
 meaning of scriptural terms in the Scriptures themselves. 
 In this respect, as in many others, the Bible is to be its 
 own authoritative interpreter. We are not so much con- 
 cerned to know in what sense Homer or Aristophanes, 
 Josephus or Philo, employed a term which the Holy 
 Ghost has seen fit to incorporate into the vocabulary of 
 
 * The preposition rai, governing the genitive, means, upon, at, near, 
 by, and the like, according to the context: Thus Matt. vi. 10. " wj iv 
 ovpavco, kcu £7tI tt)s yfjs, as in heaven, so also upon the earth." Compare 
 Matt. vi. 19 ; xvi. 19; xxiv. 30 ; xxvi. 64; Luke xxii. 40 : " And when 
 he was at the place," not in the Mount of Olives, but in the garden at 
 its base. 
 
96 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Christianity — the question is, bow did the Holy Ghost 
 employ it ? 
 
 The word xvpioj, kurios, is derived by some from the 
 Hebrew cJieres, the sun. This luminary being considered 
 the ruler of the heavens, worshipped by the heathens 
 under the title of melek, king, or baal, lord, the word 
 was appropriated to express the idea of authority. But as 
 proprietorship usually acccompanies authority, the word is 
 used to express that idea, whether the person to whom it is 
 applied actually possesses authority or not. As authority 
 and property gain respect, the word was eventually em- 
 ployed to express this idea, apart from all reference to its 
 primary import. When Mary Magdalene addressed by 
 the title kurios, a person whom she supposed to be the 
 gardener, she did not think that that humble functionary 
 was the proprietor of the premises, or the emperor of 
 Rome, or the Ruler of the universe, or her own divine 
 Master, of whom she was in quest, and to whom the title 
 is applied a thousand times in the New Testament. Nor 
 would the gardener, had he been the party addressed, 
 have been at all puzzled to find out what idea she intended 
 to convey in the use of the compellation. 
 
 When an Englishman talks about the king, he never 
 thinks of the derivation of the title from the Saxon cyng, 
 and the German Iconic/, or of the primary meaning of the 
 word. He, perhaps, does not even kuow that it originally 
 expressed the ideas of wisdom and power. He knows 
 that in his own nation, for a thousand years, it has ex- 
 pressed no other idea than that of monarchal sovereignty, 
 whether it be lodged in the person of Alfred the wise, 
 or Charles the fool, John the feeble, or William the 
 brave. And no one is misled by this use of the term. 
 Moreover, he who would explore the whole world of Teu- 
 tonic and Scandinavian literature, to collect apt citations 
 in proof that the word primarily expressed the ideas of 
 wisdom and power, and would thence argue that it al- 
 ways expresses those ideas when employed in the statute 
 books of Great Britain, would be deemed, forsooth, a 
 cunning antiquary, and a powerful reasoner, a perfect 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 97 
 
 Icing in the realm of etymology. He would not, how* 
 ever, be alone in his glory. 
 
 The term Ttvsvfia, in heathen Greek, means merely 
 wind or breath ; and the term ayy^oj, means simply a 
 news-man or messenger, and both words are sometimes 
 used in these senses in the New Testament. But no im- 
 mersionist, we presume, would translate John iii. 5, 6, 
 "Except a man be born of water and of wind, he cannot 
 ontcr into the kingdom of God. That which is born of 
 the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the windy 
 is wind J" Or Acts xxiii. 8, 9 : " The Sadducees say 
 that there is no resurrection, neither messenger nor wind, 
 but the Pharisees confess both. And there arose a great 
 cry ; and the Scribes that were of the' Pharisees' part 
 arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man ; 
 but if a win<l or a messenger hath spoken to him, let us 
 not fight against God." Are these renderings preposte- 
 rous ? Immersionists admit that they are ; yet according 
 to profane Greek, they are strictly proper. The notion 
 of a spiritual being would never have been suggested to 
 an ancient Greek by the word pneurna, nor that of a 
 celestial intelligence by the word angelos. 
 
 Immersionists themselves do not scruple to call the 
 other ordinance of Christianity, Kvpiaxbv Sslnvov, The Lords 
 Supper, albeit they do not take an ounce of bread, or a 
 spoonful of wine ; and what they do receive they do not 
 take in the posture of the Jews at their Passover, or in 
 that of Christ and his disciples at the first celebration of 
 the Christian ordinance. The term, moreover, is always 
 used in Scripture for a full meal, the principal meal of 
 the day, or a festal entertainment. Matt, xxiii. Q • Mark 
 vi. 21 ; Luke xiv. 12 ; and yet it. is applied, and that 
 correctly, to an ordinance in which not a mouthful of 
 food is eaten. 
 
 Suppose the word bapto originally meant dip, how 
 easily would it take the meaning of dye, color, stain, im- 
 bue, from the fact that articles were usually dyed by dip- 
 ping and saturating them in a coloring fluid. Having 
 thus received this signification, it would afterwards be so 
 
 9 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 used without any reference to the fact of dipping, and 
 when, indeed, the dyeing was effected by some other 
 method. 
 
 The Scripture affords us a pertinent example: "And 
 I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse ; and he 
 that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in 
 righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes 
 were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many 
 crowns ; and he had a name written, that no man knew 
 but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture 
 stained with blood; and his name is called the Word of 
 God. And the armies which were in heaven followed 
 him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and 
 clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that 
 with it he should smite the nations j and he shall rule 
 them with a rod of iron; and he treadeth the wine-press 
 of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God," Rev. 
 xix. 11-15. 
 
 The word rendered by our translators dipped, and which 
 we have rendered stained, is fiefia/xusvov, bebammenon, a 
 participle of bapto. The vesture was not dipped in blood 
 when St. John saw it — it was stained with it; nor does 
 it appear that the stains were made by previous dipping, 
 but rather by sprinkling, according to the parallel passage 
 in Isaiah lxiii. 1-3 : " Who is this that cometh from 
 Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah ? this that is glo- 
 rious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his 
 strength ? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. 
 Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy gar- 
 ments like him that treadeth in the winefat ? I have 
 trodden the winepress alone ; and of the people there was 
 none with me ; for I will tread them in mine anger, and 
 trample them in my fury ; and their blood shall be 
 sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my rai- 
 ment." 
 
 The derivative baptizo may have primarily meant to 
 dip ; but as things were frequently dipped to be washed 
 and purified, the term readily acquired this latter mean- 
 ing, and it is thus used in reference to a literal cleansing 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 99 
 
 or a ceremonial purification, effected by pouring or affu- 
 sion, dipping being out of the question. 
 
 In order to express those glorious truths which for ages 
 have been hid from the world, the inspired penmen found 
 it necessary either to invent new terms, or to use old ones 
 in an appropriated sense. And we may very well sup- 
 pose that the words which the Holy Ghost teacheth are 
 as suitable as any that man could select, and we may be 
 sure that he has not left us without the means of discover- 
 ing the sense in which they arc employed. By keeping 
 our minds free from prejudice — by a careful study of the 
 Scriptures, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, ra- 
 ther than profane — and by seeking light and direction 
 from the Source of wisdom — we shall not be in much 
 danger of receiving a pagan infection when we read in the 
 New Testament of Theos and Tartaros, or of being per- 
 verted to popery when we read of the altar and the cross, 
 or of being plunged into the water when we read the 
 command, " Repent and be baptized." 
 
 What theological term is there, which was previously 
 used in a secular sense by profane authors, that did not 
 receive some modification in its import when appropriated 
 to the service of the sanctuary ? And did not this take 
 place ex necessitate f Indeed, this involves a hermeneuti- 
 cal principle of immense importance in the interpretation 
 of the Holy Scriptures; and one, too, on which immer- 
 sionists themselves are wont to proceed in the investiga- 
 tion of other subjects; and, verily, if they did not they 
 would plunge themselves into greater absurdities than 
 those which we are now exposing, nay, into such blasphe- 
 mies as we are quite sure we shall never have occasion to 
 denounce. 
 
 2. It is sometimes urged that the prepositions used in 
 connection with the word baptism and its cognates imply 
 immersion. These prepositions are iv and sfc, 0^6 and ix. 
 Thus John baptized iv, in Jordan : Philip and the eunuch 
 went down both, sis, into th^ water : Jesus came up, artb, 
 out of the water : they both came up, ix, out of the water. 
 
 To all this we reply, that we do no*i affect arguments 
 
100 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 based upon grammatical niceties. Besides, those prepo- 
 sitions are of various meaning. 
 
 Thus iv, according to Parkhurst, lias fourteen different 
 meanings in the New Testament. In more than one hun- 
 dred places it is rendered at, — in one hundred and fifty 
 others it is rendered with, which is its proper meaning 
 when found in connection with baptism, as in every in- 
 stance, except Mark i. 9, it is used with a dative, which 
 does not express the object of an action, but the instru- 
 ment by which it is effected. "I indeed baptize you, h 
 vSati, with water, but he shall baptize you sv 7tvsv^o.tv 
 ayt'9, with the Holy Ghost and with fire/' Matfc. iii. 11. 
 We know they were not plunged in the Holy Ghost and 
 in fire, by the pentecostal baptism, but they were affined 
 with the Spirit. 
 
 The particle tis has fifteen meanings assigned it. It 
 primarily denotes motion towards an object. It sometimes 
 means towards, with resjject to, as, " I would have you 
 wise, ftj, unto that which is good, and simple, sfc, concern- 
 ing, or towards, that which is evil." Rom. xvi. 19. " Use 
 hospitality one to, el$, towards, another/' 1 Pet. iv. 9. 
 Sometimes it means at: "Philip was found, clj, at Azo- 
 tus." Acts viii. 40. Sometimes it means on : " Put a 
 ring, sis, on his hand," — not surely into it — " and shoes, 
 >£$, on his feet," — not surely into them. 
 
 ^VYhcn Ets denotes into, it is used before the noun as 
 well as before the verb. Thus : " they entered into the 
 house of Lydia" — datpSov e£s *«j* Avhlav. Acts xvi. 40. So 
 Acts ix. 17: " Ananias entered into the house" — iior t %9sv 
 ftj tr t v oixiav. Had the preposition been used merely be- 
 fore the noun aud not also before the verb, it would have 
 simply expressed motion towards the house, and not en- 
 trance into it. 
 
 Agreeably to this rule, if St. Luke had intended to say 
 that Philip went into the water with the eunuch, he would 
 have put the preposition before the verb — there being 
 nothing in the case requiring or justifying a variation 
 from the rule — whereas, he simply places the preposition 
 before the noun — " they went down both, eis } to the water, 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 101 
 
 and he baptized him." The circumstances, too, sustain 
 this view. It is very improbable that they found a river, 
 lake, deep pond, cistern, or tank, " in the way which goeth 
 down from Jerusalem to Gaza, which is desert. " Iu 
 fact, the eunuch seemed surprised to find an}' water at all 
 in so arid a region ; for upon discovering it he ejaculated, 
 c lSoi' 'vSup, " Behold water !" He had been reading that 
 part of Isaiah which predicted that the Messiah " should 
 sprinkle many nations," and he desired to receive the or- 
 dinance which, as Philip doubtless informed him, sym- 
 bolizes the spiritual purification to which the prophet 
 referred, and the smallest spring gurgling from the foot 
 of a rock would subserve that purpose. Accordingly, 
 both Philip and the eunuch went down to it, and the 
 former baptized the latter. There is not the slightest in- 
 timation that he did it by immersion, but there are the 
 strongest presumptions that he did not : taking the pas- 
 sage (Acts viii.) in connection with other places of Scrip- 
 ture, it is evident the eunuch was not immersed. 
 
 The preposition ix primarily denotes motion from a 
 place, in almost any mode. Parkhurst assigns it seven 
 meanings in the New Testament. In Rom. i. 4, it means 
 by : " And declared to be the Son of God with power, ac- 
 cording to the Spirit of holiness, ex, by the resurrection 
 from the dead." In Matt. xix. 20, it means from, in regard 
 to time : " All these things have I kept from my youth 
 up." It is used in a similar way in regard to place : " he 
 riseth from supper," John xiii. 4. " And when they 
 were come up from the water," Acts viii. 39. It is ab- 
 surd to give it a different meaning in those places. 
 
 The preposition arto has fifteen meanings in the New 
 Testament. Its primary import is from. " So all the 
 generations from Abraham," Matt. i. 17. "Who hath 
 warned you to flee from the wrath to come ?" " Then 
 cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan." " And Jesus 
 when he was baptized went up straightway, a*6, from the 
 water," Matt. iii. 7, 13, 16. There was no more going 
 out of the water in this case than there was fleeing out of 
 the wrath to come in the case before mentioned. 
 
102 MOBS OF BAP 
 
 We thus find, upon examining into the force of those 
 formidable prepositions, that, instead of giving any sup- 
 port to the cause of immersion, they actually weaken it, 
 and subserve the opposite interest. But, we repeat, we 
 do not lay much stress upon grammatical niceties of this 
 description, as we have a more sure word of prophecy — 
 a world of irrefutable arguments on which we rest with 
 perfect confidence. 
 
 3. Those who contend for immersion, as the exclusive 
 mode of baptism, lay great stress upon the fact that John 
 the Baptist administered the ordinance in Jordan and at 
 Enon, where there was much water. Why did he repair 
 to such places if it was not to immerse his proselytes ? 
 
 To this we reply, If it could be proved that John bap- 
 tized by immersion, and that Jesus himself was immersed, 
 this would not prove that the Christian ordinance must 
 be administered by immersion. 
 
 John's baptism was not Christian baptism. It sus- 
 tained to it no other than a preliminary relation. As 
 Justin Martyr says, " It was a prelude to the grace of the 
 gospel" — Evangelicde gratiss. praeludium. Or, in the 
 language of Augustin, it was " a forerunning baptism" — 
 precursor ium ministerivm. "It was," says Chrysostom, 
 "as it were a bridge, which made a way from the baptism 
 of the Jews to that of our Saviour : it was superior to the 
 former, but inferior to the latter." 
 
 Christian baptism was not instituted until after the re- 
 surrection of Christ. Its subjects are baptized in, or to, 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost, which was not the case with the subjects of John's 
 baptism. 
 
 Hence the twelve disciples found by Paul at Ephesus 
 were baptized with Christian baptism, though they had 
 been baptized before with John's baptism. This so effec- 
 tually determines the question that some immersionists 
 have resorted to a subterfuge to evade its force. They 
 wish to insinuate that those disciples of John had been 
 baptized with Christian baptism, but did not know it 
 until Paul informed them of the fact ! Hence they read 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 103 
 
 the passage thus : " When they heard they were baptized 
 in the name of the Lord Jesus, and when Paul had laid 
 his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them." 
 This is a desperate resort. The case narrated by the 
 sacred historian is plainly this : The apostle found certain 
 disciples at Ephesus, of whom he inquired whether or 
 not they had received the gifts of the Holy Ghost. They 
 told him they were not apprized that those gifts had been 
 yet imparted. The apostle asked them what baptism 
 they had received. They answered, John's. He replied, 
 that John's baptism bound them to repentance, and also 
 to become the disciples of the Messiah when he should 
 come. Consistency therefore required that they should 
 make a formal profession of Christian discipleship, which 
 they accordingly did, being baptized in the name of the 
 Lord Jesus, or by Christian baptism. Then followed the 
 imposition of the apostle's hands, and the impartation of 
 the gifts of the Holy Ghost, as in the case of other Chris- 
 tian converts. 
 
 It is hard to imagine a plainer case than this; and 
 nothing but an absolute exigency could force men to tor- 
 ture the passage into another sense. In the language of 
 an eloquent and honest immersionist, Robert Hall, it may 
 well be said : " In the whole compass of theological con- 
 troversy it would be difficult to assign a stronger instance 
 of the force of prejudice in obscuring a plain matter of 
 fact." 
 
 But why seek to evade the truth ? It is of no avail to 
 say that Jesus himself was baptized by John, and there- 
 fore it must have been Christian baptism, which the latter 
 administered. What ! was Christ baptized unto repent- 
 ance? was he baptized in his own name ? Did his submis- 
 sion to baptism symbolize his sanctification, and pledge the 
 grace which sanctifies and the moral purity which the 
 ordinance indicates ? Does not this border on blasphemy ? 
 Some affirm that Christ's baptism, like his death, was 
 vicarious, and therefore may be viewed as a baptism of 
 repentance — as if Christ was considered a sinner, and 
 therefore under obligation to repent and to receive the 
 
104 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Such a 
 substitutionary baptism would supersede the baptism of 
 those for whom Christ received it, in like manner as his 
 vicarious death exonerates those who receive the atonement 
 of Christ from all obligations to make atonement for them- 
 selves. The actions of the Saviour's life were vicarious 
 in no such sense. Such a principle contains the essence 
 of the rankest Antinomianism.* 
 
 To say that John's baptism was the " same baptism 
 which we Christians take in the church," "for John was 
 sent by God to baptize, and there is but one baptism in 
 him/' involves a palpable non scquitur and a ipitiful petit io 
 princijpii. For it does not follow that John's baptism was 
 Christian baptism, because his commission was divine; 
 and to affirm there is but one baptism, is not to reason, 
 but to assume the point in question. We are amazed to 
 see such logic in the sermons of the acute and eloquent 
 old Dean of St. Paul's. The case, however, admits of no 
 better. 
 
 Some of the fathers taught that water derived a kind 
 of fitness for a Christian ordinance from Christ's baptism 
 with water — the drift, by the way, of that ambiguous 
 passage in the Baptismal Service which states that the 
 baptism of Christ " did sanctify water for this boly sacra- 
 ment," 
 
 Thus Epiphanius says that Christ was baptized, " that 
 the waters which are to cleanse us, might first be cleans- 
 ed" — ut aquae nos purgatora prius per ipsum purgarentur. 
 
 * We are surprised to find, while passing this work through the 
 press, that this opinion is endorsed by Mr. Alford in his Greek Testa- 
 ment, Matt. iii. 13 : " "Why should the Lord, who was without sin, 
 have come to a baptism of repentance ? Because he was made sin for 
 us : for the same reason as he suffered the curse of the law. It became 
 him, being in the likeness of sinful flesh, to go through those appointed 
 rites and purifications which belonged to that flesh. There is no more 
 strangeness in his having been baptized by John, than in his keeping 
 the passover. The one rite, as the other, belonged to sinners — and 
 among the transgressors he was numbered." According to this, no 
 man is under any more obligation to repent and receive baptism fur 
 himself than he is to " suffer the curse of the law !" Christ has done 
 the former as well as suffered the latter for him ! 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 105 
 
 A rhetorical expression, innocent enough so far as we can 
 see — indeed, somewhat pretty. It -claims, however, no 
 scriptural authority. Lavit aquas ipse, non ayuce ipsum : 
 a pleasant and harmless conceit — " he baptized the waters, 
 not the waters him." Chrysostom says: "The Lord of 
 angels went down into the stream of Jordan, and sancti- 
 fying the nature of water, healed the whole world." 
 
 But who does not see that Christ was baptized on his 
 entrance upon his ministry, according to the custom of re- 
 ligious functionaries under the Jewish dispensation ? The 
 priests were washed with water upon their assumption of the 
 sacerdotal office j and accordingly as the great High Priest 
 of our profession, he submitted to this ceremonial initia- 
 tion into his office. The Jewish priests were consecrated 
 at the age of thirty — the very age at which our Lord re- 
 ceived baptism. By this public designation to his office 
 he was made " manifest to Israel," as the " High Priest 
 over the house of God." This is the more evident from 
 the fact that " God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the 
 Holy Ghost and with power," at the very time that John 
 baptized him, thereby placing the authentic seal of di- 
 vinity upon his legation.* As Christ was u made under the 
 law to redeem them that were under the law," he submitted 
 to circumcision on the eighth day, thereby becoming a 
 legal member of the Jewish church. He received the cere- 
 monial designation to his ministry in conformity with his 
 design to fulfil all righteousness — to ratify every divine 
 
 * Mr. Alford, in the note on Matt. iii. 13, in his recently issued Greek 
 Testament, remarks: "I cannot suppose the baptism to have been 
 sought by our Lord merely to honor John, (Kuinoel,) or as knowing 
 that it would be the occasion of a divine recognition of his Messiah- 
 ship, (Paulus,) and thus preordained by God, (Meyer;) but bona fide, 
 as bearing the infirmities and carrying the sorrows of mankind, and 
 thus beginning here the triple baptism of water, fire, and blood, two 
 parts of which were now accomplished, and of the third of which he 
 himself speaks, Luke xii. 50, and the beloved apostle, 1 John v. 8, 
 where -ver>ua-=irvp — [the Spirit corresponds to fire.] His baptism, as it 
 was the Lord's closing act of obedience under the law, in his hitherto 
 concealed life of legal submission, his fulfilling all righteousness, so it 
 wo 8 the solemn inauguration and anointing for the higher official life 
 of mediatorial satisfaction which was now opening upon him." 
 
10(5 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 institution. In like manner he attended to all the feasts 
 of *he Jewish church, and never neglected the temple 
 worship. It was necessary that he should thus recognize 
 the diviue legation of Moses — for Moses spoke of him — and 
 the divine original of his dispensation, because it contained 
 the rudiments of that which he came to establish. 
 
 But his baptism was no more a Christian act than was 
 his circumcision ; and the former is exemplary to us in 
 no other sense than the latter : in neither is he our ex- 
 emplar, except in regard to the spirit of prompt obedience 
 to law, which like him we should always exhibit. If 
 therefore John immersed Christ it does not follow that 
 we must be immersed, any more than that we must wait 
 till we are thirty years of age before we are baptized. 
 
 The foregoing considerations make sad work with a 
 large amount of poetry and sentimentalism about " follow- 
 ing Christ" into the water, and being buried with him in 
 his " liquid grave" — all of which may do well enough to 
 beguile unstable souls, but it certainly smacks more of 
 proselyting clap-trap than of scriptural testimony or 
 rational argument. 
 
 The localities of John's baptism do not prove that he 
 administered it by immersion, but rather the contrary. 
 
 The Baptist's home was not in the city, but in the wil- 
 derness of Judea. As his ministry was attended by the 
 people of "Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region 
 round about Jordan," it was perfectly natural that he 
 should choose a locality near the river, as the principal 
 theatre of his ministry. He would have done this had he 
 circumcised the people instead of baptizing them. But 
 as he baptized them, he wanted water for the purpose, and 
 he would of course select a place convenient to it — no very 
 easy thing to do in that desert region — hence he repaired 
 to the river. 
 
 In only one place, Mark i. 0, is it said that he baptized 
 " in Jordan," Us tbv v lop5a^j>, Jordan being put in the ac- 
 cusative case : in all other places the dative case is used, 
 expressing the instrument or matter of baptism : " I bap- 
 tize you with water — he shall baptize you with the Holy 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 107 
 
 Ghost." u And -were all baptized of him in the river 
 Jordan/' h *£ lopSuvq rco-tapy — that is, with the water of 
 the river. This is the force of the dative case. 
 
 When, therefore, it is said that Jesus was baptized in 
 Jordan, the meaning obviously is, that he was baptized at 
 or near the river, and as the other texts show, with the 
 water thereof. The preposition d$ means at, as well as 
 in or into. It marks simply the place where John bap- 
 tized, not the mode of his baptism. Hence the same 
 preposition is used in John ix. 40, which states that Je- 
 sus "went away again beyond Jordan into, eis, to, the 
 place where John at first baptized, and there he abode." 
 Certainly not in the river. He did not plunge himself 
 into the river and make that his abode ! The place in 
 which John baptized, as we learn from John i. 28, was 
 Bethabara, or Bethany, a town beyond Jordan, near the 
 ford or ferry; and in this place Jesus sojourned for a 
 short time. This was at, or, as we should say, on, the 
 river — which would be in fact a literal and correct ren- 
 dering of the text. 
 
 In carefully studying the sacred Scriptures, we are fre- 
 quently struck with the force of an apparently casual re- 
 mark, as in the case before us. The texts which we have 
 cited from John absolutely demonstrate the meaning of 
 the passage in Mark i. 9 — " baptized in Jordan" — which, 
 because of the use of the accusative case, might otherwise 
 be considered of doubtful import. 
 
 As it regards John's baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, 
 because there was much water there, John iii. 23, it is 
 only necessary to state that the phrase, vSata 7to?aa,means 
 simply, many streams or springs, and not a river, lake, or 
 pool, and no such body of water has ever been found there, 
 though it has been looked for by travellers. 
 
 The phrase is obviously expressive of plurality, though 
 perhaps it may be sometimes susceptible of a singularity 
 of construction. It is used in the Septuagint for the He- 
 brew, rendered "many waters," as in Ps. xviii. 16, xciii. 
 4 ; Jer. li. 13. In this last passage, the reference is to 
 
108 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Babylon, which was situated upon the Euphrates and nu- 
 merous canals, lakes, etc., called in Ps. cxxxvii., "the 
 rivers of Babylon.'' So the Apocalyptic Babylon is situ- 
 ated upon " many waters," that is, she has dominion over 
 peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. Rev. 
 xvii. An obvious plurality. 
 
 It does not appear that there was any " fountain of On," 
 any " cavernous spring," as immersionists phrase it, large 
 enough for the immersion of a little child. But if there 
 was, it does not follow that anybody was immersed in it. 
 John went in^o that part of the country for the same rea- 
 son that Jesus went into it — not to immerse, but to teach 
 the multitudes and to baptize them. Few places in that wil- 
 derness afforded the necessary supplies of water, hence 
 John baptized in Enon, and the disciples of Jesus also 
 baptized multitudes somewhere in the same neighbour- 
 hood, as the numerous springs afforded facilities for the 
 purpose. The candidates could arrange themselves along 
 the streams, and the baptizer could have ready access to 
 them, and administer the ceremony without any trouble. 
 This was a consideration of some importance when so many 
 thousands were to be baptized. 
 
 Besides, the water of these springs was more potable 
 than that of the Jordan, which could scarcely be drunk at 
 certain seasons of the year — a circumstance which may 
 have induced John to change his station ) albeit if he im- 
 mersed the people, he would have remained at the latter 
 place, where they could he plunged over head and ears, 
 which they could not he in the multitudinous streamlets 
 of Enon. 
 
 The proprieties of the case show that John baptized his 
 proselytes by affusion, and not by immersion. The vast 
 multitudes that went out into the wilderness to attend 
 upon the ministry of John could not have been immersed 
 by him. It would have been a gross indecency to immerse 
 them naked ; and it would have been a dangerous experi- 
 ment to immerse them in their clothes; and it is too vio- 
 lent a presumption to suppose they were all provided with 
 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 109 
 
 baptismal robes* or a change of apparel of any sort. Im- 
 mersion was therefore out of the question. 
 
 Moreover, the immersion of so great multitudes 
 would have been more than John could accomplish. It 
 would have forced him literally to make his abode in the 
 river, or in the " cavernous spring" near Salim. He 
 would have had no time to search for locusts and wild 
 honey, or to eat them when found — no time for sleep — 
 no time to preach repentance to the multitudes, to hear 
 their confessions of sins, or to prescribe to their diversified 
 cases ; but day and night in the water, plunging, plung- 
 ing, plunging, the thousands upon thousands that flocked 
 to his baptism ! The very conception is preposterous. 
 But, baptizing, as we see he did, by applying the element 
 to the subject, no impossibility, no indelicacy, no exposure 
 of health and life, was involved. Water could be brought 
 to him by an assistant, or he could place the subjects 
 along the streams of Enon, or within the outermost bank 
 of the Jordan, in the bed of the river, by the margin of 
 the stream, and with his hand, or with a small vessel, or 
 shell, as represented in ancient pictures, pour it upon 
 them; or, agreeably to the Mosaic ceremonial, sprinkle it 
 upon them with a bunch of hyssop. 
 
 We have thus accompanied the immersionists to the 
 wilderness of Judea, and have found John's baptisteries 
 altogether too large, and at the same time infinitely too 
 small, for their plunging purposes. They must go to some 
 other church-yard for " a liquid grave." 
 
 4. Great stress is laid by immersionists upon Rom. vi. 
 4 : " Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into 
 death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by 
 
 * They certainly had not any contrivances like those described in an 
 advertisement before us : " Baptismal pants, expressly designed for 
 baptizing purposes — manufactured from Vulcanized Metallic Rubber 
 Mcintosh cloth, warranted perfectly water-proof." These, we dis- 
 cover, are offered to " the reverend clergy :" we are not informed 
 whether it would be lawful for the subject, as well as the administrator, 
 to be encased in India-Rubber, or whether there be any similar inven- 
 tion for those who stand most in need of it. 
 
 10 
 
110 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 the glor^ of the Father, even so we also should walk in 
 newness of life." They contend that this text makes 
 baptism emblematical of the Saviour's death, burial, and 
 resurrection, and therefore it must be administered by 
 immersion and emersion. And they not unfrequently in- 
 dulge in a fine phrensy of rhetoric and poetry above a 
 liquid grave and — we know not what. But, so far as we 
 understand the argument, we consider it utterly worthless. 
 
 We do not suppose with some that the apostle has no 
 reference in this passage to water baptism. We believe 
 he does refer to this ordinance. But he refers to it as 
 the exponent of a sanctifying agency — the outward and 
 visible sign of an inward and invisible grace, by which 
 we realize a death unto sin and a new birth unto right- 
 eousness. It is only by wrenching the fourth verse from 
 its connection that any other conclusion can be reached ; 
 and, indeed, we do not see how it can be even thus tor- 
 tured into the expression of a diiferent meaning. 
 
 St. Paul is showing that the doctrine of justification by 
 faith does not lead to licentiousness. As no one can be 
 justified without being at the same time regenerated, so 
 no one can be regenerated and lead an unholy life. " How 
 shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein ? Know 
 ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
 Christ were baptized into his death f" This death to sin 
 is attributed to the instrumentality of baptism, as baptism is 
 the symbol of sanctifying grace — one of the means through 
 which it may be received — the pledge, on the part of God, 
 of its impartation, and the pledge, on the part of the 
 subject, of its practical development, when imparted. 
 " 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 new- 
 ness of life/' Can any thing be plainer than this ? 
 
 Here is no reference to the mode of baptism — that is 
 foreign from the apostle's argument. He says nothing 
 about being M buried in water" — how can a momentary dip 
 into a river, fountain, or fish-pond, express a burial ? 
 
 Nor is there any comparison between our baptism and the 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. Ill 
 
 death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. How can im- 
 mersion represent the death of Christ on the cross ? And 
 yet the apostle's parallel takes in the crucifixion of Christ. 
 " For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his 
 death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection : 
 knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that 
 the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we 
 should not serve sin. For he that is dead is free from 
 sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we 
 shall also live with him : knowing that Christ being raised 
 from the dead dieth no more, death hath no more domi- , 
 nion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once, 
 but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon 
 ye also yourselves to be dead in deed unto sin, but alive 
 unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." 
 
 The parallel here instituted by the apostle is not between 
 our baptism and the death, burial, and resurrection of 
 Christ ; but it is between our mystical death, burial, and 
 resurrection and the death, burial, and resurrection of 
 Christ. It seems an insult to one's understanding to at- 
 tempt to prove this. In the name of common sense, can 
 the apostle mean any thing else ? 
 
 The correspondency is so complete, that St. Paul says, 
 " we are planted together/' ovptyvtoi,, closely united with 
 Christ, in the likeness of his death and resurrection. 
 How can plunging into a river represent this ? We are 
 crucified with Christ — how can immersion represent nail- 
 ing to a cross ? Yet this assimilation to the death, burial, 
 and resurrection of Christ, is attributed to the agency of 
 our baptism — 8ia tov pan-tlcna-tos — baptism being a symbol, 
 seal, and instrument of sanctifying grace. 
 
 The same effect is attributed in other places to faith, of 
 which baptism is the authorized exponent. " For ye are 
 all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as 
 many of you as-have been baptized into Christ, have put 
 on Christ." " I am crucified with Christ : nevertheless 
 I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life 
 which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the 
 Son of God." Gal. ii. 20; iii. 26, 27. Compare Gal. 
 
112 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 vi. 11 ; Phil. iii. 8-11. Thus also Col. ii. 12 : " In whom 
 also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without 
 hands, in putting oft* the body of the sins of the flesh, by 
 the circumcision of Christ : 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/'' 
 The preposition av, governing the dative, all through this 
 passage, denotes the agent or instrument of the action 
 specified, and has the force of by, or by means of — by 
 whom ye are circumcised — by putting off the body of 
 the sins of the flesh — by the circumcision of Christ — 
 by baptism — by which also ye are risen with him. Sancti- 
 fication is here, as in Romans, set forth under the meta- 
 phor of dying to sin, that is, separation from it — 
 burial, that is, a complete and more obvious separation — 
 and resurrection, that is, walking in newness of life. All 
 this is spiritually and really effected through the faith of 
 the operation of God and by the circumcision of the heart 
 by the Holy Ghost, of which baptism, as it corresponds 
 to circumcision, is a lively symbol and pledge. This is 
 the manifest teaching of the apostle. 
 
 That St. Paul has any reference to the mode of baptism 
 in these passages is a violent presumption. When did 
 Christ say that he designed baptism to represent his death, 
 burial, and resurrection? He appointed the Eucharist for 
 this purpose; but never baptism. Christian baptism, of 
 course, implies faith in those great facts of Christianity, 
 but it no more represents them than it represents the in- 
 carnation — nor was it instituted with any such design. If 
 it had been, baptism by sprinkling or pouring would best 
 set forth the Saviour's death, as it is said, "he poured out 
 his soul unto death," and his blood is called " the blood 
 of sprinkling." But how can immersion represent his 
 death ? It is a sorry symbol of burial and resurrection — 
 no symbol at all of death — and not appointed to represent 
 any thing whatever in the Christiau religion. To foist it 
 into the passages under consideration is to oBscure the 
 apostle's meaning, otherwise sufficiently clear, and to 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 113 
 
 weaken his argument, otherwise pertinent, cogent, and 
 conclusive. 
 
 Imraersionists maintain that John's disciples received 
 Christian baptism — were they then aware that their bap- 
 tism represented the death, burial, and resurrection of 
 Christ ? Did they know any thing about those stupen- 
 dous things, of which even the apostles were for a long 
 time ignorant ? No one will affirm that they did. Were 
 they then baptized for — they knew not what? Dying 
 with Christ, by an immersional crucifixion — we must coin 
 a beautiful word for this bright idea — buried with Christ 
 in his liquid grave, which, of course, was a/«c si?nile of 
 Joseph's new tomb which he had hewn out of the rock 
 and the door of which was secured by a great stone — 
 raised with Christ, by bursting the bars of the same 
 aqueous sepulchre — all this, without knowing a thing 
 about his death, burial, or resurrection ! Thus self-con- 
 tradictory is error : truth alone is consistent with itself. 
 
 5. The question is sometimes asked, If immersion be 
 not the true mode of baptism, how comes it to pass that 
 it was practised by the primitive church ? 
 
 This is a sophistical method of arguing. It is not true, 
 as the objection insinuates, that immersion was the only 
 mode practised in the primitive church, nor is it true that 
 the fathers practised it as the only valid mode; nor does 
 it follow that it is the best mode because many of them 
 gave it the preference. 
 
 Immersionists are generally antipedobaptists. How 
 comes it then that the authority of the fathers is cited 
 for immersion, and set aside in reference to the baptism 
 of children, which they all practised as an apostolical 
 custom ? No antipedobaptist immersionist, claiming pa- 
 tristic authority, can answer that question. 
 
 The admission of infants to baptism, or their exclusion 
 from it, all must admit, is a matter of fundamental import- 
 ance in reference to this ordinance. If therefore they had 
 not been admitted to baptism by the apostles, they could 
 not have been admitted by their immediate successors, 
 without exciting controversy. But no controversy was 
 10* 
 
114 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 excited — no one ever called in question the right of chil- 
 dren to the ordinance, or the fact of their having been ad- 
 mitted by the apostles. How then can they who exclude 
 infants from baptism, frame an argument for immersion, 
 as the exclusive mode, out of the practice of immersion by 
 the primitive church ? 
 
 It is easy enough to account for the prevalence of im- 
 mersion in the Cyprianic period of the church. 
 
 The apostles, as we have seen, practised affusion ; but 
 as the term baptisma or baptismos, applied to the Chris- 
 tian ordinance, has a generic force, implying purification) 
 when superstition encroached upon the church, and bap- 
 tism became identified with spiritual regeneration, either 
 as the thing itself or the necessary condition of it, it was 
 very natural in these mistaken fathers to wish to apply 
 the regenerating element to the subject in greater copious- 
 ness and with more imposing ceremonies than had here- 
 tofore obtained. Hence the innovation began by washing 
 the subject in a bath and pouring water upon him. The 
 baptisterium employed for this purpose was not large 
 enough for the immersion of the body. It was a portable 
 vessel, a specimen of which may still be seen in the cele- 
 brated baptistry of Constantine, at Rome. This bath was 
 used for baptism in the times of the fathers. 
 
 In some cases, the bath was large enough for the par- 
 tial immersion of the subject, especially if he was a child. 
 In one such bath, Constantine the Great was baptized by 
 Eusebius ; and in the ancient pictures of the baptism of 
 the emperor, he is represented partially immersed, and the 
 bishop is pouring water upon his head. In precisely the 
 same way are the king and queen of the Longobardi re- 
 presented as receiving baptism, on their embracing Chris- 
 tianity, A. D. 591. 
 
 It is remarkable, too, that in the pictures of the third, 
 fourth, and fifth centuries, Christ is represented as receiving 
 baptism by pouring — John standing by the river and Jesus 
 standing in the water at the depth of two or three feet. 
 ]u no instance, in these ancient representations, is the ad- 
 Uutor in the water j and in no instance is the sub- 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 115 
 
 ject plunged into the element * Would such a baptism be 
 considered orthodox by our modern immcrsionists ? 
 
 Plunging, however, was early introduced in some 
 churches, for instance, in Africa, as it is spoken of by 
 Tertullian, who attributed so much efficacy to this ordi- 
 nance. He it was who wished to postpone the baptism 
 of children, and indeed of adults, except in special cases ; 
 and it was perfectly natural for him to sanction if not to 
 introduce novelties in regard to the mode as well as the 
 subjects of baptism. Hence he speaks of being plunged 
 three times in the water of baptism — as Gregory the 
 Great, in his Sacramentary, explains it : " Let the priests 
 baptize with a trine immersion, but with only one invoca- 
 tion of the Holy Trinity, saying, I baptize thee in the 
 name of the Father, (then let him dip the person once,) 
 and of the Son, (then dip again,) and of the Holy Ghost, 
 (then dip the third time)." Gregory, however, admitted 
 that one dip was sufficient ; but he advocated the three 
 dippings with only one invocation, as symbolizing the 
 Trinity in Unity. Some suppose that pouring was always 
 used, even when trine immersion was administered : we 
 think this doubtful. We think it doubtful too that women 
 were immersed in a state of nudity, albeit the authorities 
 that speak of immersion speak also of its being received 
 naked. The women may have been washed by the 
 deaconesses in a separate apartment, and then baptized by 
 the minister by the original mode of pouring. But it is 
 hard to say at what point superstition will stop when it 
 once has the reins. 
 
 The subject was not immersed in his clothes, as it was 
 not his clothes but his body which was to be washed. So 
 in pouring, the water was always applied to the head un- 
 covered. 
 
 Triple immersion of the naked subject was accompanied 
 by exorcism, or a ceremony for casting out the devil. So 
 far as we can ascertain, this innovation is as ancient as 
 the other. It is spoken of by Cyprian and the Council of 
 Carthage, A. D. 256. It grew out of the practice of 
 
 * See Engravings in the Appendix, pages 241-244. 
 
11G MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 renouncing the devil at baptism, spoken of by Tertullian, 
 as of traditional and not scriptural authority. 
 
 As a further improvement on the ordinance, the sub- 
 jects were signed with the cross. According to some 
 there were three signatures, and according to others, only 
 one — with three afflations by the minister. 
 
 The Apostolical Constitutions speak also of anointing 
 with oil. Tertullian abo says : " When they came out 
 of the water, then they were anointed with the holy unc- 
 tion, and had imposition of hands in order to receive the 
 Holy Ghost." This is further improved upon by the 
 Constitutions: "Thou shalt first of all anoint him with 
 the holy oil, then baptize him with the water, and after- 
 ward sign him with the ointment : that the anointing with 
 oil may be the participation of the Holy Ghost, and the 
 water may be the symbol of death, and the signing with 
 ointment may be the seal of the compact made with 
 God/' 
 
 And whereas milk is given to babes, and milk and honey 
 were the promised blessings of God's people, what more 
 edifying than to give milk and honey to the new-born 
 babes of Christ ? Accordingly, our old friend Tertullian 
 speaks of this practice as a part of the baptismal service 
 in his days. In the next century, a little salt was added, 
 and why not ? Is it not spoken of in the New Testament 
 as a valuable article ? And as there was a custom among 
 the Jews of rubbing salt on the bodies of new-born 
 infants, Ezek. xvi. 4, what more appropriate in " the sacra- 
 ment of the new birth" ? And what more expressive of 
 purity than white garments, with which they were clothed 
 after their washing — or of illumination, than the lighted 
 tapers placed in the hands of adults or of the sponsors of 
 infants, at their baptism ? 
 
 Now, nearly all these addenda to baptism can be traced 
 up to within a century after the apostolic age — some of 
 them in one section of the church, and some in another. 
 Nearly all of them are alluded to by the learned and 
 visionary Tertullian, who seems to have laid himself out 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED, 117 
 
 to improve upon the institutions of Christ.* But much 
 as the fathers prized them, they did not consider any of 
 them essential to the ordinance. Hence, when it was im- 
 practicable to immerse the subject, they sprinkled him, or 
 poured water upon him : when milk, honey, salt, oil, etc., 
 could not be procured, the baptism was performed without 
 them. Even Cyprian himself acknowledged the validity 
 of baptism, by the simple, scriptural mode of affusion, 
 without any of those superstitious ceremonies. For this 
 reason they made their way extensively in the church, 
 without encountering much opposition. 
 
 Let it be noted, too, that so far as patristic authority 
 goes, all these — nudity, triple immersion, imposition of 
 hands, exorcism, milk, honey, salt, oil, white garments, 
 tapers — stand or fall together. They all belong to one 
 and the same age — they are all of one and the same 
 parentage. Superstition is the mother of them all. 
 
 Justin Martyr, who wrote forty years after the death of 
 the apostles, and who himself improved somewhat upon 
 the Christian system, or at least sanctioned the improve- 
 ments of others, mentions however none of those baptis- 
 mal innovations. He speaks, indeed, of washing the can- 
 didates in some place where there is water. And, as we 
 have suggested, this washing may have been effected by a 
 copious application of the water ; yet even this is rendered 
 doubtful by a passage in this father's writings. He says 
 that sprinkling with holy water " was invented by demons 
 in imitation of the true baptism, signified by the prophets, 
 that the votaries of the demons might also have their pre- 
 tended purifications by water." Heathen sprinklings 
 would be a sorry imitation of Christian immersions. We 
 
 * He makes mention of the trine immersion, ter mergitamur, the 
 milk and honey, in De Corona, iii. — the water, oil, milk and honey in 
 Adversus Marcionem, lib. i. c. xiv. Jerome applies Is. lv. 1 — "Ho 
 every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters : yea, come, buy wine 
 and milk without money and without price" — to baptism. He thinkg 
 the milk indicates the innocence of childhood, and refers to 1 Cor. iii. 2 ; 
 Heb. v. 12 ; 1 Pet. ii. 2, in corroboration of his opinion. Clement of 
 Alexandria also alludes to the custom as prevalent in the Greek church. 
 
118 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 may be sure that Justin did not consider the devil such a 
 bungler as that would make him. 
 
 Even Tertullian himself, fond as he was of water, being 
 a stickler for the trine immersion in baptism, nevertheless 
 uses the terms tingo, lavo, abluo, aspergo, as interchangeable 
 with baptizo and men/o, thereby showing that he consi- 
 dered wetting, washing, bathing, sprinkling, as well as 
 plunging or immersion, a proper meaning of the term, and 
 a lawful mode of baptism. He accordingly says, (De Bap- 
 tkmo, c. xii. Opp. p. 229, fol.) the apostles were baptized 
 when they were in the ship during the storm, sprinkled, 
 adsperd, by the spray of the sea. Verily, this was bap- 
 tism by aspersion, whether it was Christian baptism or 
 n<>t. Cyprian and indeed all the fathers of the Cyprianic 
 and Nicene ages, while they preferred immersion, for rea- 
 sons already stated, nevertheless recognized the validity of 
 affusion and sometimes performed the ordinance by this 
 mode. 
 
 But there is a testimony of a different sort, and one 
 which settles the question as to the mode in the earliest 
 periods of patristic antiquity, before the church — particu- 
 larly the Western church — was much infected by the 
 mania of improvement. The artistic representations of 
 baptism, which have come down to us from primitive 
 times all set forth the ordinance as performed by pour- 
 ing — even when the lower part of the body was placed in 
 a bath. And in the oldest of them, there is no immer- 
 sion of any part of the body. In the Catacomb of Pon- 
 thmus, situated outside of the Portese gate at Rome, is a 
 basin of running water, with which the Christians baptized 
 their converts during the persecutions which raged in the 
 first and second centuries. This Catacomb was a burial 
 place for the martyrs, as appears from the rude inscrip- 
 tions, with the insignia of the cross, the skull separated 
 from the trunk with the instrument of death by the side 
 of it, the phial tinged with blood, etc. It appears to have 
 been a baptistery before it was enlarged into a burial place. 
 The chapel, so to call it, has a recess of about two feet in 
 depth and width, just large enough for the person who 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 119 
 
 administered the -ordinance. This was done by affusion, 
 as further appears from a picture on the rock representing 
 the administrator pouring water on the head of the sub- 
 ject.* That baptistery — a venerable memorial of those who 
 were baptized with blood as well as with water — con- 
 tains no reminiscence of immersion, exorcism, milk, honey, 
 oil, salt, and tapers ; and that for the best of reasons, they 
 were, one and all, the inventions of a later age ; and so 
 far as we are concerned, those who want them are welcome 
 to them. But immersionists act inconsistently in taking 
 the first without taking all the rest along with it : as also 
 do the papists, who take all the et ceteras, and a little 
 spittle to boot, and yet decline the immersion. 
 
 6. When nothing else can be said in favour of immer- 
 sion, as the exclusive mode of baptism, it is sometimes 
 said that, at all events, it is the safer mode, as no one 
 doubts its validity, while many do doubt the validity of 
 affusion. • 
 
 This, we fancy, is the most popular and effective argu- 
 ment employed by immersionists in support of their 
 pretensions. It has done considerable service in its 
 day. Upon, examination, however, it may prove like 
 some others we have noticed, utterly futile and worth- 
 less. 
 
 "When it is said, no one doubts the validity of immer- 
 sion, a word of explanation seems to be necessary. We 
 may admit that none who practice affusion are so bigoted 
 as to consider those unbaptized who have been immersed 
 for baptism. Yet there are many of them, who, if they 
 had not been baptized, could not with a clear conscience 
 submit to immersion — many who cannot conscientiously 
 immerse a candidate for baptism — and exceedingly few 
 among them, who do not consider that baptism by immer- 
 
 * Alluding to the Church of Rome, Tertullian says, (De Prcesci-iptione 
 Jfrvreticorum, c. xxxvi.) — "aqua signat, Saneto Spiritu vestit, eucha- 
 ristia paacit : she seals with water, clothes with the Holy Spirit, feeds 
 with the eueharist." The collocation of terms implies the application 
 of the element in each case to the subject — as by pouring in baptism. 
 
T20 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 sion is valid in spite of the plunging, and not in conse- 
 quence of *t. They consider it a mangliDg of the Saviour's 
 ordinance, and they never witness an immersion without 
 feelings of revulsion and sorrow. All such persons con- 
 sider it too great a stretch of charity to abandon what they 
 believe to be the more excellent way, at the demand of 
 an insatiate bigotry, which grows by that on which it 
 feeds. To yield to such claims they consider nothing 
 better than a mawkish and factitious liberality, as to 
 assert them is nothing better than arrogance or igno- 
 rance, or both united. 
 
 If the argument, whose fallacy we are exposing, will 
 subserve the cause of the immersionist, the principle 
 which it involves will hold good for the papist, nay, even 
 for the Mohammedan and pagan too. The believer in 
 revealed religion does not doubt that a pagan who im- 
 proves the light given him may be saved. But how many 
 pagans are there who do not believe that any can be 
 saved who are not of their religion. Is it therefore safer 
 for us to imitate Julian the Apostate, and become pagans 
 than to remain Christians ? The disciples of Christ may 
 believe that a Mohammedan may be saved, in spite of the 
 base-born religion in which he has been educated, if he 
 lives up to the light he has received. But no sincere and 
 faithful follower of the Arabian impostor believes that 
 a Christian dog can enter paradise. Shall we therefore 
 tread in the footsteps of Bonaparte and Bern — though 
 from other motives — turn Mussulmen, and set out with 
 staff and scolloped shell on a pilgrimage to Mecca ? Al- 
 though the papist has had the Decalogue materially 
 abridged and the Creed indefinitely extended, by the 
 ghostly keepers of his conscience, the protestant, whose 
 religion is contained in the Bible alone, believes that the 
 papist may be saved, if he lives up to the light he has re- 
 ceived. But the papist affirms, in the creed of Pope Pius, 
 that out of his faith there is no salvation. Is it therefore 
 safer for us to abandon our scriptural and rational system 
 of faith and worship to embrace the Boniish system, with 
 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 121 
 
 nil its Impious and superstitious enlargements and mutila- 
 tions of the gospel of our salvation ?* 
 
 This argument is a monstrous sophism. It inv(sts 
 bigotry with the prerogatives of infallible authority, and 
 demands sacrifices to be made at the shrine of error which 
 ought to be made only at that of truth. And it must be 
 remembered that that is truth to a man which, after an 
 honest and thorough investigation, he believes to be truth. 
 And no amount of charity which he may have, or which 
 he may think God himself has, for the errors of others, 
 will justify him in giving them his sanction. Treason 
 against the truth is a capital offense. 
 
 The greatest justifiable concession to the prejudices of 
 other men of which we have any account, is the case of 
 the circumcision of Timothy by St. Paul, " because of the 
 Jews which were in those quarters, for they knew all, that 
 his father was a Greek." Acts xvi. 1-3. The act, in 
 itself indifferent, was not made unlawful by any improper 
 motive, but the motive being good, the act was considered 
 expedient and was performed accordingly. We presume 
 it was proper, as it was performed by St. Paul, and the 
 record gives no hint of disapproval by the Holy Ghost. 
 But when circumstances were changed, and such an act 
 would be construed into a leaning towards the abrogated 
 system of Judaism, the apostle pursued the opposite 
 course. Writing to the Galatians, he says : " But neither 
 Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to 
 bo circumcised ; and that because of false brethren, un- 
 awares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our 
 liberty which w T e have in Christ Jesus, that they might 
 bring us into bondage : to whom we gave place by sub- 
 
 * Bishop Taylor handles this Donatist and Popish reasoning without 
 gloves : — '• Consider that of this argument, if it shall be accepted, any 
 bold heretic can make use, against any modest Christian of a true per- 
 suasion. For, if he can but outface the modesty of the good man, and 
 tell him he shall lie damned; unless that modest man say as much of 
 bim, \ou see impudence shall get the better of the day. But it is thus 
 in every error." See his "Letter to a gentleman sedueed to the Church 
 of Home," folio edition, 1673, page 61 — where the principle opposed 
 is subjected to the appropriate test, the argumentum ad absurdum. 
 11 
 
122 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 jection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel 
 might continue with you." Gal. ii. 3-5. And to these 
 same Galatians he does not scruple to address himself in 
 this strong language : " Behold, I Paul say unto you, that 
 if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For 
 I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he 
 is a debtor to do the whole law, Christ is become of no ef- 
 fect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law : 
 ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait 
 for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus 
 Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncir- 
 cumcision ; but faith which worketh by love." " As many 
 as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain 
 you to be circumcised, only lest they should suffer perse- 
 cution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves 
 who are circumcised keep the law, but desire to have you 
 circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh." Gal. v. 
 2-G j vi. 12, 13. The noble-minded apostle would make any 
 sacrifices, any concessions, in condescension to the weak- 
 nesses and prejudices of men, provided there was no 
 compromise of principle and conscience. " For though," 
 he says, " I be free from all men, yet have I made my- 
 self servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And 
 unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the 
 Jews : to them that are under the law, as under the law, 
 that I might gain them that are under the law : to them 
 that are without law, as without law, that I might gain 
 them that are without law. To the weak became as I as 
 weak, that I might gain the weak : I am made all things 
 to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1 Cor. 
 ix. 19-22. But with all his liberality, all his condescension, 
 he would make no concession, no sacrifice, which would 
 be likely to be construed into the dereliction of any 
 vital point in the gospel system. 
 
 On the same general ground as that occupied by the 
 apostle, we are disposed to make any concession to the 
 immersionists which will not involve a surrender of prin- 
 ciple, or a sanction of error. We are ready to recognize 
 their mode of performing baptism as valid, though a de- 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 123 
 
 parture from the primitive mode, and a clumsy way of 
 performing an otherwise simple, beautiful, and impressive 
 ordinance. We may indeed, in special cases and in con- 
 descension to weak consciences, administer the ordinance 
 by plunging — though, in such cases, some think, affusion 
 ought not to be omitted, else there might be need for 
 Hezekiah's prayer: "The good Lord pardon every one 
 that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of 
 his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the 
 purification of the sanctuary." 
 
 In all such concessions, if there be an error, it leans on 
 the side of charity — such charity as prompted the precept : 
 " Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received 
 us to the glory of God." Rom. xv. 7. But if the conces- 
 sion be demanded by bigotry — if it cannot be made with- 
 out sanctioning an unscriptural and arrogant exclusiveness, 
 or without a sacrilegious repetition of the sacred ordi- 
 nance — we are not to give place by subjection to such 
 demands, "no, not for an hour." 
 
 This boasted argumentum ex concesso, like the appeals 
 to history, analogy, topography, and philology, fails to give 
 any support to the schismaticai assumptions in question. 
 Indeed, the objections we have examined, instead of weak- 
 ening, corroborate the pregnant presumptions, infallible 
 proofs, and palpable demonstrations which establish the 
 claims of that cause we have been called upon to defend. 
 And we are bold to say, that it has nothing to fear from 
 the labor, learning, sophistry, or ignorance of its im- 
 pugners, so far as its perpetuation and ultimate triumph 
 are concerned, as nothing can prove that false which is 
 demonstrably true. 
 
124 USE OF' BAP I 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 SECTION I. — BAPTISM IS NOT REGENERATION, NOR ITS 
 NECESSARY CONDITION OR INSTRUMENT. 
 
 The design of baptism has been strangely undervalued 
 and as strangely overrated. In the one case a pseudo 
 rationalism has produced the result — in the other, a fell 
 superstition. 
 
 1. As baptism is set forth in Scripture as the symbol 
 of regeneration, and as it is easy and natural to fall into 
 a tropical style of speech — metouomies being common 
 among all people — it is not to be wondered at that baptism 
 waa very early called by the names of that which it sym- 
 bolizes. Unfortunately, however, the fathers, who allowed 
 themselves this liberty of expression, were not careful to 
 guard their language from misapprehension and abuse. 
 The consequence was, the most preposterous and extrava- 
 gant notions were soon attached to this ordinance — as if it 
 really were the remission of sins, or regeneration, ins 
 of the washing that represents it; or as if there can be no 
 regeneration without or before baptism, and no bapl 
 without regeneration. 
 
 It is but too evident that this doctrine of baptismal re- 
 generation, as it is styled, soon became the popular belief 
 of the patristic church. And as r sary 
 
 to salvation so they considered baptism necessary, rv i 
 infants themselves. But as there is something revolting 
 and horrible in the damnation of infants, they invented 
 a Umbus infantum to which those infants who die unbap- 
 tized are consigned. In this pla.ee they are doomed to 
 undergo the poena damni, the pain of loss, though not 
 the poena sensus, the punishment of positive suffering — the 
 torment endured by those who are sentenced to the dam- 
 
BAPTISM NOT REGENERATION. 125 
 
 nation of hell — albeit Augustin, Fulgentius, and Gregory, 
 duri infantum patres — affirmed that unbaptized infants 
 experience the latter. It is enough to say of this patristic 
 purgatory, or hell, that it is worthy of the superstition 
 which caused its creation. 
 
 There are various forms in which the dogma of baptis- 
 mal regeneration, so-called, is held. 
 
 Sometimes the advocates of the doctrine speak of bap- 
 tism as regeneration — sometimes as the instrument of re- 
 generation — and sometimes as the condition of regenera- 
 tion : sometimes as taking effect ex opere operato, by its 
 own inherent virtue — sometimes ex opere operands, in 
 view of the faith and prayers of the parties concerned, 
 whether subjects or sponsors — and sometimes in conse- 
 quence of eternal election. And what is more remarkable, 
 one and the same author will affirm several or all of these 
 propositions, as if they were any more consistent with one 
 another than they are with the teachings of reason and 
 Scripture, which are opposed to them all. 
 
 As has been already remarked, the unscriptural and 
 irrational dogma originated with the fathers, to whose 
 paternity we may trace nearly all the errors that have 
 cursed the church. From designating baptism by the 
 grace which it symbolizes, they soon began to ascribe the 
 grace to the ordinance. 
 
 Thus Tertullian : " Water produced the first living 
 things, that we might not wonder that in baptism the wa- 
 ter should bring forth new creatures." 
 
 To the same effect is Basil : " The Holy Ghost moved 
 upon the waters of creation, because he intended to move 
 upon the waters in the renovation of man." Speaking 
 of God's subduing our iniquities and casting our sins into 
 the depths of the sea, he says, " Hoc est in mare baptismi" 
 — " that is, into the sea of baptism." 
 
 Origen says: "Because by the sacrament of baptism 
 the pollutions of our birth are laid aside, therefore even 
 infants are baptized." 
 
 Ambrose refers the washing of our robes in the blood 
 of the Lamb to baptismal purification. 
 
126 CSE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Augustiu says: " As none are to be prohibited baptism, 
 so there are none who do not die to bid in baptism." 
 
 Indeed, there is a well-nigh una of the 
 
 fathers on this subject. Sometimes they verge to the 
 borders of truth, and then again they diverge to the ex- 
 treme of error, scarcely differing from the doctrine of 
 Home, as systematized and stereotyped by the Councils 
 of Florence and Trent. 
 
 The Council of Florence says : " Holy baptism has the 
 first place among all the sacraments, because it is the door 
 of spiritual life, for by it we are made members of Christ 
 and of the body of the church. And since by the first 
 man death has entered into the world, unless we are born 
 again of water and the Holy Spi] unot, (as says 
 
 the truth,) enter into the kingdom of heaven. The effect 
 of this sacrament is the remission of all guilt, original and 
 actual — also of all punishments ow< I for any guilt. .More- 
 over, to the baptized there is no satisfaction enjoined for 
 past sins; but those who die before they commit any bib 
 arrive at once to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of 
 God." 
 
 The Council of Trent, session v., canon iv., 
 "Whoever shall deny that newly-born infants, even 
 though sprung from baptized parents, ought to be baptized ; 
 or shall say that, though they be baptized fur the remis- 
 sion of sins, yet they derive not from Adam that original 
 guilt which must be expiated in the laver of regeneration 
 — in order to secure eternal life — let him be accursed." 
 And in canon v. : " Whoever shall deny that the guilt 
 of original sin is remitted by the grace of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, be.-towed in baptism j or shall affirm that that 
 wherein sin truly and properly consists is not entirely 
 rooted up, but is only cut down and not imputed — let him 
 be accursed." In session vii., canon v., it declares : 
 " Whoever shall affirm that baptism is indifferent, that is, 
 not necessary to salvation, let him be a 
 
 In its Catechism, the Council : -'The 
 
 law of baptism extends to all, they 
 
 be regenerated through the grace of baptism, be their pa- 
 
BAPTISM NOT REGENERATION. 127 
 
 rents Christians -or infidels, they are born to eternal misery 
 and everlasting destruction. If then through the trans- 
 gression of Adam, children inherit the stain of primeval 
 guilt, is there not still stronger reason to conclude that 
 the efficacious merits of Christ the Lord must impart to 
 them that justice and those graces which will give them 
 a title to reign in eternal life. This happy consummation 
 baptism alone can accomplish. — The faithful are earnestly 
 to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought 
 to the church as soon as it can be done with safety, to 
 receive solemn baptism: infants unless baptized cannot 
 enter heaven, and hence we may well conceive how deep 
 the enormity of their guilt, who through negligence sailer 
 them to remain without the grace of the sacrament longer 
 than necessity may require, particularly at an age so 
 tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death. — 
 The salutary waters of baptism not only wash away all the 
 stains of past sins, but also enrich the soul with divine 
 grace, which enables the Christian to avoid sin for the 
 future, and preserve the invaluable treasures of righteous- 
 ness and innocence. " 
 
 Some Romish writers, indeed, endeavor to evade the 
 Tridentine canons and to modify the teachings of the Cate- 
 chism ; but as all of them are sworn to abide by the 
 infallible decision of the holy Council, and are anathema- 
 tized if they do not, they generally maintain the doctrine 
 of the church on the efficacy and necessity of baptism, 
 however repulsive to reason and charity. 
 
 " Confirmation," says the famous Gerson, " is not ne- 
 cessary as baptism and repentance, for without these 
 salvation cannot be had." 
 
 Bishop England, in his " Catechism of the Roman 
 Catholic Faith, published for the use of his flock," in 
 Charleston, S. C., feeds them with this instruction, 
 p. 53 :— 
 
 " What is baptism ? 
 
 u A sacrament which cleanses from original sin, makes 
 us Christians and children of God, and heirs to the king- 
 dom of heaven. 
 
128 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 u Does baptism also remit the actual sins committed be- 
 fore it ? 
 
 " Yes : and all the punishment due to them. 
 
 " Is baptism necessary to salvation ? 
 
 " Yes ; without it we cannot enter the kingdom of 
 God. John iii. 5." 
 
 The Reformers varied very little from the teaching of 
 Rome on this subject. In the mixed commission at the 
 Diet of Augsburg, consisting of two princes, two lawyers, 
 and three divines on the Romish and the same on the 
 Protestant side — Dr. Eck being one of the divines of the 
 former communion and Melancthon one of the Reformed 
 — they came to an agreement on the subject of Original 
 Sin — the Protestants admitting that the guilt of it is 
 taken away by baptism, and the Papists conceding that 
 baptism docs not wash away concupiscence. 
 
 Luther maintained the regenerating virtue of the ordi- 
 nance, and Melancthon incorporated the dogma into the 
 Augsburg Confession, which teaches that " natural de- 
 pravity is really sin, and still condemned, and causes 
 eternal death to those who are not born again by baptism 
 and the Holy Spirit,"* 
 
 The Helvetic Confession says : " Baptism by the Lord's 
 institution is the law of regeneration. " 
 
 Calvin himself, writing to Melancthon, says : " We 
 agree that sacraments are not empty figures, but do truly 
 supply whatever they represent — that the efficacy of the 
 Spirit is present in baptism to cleanse and regenerate us." 
 It seems, however, that baptism is but an empty figure to 
 reprobate infants, for Calvin elsewhere affirms : " We 
 diligently teach that God doth not put forth his power 
 without distinction to all who receive the sacraments, but 
 only to the elect. "f 
 
 * Jeremy Taylor, in Unnm Xeccssarium, chap, vii., sec. 4, says: 
 u Gregorius Ariminensis, Driedo, Luther, Melancthon, and Tilmanus 
 Heshusius, are fallen into the worst of St. Augustin's opinion, and 
 sentence poor infants to the flames of hell for original sin if they die 
 before baptism." 
 
 f It is proper to state that baptismal regeneration is repudiated by 
 
BAPTISM NOT REGENERATION. 129 
 
 Cranmer was a firm, though inconsistent, believer in 
 baptismal regeneration. He teaches in his Catechism 
 that " the Holy Ghost moves men's hearts to faith and 
 calls them to baptism, and then by faith and baptism he 
 works so, that he makes us new men again." And in 
 another place : " Whosoever will be spiritually regene- 
 rated in Christ, he must be baptized." 
 
 He, with the other bishops of the Church of England 
 in the days of Henry VIII., signed the following article : 
 " Of Baptism : The people must be instructed that it is a 
 sacrament instituted by Christ for the remission of sins, 
 without which none could attain everlasting life ; and that 
 not only those of full age, but infants, may and must be 
 baptized for the pardon of original sin and obtaining the 
 gift of the Holy Ghost, by which they become the sons of 
 God." 
 
 In the "Articles about Religion, set out by the Con- 
 vention, and published by the King's authority," signed 
 by T. Cromwell, the Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, etc., 
 we have the following : — 
 
 " Item : That the promise of grace and everlasting life, 
 which promise is adjoined unto the Sacrament of Bap- 
 tism, pertaineth not only unto such as have the use of 
 reason, but also to infants, innocents, and children ; and 
 they ought therefore and must needs be baptized; and 
 that by the Sacrament of Baptism they do also obtain 
 remission of their sins, the grace and favor of God, and be 
 made thereby the very sons and children of God, inso- 
 much as infants and children dying in their infancy shall 
 undoubtedly be saved thereby, or else not. 
 
 " Item : That infants must needs be christened be- 
 cause they be born in original sin, which sin must needs 
 be remitted, which cannot be done but by the Sacrament 
 of Baptism, whereby they receive the Holy Ghost which 
 exerciseth his grace and efficacy in them and cleanseth 
 
 the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the United States ; as also, for 
 the most part, by the various Calvinistic Churches. 
 
130 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 and purifietn them from sin by his most secret virtue and 
 operation." 
 
 Although the Reformers advanced doctrines opposed to 
 the foregoing, both at that time and afterward, yet this 
 does not prove any thing but their inconsistency ; nor can 
 it be shown that they ever repudiated those views at any 
 time. They are manifestly incorporated into the Prayer 
 Book, which gravely tells us : " It is certain by God's 
 word, that children which are baptized, dying before they 
 commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." But what 
 if they are not baptized ? Those who compiled th# li- 
 turgy say they are not saved. 
 
 Church-of-England men sometimes reproach Presbyte- 
 rians for teaching that some infants are reprobate, and 
 accordingly damned, because the Confession says, " Elect 
 infants are saved," unmindful of the glass-house proverb, 
 which neither prelates nor presbyters ought to forget. 
 
 Nothing, indeed, is clearer than that baptismal regene- 
 r.V'on is the doctrine of the Church of England. It seems 
 preposterous to deny this, as it seems superfluous to prove 
 it. Nevertheless, as there are some that do the former, 
 it may not be amiss for us to do the latter. We have, in 
 truth, already done this ; for the articles set forth by au- 
 thority, already cited, have never been revoked. They 
 are still in force — they are the teaching of the Church. 
 The Catechism inculcates it explicitly — e. g. : 
 
 " What is your name? 
 
 " N. or M. 
 
 " Who gave you this name ? 
 
 "My godfathers and godmothers in my baptism, 
 wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of 
 God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven." 
 
 It is idle to say this is to be understood in a ceremonial, 
 ecclesiastical sense. The framers of the Catechism, as we 
 have seen, did not so understand it ; nor is the language, 
 except by the most violent distortion, susceptible of any 
 such interpretation. 
 
 Besides, the Office of Baptism fixes the meaning of the 
 terms here employed. It instructs the priest to pray that 
 
BAPTISM NOT REGENERATION. 131 
 
 the child coming to holy baptism may receive remission 
 of sins by spiritual regeneration : after baptizing the 
 child to say, " Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that 
 this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of 
 Christ's church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God 
 for these benefits $" and then, as the mouth of the con- 
 gregation, to offer thanks for the same : " We yield thee 
 hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased 
 thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit, to 
 receive him for thine own child by adoption, and to in- 
 corporate him into thy holy church. " 
 
 And then when the child comes up for confirmation, 
 the bishop endorses the whole in the prayer : " 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, 
 strengthen them, we beseech thee, Lord, with the Holy 
 Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in them thy mani- 
 fold gifts of grace." 
 
 The Catechism, moreover, calls baptism " a sacrament," 
 which it defines, " an outward and visible sign of an in- 
 ward and invisible grace, given unto us, ordained by 
 Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, 
 and a pledge to assure us thereof." But then, with 
 strange inconsistency, it makes the sign only one part 
 of the sacrament, and the thing signified another part — 
 thus a sacrament is a sign of a part of a sacrament! By 
 this arrangement, however, it secures the dogma of bap- 
 tismal regeneration, for it makes the inward and invisible 
 grace, not merely the thing signified by the sacrament, but 
 a part of the sacrament itself. This is its language : — 
 
 " How many parts are there in a sacrament ? 
 
 "Two : the outward visible sign, and the inward 
 spiritual grace. 
 
 "What is the outward visible sign, or form in bap- 
 tism ? 
 
 " Water, wherein the person is baptized, in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 " What is the inward and spiritual grace ? 
 
132 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 " A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness; 
 for being by nature born in sin, and the children of 
 wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace." 
 
 It is difficult to imagine how such language can be in- 
 terpreted in any other sense than one which involves bap- 
 tismal regeneration. There are passages in the Articles 
 and Liturgy inconsistent with this dogma; but what of 
 that? Who ever dreamed of finding consistency in those 
 venerable documents ? 
 
 The old divines of the English Church, following in 
 the wake of the fathers of the Information, inculcate the 
 doctrine for the most part, without any reserve, though 
 not without the variations which we have already specified. 
 
 Thus the learned Bishop Andrews, in his 11th ser- 
 mon, on the Resurrection of Christ, preached before King 
 James I. : " A child is brought into the world, but it is 
 carried but again to the church, there to be born and 
 brought forth anew, by the sacrament of regeneration. " 
 " And such is the water of our regeneration, not from the 
 brooks of Teman, that in summer will be dry, but the 
 water of Jordan, a running river. There Christ was him- 
 self baptized : there he began and laid the sacrament of 
 our new birth, to show what the nature of the hope is, it 
 yields, even viva with life in it." What a strange 
 conceit ! 
 
 In his 5th Whitsunday sermon, he says: "A special 
 prerogative hath the Holy Ghost in our baptism above 
 the other two Persons. That layer is his layer properly, 
 where we are not only to be baptized into him, as into 
 the other two, but also even to be baptized with him : 
 which is proper to him alone. For besides the water, we 
 are there to be born anew of the Holy Ghost also, else is 
 there no entering for us into the kingdom of God." 
 Adopting the illustration, so common among the Fathers, 
 from whom we suppose he took it, he says : " The same 
 way the world was made in the beginning, by the Spirit 
 moving upon the wafers of the deep, the very same way 
 was the world new made — the Christian worid or church 
 — by the same Spirit moving on the waters of baptism." 
 
BAPTISM NOT REGENERATION. 133 
 
 Dr. Donne is equally explicit and more prolific on the 
 subject. Thus in his 29th sermon, he says : " We know 
 no ordinary means of any saving grace for a child, but 
 baptism, neither are we to doubt of the fullness of salva- 
 tion in them that have received it." " I will sprinkle clean 
 water upon you, and you shall be clean. This is his way 
 and this is his measure — he sprinkles enough at first to 
 make us clean : even the sprinkling of baptism cleanses 
 us from original sin." This, however, is not to be under- 
 stood in an absolute sense, but according to the teaching 
 of Home. 
 
 Thus in his 57th sermon, he enlarges: "If I consider 
 myself to be as well as I was at my baptism, when I 
 brought no actual sin, and had the hand of Christ to wash 
 away the foulness of original sin, can I pray for a better 
 state than that ? Even in that there was a cloud too, and 
 a cloud that hath thunder and lightning in it, that fames 
 pcecati, that fuel and those embers of sin, that are but 
 raked up, and not trod out, and do break forth upon every 
 temptation that is presented, and if they be not effectually 
 opposed, shall aggravate my condemnation, more than if 
 I had never been baptized. " 
 
 This is somewhat more clearly stated in his Devotions — 
 Expostulation xxii. : "Though we cannot assign the place 
 of original sin, nor the nature of it so exactly, as of ac- 
 tual, or by any diligence divest it, yet having washed it in 
 the water of thy baptism, we have not only so cleansed it, 
 that we may the better look upon it and discern it, but so 
 weakened it, that howsoever it may retain the former na- 
 ture, it doth not retain the former force, and though it 
 may have the same name, it hath not the same venom. " 
 Nice distinctions ! Rare divinity ! 
 
 In his 85th sermon, " preached at a Christening," he 
 says : " Whom he chooseth for his marriage-day, that is, 
 for that church which he will settle upon himself in hea- 
 ven, we know not ; but we know that he hath not promised 
 to take any into that glory, but those upon whom he hath 
 first shed these fainter beams of glory and sanctification, 
 exhibited in this sacrament; neither hath he threatened 
 
 12 
 
134 USE OP BAPTISM. 
 
 to exclude any but for sin after. And therefore, when 
 this blessed child, derived from faithful parents, and pre- 
 sented by sureties within the obedience of the church, 
 shall have been so cleansed by the washing of water, 
 through the word, it is presently sealed to the possession 
 of that part of Christ's purchase, for which he gave him- 
 self, (which are the means of preparing his church in this 
 life,) with a faithful assurance, I may say of it, and to it, 
 Jam mundus es, Now you are clean, through the word 
 which Christ hath spoken unto you : the seal of the pro- 
 mises of his gospel hath sanctified and cleansed you." 
 
 In his 88th Sermon, he says, "We must be born again : 
 we must — there is a necessity of baptism : as we are the 
 children of Christian parents, we havens ad rem, a right 
 to the covenant, we may claim baptism, the church can- 
 not deny it us ; and as we are baptized in the Christian 
 church, we have jus in re, a right in the covenant, and 
 all the benefits thereof, all the promises of the gospel : we 
 are sure that we are conceived in sin, and sure that we are 
 born children of wrath, but not sure that we are cleansed, 
 or reconciled to God, by any other means than that which 
 he hath ordained, baptism. The Spirit of God moved 
 first upon the water ; and the spirit of life grew first in 
 the water : primus liquor quod viveret edidet : the first 
 living creatures in the first creation, were in the waters; 
 and the first breath of spiritual life, came to us from the 
 water of baptism. In the temple there was mare seneum, 
 a brazen sea : in the church there is mare aureum, a 
 golden sea, which is baptisterium, the font, in which we 
 discharge ourselves of all our first uncleanness, of all the 
 guiltiness of original sin." 
 
 The doctrine thus frequently presented and variously 
 illustrated by this " old man eloquent" is the current 
 teaching of the English divines. 
 
 The following pregnant passage is from the Chrysostom 
 of the Anglican church. In his " Liberty of Prophesy- 
 ing," sec. xviii., he thus presents the opus operation : — 
 
 " Possibly the invitation which Christ made to all to 
 come to him, all them that are heavy laden, did, in ita 
 
BAPTISM NOT REGENERATION. 135 
 
 proportion, concern infants as much as others, if they be 
 guilty of original sin, and if that sin be a burden, and 
 presses them to spiritual danger or inconvenience. And 
 if they be not, yet Christ, who was, as Tertullian's phrase 
 is, nulUus poenitcntix debitor, guilty of no sin, obliged to no 
 repentance, needing no purification and no pardon, was 
 baptized by St. John's baptism, which was the baptism 
 of repentance. 
 
 " And it is all the reason of the world, since the grace 
 of Christ is as large as the prevarication of Adam, all 
 they who are made guilty by the first Adam should be 
 cleansed by the second. But as they are guilty by 
 another man's act, so they should be brought to the font 
 to be purified by others, there being the same proportion 
 of reason, that by others' acts they should be relieved who 
 were in danger of perishing by the act of others. 
 
 " And, therefore, St. Austin argues excellently to this 
 purpose : ' Their mother, the church, furnishes them with 
 the feet of others that they may come — with the heart of 
 others that they may believe — with the tongue of others 
 that they may make a confession : in order that, as they 
 are diseased in consequence of another's sin, so being 
 made whole by another's confession they may be saved.' 
 
 " And Justin Martyr : ' The children of pious parents 
 are accounted worthy of baptism, through the faith of 
 those who bring them to be baptized.'* 
 
 But whether they have original sin or no, yet take 
 them in puris naturalibus, they cannot go to God, or at- 
 tain to eternity, to which they were intended in their first 
 being and creation ; and, therefore, much less since their 
 naturals are impaired by the curse on human nature pro- 
 cured by Adam's prevarication. And if a natural agent 
 cannot, in puris naturalibus, attain to heaven, which is a 
 supernatural end, much less when it is laden with acci- 
 dental and grievous impediments. 
 
 * The learned bishop gives the original text of Augustin (Ser. x. de 
 Verb. Apost.) and of the work attributed to Justin, Resp. ad Ortho- 
 doxo8. We give a literal translation. 
 
136 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 il Now then, since the only way revealed to us of acquir- 
 ing heaven is by Jesus Christ, and the first inlet into 
 Christianity and access to him is by baptism, as appears 
 by the perpetual analogy of the New Testament, either 
 infants are not persons capable of that end which is the 
 perfection of human nature, and to which the soul of 
 man, in its being made immortal, was essentially designed, 
 and so are miserable and deficient from the very end of 
 humanity, if they die before the use of reason ; or else 
 they must be brought to Christ by the church doors, that 
 is by the font and waters of baptism. 
 
 " And in reason it seems more pregnant and plausible, 
 that infants rather than men of understanding should be 
 baptized. For since the efficacy of the sacraments tip* in!* 
 upon divine institution and immediat ■■'< ■, a id 
 
 that they produce their effects independently upon man, in 
 them tliat do not hinder their operation — since infants can- 
 not by any acts of their own promote the hope of their 
 own salvation which men of reason and choice may by 
 acts of virtue and election — it is more agreeable to the 
 goodness of God, the honor and excellency of the sacra- 
 ment, and the necessity of its institution, that it should in 
 infanta supply the want of human acts and free obedi- 
 ence : which the very thing itself seems to say it does, 
 because its effect is from God, and requires nothing on 
 man's part but that its efficacy be not hindered. And 
 then in infants the disposition is equal, and the necessity 
 more : they cannot ponere obicem, and 6y the same rea- 
 son cannot do other acts, which, without the sacrament, 
 do advantages* towards our hopes of heaven ; and there- 
 fore have more need to be supplied by an act and an in- 
 stitution divine and supernatural. 
 
 u And this is not only necessary in respect of the condi- 
 tion of infants' incapacity to do acts of grace, but also in 
 obedience to divine precept. For Christ made a law, 
 whose sanction is with an exclusive negative to them that 
 
 * We quote " rbatim from Royston's folio edition of Taylors Works, 
 p. 1011: London; 1674. 
 
BAPTISM NOT REGENERATION. 137 
 
 are not baptized : Unless a man be born of water and of 
 the Spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven/ If 
 then infants have a capacity of being co-heirs with Christ 
 in the kingdom of his Father, as Christ affirms they have, 
 by saying, ' For of such is the kingdom of heaven/ then 
 there is a necessity that they should be brought to baptism, 
 there being an absolute exclusion of all persons unbaptized 
 and all persons not spiritual from the kingdom of heaven. 
 But, indeed, it is a destruction of all the hopes and happi- 
 ness of infants, a denying to them an exemption from the 
 final condition of beasts and inscctils, or else a designing of 
 them to a worse misery, to say that Grod hath not appoint- 
 ed some external or internal means of bringing them to an 
 eternal happiness. Internal they have none ; for grace 
 being an improvement and heightening the faculties of 
 nature, in order to a heightened and supernatural end, grace 
 hath no influence or efficacy upon their faculties, who can 
 do no natural acts of understanding ; and. if there be no ex- 
 tcrnal means, then they are destitute of all hopes and pos- 
 sibilities of salvation." 
 
 We have made this large extract from the learned pre- 
 late, partly to prevent the charge of garbling his writings 
 — partly to exhibit one of the rarest curiosities of theo- 
 logical literature — and partly to show the identity of An- 
 glican and Romish teaching on the subject of baptismal 
 regeneration. We shall not stop to expose his sophistries 
 and rebut his absurd reasonings — they will be sufficiently 
 answered when we come to notice the equally erroneous 
 but more "judicious Hooker," who has expended no 
 little strength in support of the dogma in question. 
 
 In other parts of his writings, Taylor, indeed, has doubt- 
 ingly refuted himself. Thus in Unum Necessarium, c. vii. 
 s. 4., he says : " If the unavoidable want of baptism should 
 damn infants for the fault which was also unavoidable, I 
 do not understand how it can in any sense be true that 
 Christ died for all, if at least the children of Christian 
 parents shall not find the benefit of Christ's death, because 
 that without the fault of any man they want the cere- 
 mony. 
 
138 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 u Upon this account some good men observing the great 
 sadness and the injustice of such an accident are willing 
 upon auy terms to admit infants to heaven, even without 
 baptism, if any one of their relatives desire it for them, or 
 if the church desires it, which in eifect admits all Christian 
 infants to heaven : of this opinion were Gerson, Biel, Caje- 
 tan, and some others. " 
 
 " If God will not give them heaven by Christ, he will 
 not throw them into hell by Adam : if his goodness will 
 not do the first, his goodness and his justice will not suffer 
 him to do the second ; and therefore I consent to antiquity 
 and the schoolmen's opinion thus far, that the destruction 
 or loss of God's sight is the effect of original sin, that is, 
 by Adam's sin we were left so as that we cannot by it go 
 to heaven. 
 
 " But here I differ : Whereas they say this may be a 
 fiual event, I find no warrant for that, and think it only 
 to be an intermediate event : that is though, Adam's sin 
 left us there, yet God did not leave us there, but instantly 
 gave us Christ as a remedy ; and now what in particular 
 shall be the state of unbnptized iufants, so dying, I do not 
 profess to know or teach, because God hath kept it a se- 
 cret : I only know that he is a gracious Father, and from 
 his goodness nothing but goodness is to be expected ; and 
 that is, since neither Scripture, nor any Father till about 
 St. Augustine's time did teach the poor babes could die, 
 not only once for Adam's sin, but twice and for ever, I 
 can never think that I do my duty to God, if I think or 
 speak any thing of him that seems so unjust, or so much 
 against his goodness. 
 
 " And therefore although by baptism, or by the ordi- 
 nary ministry, infants are new born, and rescued from the 
 state of Adam's accouut, which melon ymu ■albj may be 
 called a remitting of original sin, that is, a receiving them 
 from the punishment of Adam's sin, or the state of evil, 
 whither in him they are devolved ; yet baptism does but 
 consider that grace which God gives in Jesus Christ, and 
 he gives it more ways than one, to them that desire bap- 
 tism, to them that die for Christianity — and the church 
 
BAPTISM NOT REGENERATION. 1^9 
 
 even in Origen's- time, and before that, did account the 
 babes that died in Bethlehem by the sword of Herod to 
 be saints — and I do not doubt but he gives it many ways 
 that we know not of." 
 
 This is boxing the theological compass, with a witness : 
 he adjudges the "poor babes" to hell — to limbus — to 
 heaven ; and yet does not profess to know what will be- 
 come of them, because God hath kept it a secret ! Jeremy 
 Taylor may be considered the Shakspeare of English di- 
 vines, but certainly not the Aristotle. 
 
 Bp. Burnet has incorporated the doctrino of baptismal 
 regeneration into his standard work on the thirty-nine ar- 
 ticles, in this modified form : " There is no reason to think 
 that baptism takes away all the branches and effects of 
 original sin : it is enough if we are delivered from the 
 wrath of God, and brought into a state of favor and ac- 
 ceptation. " 
 
 Even the evangelical and incomparable Pearson, in his 
 immortal work on the Creed, (Art. x.) says : " It is the 
 most general and irrefragable assertion of all, to whom we 
 have reason to give credit, that all sins whatsoever any 
 person is guilty of, are remitted in the baptism of the 
 same person. 
 
 " It is certain that forgiveness of sins was promised to all 
 who were baptized in the name of Christ ) and it cannot 
 be doubted but all persons who did perform all things ne- 
 cessary to the receiving the ordinance of baptism, did also 
 receive the benefit of that ordinance, which is remission 
 of sins. ' John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach 
 the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.' And 
 St. Peter made this the exhortation of his first sermon, 
 1 Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of 
 Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.' 
 
 " In vain doth doubting and fluctuating Socinus endeavor 
 to evacuate the evidence of this Scripture, attributing the 
 remission either to repentance without consideration of 
 baptism, or else to the public profession of faith made in 
 baptism ; or if any thing must be attributed to baptism 
 itself, it must be nothing but a declaration of such rerais- 
 
140 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 sion. For how will these shifts agree with that which 
 Ananias said unto Saul, without any mention either of 
 repentance or confession, ' Arise, and be baptized, and 
 wash away thy sins*?' and that which St. Paul, who was 
 so baptized, hath taught us concerning the church, that 
 Christ doth * sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of 
 water V 
 
 " It is therefore sufficiently certain that baptism as it 
 was instituted by Christ after the preadministration of 
 St. John, wheresoever it was received with all qualifica- 
 tions necessary in the person accepting and conferred with 
 all things necessary to be performed by the person admin- 
 istering, was most infallibly efficacious, as to this parti- 
 cular, that is, to the remission of all sins committed 
 before the administration of this sacrament." 
 
 Whether or not those texts if quoted in full would sus- 
 tain the learned prelate's assumption, we shall not tarry 
 to inquire ; nor shall we do more than suggest that the 
 heretic and his orthodox opponent have for once ex- 
 changed their relative positions — certain it is, here is the 
 dogma of baptismal regeneration — contradicted, indeed, 
 by many pregnant portions, as well as by the general 
 tenor, of this excellent work. 
 
 In noticing the views of Cyprian and his associates in 
 reference to the remission of sins in baptism, the great 
 ecclesiastical archaeologist, Bingham, observes : " Here 
 we have both the practice of the church and the reason 
 of it together. Infants were baptized because they were 
 born in original sin, and needed baptism to cleanse them 
 from the guilt and pollution of it." 
 
 Bishop Horsley does not scruple to say (Sermon on 1 
 John v. 6) : " All the cleansings and expiations of the law, 
 by water and animal blood, were typical of the real cleans- 
 ing of the conscience by the water of baptism, and of the 
 expiation of real guilt by the blood of Christ shed upon 
 the cross, and virtually taken and received by the faithful 
 in the Lord's Supper." 
 
 This therefore is the teaching of the Church of Eng- 
 land — no matter what else it teaches — as Mr. Wesley re- 
 
BAPTISM NOT REGENERATION. 141 
 
 marts: "It is certain that our church supposes that all 
 who are baptized in their infancy are at the same time 
 born again ; and it is allowed that the whole Office for the 
 Baptism of infants proceeds upon this supposition." At 
 the time he penned this passage, as a dutiful son of the 
 Church of England, he ventured a lame apology for the 
 preposterous dogma, while in the same paragraph he 
 asserts that baptism and the new birth are not one and 
 the same thing, and that they do not constantly go to- 
 gether. Some years after, when called upon to prepare 
 a Service Book for the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 having renounced the dogma in question, he subjected the 
 Office of Baptism to a thorough elimination, expunging 
 all those passages in which it is asserted or implied. 
 
 It is almost beyond belief that worthy men, like Goode, 
 Gorham, and their sympathizers in the controversy on 
 this subject with the Bishop of Exeter and the Puseyites, 
 should assert that this is not an article of belief in their 
 venerable establishment. The attempt to prove so extrav- 
 agant an assertion seems preposterous. 
 
 Is not the Oxford teaching on the subject identical 
 with what we have cited so largely from the acknowledged 
 authorities of the Church of England ? — as for instance 
 in the Tracts for the Times (No. 67) : " In baptism two 
 very different causes are comBined — the one, God himself: 
 the other, a creature which he has thought fit to hallow 
 for this end. This regeneration is the being born of water 
 and of the Spirit, or by Glod's Spirit again moving on the 
 face of the waters, and sanctifying them for our cleans- 
 ing, and cleansing us thereby." On this platform the 
 Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century and the 
 Romanizing Puseyites of the nineteenth, with the great 
 body of Anglican divines who appear in the centuries be- 
 tween, meet together and embrace each other. 
 
 It is contended by some that the baptismal regenera- 
 tion inculcated by the Church of England is to be under- 
 stood in a relative, formal, ecclesiastical, external sense, 
 and not in that of a real, spiritual, moral, internal 
 change. 
 
142 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 But the Offices, as well as their authorized interpreters, 
 pointedly, and of set purpose, contradict this notion. The 
 change effected in baptism is expressly styled a spiritual 
 regeneration — a death unto sin and a new birth unto 
 righteousness — it ensures the remission of sins, original 
 and actual — and is explicitly attributed to the Holy Ghost 
 working with, by, and in, the water. 
 
 It is impertinent to say that this dogma is inconsistent 
 with the Protestant theology of the Continental Reformers, 
 with whom the framers of the English Articles and com- 
 pilers of the Baptismal Offices were in fraternal corres- 
 pondence and from whom they received counsel and 
 assistance in the execution of their task. 
 
 We have already seen that whatever other and antago- 
 nistic elements their theological systems embraced, the 
 Continental Reformers admitted baptismal regeneration — 
 even Calvin himself, although it is palpably incompatible 
 with his scheme of election and reprobation. Error is 
 always at odds with itself — truth alone is self-consistent. 
 The influence of the Continental Reformers may therefore 
 be adduced in opposition to the assumption it is cited to 
 sustain. 
 
 Certain apologists say that the passages in question in 
 the Offices of Baptism, etc., must be understood as the 
 language of charity. 
 
 That may do as a subterfuge in regard to the baptism 
 of adults. But it will not answer in the case of children. 
 They do not ask charity — there is no room for its exercise. 
 The matter is this : Of all the children that are baptized, 
 some are elect and have an interest in the covenant of 
 grace, and the rest are reprobate and have no part or lot 
 in the matter; but as we cannot tell which are elect and 
 which are reprobate, when an infant is baptized we are to 
 charitably hope that he is not a little reprobate, but one 
 of the elect ! 
 
 Or the Offices are to be interpreted hypothetical!!/. We 
 are to suppose that all are equally interested in the cove- 
 nant of grace — all alike entitled to its privileges — which 
 are made over to all in and by baptism — provided there 
 
BAPTISM NOT REGENERATION. 143 
 
 be no defect in the faith and devotion of the subject, 
 sponsors, or church ; and we are to hope charitably, in 
 every case, that there is no such defect, and we may use 
 the Offices accordingly! 
 
 Far-fetched and ud tenable as are these assumptions, 
 they still involve baptismal regeneration. This, however, 
 can scarcely be affirmed of another of Mr. Gorharn's sub- 
 tilties. He uses the Offices which teach the dogma, and 
 " explicitly and expressly denies that he either held, or 
 persisted in holding, that infants are not made, in baptism, 
 members of Christ and the children of God ;" yet he says 
 he subscribes the rubric that " infants baptized, and' dying 
 before actual sin, are certainly saved " because the church 
 has "ruled" it, and therefore he adds "they must have 
 been regenerated by an act of grace prevenient to baptism, 
 in order to make them worthy recipients of that sacra- 
 men t." 
 
 So children are regenerated in baptism, because they 
 would not be fit to receive baptism without being previ- 
 ously regenerated ! No wonder a learned, bluff, Pope 
 Gregory of a man, like Dr. Philpotts, should sneer at all 
 this, and denounce it as unmanly evasion and contemptible 
 puerility. The Bishop of Exeter wants a sacrament that 
 is a sacrament. He wants no uncertain, hypothetical, 
 quasi, opus operands affair; but a genuine opus opcratum 
 — a sacrament that, by its own operation, infallibly con- 
 veys grace on every one who receives it, except when op- 
 posed by mortal sin, which is never the case with infants. 
 
 And although Dr. Sumner, the present Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, is generally placed at the opposite pole to Dr. 
 Philpotts, and properly enough, so far as it regards the 
 absurd and arrogant claims of prelacy, yet, in respect to 
 baptismal regeneration, there is really no difference be- 
 tween them, except that the latter is rather more consist- 
 ent in maintaining it than the former. 
 
 His Grace affirms, " It is necessary for every clergyman 
 of the Church of England to hold and maintain that all 
 infants are invariably and universally spiritually regene- 
 rated in and by the act of baptism." 
 
114 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 In opposing what a Calvinistic writer calls, " the Cal- 
 vinistic idea that regeneration is an act of God's Spirit, 
 which, once done, never can be undone — that the grace is 
 special, belonging only to those who are certainly to be 
 saved, and, as certainly, to be holy — that they, once born, 
 can never be unborn" — in opposing this error, he loses the 
 via media of Scripture, and wanders into the by-paths of 
 popery. While endeavoring to free the Father of mercies 
 from the charge of partiality and cruelty, involved in the 
 Calvinistic scheme of election and reprobation, he con- 
 fines the grace of God to a mere fraction of mankind as 
 obviously and objectionably as any supralapsarian that 
 holds the " horrible decree. " 
 
 In his work on " Apostolical Preaching,'' published in 
 1824, and recently republished, with a Preface referring to 
 the Gorham controversy, and therefore containing the pre- 
 sent views of the archbishop, he says : — 
 
 " Another practical evil of the doctrine of special grace, 
 is the necessity which it implies of some test of God's 
 favor, and of the reconcilement of Christians to him, 
 beyond and subsequent to the covenant of baptism. St. 
 Paul, it has been seen, insists upon the necessity of rege- 
 neration. These addresses and exhortations are founded 
 on the principle that the disciples, by their dedication to 
 God in baptism, had been brought into a state of recon- 
 cilement with him, had been admitted to privileges which 
 the apostle calls on them to improve. 
 
 " On the authority of this example, and of the undeni- 
 able practice of the first ages of Christianity, our church 
 considers baptism as conveying regeneration, instructing 
 us to pray before baptism, ' that the infant may be born 
 again, and made an heir of everlasting salvation/ and to 
 rtturn thanks after baptism, ' that it hath pleased God to 
 regenerate the infant with his Holy Spirit, and receive 
 him for his own child by adoption.' 
 
 " But, on the contrary, if there is a distinction between 
 special and common grace, and none are regenerated but 
 those who receive special grace, and those only receive it 
 who are elect, baptism is evidently no sign of regeneration, 
 
BAPTISM NOT REGENERATION 145 
 
 eince so many after baptism live profane and unholy lives, 
 and perish in their sins. Therefore the preacher of spe- 
 cial grace must, consistently with his own principles, lead 
 his hearers to look for some new conversion and expect some 
 sensible regeneration. This brings him to use language in 
 the highest degree perplexing to an ordinary hearer. 
 
 " What would be the feelings of a plain understanding, 
 or a timid conscience, unable to unravel the windings of 
 these secret things, on learning that the sinfulness or in- 
 nocency of actions does not depend upon their being per- 
 mitted or forbidden in the revealed law, but on the doer 
 being in a regenerate or unregenerate state at the time 
 when he performs them ? How is this fact of regeneracy, 
 upon which no less than eternity depends, to be disco- 
 vered ? The apostle enumerates the works of the flesh and 
 the fruits of the Spirit ; but his test is insufficient, for the 
 two lists are here mixed and confounded. The hearers 
 appeal to the church, as an authorized interpreter of the 
 Scripture. The church acquaints them thai they were 
 themselves regenerated, and made the children of grace, by 
 the benefit of bajrtism, while the preacher evidently treats 
 them as if it were possible they might be still unregene- 
 rate, without defining the meaning which he ascribes to 
 the term regeneration. 
 
 " Happily for our church, the framers of its rituals took 
 their doctrine from the general tenor and promises of 
 Scripture; and by a providential care extending over a 
 church so framed, the succeeding believers in Calvin were 
 never allowed to introduce their subtil ties into her intel- 
 ligible and rational formularies. Therefore, we are in- 
 structed to declare, that those who are devoted to Christ 
 as infants by baptism, are regenerate, i. c, are /accepted 
 of God in the Beloved/ and dying l without actual sin, 
 are undoubtedly saved.' 
 
 "It is indeed a sufficient confutation of the doctrine of 
 special grace, that it reduces baptism to an empty rite, an 
 external mark of admission into the visible church, at- 
 tended with no real grace, and therefore conveying no real 
 benefit, nor advancing a person one step towards salvation. 
 
 13 
 
146 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 u But if baptism is not accompanied with such an effusion 
 of the Holy Spirit towards the inward renewing of the 
 heart, that the person baptized, who of himself and of his 
 own nature could ' do no good thing/ by this amendment 
 or regeneration of his nature is enabled to bring forth 
 fruit, ' thirty, or sixty, or a hundred fold,' and * giving all 
 diligence to make his calling and election sure/ — if the 
 effect, I say, of baptism is less than this, what becomes of 
 the distinction made by the Baptist, <I indeed baptize 
 with water, but He who comes after me, shall baptize 
 with the Holy Ghost V What becomes of the example of 
 Christ himself? After his baptism, the descent of the 
 Holy Spirit in a visible form, was surely intended to con- 
 firm his followers in the belief that their baptism would 
 confer upon them a similar gift, and besides the washing 
 away of their sins, and the remission of the penalty en- 
 tailed upon the posterity of Adam, would bestow upon 
 them a power enabling them to fulfil the covenant laws 
 of their religion. No preacher therefore is authorized 
 either by our church, or by St. Paul, to leave a doubt on 
 the minds of his hearers, whether they are within the 
 pale of God's favor; but, on the contrary, is bound to en- 
 join them to 'seek boldly at the throne of grace/ for 
 power to confirm their faith, and work out their repent- 
 ance, and live worthily of their high calling/' 
 
 The reasoning of the foregoing extract is worthy of the 
 theology it is designed to defend. It is painful to meet 
 with doctrines so dangerous and arguments so puerile in 
 the writings of the chief dignitary of the English church. 
 In his Preface, indeed, he, says : — 
 
 " There may be danger in addressing a congregation 
 collectively as * regenerate/ since the term has neither 
 been accurately defined in Scripture, nor restricted to one 
 sense in the common language of divines. It is therefore 
 very possible that they should imagine something more 
 to be included in that metaphor than the change of state 
 in which they were placed hy baptism. It is scarcely neces- 
 sary for me to add, that I have nowhere insinuated a doubt 
 which I have never felt, whether a person may be a con- 
 
BAPTISM NOT REGENERATION. 147 
 
 sistent minister of our church, who holds a different opin- 
 ion concerning the effect of baptism from that which is 
 advocated in this volume, and believes that the grace of 
 spiritual regeneration is separable, and, in fact, often 
 separated from the sacrament of baptism." 
 
 Surely the archbishop does not know what he is writing 
 about, or else he has a very bad memory. We do not 
 think it likely that any congregation would be in danger 
 of imagining something more to be included in the meta- 
 phor of regeneration than his Grace includes in it : he 
 says it is a " regeneracy upon which no less than eternity 
 depends" — that the church, a an authorized interpreter 
 of Scripture," tells us that we are " made the children of 
 grace" by our baptismal regeneration, which is the bap- 
 tism of the Holy Ghost, spoken of by John the Baptist, 
 as it confers upon those who receive it a similar gift to 
 that which came upon Christ in his baptism, washes away 
 sins, and remits the penalty entailed upon the posterity 
 of Adam — and that u it is necessary for every clergyman 
 of the Church of England to hold and maintain that all 
 infants are invariably and universally spiritually regene- 
 rated, in and by the act of baptism." There is small 
 danger that any of the " regenerate" will imagine some- 
 thing more than this to be included in their baptismal 
 regeneration. Indeed, in what respect does the Council 
 of Trent occupy higher ground in regard to the virtue and 
 necessity of baptism ? 
 
 The " spiritual regeneration," thus identified with bap- 
 tism, involves the operation of " an inward and invisible 
 grace." And what difference is there whether we affirm 
 with Dr. Pusey that this grace is communicated in bap- 
 tism by an inscrutable operation, an influence which 
 neither the administrator nor recipient can know any 
 thing about — or, with many divines, that it is directly 
 communicated by the Holy Ghost in the very act of bap- 
 tism — or, with the Council of Trent and many of the 
 English divines, that it is conferred per ipsa, by the sacra- 
 ment itself, ex opero operate, by its own virtue ? — the 
 grace is proper to baptism : with baptism we have it, and 
 
148 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 are saved thereby — without baptism we have it not, and 
 therefore must bo lost. This is the only conclusion to 
 which we can logically arrive from the foregoing pre- 
 mises, whatever may be the charitable evasions and re- 
 deeming provisos of some who maintain this preposterous 
 dogma. 
 
 2. We have been thus full and explicit in setting forth 
 the doctrine of baptismal regeneration in order to preclude 
 the charge of a partial and distorted presentation of the 
 views of its supporters, as well as to save the necessity of 
 arguing much against it. To state the doctrine is to 
 refute it. We cannot reason much against an opinion so 
 irrational as that which attributes the purification of the 
 soul to the application of water to the body- It seems 
 almost impossible to reason either for or against a notion 
 so extravagant. 
 
 Universal experience and observation demonstrate that 
 the grace of regeneration is not tied to the ordinance of 
 baptism ; and it is a simple absurdity to say that it can 
 be. It cannot be proved by any evidence of the senses, 
 any more than it can be ascertained by the teachings of 
 philosophy, that any infant ever was spiritually born 
 again in baptism. An adult, indeed, may be; for he 
 may exercise that faith by which we become the sons of 
 God, in the very moment in which the baptismal element 
 is applied; and the application of the element may so far 
 prove a means of grace, as that it may assist him in his 
 effort thus to believe to the saving of the soul. But to 
 every one such case there are thousands of others in which 
 the act of baptism either precedes or follows the renewing 
 of the Holy Ghost. There is no reason, experience, or 
 testimony, to oppose this view of the subject; but enough 
 of each to support it. 
 
 We scarcely need say that the dogma of baptismal 
 regeneration is not contained in Scripture. It is contrary 
 to all the perfections of Jehovah, as revealed in the Bible, 
 to sentence millions of his creatures to eternal death, for 
 the omission of an outward rite of which they knew no- 
 thing at all. We repel the blasphemy with indignation 
 
BAPTISM NOT REGENERATION. 149 
 
 And we defy the advocates of the dogma to adduce a 
 single passage of holy writ which either teaches or implies 
 that God has tied the grace of regeneration to the per- 
 formance of water baptism. 
 
 The attempt to do this by the judicious Hooker is not 
 much in keeping with that honorable title by which he is 
 commonly distinguished. It was a desperate undertaking 
 and proved a magnificent failure. 
 
 Hooker asks {Eccles. Pol. v. lxi.): " Unless as the 
 Spirit is a necessary cause, so water were a necessary out- 
 ward mean to our regeneration, what construction should 
 we give unto those words, wherein we are said to be new- 
 born, and that cf; v8a?o$, even of water? John iii. 5." 
 
 We admit that to " be born of water" means to be bap- 
 tized by water j and to " be born of the Spirit" means to 
 be baptized by the Spirit; but then these two are dif- 
 ferent matters, and the difference is indicated by the use 
 of the conjunction — " Except a man be born of water and 
 of the Spirit." They are so distinct that a man may be 
 born of water and at the same time not be born of the 
 Spirit, as was the case with Simon the sorcerer, whom 
 Philip baptized. Acts viii. On the other hand, a man 
 may be born of the Spirit, and at the same time not be 
 born of water, as was the case with Cornelius and his 
 friends. Acts x. But both these are necessary to mem- 
 bership in the Church of Christ — the one constituting 
 our formal, and the other our spiritual, entrance into the 
 kingdom of God. These two> therefore, are not identical, 
 as Cartwright and others affirm, as if there were no allu- 
 sion at all to baptism, but to the work of the Spirit alone, 
 presented under the notion of water ; nor is the one the 
 formal or efficient cause, or the exclusive, principal, or 
 usual means or instrument of the other, as Oxford, Rome, 
 and their satellites maintain.* And although none are 
 
 * Some of the fathers understand by "water," baptism, and by "the 
 Spirit," confirmation. Thus Augustin says: "Although some under- 
 stand these words only of baptism, and others of the Spirit only, — yet 
 others understand utrumque sacramentum, both sacraments — confir- 
 13* 
 
150 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 members or the visible church, who are not baptized by 
 water, yet this lamentable defect will not prevent their 
 entrance into the kingdom of glon r , as it does not prevent 
 their entrance into the kingdom of grace, if they do not 
 wilfully and contumaciously slight this holy ordinance. 
 
 Hooker furthermore asks : " Why are we taught that 
 with water G od doth purify and cleanse his church V 
 
 We will furnish the reason. As the oriental bride was 
 purified before she was brought to the bridegroom, so the 
 spouse of Christ receives a, formal purification by baptism, 
 and a spiritual purification " by the word," which is used 
 by the Holy Ghost in the sanctification of the soul, and 
 which St. Paul is careful to meution in the same verse, 
 and which Hooker is careful to suppress. Eph. v. 26. 
 Compare John xvii. 17 : " Sanctify them through thy 
 truth : thy word is truth." James i. 18 : " Of his own 
 will begat he us with the word of truth." 1 Pet. i. 22, 23 : 
 " Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth 
 through the Spirit — being born again, not of corruptible 
 seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which 
 liveth and abidcth for ever." It is sometimes advanta- 
 geous to let Scripture be its own interpreter. 
 
 Hooker asks again : " Wherefore do the apostles of 
 Christ term baptism a bath of regeneration ? Titus iii. 5." 
 
 And why do they distinguish it from " the renewing of 
 the Holy Ghost" in the very same passage ? Some, in- 
 deed, suppose that by " the washing of regeneration" the 
 apostle does not mean water baptism, but the spiritual 
 change, the clause succeeding being put in apposition, as 
 exegetical in its bearing : as if it read, " the washing of 
 regeneration, even the renewing of the Holy Ghost." 
 There is nothing absurd in this construction of the pas- 
 sage ; but it is forced. And no relief is afforded by 
 John iii. 5, to which we are referred as a parallel text. 
 W T e consider it parallel, and therefore think that this in- 
 terpretation is forced as applied to it : " Except a man be 
 
 mation as well as baptism." We think, however, that the Scripture 
 knows nothing about sacramental confirmation. 
 
BAPTISM NOT REGENERATION. 151 
 
 born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
 kingdom of God." In like manner Matt. iii. 11, is re- 
 ferred to : " He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and 
 with fire." There is no more proof that in these texts the 
 fire and water are the Holy G host, than there is that " the 
 washing of regeneration," in the passage under review, is 
 " the renewing of the Holy Ghost." Nor can we admit 
 the notion that the former clause means the new birth, 
 spiritual regeneration, and the latter something else. 
 " The renewing of the Holy Ghost" obviously embraces 
 the new birth, if it is not restricted to it. 
 
 We suppose that " the washing," xovt^ov, the laver or 
 bath " of regeneration," means baptism. As baptism is the 
 symbol of the new birth, the fathers styled it rtackiyyevsaia, 
 regeneration — the term used by the Jews in reference to 
 their proselyte baptism. In addition to its symbolical 
 character, it is federal in its nature, exhibiting the pro- 
 mise and imposing the obligation of a death unto sin and 
 a new birth unto righteousness. It was natural enough 
 to give it the name of that of which it is the symbol and 
 pledge. In the same way we call the bread and wine in 
 the Lord's supper, the body and blood of Christ — the 
 former representing the latter. The apostle, according to 
 some, used the term regeneration in this tropical sense. 
 
 But it is to be observed, St. Paul does not say : " Accord- 
 ing to his mercy he saved us by regeneration and the re- 
 newing of the Holy Ghost." His language is : " the 
 washing," or laver " of regeneration." This may mean 
 the washing effected by regeneration, or the washing 
 symbolical of regeneration. If the former, then " regene- 
 ration" stands for baptism, according to the patristic 
 idea : if the latter, then " the washing" means baptism, 
 and regeneration means the renewing of the Holy Ghost — 
 agreeably to the common import of the term — and is joined 
 to the washing to limit the idea. It is not every washing 
 chat is baptism — that washing is alone baptism which is 
 the washing of regeneration — an application of the ele- 
 ment as a solemn symbol and pledge of the regenerating 
 grace of the Holy Ghost. 
 
152 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 If it be *aid that this makes baptism as well as regene- 
 ration, instrumental of our salvation, we reply : it certainly 
 does Every thins that God promises or commands con- 
 duces to our salvation. It does not follow that baptism is 
 an empty sign, because it is not regeneration. ^ It is indis- 
 pensable to membership in the church, and in other re- 
 spects, yet to be noticed, fills an important province in the 
 economy of salvation. " The use of it is greatly profita- 
 ble: the neglect is inexcusable; but the contempt is 
 
 damnable." wi , , , 
 
 Hooker inquires again: "What purpose had the 
 apostle in giving men advice to receive outward baptism, 
 and persuading them it did avail to the remission of 
 
 ?m in what a sophistical manner is this question stated ! 
 The passage thus mangled is Acts ii. 38 : "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 ot 
 the Holy Ghost." Is the remission of sins appended to 
 baptism in this text, or to repentance and faith, of which, 
 baptism is the public and divinely authorized mode of pro- 
 fession ? Unquestionably the latter. For Simon Magus 
 was baptized, and yet with regard to the spiritual benefits 
 in question, Peter tells him, "Thou hast neither part nor 
 lot in this matter, for thy heart is not right in the sight 
 of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and 
 pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be 
 forgiven thee: for I perceive that thou art in the gall of 
 bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." Acts vm. On 
 the other hand, those spiritual blessings were enjoyed by 
 Cornelius and his friends, who had both repentance and 
 faith, although they were not baptized. Acts x. And on 
 the same terms Magus himself might have secured the 
 " remission of sins," at any time after his baptism. 
 
 A candid examination of those texts which are ad- 
 duced in support of the dogma of baptismal regeneration 
 and baptismal justification, shows that they favor no such 
 absurdity. And it is worthy of observation that baptism 
 is usually associated in the Scriptures with some spiritual 
 
THREE FOLD END OF BAPTISM. 153 
 
 duty or exercise of the mind ) and this is generally done 
 in such a way as to indicate the formal; external, and 
 emblematical character of the former. 
 
 Thus, John iii. 5 : " Except a man be born of water, 
 and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 God." Acts ii. 38 : " Repent and be baptized V Acts 
 viii. 36—38 : u And the eunuch said, See, here is water; 
 what doth hinder me to be baptized ? And Philip said, 
 If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." Acts 
 xxii. 16 : " Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy 
 sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Eph. v. 25, 26 : 
 " Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it ; 
 that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of 
 water, by the word." Titus iii. 5 : " He saved us by the 
 washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." 
 Heb. x. 22 : " Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil 
 conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." 
 1 Pet. iii. 21 : " Baptism doth also now save us, (not the 
 putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of 
 a good conscience before God,) by the resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ." In this last passage the internal and spiritual 
 act, corresponding to the external and formal, is carefully 
 distinguished from the latter, though metonymically de- 
 signated by its name. 
 
 SECTION II. — THREE-FOLD END OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Having exhibited the doctrine of baptismal regenera- 
 tion, and shown its repugnance to Scripture, reason, ob- 
 servation, and experience, we are prepared to answer the 
 question, What is the use of baptism ? Does it follow 
 that it is an empty symbol, because it does not really im- 
 part what it typifies ? 
 
 There are some, such as the Socinians, who seem to 
 take this view of the ordinance. And Calvin appears to 
 reduce us to the necessity of embracing one or the other 
 of these alternatives. Writing to Melancthon, he says : 
 " Luther professed through his life, that all he contended 
 
151 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 for in the sacramental controversy, was the efficacy of the 
 sacraments. Well, it is agreed that they are not empty 
 symbols, but really impart what they typify — that in 
 baptism the efficacy of the Holy Ghost is present to 
 cleanse and regenerate us." 
 
 With the Reformer's leave, however, we venture to 
 suggest that there is no necessity of admitting either of 
 these alternatives. Baptism does not really impart what 
 it typifies ; yet it is far from being an empty symbol. 
 
 When we turn to the Scriptures we find that baptism 
 has an end worthy of its divine institution. It subserves 
 a three-fold purpose. It signifies to us the mercy and 
 grace of God — it ratifies our title to covenant blessings 
 and pledges our discharge of corresponding obligations — 
 and it ministers to our sanctification. 
 
 1. As it is the sign of the gospel covenant, it signifies 
 to us the mercy and grace of God. 
 
 This covenant is in substance the same which was made 
 t -> Abraham ; for St. Paul says it " was confirmed of God 
 in Christ/' " four hundred and thirty years" before the 
 Mosaic law was given. Accordingly, circumcision, as the 
 sign of this covenant, "was of the fathers," namely, 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This covenant was renewed 
 and amplified by the Author and Finisher of our faith, 
 and baptism was appointed to be the sign thereof. And 
 thus " the blessing of Abraham" has " come on the Gen- 
 tiles through Jesus Christ." " For as many of you as 
 have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. And 
 if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs 
 according to the promise." Gal. iii. 
 
 Whenever, therefore, baptism is administered, there is a 
 recognition of the covenant of grace and a reference to its 
 merciful provisions. When we gaze upon the bow in the 
 cloud, we behold a token of the covenant which God made 
 with the second father of our race, that the world should no 
 more be deluged with the waters of a flood. Whan we break 
 the bread and pour forth the wine in the Lord's supper, 
 we have a token of the new and everlasting covenant 
 which was ratified by the sacrifice of the Son of God, of 
 
THREE-FOLD END OF BAPTISM. 155 
 
 which this feast is the memento. In like manner when 
 baptism is administered, we have a token of the covenant, 
 particularly in reference to the promise of the Spirit, of 
 whose sanctitifying influences this ordinance is the beau- 
 tiful and expressive symbol. For this reason baptism by 
 water and the baptism of the Spirit are so frequently as- 
 sociated together in the New Testament. 
 
 It is impossible to conceive of any action more sugges- 
 tive of a sanctifying agency, than the application of clean 
 water to the person. It finely represents the promise of 
 the evangelical covenant : " Then will I sprinkle clean 
 water upon you, and ye shall be clean." "I will pour 
 my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thy off- 
 spring." Baptism cannot be properly administered with- 
 out suggesting this to the mind ; and thus the senses are 
 pressed into the service of religion, and we have a visible 
 exponent of the mystery of our sanctification. The water 
 poured upon the subject in the washing of regeneration 
 strikingly represents the renewing of the Holy Grhost, 
 which is shed upon us abundantly through Jesus Christ 
 our Saviour. The element is clean water, to denote the 
 holiness of the divine Agent in our sanctification and of 
 the effect produced by his operations ; and it is poured 
 upon us, to denote that the influence by which we are 
 made new creatures in Christ Jesus is " from above." 
 
 Such being the nature of this ordinance, if it be not 
 tampered with in the administration, it cannot but edify 
 the serious spectator. It can be readily conceived how 
 greatly it might be made to minister to the use of edify- 
 ing, when performed by a spiritually-minded, intelligent, 
 and judicious administrator. Its celebration is therefore 
 very properly confined to the ministers of the word, who 
 are supposed to be — at least, they are required and ex- 
 pected to be — faithful stewards of the mysteries of God. 
 1 Cor. iv. 
 
 2. Baptism ratifies our title to the covenant blessings 
 which it symbolizes and pledges our discharge of corres- 
 ponding obligations. 
 
 The federal character of the ordinance implies this. It 
 
150 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 is not merely a sign to denote the blessings and obliga- 
 tions of the covenant, but also a signum conftrmans, a 
 seal or pledge confirming to us the bestowment of the 
 former, and binding us to the performance of the latter. 
 
 There are two parties to the covenant : God is one party 
 and we are the other. The instrument is drawn up and 
 its conditions prescribed by God himself, and we are called 
 upon to subscribe the saine. "For this is the covenant 
 that I will make with the house of Israel, after those 
 days, saith the Lord : I will put my laws into their mind 
 and write them in their hearts j and I will be to them a 
 God, and they shall be to me a people. For I will be 
 merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their 
 iuiquities will I remember no more." Heb. viii. It is 
 needless to prove that this was the substance of the Abra- 
 hamic covenant of which circumcision was the seal, and 
 that in its new publication it more fully develops its es- 
 sential elements and more distinctly exhibits its catholic 
 complexion. This the apostle argues at length in the 
 fourth of Horn an s. 
 
 Every thing, therefore, necessary to our salvation, and 
 especially sanctifying grace, is pledged to us on the part 
 of God in this covenant \ and baptism is a pledge by which 
 it is guaranteed to us. As the ordinance was instituted 
 by God and is celebrated on his authority and by his minis- 
 ters, it confirms to us every stipulation of the covenant, 
 and being joined with the word of promise and the wit- 
 nessing Spirit in our hearts, it leaves no room to doubt 
 that we shall obtain mercy. and find grace to help in time 
 of need. 
 
 On our part the pledge is no less specific and important. 
 If the Most High is to be our God, we are to be his peo- 
 ple. This implies three things : — 
 
 First. The renunciation of all other authority. We 
 cannot swear allegiance to the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost, without abjuring the trinity which holds usurped 
 sway over us in our natural state — the world, the flesh, and 
 the devil. Hence we renounce them all in our baptism. 
 
 Second. Faith ia God. As baptism is the exponent of 
 
 
THREE-FOLD END OP BAPTISM. 157 
 
 faith, it pledges Us to believe the whole revelation of God ; 
 and that we may do so rationally, it binds us to search 
 the Scriptures according to our ability to do so, to canvass 
 the evidences of Christianity, and to use every means 
 within our reach to understand the record which God has 
 given us of his Son. 
 
 Third. Holy obedience. To obey God is a natural 
 and necessary duty ; but when we are solemnly pledged 
 to obedience, that duty assumes a more imperative and 
 impressive character. Baptism pledges us to holiness. 
 " Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into 
 Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death. Therefore 
 we are buried with him by baptism into death, 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." 
 Rom. vi. God pledges us sanctifying grace on condition 
 that we give that grace free range in our hearts and full 
 development in our lives — co-operating with it to the ut- 
 most of our ability ; and this we solemnly pledge to do 
 in our baptism. What an incentive to holiness — what a 
 dissuasive from sin! " Jerome says, Certainly he that 
 thinks upon the last judgment advisedly, cannot sin then: 
 so he that says with St. Augustin, Procede in confessione, 
 fides mea, Let me make every day to God this confession, 
 Domine Deus mens, Sancte, Sancte, Sancte Domine Deus 
 meusj Lord my God, Holy, Holy, Holy Lord my 
 God : In nomine tuo baptizatus sum, I consider that I was 
 baptized in thy name, and what thou promisedst me, and 
 what I promised thee then, and can I sin this sin ? Can 
 this sin stand with those conditions, those stipulations, 
 which passed between us then f" Viewed in this light, 
 how important is this holy ordinance ! 
 
 And as we do not wish our offspring to be left out of 
 the bond of the covenant, how careful should we be to 
 make them formally, what they are really, from their 
 birth, parties to this great transaction. We have no right 
 to bind them to their injury ; but we have a right, and 
 it is our duty to exercise it, to bind them to their advan- 
 tage. We can avouch the Lord to be their God ; and in 
 
 14 
 
158 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 after life they will have no right to absolve theinsdves 
 from the obligation thus assumed in their behalf. If they 
 do so, they do so at their peril. If they wash away their 
 baptism and despise their birthright, they must abide the 
 consequences of such daring profanity. But if they are 
 duly instructed with regard to their baptismal obligations, 
 and brought up in the nurture and admonition of the 
 Lord, the probabilities are vastly in their favor that they 
 will have no disposition to renounce their baptism. The 
 . very fact that they were dedicated to the Lord, and that 
 ' the vows of God have been upon them from their infancy, 
 may be used as a powerful argument to induce them to 
 assume the profession and practice of piety, in redemption 
 of those solemn vows. As they never object to the per- 
 sonal appropriation of a temporal benefit because it was 
 secured to them by their parents or by others in their 
 unconscious infancy, consistency, united with gratitude, 
 will move them to avail themselves of the spiritual bene- 
 fits bound up in the covenant of grace, by discharging the 
 conditions on which their bestowment is suspended. This 
 is a powerful argument for infant baptism ; but it is ad- 
 duced in this place to show the practical use which this 
 ordinance subserves, viewed under the idea of a seal or 
 pledge. 
 
 3. Baptism ministers to our sanctification. 
 It does this partly by its influence and bearing as a 
 sign and seal. We cannot seriously reflect upon the sym- 
 bolical and pignorative character of this ordinance without 
 learning the privileges and duties appertaining to us as 
 parties to the gospel covenant, and without being incited 
 to reduce the former to experience and the latter to prac- 
 tice. Whatever is suggestive of holy thoughts and emo- 
 tions — whatever brings the beauty of holiness before the 
 mind — whatever impresses us with its necessity and points 
 out the mode of its attainment, must minister to our sanc- 
 tification. Baptism does all this. It does so too, not only at 
 the time when it is administered, or when we ourselves are 
 the subjects, but also when we witness the baptism of others, 
 or reflect upon our own baptism, howsoever long since 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 159 
 
 it may have been administered. Thus it -is a standing, 
 perpetual monitor, whose admonitions are ever appropriate, 
 forcible, and salutary — a stereotyped lesson which, like 
 holy writ, of which it is the visible exponent, may be read 
 over a thousand times without losing its interest and power 
 to affect the soul. 
 
 But baptism ministers to our sanctification in another 
 respect. It introduces us to the communion of saints. 
 We thus have the benefit of their holy examples to stimu- 
 late us in the pursuit and practice of holiness. We have 
 their exhortations to stir us up when we are dilatory : we 
 have their reproofs to reclaim us when we wander from 
 the path of obedience : we have their counsels to guide us 
 in the good and right way : we have their encouragement 
 to solace and sustain us amid the reverses and difficulties 
 of our course ; and in connection with all these, and above 
 them all, we have their prayers for the prosperous issue 
 of all our religious endeavors. Whatever means of grace 
 and aids to holy living are found in the church inure to 
 us by virtue of this initiating ordinance. If we contemn 
 baptism, we are not entitled to claim any of the " good 
 which the Lord hath spoken concerning Israel." But 
 through this ordinance we substantiate our title to all the 
 privileges of the household of faith — a title sure and inde- 
 feasible, so long as we discharge the obligations which our 
 baptism involves. 
 
 In the foregoing respects, baptism ministers materially 
 to our sanctification and final salvation. 
 
 SECTION III. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 Some object to the province we have assigned to bap- 
 tism, as the ordinance of initiation into the church. 
 
 1. One class of objectors assert that baptism is not a 
 church ordinance at all — that it is administered out of the 
 church, and the subject thereof is not made a member but 
 by some act subsequent to his baptism. 
 
 Thus John Bunyan, in his " Differences in Judgment 
 
160 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 about Water Baptism, no Bar to Communion :" — u Bap- 
 tism makes thee no member of the church, neither doth it 
 make thee a visible saint : it giveth thee, therefore, neither 
 right to, nor being of membership at all." — " No man 
 baptizeth by virtue of his office in the church : no man is 
 baptized by virtue of his membership there." — "Baptism 
 is not the initiating ordinance." — " Water baptism hath 
 nothing to do in a church, as a church: it neither bringeth 
 us into the church, nor is any part of our worship when 
 we come there." 
 
 " Baptism," says Dr. Gill, " is not a church ordinance : 
 I mean, it is not an ordinance administered in the church, 
 but out of it, and in order to admission into it, and com- 
 munion with it : it is preparatory to it, and a qualification 
 for it : it does not make a person a member of a church, 
 or admit him into a visible church. Persons must first 
 be baptized and then added to the church, as the three 
 thousand converts were. A church has nothing to do with 
 the baptism of any, but to be satisfied that they are bap- 
 tized, before they are admitted into communion with it." 
 
 Very few, we believe, endorse this erroneous view of 
 the subject; and it may be doubted if it ever would have 
 found favor with any, had they not confounded a particu- 
 lar church with the church catholic. 
 
 It may be true that the mere act of baptism does 
 not make one a member of any particular church, but 
 it does not follow that it does not make one a member of 
 the catholic church of Christ. When Philip baptized the 
 eunuch, he did not make him by that act a member 
 of the church at Jerusalem, or Samaria ; and as there was 
 no church in the desert where he was baptized, or in Ethi- 
 opia, where he resided — his baptism made him a member 
 of no particular church ; but it made him a member of the 
 holy catholic church, and entitled him to recognition by 
 the faithful in any place where there was a particular 
 churcn, so long as he was true to his baptismal obligations ; 
 and indeed it constituted him the nucleus of a particular 
 church, in his distant heathen home. It was therefore as 
 truly an u initiating ordinance" to him, as if it had intro- 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. * 161 
 
 duced hini to the immediate society of the apostles and 
 brethren at Jerusalem. 
 
 Baptism is the ordinance of initiation in the Christian 
 church, in the same way that circumcision was the ordi- 
 nance of initiation in the Jewish church. Whatever other 
 ceremonies obtained in the case of the recognition of mem- 
 bers in the Jewish church — particularly in regard to syna- 
 gogue privileges and obligations — no one was considered a 
 Jew until he was circumcised according to the law, and 
 no one who was thus circumcised was considered an alien 
 from the commonwealth of Israel until he committed some 
 crime by which he cancelled his circumcision. The ana- 
 logy obtains in regard to baptism, as the ordinance of 
 initiation into the Christian church.* 
 
 2. Another class of objectors to the common view of 
 baptism, as the initiating ordinance, affirm that none are 
 eligible to baptism, but those who are already members of 
 the church. 
 
 Thus the Directory of the Westminster Assembly teaches 
 " that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within 
 the church, have by their birth interest in the covenant 
 and right to the seal of it — that they are Christians and 
 federally holy before baptism, and therefore they are bap- 
 tized." 
 
 And so in the Larger Catechism : " Baptism is not to be 
 administered to any that are out of the visible church, and 
 so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess 
 their faith in Christ, and obedience to him ; but infants 
 descending from parents, either both or but one of them 
 
 * On Good Friday, 1852, the Rev. R. Herschel baptized a Russian 
 Jew in Trinity Chapel, London, in the usual form, adding, "We admit 
 you, not as a member of any particular sect, but as a member of Christ's 
 church." Mr. Jansen, the party baptized, was thus made a member of 
 the catholic church, but not of any particular church — the minister 
 baptizing him being employed by a society consisting of persons be« 
 longing to various particular churches. "All the apostles and minis- 
 ters of religion were commanded to baptize in water, in the name of 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; and this was an admission to Christi- 
 anity, not to any sect of it." See Jer. Taylo.-'e Dissuasive from Popery, 
 p. ii., b. i., sec. iii. 
 
 14* 
 
162 USE OP BAPTISM. 
 
 professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are, in 
 that respect, within the covenant, and are to be baptized." 
 
 u The children of professing Christians," says Dr. Miller, 
 " are already in the church. They are born members. 
 They are baptized because they were members. They 
 received the seal of the covenant because they are already 
 in the covenant by virtue of their birth." 
 
 This birth-right theory, therefore, does not consider 
 baptism as the door of admission into the church. The 
 advocates of this system do not administer baptism as the 
 formal medium of initiation into membership, but as the 
 recognition of the birth-right membership previously 
 existent. They do not administer the ordinance to any 
 infants except such as are born of Christian parentage — 
 one, at least, of the parents must be a member of the 
 church. No matter if the unfortunate child be " born in 
 our house, or bought with our money of any stranger that 
 is not of our seed," Genesis xvii. 12, 13, this birth-right 
 basis denies him a privilege which was secured by a pro- 
 vision of the Abrahamic dispensation to a child similarly 
 circumstanced. Most certainly such an ecclesiastical 
 ostracism receives no endorsement from a dispensation 
 whose benevolently-aggressive character is never more 
 sublimely illustrated than when its ministers are engaged 
 in discipling all nations, introducing them to the fold of 
 Christ by the ordinance of his own appointment. 
 
 It is worthy of remark that this birth-right basis of 
 church-membership is inconsistent with a leading, though 
 equally erroneous, principle of the theological system of 
 those divines by whom it is asserted. 
 
 They maintain that the church is constituted of a cer- 
 tain definite number of men, who, before the foundation 
 of the world, were separated from the common mass of 
 transgressors by the electing grace of God, and who are 
 therefore to be considered members of the mystical body 
 of Christ, though for the greater portion of their lives 
 they may give no evidence of a vital union with him. 
 This vital union, however, will in every case be secured 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 163 
 
 by " effectual calling," even though, in some cases, it may 
 Hot be consummated until the article of death. 
 
 Thus Dr. Owen — Glory of Christ, c. x. : — "In order 
 unto the production and perfecting of the new creation, 
 God did from eternity, in the holy purpose of his will, 
 prepare, and in design set apart unto himself, that portion 
 of mankind whereof it was to consist. Hereby they were 
 the only peculiar matter that was to be wrought upon by 
 the Holy Ghost, and the glorious fabric of the church 
 erected out of it. What was said it may be of the 
 natural body, by the psalmist, is true of the mystical body 
 of Christ, which is principally intended, Ps. cxxxix. 15, 16, 
 1 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made 
 in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of 
 the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance yet being 
 unperfect, and in thy book all my members were written, 
 which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there 
 was none of them.' The substance of the church 
 whereof it was to be formed, was under the eye of God, 
 as proposed in the decree of election; yet was it as such 
 unperfect. It was not formed or shaped into members of 
 the mystical body. But they were all written in the 
 book of life. And in pursuance of the purpose of God, 
 there they are by the Holy Spirit, in the whole course and 
 continuance of time in their several generations, fashioned 
 into the shape designed for them." 
 
 This view is substantially entertained by all those 
 divines who interpret the ninth of Romans, and similar 
 passages of Scripture, of the unconditional, personal, and 
 eternal election and reprobation of the children of men. 
 It is a little remarkable, however, that " the prince of 
 divines," as Dr. Owen is sometimes called, should have 
 recourse to the one hundred and thirty-ninth psalm to 
 sustain his theory. Every child that reads this fine ode 
 must know that the psalmist speaks in the quoted passage 
 of one of the profound mysteries of nature ; and neither 
 the terms of the text nor the scope of the context will 
 warrant so outrageous and far-fetched a gloss as the doctor 
 places upon it, when he says that the scheme of election 
 
164 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 "is principally intended." His theory, however, called 
 for support, and Scripture being slow and chary in fur- 
 nishing plain passages for that purpose, he had recourse 
 to this curious and figurative text, which indeed furnishes 
 as much support to this system as any other — that is to 
 say, just none at all ! 
 
 The Bible nowhere affirms that the church is supplied 
 with its members by such an act of pretention as is here 
 affirmed. It does indeed speak of an election which took 
 place before the subjects thereof were born; but this was 
 not a personal, individual election, but rather an election 
 of communities — first of Jews, then of Gentiles — to 
 spiritual privileges, which the parties, in their individual, 
 personal capacity, might forfeit or secure, by the perverse 
 or proper use of their moral agency. Rom. ix.-xi. 
 But it speaks of another election which takes place after 
 the birth of the subjects thereof, and in every case condi- 
 tional, being suspended upon "repentance towards God, 
 and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ." John v. 40 ; 
 Acts ii. 38; iii. 19; viii. 36, 37; xvi. 30, 31; xx. 21; 
 Eph. i. 13 ; Gal. iii. 26-29 ; Heb. ii.-iv. This election 
 is not irreversible; but there is an election which is irre- 
 versible — it is personal too — but then it is conditional : 
 " Give diligence to make your calling and election sure ; 
 for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall ; for so an 
 entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the 
 everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ." 2 Pet. i. 10, 11. "Blessed are they that do 
 his commandments that they may have right to the tree 
 of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." 
 Rev. xxii. 14. Compare Matt. vii. ; xxv; Mark xvi. 16; 
 John v. 28, 29 ; 1 Cor. ix. 27 ; 2 Thess. i. 
 
 Dr. Owen's allegory stands but a poor chance when 
 coufronted with these plain and uncompromising passages 
 of Holy Writ. We could multiply texts of this complex- 
 ion, but one citation is sufficient to show that the impeni- 
 tent and unbelieving sinner is not enrolled in the book of 
 life. We are under no obligation to credit the absurdity 
 that a man's membership in the church was irreversibly 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 1G5 
 
 determined thousands of ages before he was born j or that 
 while he is making God to serve with his sins, and wea- 
 rying him with his iniquities, (Isa. xliii. 24.) he sustains 
 any other relation to the great Head of the church than 
 that of a miserable reprobate, in common with all other 
 transgressors — eligible, indeed, to admission into the 
 household of faith by a proper improvement of the grace 
 which is freely offered to all ) but until then, an " alien 
 from the commonwealth of Israel, and a stranger from the 
 covenants of promise." Eph. ii. 12. 
 
 It is no part of our present duty, however, to enlarge 
 upon the absurdity of this election basis of church-mem- 
 bership. We have called attention to it to show its incom- 
 patibility with the birth-right basis, although both princi- 
 ples are embraced in one and the same theological system. 
 
 Observe, all children of Christian parentage are con- 
 sidered members of the church, and yet on the foregoing 
 basis of fore-ordination, only a small number of them are 
 " elect infants," and consequently all the remainder are re- 
 probates — they have not, nor can they ever have, nor was 
 it intended they ever should have, any part or lot in the 
 matter. If any of these reprobate infants die in infancy, 
 they do not die in connection with the church on earth, 
 nor can they be admitted into the church in heaven.* If 
 they survive the period of infancy, their case remains 
 unchanged: it is in vain for them to say, "We have 
 Abraham to our father," they are the limbs of Satan, 
 and nothing can constitute them the members of Christ. 
 The number of both parties is so definite that it can 
 
 * Thus Pargeus, speaking of infants who die before performing any act, 
 says, " They will, like others, be saved merely according to grace, or 
 damned according to nature, as children of wrath." And Peter Mar- 
 tyr : " I dare not affirm that any dying without baptism will obtain 
 salvation. For there are some children of holy persons who are not of 
 the elect: Ideo nemini sic [sine baptisino] decedenti ausim peculiari- 
 ter promittere certain salutem. Sunt enim all qui sanctorum filii, qui 
 ad prasdeatinationem non pertinent." Loc. Com. So also Perkins: 
 " There are many infants of pious parents, who dying before they have 
 the use of reason will nevertheless, on account of original sin, be 
 damned : Multi sunt piorum infantes, ante ullum rationis usum mori- 
 entes, tamen original!* ilia peccati labes hominibus damnandis sujfe- 
 cerit." 
 
166 USE OP BAPTISM. 
 
 neither be diminished nor increased. This is the plain 
 and acknowledged doctrine of those who place the mem- 
 bership of the church on the basis of election. Now, un- 
 less it be affirmed that all the children of Christian parents 
 are embraced in this scheme of election — which none of its 
 abettors have the termeity to assert — it is obviously in 
 direct opposition to this theory to recognize their member- 
 ship on the ground of their Christian parentage. 
 
 It will not do to say that election makes them members 
 of the invisible church, and Christian parentage makes 
 them members of the visible church. According to the 
 theory in question, they are baptized in virtue of their 
 birth-right membership, and their baptism seals to them 
 all the blessings of the covenant of grace, which inure to 
 those alone who are members of the invisible as well as 
 the visible church. They are all considered parties to the 
 covenant, from which the reprobate are eternally excluded. 
 The birth-right basis is therefore utterly incompatible with 
 the scheme of election, while neither the one nor the other 
 derives the slightest support from the "Word of God. 
 
 The patronage of St. Paul, however, is challenged for the 
 hereditary basis of church-membership : " For the unbe- 
 lieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbe- 
 lieving wife is sanctified by the husband ; else were your 
 children unclean ; but now are they holy/' 1 Cor. vii. 14. 
 
 Numerous are the interpretations of this difficult pas- 
 sage ; but as it regards the terms holy and unclean, 
 here used of children as the offspring of believing or un- 
 believing parents, the meaning seems to be, that if one of 
 the parents were a Christian, the children would be con- 
 secrated to the true God, and therefore would be relatively 
 holy — not before but after and in consequence of baptism 
 — whereas if both parties were heathens, the children, ac- 
 cording to the heathen custom, would be consecrated to 
 false gods, and therefore would be relatively unclean.* 
 
 * An account of the manner in which the Romans consecrated their 
 children to tbeir gods, is given by Tertullian in his Treatise, De Ant- 
 ma, c. xxxvii. xxxix — not Be Came Cliriati, as quoted by mistake in 
 Dr. Clarke's commentary on 1 Cor. vii. 14, where there is a translation 
 of the passage. 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 167 
 
 But this does not prove that the children, in the former 
 case, were entitled to baptism by virtue of the believing 
 parent's faith j or that in the latter case, it would be un- 
 lawful to baptize them. 
 
 If the children of heathens were in some cases admitted 
 to the fellowship of the Abrahamic and Jewish churches 
 by circumcision, there is no reason that the course de- 
 scribed by Augustin, may not obtain in the Christian 
 church : " It sometimes happens,'' he remarks, " that the 
 children of slaves are brought to baptism by their master: 
 sometimes, the parents being dead, friends alive under- 
 take that office : sometimes, strangers, or virgins conse- 
 crated to God, who neither have, nor can have children 
 of their own, take up infants in the open streets, and so 
 offer them unto baptism, whom the cruelty of unnatural 
 parents casteth out, and leaveth to the adventure of uncer- 
 tain pity." And surely the church is not obliged to reject 
 the little ones because the parents may be alive and con- 
 senting to the consecration. It was somewhat bold in 
 Dr. Dwight to affirm : " Unbelieving parents, St. Paul has 
 declared, cannot offer their children in baptism : and that, 
 notwithstanding themselves have been baptized." Ser. 
 clx. ad Jin. We find no such language in the writings 
 of the apostle. 
 
 Whenever, therefore, the church can receive these little 
 ones into her bosom, it is her duty to do so ; and her 
 ministers ought to raise no objection to this benevolent 
 arrangement on the score of unknown, or questionable, or 
 wicked parentage — provided always, that the guardians of 
 the children voluntarily surrender them to her maternal 
 care, as Christianity admits of no compulsion. 
 
 The faith of the parent affects the church-membership 
 of the child only in one way : as a Christian he would be 
 more likely to offer his child to baptism than if he were 
 an unbeliever ; and it is in this ordinance the child is for- 
 mally brought into union with the church, while his eligi- 
 bility to the ordinance is secured " by the righteousness 
 of One, by whom the free gift has come upon all men 
 unto justification of life." Rom. v. This gracious arrange- 
 
1G8 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ment constitutes a virtual, and baptism a formal, union- 
 with the church. The former is the blood-bought inheri- 
 tance of every child, accruing to him from the moment 
 of his birth, and is entirely independent of parental cha- 
 racter ; and neither reason nor revelation has placed the 
 latter on any different basis. 
 
 Those who adopt the hereditary principle are forced to 
 forbid a multitude of those blood-bought infants whom 
 the Saviour has invited, to enter the church, and they 
 will answer for it to its exalted Head. The best apology 
 they will be able to make, is involuntary mistake, which 
 no doubt will be accepted by our merciful Judge. 
 
 The truth on this subject, however, is so obvious that 
 it cannot be altogether overlooked or ignored, by the 
 advocates of the error we have just refuted. Thus the 
 Westminster Directory, in contradiction of its other in- 
 structions on baptism, teaches " that children by baptism, 
 are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, 
 distinguished from the world and them that are without, 
 and united with believers." And the Larger Catechism 
 teaches that " baptism is a sacrament whereby the parties 
 baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, 
 and enter into an open and professed engagement to be 
 wholly and ODly the Lord's." And the proof-text cited 
 for this point is 1 Cor. xii. 13 : " For by one Spirit are 
 we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or 
 Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have all been 
 made to drink into one Spirit." 
 
 This is in perfect accordance with the analogy of faith, 
 the reason and fitness of things, the current language of 
 Inspiration, and the teaching of the great body of the 
 church in every age. Nearly all, ancients and moderns, 
 speak of baptism — to use the phrase of St. Augustin — as 
 janua cccleaia 1 , u the door of the church" — the ordinance 
 by which we are introduced to the communion of saints. 
 
 So far as our children are concerned, it is of incalculable 
 importance, as it is a formal and solemn recognition of 
 their claims upon the care and oversight of the church. 
 It is the initiative of a course of ecclesiastical training 
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 169 
 
 and discipline by which they are to be prepared, with the 
 blessing and grace of G-od, for all the duties and responsi- 
 bilities of the Christian life. It is not to be looked upon 
 as an isolated act, but as the commencement of a religious 
 career — a covenant transaction to be constantly reverted to 
 in every stage of their progress, as it never loses its mean- 
 ing, virtue, and use, as a sign, and seal, and means of grace. 
 
 It is no part of our present duty to enlarge upon the 
 religious training to which the children of the church 
 should be subjected. It is obvious that a large portion 
 of it devolves upon their domestic guardians, who ar-Q 
 accordingly to be held accountable in the premises. The 
 neglect of parental duty is a matter which comes legiti- 
 mately under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the church. 
 Surely none can be acceptable members of the church 
 who do not endeavor to bring up their children in the 
 nurture and admonition of the Lord. 
 
 But in addition to the discipline thus brought to bear 
 upon baptized children, there is a more direct ecclesiasti- 
 cal oversight to which they are entitled. The church is 
 bound to give all diligence to instruct them in the prin- 
 ciples of religion, so that they may comprehend their bap- 
 tismal obligations and be induced to discharge the same. 
 In primitive times this was done in catechumenical schools, 
 which are coeval with Christianity. Sunday Schools, duly 
 recognized by the church and faithfully supervised by its 
 pastors, are admirably adapted to answer this good end. 
 
 The judicious observations of Dr. Dwight on this sub- 
 ject are worthy of special note. He says, Sermons clvii. 
 and clxii.: — 
 
 " That infants should be baptized and then be left by 
 ministers and churches in a situation undistinguishable 
 from that of other children, appears to me irreconcilable 
 with aDy scriptural views of the nature and importance 
 of this sacrament." 
 
 " Ministers ought in my view, to make it a business of 
 
 their ministerial office distinctly to unfold to them the 
 
 nature of their relation to God and his church, and 
 
 solemnly to enforce on them the duties arising from this 
 
 15 
 
170 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 relation — particularly the duties of repentance and faith 
 in the Redeemer, of giving themselves up to God in his 
 covenant, and taking upon themselves openly the charac- 
 ter of Christians. This, I apprehend, should be done not 
 only from the desk, [pulpit,] but in a regular course of 
 laborious catechetical instruction. The same things should 
 be explicitly and solemnly enjoined from time to time 
 upon their parents : one of whose first duties it is, in my 
 apprehension, to co-operate faithfully with their ministers 
 in teaching and enjoining these things upon their children. 
 Were these things begun as soon as the children were 
 capable of understanding them, and pursued through 
 every succeeding period of their nonage, a fair prospect, 
 as it seems to me, would be opened for the vigorous 
 growth and abundant fruitfulness of this nursery of the 
 church. 
 
 " Should baptized persons, with these advantages, con- 
 duct themselves frowardly in a course of open, obstinate 
 iniquity, after they have come to years of discretion, the 
 church may, with the strictest propriety, shut them out 
 from these privileges, until by a penitent and becoming 
 deportment, they shall manifest their contrition for their 
 guilty conduct — not however without previous and ample 
 admonition. 
 
 " I will further suggest, that, in my own view, it is a 
 part of the duty of each church, at their meetings for 
 evangelical conversation and prayer, to summon the bap- 
 tized persons, who are minors, to be present at convenient 
 seasons, while the church offers up prayer to God pecu- 
 liarly for them ; and to pray for them particularly at other 
 meetings holden for these purposes. Were all these 
 things regularly and faithfully done, (and they all seem 
 to grow out of the circumstances of persons baptized in 
 their infancy,) I cannot help believing, that a new face 
 would, in a great measure, be put upon the condition and 
 character of the persons in question. It must be acknow- 
 ledged, that much less attention is paid to them in modern, 
 than in ancient times — at least by churches in general — 
 and less ; I think, by ourselves than by our ancestors." 
 
CONCLUSION. 171 
 
 Happy they who use the ordinances of God without 
 abusing them — not yielding them a superstitious reverence 
 or trusting in them, as if they took rank with the mercy 
 of the Father, the merit of the Son, and the grace of the 
 Holy Ghost ; and yet not undervaluing them, as if they 
 were mere ceremonies, circumstantial appendages to 
 Christianity, which might be regarded without much ad- 
 vantage, or neglected without much loss. 
 
 SECTION IV. — CONCLUSION. 
 
 How deeply is it to be deplored, that a subject fraught 
 with so much instruction and importance, and withal so 
 plainly set forth in the Scriptures, should have been 
 made the occasion of so much wrangling and contention 
 in the church of Christ. In many instances, we fear, the 
 practical lessons, which may be learned from this ordi- 
 nance, have been lost sight of amid the fiery earnestness 
 and avidity manifested in efforts to exclude children from 
 its privileges, or to substantiate their claims — to show 
 that it cannot be administered except by applying the 
 subject to the element, or that it may be better admin- 
 istered by applying the element to the subject — to prove 
 that baptism is regeneration, or at least the only means 
 of effecting it, or to disprove the absurd and unscriptural 
 dogma. 
 
 Why may not men speak what they consider the truth, 
 in love, on this subject, as well as on others ? Why does 
 the bare mention of a discussion of baptism suggest ideas 
 of sectarian bigotry, uncharitableness, sophistry, and arro- 
 gant dogmatism ? Why will not men lay aside their pre- 
 judices, and keep their passions in abeyance, and enter 
 calmly and candidly into an investigation of the subject 
 in the light of Holy Writ ? Why are they more intent 
 on establishing their preconceived opinions than sincerely 
 inquiring into the mind of the Spirit ? Why are they so 
 frequently zealous in defending what, upon patient inves- 
 tigation, they really believe to be the truth, while they 
 
172 USE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 manifest no particular desire to ascertain the practical 
 bearings of the truth when thus discovered ? 
 
 We have long been of the opinion that were the spi- 
 ritual import and moral ends of baptism more carefully 
 studied, and studied with practical intent, and not from 
 the lust of controversy by which so many " defenders of 
 the faith" are infected — were this done by all who profess 
 and call themselves Christians, in a mild and docile spirit, 
 the church would soon be of " one mind and one mouth/' 
 " of one heart and one soul." Then, instead of angry 
 contentions and schismatical divisions, we should exhibit 
 to the world the sublime spectacle of a united, catholic 
 communion, after the apostolic model : " There is one 
 body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of 
 your calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God 
 and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and 
 in you all." Eph. iv. 
 
 Were we aware that there is a single line in the fore- 
 going pages, contrary to the tone and temper of this 
 beautiful passage, we would show it no quarter. Truth 
 and charity are twin sisters, and should be constant com- 
 panions — when found apart we scarcely know the one or 
 the other. Certain it is, we cannot " grow up into Him 
 in all things, which is the Head, even Christ/' if we are 
 unmindful of " speaking the truth in love." 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 15* 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 STRICTURES ON DR. HOWELL'S EVILS OF 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 The evils of infant baptism, constitute an antipedobaptisfc 
 argument, which, according to Dr. Howell, has never before 
 been brought into the controversy. He says, it is "an aspect 
 which has never yet been considered." 
 
 This is very remarkable. What have those been about 
 who consider themselves specially set for the defence of 
 gospel ordinances? Have they but just found out what an 
 abominable thing is this same baby-sprinkling? Or, have 
 they known all about it, but, from motives of false charity, 
 refrained from the utterance of their denunciations? We 
 can hardly determine which of these two suggestions will 
 better account for the earnestness with- which they have set 
 about to demolish this abomination of desolation, since cir- 
 cumstances have induced them to throw off the restraints of 
 pseudo-liberality. Truly, they are making a clean breast of 
 it now. 
 
 The Western Recorder, a Baptist newspaper, published in 
 Louisville, Ky., says: — "Of all the 'damnable heresies' in 
 that black catalogue which has befouled Christianity, we 
 consider infant baptism the most damnable. If other here- 
 sies have damned their thousands, this has damned its tens 
 of thousands." 
 
 A similar catholic spirit is breathed forth in the somewhat 
 notorious letter of Dr. Maclay to Dr. Aydelotte, a clergyman 
 in Cincinnati, on the occasion of the withdrawal of the latter 
 
 175 
 
17G STRICTURES ON 
 
 from the Protestant Episcopal Church, on account of the 
 doctrine of baptismal regeneration and other unscriptural 
 opinions charged upon that communion. Dr. Maclay says 
 in his letter: "I consider infant baptism the greatest curse 
 that has ever afflicted Christendom. It has done more to 
 corrupt the church of God, and make it a den of robbers, 
 than all the other inventions of the wicked one. This 
 accursed thing has rendered the churches of the Reformation 
 nearly as corrupt as the Romish church itself." 
 
 This is candor with a vengeance. And what is thus pre- 
 sented in the gross, is given in detail by Dr. Howell, who 
 says he writes "for the million," and like some others of his 
 class finds it expedient to waive certain trifling scruples that 
 truth and charity might interpose. He gives us a whole 
 book on the subject — a book bearing the respectable impri- 
 matur of the Southern Baptist Publication Society — a book 
 which we have read since writing the most of the foregoing 
 pages. 
 
 In this modest and temperate publication, we have one 
 and twenty enormous evils laid to the account of infant 
 baptism ; and as it would be perfectly easy to extend the list 
 to one hundred and twenty, we wonder that the inventive 
 faculty of the author was so soon exhausted. 
 
 Why did he not furnish us with proof that the predicted 
 antichrist is infant baptism — that the sin unto death, for 
 which we are not commanded to pray, is infant baptism — 
 that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which hath 
 never forgiveness, is infant baptism — that original sin itself, 
 which brought death into the world and all our wo, was 
 nothing under the sun but infant baptism, the serpent 
 having seduced Eve to consent to baptize her first-born child! 
 In short, why did he not furnish proof that all the sins 
 that ever were or ever will be, must be traced to this same 
 prolific evil, this mother of abominations, infant baptism ? 
 
 But, seriously, there is no more connection between the 
 evils adduced and the cause alleged by Dr. Howell than there 
 is between Tenterden steeple and Goodwin sands. In refer- 
 ence to many of these points, we have furnished overwhelm- 
 ing refutation in the proofs presented of the Divine origin of 
 infant baptism. 
 
dr. howell's evils of infant baptism. 177 
 
 Dr. Howell says: "Infant baptism is an evil "because its 
 practice is unsupported by the word of God." 
 
 But he wisely ignores the principal testimony by which 
 the claims of infants to this ordinance are sustained. He 
 declaims upon the all-sufficiency of Scripture as a rule of 
 faith and practice — a point which we are as ready as he to 
 admit, and not by any means as apt to forget. He brings 
 forward some unguarded expressions of certain pedobaptists 
 in reference to the alleged absence of positive precept in the 
 premises, and also their various speculations in regard to 
 the philosophy of the ordinance, in proof that it is unsup- 
 ported by the word of God ! And this is argument ! This 
 is to overthrow the massy bulwarks by which infant baptism 
 is defended! 
 
 But it seems this " defence leads to the most injurious per- 
 versions of the word of God." 
 
 This is an absurd charge. It involves a begging of the 
 question. Of course, our construction of the word of God 
 will be considered perversion by those who are determined 
 that infants shall not be baptized. But we must beg leave 
 to inform Dr. Howell, that the most able, most judicious, 
 most conscientious critics that ever attempted to expound 
 the word of God, have not been able to make sense out of 
 the proof-texts in question without involving the baptism of 
 infants. And we would be perfectly willing to leave it to 
 any judge of language, to any one capable of investigating 
 a question in exegesis, who had never heard of the contro- 
 versy on this subject, if such could be found, to determine 
 on which side lies the sin of perverting the word of God. 
 We could very readily retort this charge, but this is not to 
 our taste. We are more inclined to refer to the use we have 
 made of those passages than to deal out denunciations on 
 those who have unhappily mistaken their import. The 
 futile attempt of Dr. Howell to extort a different meaning 
 from some of them, more fully attaches us to the construc- 
 tion given them by nearly all the learned and pious divines 
 that have ever lived since the days of the Apostles. 
 
 The charge that " infant baptism is an evil because it en- 
 grafts Judaism upon the gospel of Christ/' is made with so 
 much recklessness that it is very disagreeable to advert to it. 
 
178 STRICTURES ON 
 
 In our argument for the baptism of children, drawn from 
 the analogy of circumcision, we expressly state that the re- 
 ference is to circumcision, not as it was a part of the Jewish 
 system, the ceremonial economy of Moses, but as it was the 
 seal of the covenant made with Abraham four hundred years 
 before Judaism had a being. If the Mosaic dispensation had 
 never been originated, circumcision would have been prac- 
 tised as a seal of the Abrahamic covenant, which the Apostle 
 tells us is the very same which has received its development 
 in these latter times. That the privileges of that covenant 
 inured to believers under the Mosaic dispensation, and that 
 circumcision, which subserved other purposes to the Jews, 
 sealed to them also the spiritual blessings embraced in the 
 covenant with Abraham, everybody knows ; and everybody 
 ought to know that the analogy between circumcision and 
 baptism, alluded to by the apostle, embraces those points 
 alone which appertain to the Abrahamic covenant — it distinctly 
 and in so many words excludes every thing national, tem- 
 poral, ceremonial, every tiling peculiar to the Jewish system. 
 Gen. xvii. ; Rom. iv. ; Gal. iii. And yet Dr. Howell boldly 
 affirms that infant baptism engrafts Judaism upon the gospel 
 of Christ ! This is one of the most gratuitous, unfounded, 
 unscrupulous charges we have ever seen. 
 
 "What effrontery to say, that "Judaism has, with all the 
 sects, more influence in their ecclesiastical polity, and their 
 administration of ordinances, than has even the gospel itself 
 of the grace of God." Yerily, this is writing "for the 
 million V The entire chapter on this subject is a heteroge- 
 neous mass of palpable error and bold assumption. 
 
 It is almost incredible that Dr. Howell should not know 
 that the Abrahamic covenant differs from that which God 
 made with the Israelites when he took them by the hand to 
 lead them out of the land of Egypt, and agrees in all essen- 
 tial points with that which now obtains, as these particulars 
 are so fully and so clearly set forth by St. Paul in his Epistles 
 to the Galatians and Hebrews. But no wonder that Paul is 
 set aside when Christ is contradicted. Dr. Howell says that 
 " Christ asserts distinctly that circumcision belonged to the 
 law of Moses, and was identified with the covenant of Sinai. 
 To the Jews the Saviour said, Moses gave you circumcision. 
 
DR. Hu WELL'S EVILS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 179 
 
 And again : A man on the Sabbath day received circumcision 
 that the law of Moses be not broken. Did Moses give them 
 circumcision ? Then circumcision was a part of his cere- 
 monial law." This is writing " for the million," with a wit 
 ness ! Any one else would readily detect the sophism, the 
 suppressio veri, of this argument. 
 
 Dr. Howell labors to prove that circumcision was a Jewish 
 rite in such a sense as that baptism, if it comes in its place, 
 must be also a Jewish rite, binding all who receive it to keep 
 the ceremonial law ! But in doing this he has to contradict 
 the Saviour, in garbling his language, omitting the qualify- 
 ing adjunct in which our Lord says of circumcision — " not 
 because it is of Moses, but of the fathers." John vii. 22. As 
 it is of the fathers — as it sealed the covenant made with Abra- 
 ham, which Dr. Howell erroneously and ambiguously says 
 " was not visibly administered until after the law, or old 
 covenant, had passed away," but which, on the contrary, took 
 effect as really, though not as fully, in patriarchal as in 
 Christian times — as it sealed the covenant with Abraham, 
 and not as it had respect afterward to the political and cere- 
 monial laws of the Jews, is it represented by baptism. 
 
 We are exceedingly unwilling to charge any respectable 
 author with an intention to deceive ; but the reference which 
 Dr. Howell makes to sacrifices as existing, together with cir- 
 cumcision, before Moses, forces us to believe that he at least 
 doubted the soundness of his position. The reason we do 
 not offer sacrifices need not be assigned. Why does not Dr. 
 Howell charge us with engrafting Judaism on Christianity 
 in observing the Sabbath? If it be said, it was observed be- 
 fore Moses, we admit it ; yet it is affirmed expressly that the 
 Sabbath was given to the Israelites to be a sign between 
 them and God. And the change in regard to the day of rest 
 is not so great as the change in the form of the seal of the 
 covenant from circumcision to baptism, and therefore it 
 savors more of the Judaical spirit — while the obligation to 
 observe the Lord's day, as a Sabbatical rest, essentially iden- 
 tical with the primitive Sabbath, is not so plainly set forth 
 as the obligation to apply baptism as a seal to the covenant 
 in place of circumcision, which was its external ratification 
 in patriarchal times. And yet "infant baptism engrafts 
 
180 STRICTURES ON 
 
 Judaism upon Christianity!" Will "the million" be con- 
 vinced with such reasoning? 
 
 But we are told that "infant baptism is an evil because 
 the principles upon which it is predicated contradict the 
 great doctrine of justification by faith" — and " because it is 
 in direct conflict with the work of the Holy Spirit in re- 
 generation." 
 
 If this were so, it would indeed be an evil. But it is not so. 
 Infant baptism, we admit, has been so perverted and abused as 
 to be forced into apparent opposition to those great doctrines 
 of Christianity. But so has also adult baptism, especially as 
 administered by immersionists, whether Mormons or Camp- 
 bellites, so-called. Dr. Howell claims as " Baptists" all the 
 followers of the Bethany apostle, who recognize no other 
 regeneration than that of water, and set aside justification 
 by faith, as incompatible with their theory of "believers' 
 baptism." And yet he has the courage to charge these 
 errors on infant baptism ! Why does he not show up the 
 evils of justification by faith, because multitudes of errorists, 
 including thousands of his antipedobaptist brethren, engraft 
 upon it all the abominations of antinomian licentiousness ? 
 Why does he not set aside the necessity of personal holiness, 
 because it gives occasion to the development of a self-righteous 
 spirit ? 
 
 There is no logical connection between infant baptism and 
 those unevangelical principles ; for heterodox as may be the 
 citations of Dr. Howell from Popish and Protestant writers, 
 they can be paralleled by " choice extracts" from antipedo- 
 baptist writers, who, according to Dr. Howell, are neither 
 Papists nor Protestants. And, on the other hand, the most 
 enlightened and most able defenders of justification by faith 
 and the cognate doctrine of regeneration by the Holy Ghost, 
 whether among the fathers, reformers, or modern divines, 
 have been determined advocates of infant baptism, which 
 this modest writer styles " the rankest corruption, the main 
 support of Popery, ignorance, and worldly conformity." 
 
 He endeavors to bring the odium of unevangelical prin- 
 ciples upon all "the sects." The case of the Methodists, 
 however, gives him some difficulty. In one place he admits 
 that they are highly evangelical — that justification by faith 
 
dr. howell's evils of infant baptism. 181 
 
 and infant baptism exist together in their communion. But 
 then, " the Methodist churches have not yet existed long 
 enough, nor been sufficiently at ease, to feel fully the evils 
 of infant baptism ! And yet how large the number of their 
 ministers and laymen who annually pass over to Episcopacy, 
 and some of them go on to Puseyism and to Rome I" 
 
 What logic! Have no antipedobaptists gone to Episco- 
 pacy, to Puseyism, to Popery ? A few Methodists have gone 
 " to Episcopacy,' ; as Dr. Howell words it, on the ground of 
 dissatisfaction with the meagre support of the ministry — the 
 itinerancy, or the Presbyterial ordination of the Methodist 
 churches ; but we presume he would find it difficult to 
 adduce a single example of one who has made the change 
 from the motive he insinuates ; and a Papist who was edu- 
 cated a Methodist would be indeed -a vara avis, if he could 
 be found. We are very sure that a thorough training in 
 Methodism affords one of the best safeguards against the 
 Popish error of baptismal regeneration, into a modification 
 of which, perhaps, a third part of the antipedobaptists of 
 this country have fallen. The attempt of Dr. Howell to 
 fasten the odium of this error upon the Methodist Church is 
 equally disingenuous and absurd. He quotes '"the Methodist 
 Articles of Religion/' as teaching — "Baptism is not only a 
 sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Chris- 
 tians are distinguished from others that are not baptized, 
 but it is also a sign of regeneration, or the new birth. The 
 baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in 
 the church." That is precisely what we do teach, and every 
 word of it is true. Baptism is a sign of regeneration, and 
 therefore it is not regeneration. And yet Dr. Howell sophis- 
 tically associates the Methodist Confession with other Pro- 
 testant Confessions, and says: "Episcopalians and Methodists 
 affirm that by baptism, the new birth, the forgiveness of sins, 
 adoption, are all, to the child, visibly signed and sealed. The 
 child therefore in baptism, is pardoned of sin, is regenerated, 
 is adopted, is received into the church, received into the 
 favour of God, and saved in heaven. All this certainly 
 involves justification, or the declaring the person innocent of 
 crime. These same Confessions teach therefore, the justifi- 
 cation of the sinner by baptism. Consequently on the doc- 
 16 
 
182 STRICTURES ON 
 
 trine of justification by faith, and the doctrines upon which 
 they rest infant baptism, the Confessions, each and all of 
 them, plainly, palpably, unmistakably contradict them- 
 selves." 
 
 Was there ever a more unblushing misrepresentation? If 
 so, it is found in this same volume, where this truthful 
 and reliable author has the conscience to say of baptized 
 children: " If they are Methodists their catechisms teach 
 them that their baptism cleansed them from the defilements 
 of original sin I" 
 
 We are, perhaps, as well acquainted with the catechetical 
 literature of the Methodist Churches as this reverend accuser 
 of our brethren, and yet we have not found in it a syllable 
 which even seems to favor the error in question ; but it con- 
 tains that which sets it aside in the plainest and most 
 explicit terms. Thus in the Catechism of Bishop Capers, 
 published by the Methodist Church for the use of the 
 Methodist Missions, and constantly taught to thousands of 
 children, especially black children on the plantations, we 
 have the following : — 
 
 What is baptism ? 
 
 Baptism is a sign of the grace of God that makes us Christians. 
 Does baptism make us Christians ? 
 
 No : water cannot make us Christians : grace makes us Chris- 
 +: ans. 
 
 "Who works that grace in us to make us Christians ? 
 
 The Holy Ghost. 
 
 "What do you promise when you come to be baptized ? 
 
 I promise to renounce the devil, and the world and the flesh, so thai 
 
 will not live in sin any longer. 
 
 What other promise do you make ? 
 
 I promise to keep God's holy will and commandments. 
 
 How can you keep these promises ? 
 
 I can keep them only by God's grace. 
 
 Ought little children to be baptized ? 
 
 Yes : they belong to Christ. 
 
 And in the Catechism compiled by the learned and 
 lamented Richard Watson, by order of the British Con- 
 
dr howell ? s evils of infant baptism. 183 
 
 ference, and adopted by the entire American Connec- 
 tion to be used in all our schools, we are taught as fol- 
 lows : — 
 
 What is the outward and visible sign or form of baptism ? 
 
 The application of water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost. Matt, xxviii. 19. 
 
 What is the inward and spiritual grace signified by this ? 
 
 Our being cleansed from sin, and becoming new creatures in Christ 
 Jesus 
 
 Acts xxii. 16. Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, call- 
 ing on the name of the Lord. 
 
 What are the actual privileges of baptized persons ? 
 
 They are made members of the visible church of Christ: their 
 gracious relation to him as the second Adam, as the Mediator of the 
 new covenant, is solemnly ratified by Divine appointment; and they 
 are thereby recognized as having a claim to all those spiritual bless- 
 ings of which they are the proper subjects. 
 
 What doth your baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and 
 the Holy Ghost oblige you to do? 
 
 My baptism obliges me, first, to renounce the devil and all his works, 
 the pomps and vanity of this wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of 
 the flesh ; secondly, that I should believe all the articles of the Chris- 
 tian faith; and thirdly, that I should keep God's holy will and com- 
 mandments, and walk in the same all the days of my life. 
 
 And yet Dr. Howell says that the Methodist Catechisms 
 teach the children that their baptism cleansed them from the 
 defilements of original sin ! It required no common courage 
 to make such a statement. We are prepared for the per- 
 formance of any feat of controversial heroism by Dr. Howell 
 after this exploit. What does he care if the truth should 
 come forth against him, like the angel against Balaam ? — he 
 has only to shut his eyes, and dash blindly forward — such 
 is the mettle, or rather, the madness, of the prophet. 
 
 Hear^ him again : " Infant Baptism is an evil, because, 
 arrogating hereditary claims to the covenant of grace, it fal- 
 sifies the doctrine of universal depravity." 
 
 Infant Baptism falsifies the doctrine gf universal de- 
 
184 STRICTURES ON 
 
 pravity! Admirable logic ! Capital argument ! I>r. Howell 
 must be well versed in ecclesiastical history. Will he be 
 kind enough to inform us what was the argumenhim palma- 
 rium, the conclusive argument used by Augustin, Jerome, 
 and others, in the fifth century, against Pelagius, Celestius, 
 and their associates, who denied " the doctrine of universal 
 depravity V 
 
 The orthodox champions reasoned thus : Why baptize 
 children if they are not born in sin ? And so we still urge : 
 Why administer to them the ordinance which symbolizes the 
 purifying influences of the Holy Ghost, if they are not pol- 
 luted with the stain of original and inherent depravity ? 
 And we will take occasion to turn the tables and boldly 
 assert, that nothing is so well adapted to perpetuate the 
 truth on the subject of original sin as the practice of infant 
 baptism. So long as this is observed in the Church we have 
 an argument which we can bring to bear with resistless 
 force upon Pelagians of every class; and we are greatly mis- 
 taken if it will not yet be had in requisition, and if it do not 
 yet perform good service, in the restoration to orthodoxy of 
 those churches that are unhappily chargeable with defection 
 in reference to this fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 
 As may be supposed, the members of those churches do not 
 lay much stress upon the baptism of their children, and in 
 many cases omit the duty altogether, as the exponent of a 
 great principle which they have thought proper to explode. 
 But as they have not formally denied the right of infants to 
 this ordinance, a fulcrum is left on which the lever of reason 
 can be placed to lift them into the orthodox position from 
 which they have been removed. It is a pitiful sophism to say 
 that infant baptism arrogates hereditary claims to the cove- 
 nant of grace, and if it were not so, it would be a non 
 scquitur to say, therefore it falsifies the doctrine of universal 
 depravity. Infant baptism does not arrogate any such 
 claims. 
 
 Some of the advocates of infant baptism have set forth 
 certain notions of their own about the children of believers 
 being born in the covenant and therefore entitled to its seal; 
 but this is a speculation adventitious to the doctrine of infant 
 baptism, though considered comparatively harmless by those 
 
dr. howell's evils of infant baptism. 185 
 
 who do not receive it. Dr. Howell says, it " universally 
 prevails among Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and other 
 Calvinists." Dr. Howell does not consider the antipedobap- 
 tists Calvinists, or indeed Protestants — they are the pure, 
 uncorrupted, unreforrned spouse of Christ. " By them/' he 
 continues, namely, the Calvinists, "it is distinctly avowed; 
 and it is held with more or less ambiguity by every class 
 of pedobaptists." Another of his sweeping, gratuitous 
 assertions. 
 
 Suppose, however, this were a fact, and suppose the 
 speculation in question were true, how would it falsify the 
 doctrine of depravity ? Might not the children of believers 
 be born in sin, and yet be entitled, by virtue of their parent- 
 age, to the ordinance which assumes the depravity of our 
 nature, and symbolizes the means by which that depravity is 
 removed? There is not the slightest antagonism between 
 these points. And yet the " optics keen" of Dr. Howell has 
 discovered that infant baptism " is utterly subversive of the 
 fundamental doctrine of the work of regeneration by the 
 Spirit of God." 
 
 As Dr. Howell seems to care as little for the canons of 
 literary composition as for those of ecclesiastical councils, he 
 has seen proper to manufacture arguments by a change of 
 terms and a repetition of unfounded assumptions. 
 
 Thus his seventh argument makes "infant baptism an evil 
 because it of necessity entails corruptions upon the church." 
 
 In his eighth, "it necessarily gives false views of the king- 
 dom of Christ." 
 
 In. his ninth, "it destroys the visibility of the church." 
 
 In his tenth, "it perpetuates the superstitions that origi- 
 nally produced it." 
 
 In his eleventh, "it brings its advocates into collision with 
 the authority of Christ." 
 
 Of course, we cannot follow him in all these book-making 
 repetitions. 
 
 We have already demonstrated that none defer to the au- 
 thority of Christ more fully than those who baptize their 
 children, as they do it on his authority. 
 
 We have already shown that infant baptism originated in 
 the wisdom of God, and not in the superstition of man. 
 16* 
 
186 STRICTURES ON 
 
 We have also proved that it is essential to the integrity 
 and perfection of the church, and therefore it is absurd to 
 say that it militates "with its visibility and purity. 
 
 It has, indeed, been encumbered with the corruptions of 
 men, and had it not possessed a divine vitality, it would 
 long since have been destroyed, or, at least, its identity 
 would have been lost amid the superstitious accretions of the 
 degenerate ages of the Church. The more therefore it has 
 been abused, the clearer does its divine original appear. 
 Dr. Howell, does not seem to be aware that the truth may 
 be forced into a temporary connection with error, and the 
 latter may support itself on the credit of the former. The 
 multitudinous corruptions superinduced upon infant baptism 
 never could have gained popularity within a century of the 
 apostolic age, and maintained it for more than a millennium 
 of darkness, had not the doctrine itself been impregnabiy 
 true, and the practice undeniably scriptural. There would 
 never have been the corruption of the Mass, had the Lord's 
 Supper never been divinely appointed. 
 
 Dr. Howell seems to be incapable of discriminating be- 
 tween the cause and the occasion of corruption. AVe admit 
 that baptism in general, and infant baptism in particular, 
 has been the occasion of numerous evils, but we deny that it 
 has been the cause of any. Nevertheless, we will listen to 
 Dr. Howell's invective. He says with unparalleled mo- 
 desty: — 
 
 "The spirit with which infant baptism inspires the church 
 is corrupt and unholy. This fact is most obvious. It is 
 fully justified by the history of Popery in all ages. The 
 progressive developments of Protestantism increase its force. 
 Whence originated the Neology of Lutheranism, the Puseyisni 
 of Episcopacy, and the Universalism and Unitarianism of 
 Presbyterians and Congregationalists? They are all the 
 legitimate fruits of infant baptism, but for which they never 
 could have existed. Baptist churches cannot be thus cor- 
 rupted and destroyed." 
 
 Now, upon Dr. Howell's principles, we can show that all 
 this ado about corruption in the church is "sound and fury, 
 signifying nothing." We can demonstrate that there is no 
 corruption in the church — there never has been any — there 
 
dr. howell's evils of infant baptism. 187 
 
 never can be any. Were not all the apostolic churches anti- 
 pedobaptist in their "faith and order?" Dr. Howell says 
 they were. And does he not say that " Baptist churches 
 cannot be thus corrupted and destroyed V* Is it not there- 
 fore out of the question to talk about corruption in the 
 church? As Infant Baptism is the mother of abominations, 
 if the offspring cannot be tolerated, certainly the parent 
 would receive no quarter. The corruptions of the church, 
 therefore, are as perfectly fabulous as any of the feats in 
 Gulliver's Travels; and "baby-sprinkling," the only possi- 
 ble cause of corruption in the church, has never been 
 practised at all — and for this good and sufficient reason, 
 "Baptist churches" — and there were none but Baptist 
 churches in the beginning — "cannot be thus corrupted and 
 destroyed." 
 
 But if, for the sake of argument, we may be allowed to 
 suppose that antipedobaptist churches are not absolutely 
 indefectible, incorruptible, infallible — suppose it possible 
 that they may err, that they may be corrupted — the suppo- 
 sition will allow us to inquire, whether or not they may 
 have erred — whether or not, in some instances, they have 
 been chargeable with any slight defections from the "ancient 
 gospel," any variations from apostolic "faith and order." 
 
 One thing is obvious, if there be any pedobaptist churches 
 in the world — if there ever have been any, they must have 
 originated in " Baptist churches," if Dr. Howell be correct 
 in affirming that in primitive times there were no other. He 
 says that pedobaptism was unknown till the middle of the 
 third century. But were there no corruptions in the church 
 until that time ? Was there no Ebionism — a Judaico-Chris- 
 tian hybrid — in the first century ? Was there no Gnosticism 
 — a cross between Christianity and the Oriental philosophy ? 
 And is it possible to overstate the enormity of those heresies, 
 developing and patronizing as they did the most shameless 
 immoralities ? Were there no Marcionites in the second 
 century ? — no Encratites, Carpocratians, Valentinians, Patri- 
 passians, Montanists — but why enumerate? why interrogate? 
 The church — the incorruptible church — of the first three cen- 
 turies — the immaculate antipedobaptist period — was flooded 
 with heresies — damnable heresies, and with immoralities, 
 
188 STRICTURES ON 
 
 scarcely exceeded by those of the Anabaptists of Munster, or 
 their successors of Utah. 
 
 Dr. Howell erroneously affirms that infant baptism had not 
 been introduced in the times of Tertullian, whom he claims 
 as a " Baptist" preacher of the first water, being oareful to 
 inform us in a foot-note that he " was not a Campbellite." 
 Of course he was incorruptible. And you must neither be- 
 lieve his biographers nor his writings, which make him one 
 of the rankest enthusiasts that ever lived. He was, indeed, 
 brimful of superstition — completely steeped in fanaticism. 
 He went so far as to become a disciple of Montanus, who 
 blasphemeously gave himself out to be the promised Com- 
 forter ! And it was largely through the instrumentality of 
 the former that so many thousands were led away by the im- 
 postures of the latter. 
 
 Dr. Howell says that infant baptism was the parent of 
 unitarianism, and that there was no infant baptism in the 
 primitive church. How can he help knowing that there was 
 scarcely a heretic from Simon Magus and Cerinthus down to 
 Manes and Arius — to descend no further — that did not deny 
 the doctrine of the Trinity ? These heretics were numerous 
 — their name was legion — and it was but about two centuries 
 after the apostolic age, when unitarianism had well-nigh ex- 
 tinguished the orthodox faith, so that the great champion of 
 the truth, is spoken of as Athanasius contra mundum — 
 Athanasius against the world. And yet " Baptist churches 
 cannot be corrupted." 
 
 We indeed can defend " Baptist churches" from all im- 
 putation of heresy in regard to those primitive defections 
 from the truth, because there were no "Baptist churches" in 
 existence till a thousand years afterward. " Baptist churches" 
 were as innocent of heresy for all that time as unborn babes. 
 We are ashamed to say that all those heretics as well as the 
 orthodox whom they so much troubled, were pedobaptists, 
 albeit their infant baptism had nothing to do with their 
 heresies. Pelagius the heretic and Augustine his opponent 
 alike declared, that they had never heard of any one so im- 
 pious as to deny the right of infants to baptism. 
 
 But history, somewhat more modern, furnishes examples 
 of "Baptist churches" not altogether free from heretical 
 
DR. HOWELL* S EVILS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 189 
 
 "taints and blames." Dr. Howell claims, as spiritual ances- 
 tors, the anabaptists of Germany. We may admit that they 
 have been slandered by history, but, after this admission, 
 there is a very large margin left for charges which truth will 
 not allow to be set aside by a mere arrogant assertion. But, 
 for the present we will pass over their trifling misdemeanors 
 — such as their treachery, hypocrisy, licentiousness, murder, 
 blasphemy — and allude to them merely for the purpose of 
 showing that they were the patriarchs of modern unita- 
 rianism. 
 
 Servetus, who was put to death at Geneva, at the ever-to- 
 be-deplored instigation of John Calvin, suffered for forty 
 errors — one of which was a denial of infant baptism and 
 another was a denial of the Trinity. And the anabaptists 
 that went from Germany to Poland gave birth to Socinianism, 
 which bade fair at one time to become the established religion 
 of that kingdom. It took deeper root there and in Transyl- 
 vania than any other state in Europe, and there it still re- 
 mains. The anabaptists were " baptistical" to the heart's 
 content of Dr. Howell, and we see how immaculate and in- 
 fallible they were. By whom was the worst feature of the 
 old Patripassian heresy revived in modern times, but by the 
 anabaptists of Flanders? Because it is said, "The Word 
 was made flesh," they taught that the divine nature of Christ, 
 one with the Father, was transubstantiated into the human 
 nature ; as if the infinite, immaterial, indivisible, and im- 
 mortal Godhead, could be changed and divided into a finite 
 spirit and a material, mortal body ! "Absolve we this, what 
 then is blasphemy V Yet " Baptist churches cannot be cor- 
 rupted." 
 
 Who was the founder of " the denomination" in this 
 country, but the incessantly lauded and almost canonized 
 anabaptist, Roger Williams ? Hildreth, in his History of the 
 United States, tells us that this great "Baptist" patriarch, 
 and apostle of civil and religious liberty, and heroic confessor 
 if not martyr for the truth, embraced anabaptism in 1639, 
 and being first dipped by one of the brethren, turned round 
 and dipped him and others, and thus became " the founder 
 and teacher of the first Baptist Church in America. But." 
 continues Hildreth, " he soon left it, became a ' seeker/ and 
 
190 STRICTURES ON 
 
 after many doubts as to authority for any ecclesiastical or- 
 ganization, finally concluded that none was lawful, or at 
 least, necessary. Though he continued to employ the phrase- 
 ology of the Puritans, he seems ultimately to have renounced 
 all formalities of worship, having adopted the opinion that 
 Christianity was but another name for humanity." And yet 
 " Baptist churches cannot be corrupted." 
 
 We would like to ask what was the cradle of American 
 Universalism ? A "Baptist Church" in Philadelphia. And 
 who was the father of the heresy? The Rev. Elnathan "Win- 
 chester, a "Baptist" clergyman of distinguished ability. 
 After spreading the leaven of his pernicious doctrine among 
 the brethren of his "faith and order" in America, he went 
 to Great Britain and there circulated his unscriptural princi- 
 ples. And the greatest resistance he ever received was from 
 the ministers of pedobaptist churches. And the great cham- 
 pion of New England Universalism, "Walter Balfour, who 
 died Jan. 3, 1852, was an antipedobaptist too. The first 
 step from Scotch Presbyterianism made him a "Baptist" — 
 the next a Universalist — and crowds followed him in his 
 downward course. Yet "Baptist churches cannot be cor- 
 rupted and destroyed." 
 
 One branch of "the denomination" is known by the eu- 
 phonius name of Tankers or Dunkards — sometimes styled, 
 "German Baptists." They are found chiefly in Pennsyl- 
 vania, in the western parts of Maryland, Virginia, and in 
 Ohio. They are professed Universalists, somewhat upon 
 the Restoration platform of Mr. "Winchester. They are 
 "strongly baptistical," though we think they have some 
 peculiarity in their mode of plunging the believers. Yet 
 "Baptist churches cannot be corrupted." 
 
 Has the writer "for the million" forgot who was the 
 author of that pestilent heresy, which has spread like a 
 prairie fire in our country, and especially in the "West? 
 This heresy, or rather combination of heresies, involves the 
 detestable dogma of baptismal regeneration, so-called — the 
 denial of the work of the Holy Ghost, and in many instances 
 his Personality too — a denial, in numerous cases, of the 
 Deity of Christ and the doctrine of eternal punishment — and 
 the subversion of other established points of belief. "Was 
 
DR. HOWELL'S EVILS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 191 
 
 not an antipedobaptist minister — a redoubtable champion on 
 Dr. Howell's side — the originator of this falsely called Primi- 
 tive Gospel? And did he find it impossible to corrupt "Bap- 
 tist churches?" What is the history of "the denomination ?" 
 Dr. Howell plumes himself on its popularity. He says : 
 
 "The Baptist churches of this country contain a million 
 of communicants. Five millions more are of their opinion 
 and under their influence. One-fourth therefore of all the 
 population of the United States are strongly baptistical. All 
 these regard infant baptism and infant membership, as a 
 nullity, and subject it to constant ridicule." 
 
 The matter of ridicule we will let pass: it is easier to 
 ridicule a thing than to disprove it. But let us revert to the 
 arithmetic. Of these million communicants one-third, less 
 or more, are Campbellites, whom the regular "Baptist 
 Churches" have denounced as heretics, and with whom they 
 have no fellowship. 
 
 One branch of "the denomination," wishing of course to 
 be considered lineal descendants of the disciples who were 
 first called "Christians" at Antioch, decline to be known by 
 any other title. They are " Christians" by eminence. They 
 deny indeed the divinity of Christ — nevertheless they are 
 "strongly baptistical," and "Baptist churches cannot be 
 corrupted." 
 
 A large portion of the "denomination," especially in the 
 South, is made up of antinomian, "Anti-missionary Bap- 
 tists," whose ignorance and immorality have been, and still 
 are, a disgrace to the Christian name. They are not Dunkards, 
 like their German brethren, but thousands of them are no- 
 torious drunkards. And there are times when Dr. Howell 
 denounces them with greater vehemence than we do, be- 
 cause of his quasi connection with them. And yet "Baptist 
 churches cannot be corrupted!" We fancy it would be diffi- 
 cult to corrupt Dr. Howell's "hard-shell" brethren. 
 
 Another division of "the denomination" maintain that 
 there is no more authority in Scripture for the observance 
 of the Lord's Day, as a Sabbath, than there is for the bap- 
 tism of children. And in saying this, they are doubtless 
 correct, though Dr. Howell is very far from thinking so. 
 Yet "Baptist churches cannot be corrupted." 
 
192 STRICTURES ON 
 
 Another portion of "the denomination" is known by the 
 name of " Two-Seed Baptists" — a title equally beautiful and 
 Scriptural. These people are perhaps too ignorant to be 
 called heretics. If they only knew it, tl^ey are, in a very 
 stupid and awkward manner, attempting to disinter the 
 putrid carcass of Manicheism — that impious compound of 
 oriental paganism and eviscerated Christianity. The Two- 
 Seed brethren are "strongly baptistical." Yet "Baptist 
 churches cannot be corrupted." The great universal, ex- 
 clusive corrupter of Christianity is infant baptism. 
 
 But our patience is exhausted. We are weary of the 
 enumeration. There seems to be no end to the various sects 
 of " the denomination" — General, Particular, Regular — Two- 
 Seed, Six-Principle, and Seventh-day — Close-Communion, 
 Open-Communion, and No-Communion — Arian, Trinitarian, 
 and Universalist — Calvinistic, Antinomian, and Free-Will — 
 all "strongly baptistical" — not one of them free from error, 
 and most of them, as sects, infected with deadly heresy— 
 and yet "Baptist churches cannot be corrupted." 
 
 We dare say if Joe Smith had practised "baby-sprink- 
 ling," instead of adult immersion, all the abominations of 
 the Mormons, including their brazen effrontery, their poly- 
 gamy, their "treasons, stratagems, and spoils," would have 
 been saddled upon infant baptism. And if the Manicheans, 
 Sabbatarians, Anti-missionaries, Christians, Campbellites, 
 Tunkers, Winchesterians, had renounced " believers' bap- 
 tism," and taken to sprinkling babies, Dr. Howell would have 
 charged all their paganism, Judaism, antinomianism, unita- 
 rianism, ritualism, universalism, and we know not what, 
 upon that mammoth corrupter, infant baptism. 
 
 But we forget — Dr. Howell writes for the million. Does 
 he mean the " million of communicants in Baptist churches?" 
 If so, they may perhaps appreciate his argument. We must 
 be allowed, however, to entertain a different opinion of the 
 " five millions more," who he says are " strongly baptistical." 
 In this number, by the way, he includes infants, as well as 
 adults — a mode of computation this which scarcely befits so 
 great a champion of antipedobaptism. And yet his argu- 
 ment is fit only for children and such other innocents as'are 
 
dr. howell's evils of infant baptism. 193 
 
 unable to discriminate between sober reasoning and reckless 
 assumption. 
 
 The more discreet brethren of Dr. Howell's " faith and 
 order," we feel very sure, must blush at his silly prating 
 about the immaculate. and incorruptible character of antipe- 
 dobaptist churches, and his farcical assertion that pedobap- 
 tist churches in America would be as corrupt as those in 
 Germany, Spain, and Italy, were it not for certain causes, of 
 which the diffusion of "Baptist people" is the most promi- 
 nent. Such self-laudation, we would think, would be nau- 
 seating even to the million for whom it is prepared. 
 
 As to the Neology of Germany, the Puseyism of Great 
 Britain, and the heterodoxy of New England, these corrup- 
 tions would have existed if infant baptism had never been 
 practised, though Dr. Howell says they never could have 
 existed without it. It is not difficult to account for the origin 
 of these heresies. We can readily show how Socinianism 
 originated in Geneva and Massachusetts. But were we to do 
 this, it might not be complimentary to some of the principles 
 which Dr. Howell maintains in common with other Calvin- 
 ists, whom he carefully shuns as Protestant sectaries, not 
 worthy of being associated with those who constitute the 
 one, holy, uncorrupted, and incorruptible, communion of 
 saints. We can assure him that the high mystery of predes- 
 tination and the high-handed measures of the stern old Puri- 
 tans, had more to do with the defection in New England 
 than baptism of any sort. And the same, mutatis mutandis, 
 may be said in reference to the defection at Geneva and 
 other places. 
 
 At the same time, let it be remembered that all those 
 heresies have met with the severest handling from pedobap- 
 tist divines ; and there are millions of pedobaptists, in the 
 various sections of the church, who are constantly engaged 
 in a war upon those corruptions of Christianity, and by them 
 principally must they be destroyed. Whatever aid and com- 
 fort they may receive from their antipedobaptist brethren in 
 this great undertaking, it is a pleasant conceit to imagine 
 that without the influence of the latter the former would 
 all be overcome by the foe which they are sworn to 
 destroy ! 
 
 It 
 
194 
 
 STRICTURES ON 
 
 Alas ! antipedobaptists have more important woik on 
 their hands than uniting with their pedobaptist brethren 
 to put down Socianianism and kindred corruptions. If Dr. 
 Howell be correct, they have no ammunition to waste upon 
 these Lilliputian adversaries, when the giant foe, infant bap- 
 tism, is in the field. Let this Goliath be slain, and the whole 
 army of the Philistines will flee before them and never gird 
 themselves again for the battle ! 
 
 Dr. Howell says, " No child ever was, or ever will be, 
 benefited by its baptism and church-membership, but on the 
 contrary, it is seriously injured." 
 
 Now this is an assertion which, in the nature of the case, 
 he cannot prove ; and therefore he can advance it only as a 
 foregone conclusion. But suppose pious men, like Philip 
 Henry and multitudes besides him, assert to the contrary — sup- 
 pose they say emphatically that they have been benefited by 
 their baptism in infancy — suppose they thank God for the 
 privilege granted to them of solemn baptismal dedication ta 
 God and his church from the womb — who is competent to 
 contradict them in this matter? who can prove that they 
 have not experienced the benefit which they profess to have 
 received, and that they are thankful for small favors, or 
 rather for no favors at all? We know of none but Dr. 
 Howell — who seems to be equal to any task which requires 
 an unusual amount of dogmatic assurance and arrogant 
 assumption. 
 
 But with his leave, or otherwise without it, we do not 
 hesitate to say that we have derived great benefit from our 
 baptism in infancy, and we are perhaps as capable of judg- 
 ing in our own case as any pragmatist is for us. And we 
 furthermore affirm it as our settled belief that there is 
 scarcely any thing more edifying to those who witness it 
 than the baptism of children, when properly performed — 
 scarcely any thing more beneficial to the subjects when fol- 
 lowed up by the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and 
 not performed as an isolated service — and scarcely any 
 thing more profitable to the church, when succeeded by that 
 discipline without which no ordinances, no ministrations, 
 can produce their designed effect. When those who have 
 been baptized in infancy refuse to discharge their baptismal 
 
DR. HOWELL* S EVILS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 195 
 
 obligations after they have arrived at years of maturity, they 
 are no longer legitimate members of the church of Christ. 
 In this respect they take rank with those who fall away after 
 they have received "believers' baptism" — for not all im- 
 mersed adults prove to be immaculate Christians, whether 
 they are retained in the fellowship of the church, or ex- 
 cluded from it. Still, antipedobaptists are the men, and 
 religion will die with them. As a proof of it, hear Dr. 
 Howell : 
 
 "We therefore wield the only conservative influence at 
 present existing in the universe. We have the power, with 
 the blessing of God, to save from being wholly quenched 
 that truth which is the world's only hope. How exalted 
 therefore, how sublime is our mission ! For this purpose, 
 doubtless, our Heavenly Father has in all ages kept us as his 
 true Church, an event which seems almost as miraculous as 
 would be the preservation of a spark amid the waters of the 
 raging ocean. Every hierarchy and sect, Papal and Pro- 
 testant, has been united for our destruction, and every govern- 
 ment upon earth has pursued us incessantly, with fire and 
 sword, but we have lived on through every persecution, and 
 have never failed, however deep our suffering, to bear our 
 testimony as witnesses for God. Our bonds are at last being 
 loosed : the links of our chain are, one by one, breaking, and 
 falling : prosperity has come ; and our rapid spread over the 
 earth intimates that God is about to vindicate his gospel, to 
 sweep away from among men the clouds of ignorance and 
 error, and to restore to the world a pure and glorious Chris- 
 tianity." 
 
 Oxford and Rome— prelate and pope — hide your diminished 
 heads ! Prate no more about the church and the uninter- 
 rupted apostolical succession : 
 
 " The temple of the Lord axe we, 
 And heathens all beside V* 
 
 All hail the martyr Church ! 
 
 The foregoing passage from Dr. Howell shows that he is 
 an erudite and sober-minded archaeologist, profoundly versed 
 in the history of the church. Of this we have additional 
 proof. He says 
 
196 STRICTURES OX 
 
 " Superstition is the parent of infant baptism. Nor lias 
 iny of the progeny of that most prolific mother been more 
 productive of evil to the cause of truth and salvation. In 
 these respects it has amply justified its origin. It is not the 
 eldest born, but it is the most popular and insidious of them 
 all. It rapidly gained and yet continues to exercise an abso- 
 lute sway over the minds of men. During the apostolic age, 
 and until two hundred years of the church had been told, 
 infant baptism was wholly unknown. The history of that 
 period, whether sacred or profane, makes not the remotest 
 allusion to such a practice. This of itself is sufficient proof 
 that it did not exist. But it is not the only testimony. The 
 fathers of the church, who then lived and wrote, often spoke 
 of baptism, and always in such terms as to convince us that 
 it was not administered to children. One of them — Justin- 
 contrasts the state of Christians at their birth with their state 
 at baptism. ' Then [at their birth, says he] they were in- 
 voluntary, and unconscious of what they experienced ; but 
 at their baptism they had choice, and knowledge of illumina- 
 tion/ And Tertullian observes : ' The laver of baptism is 
 the seal of faith, which faith begins from penitence. We are 
 not washed [baptized] in order that we may cease from sin- 
 ning, but we have ceased, since we are already cleansed in 
 heart/ Infant baptism could not, therefore, have as yet 
 been introduced. Origen, who lived in the middle of the 
 third century, was the first who defended it." 
 
 The language here cited from Justin has reference to con- 
 verts from paganism — of whom Justin himself was one — and 
 any pedobaptist missionary would use the same in reference 
 to his baptized converts. It is a simple absurdity to bring 
 that into the discussion. Bo not we practise "believers' 
 baptism" ? 
 
 But what shall be said of that which follows ? We could 
 not believe that any clergyman, who had studied this con- 
 troversy at all, could aflfirm that infant baptism had not 
 been introduced in the days of Tertullian ! The writer that 
 can make this statement is entitled to no confidence. Does 
 not everybody know that infant baptism was practised in 
 Tertullian's time, and that this superstitious father set him- 
 self to work in good earnest to induce the postponement of 
 
DR. HOWELL'S EVILS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 197 
 
 baptism in the case of infants, unless their lives were in 
 danger? This innovation upon the apostolic rule originated 
 in his notion that baptism washes away all sin, original and 
 actual, committed before its reception, and, therefore, the 
 longer it was delayed, provided it was not prevented by death, 
 the better for the subject. He says : 
 
 "According to every one's condition and disposition, and 
 also their age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, 
 especially in case of little children. For what need is there 
 that the sponsors should be brought into danger? because 
 they may either fail of their promise by death, or they may 
 be deceived by a child's proving of wicked disposition. Our 
 Lord says, indeed, ' Do not forbid them to come unto me ;' 
 therefore let them come when they are grown up : let them 
 come when they understand, when they are taught whither 
 they come : let them be made Christians when they can kno\V 
 Christ. Why does their innocent age make such haste to the 
 remission of sins ? Quid festinat innocens (Etas ad remis- 
 sionem peccatorum? Men will proceed very warily in secular 
 things ; and he that should not have earthly goods committed 
 to him, yet may he have heavenly. Let them know how to 
 desire this salvation, that you may appear to have given to 
 one that asketh." 
 
 On similar grounds, he recommends unmarried persons, 
 and persons in a widowed state, exposed to peculiar tempta- 
 tions, and those also who are engaged in business concerns, 
 to postpone their baptism. He was, thus, not only opposed 
 to infant baptism, but also to "believers' baptism" — super- 
 stitiously arguing that "those who understand the import of 
 baptism, will rather dread the receiving of it than the delay- 
 ing of it." 
 
 Yet Tertullian would not on any account have suffered 
 either adult or child to leave the world without baptism. 
 Rather than not have the rite administered, in cases of 
 emergency he sanctioned its administration by laymen. 
 Contemptible as his reasoning for postponement may appear 
 to us, it was not without effect in the third &nd fourth cen- 
 turies. 
 
 But had Tertullian been opposed to infant baptism per se, 
 he could have \rritten it down in a far more effectual way, 
 17* 
 
108 STRICTURES ON 
 
 by simply urging that infants had never been baptized — that 
 is, if, as Dr. Howell maintains, they never had been. But 
 they had been, and that too by the apostles and their im- 
 mediate successors, as Justin Martyr states; and this Ter- 
 tullian knew, and with all his superstition and fanaticism he 
 had too much principle to lie about it — indeed, there was no 
 chance to do so to any purpose, for how could he deny what 
 everybody knew? 
 
 The New Testament abounds with proofs of infant baptism, 
 as we have shown. 
 
 The catacombs of Rome are strewed with mementos of 
 infant members of the church, styled in the monumental in- 
 scriptions "neophytes" that is, newly-baptized persons, 
 "saints," and "faithful ones" — all terms applied exclusively 
 to those who had been incorporated with the church by bap- 
 tism; and these mementos date from the apostolic age to 
 the close of the primitive persecutions. 
 
 Irenaeus speaks of infants reborn, or baptized, as the ex- 
 pression constantly imports in the writings of the fathers. 
 And Origen, who was contemporary with Tertullian, having 
 been born at Alexandria, a. d. 185, his father, grandfather, 
 and great-grandfather, having been Christians before him — ■ 
 the first of this venerable Christian family having been, in 
 all likelihood, baptized by St. Mark himself — this same 
 Origen, who, Dr. Howell says, was the first to defend infant 
 baptism, says expressly that it was derived from the apostles! 
 And yet our veracious archajologist affirms that nobody 
 knew any thing about it before his day! It is very likely 
 that Origen was the first of any note that defended it, as it 
 needed no defence before it was impugned by Tertullian. 
 To say, however, that it was not known before the time of Ori- 
 gen, but was the product of superstitions which then pre- 
 vailed in the church, involves a defect in authorship which 
 we do not like to characterize. 
 
 With so much facility in ignoring or inventing facts, we 
 consider Dr. Howell eminently qualified to be the historian 
 of the church— he could doubtless point out to us in every 
 age, the one holy, catholic, and antipedobaptist communion 
 of the faithful, in contradistinction from all the corrupt pro- 
 geny of infant baptism. If he affirms, who can deny, that 
 
dr. howell's evils op infant baptism. 199 
 
 "from this accumulation of theological impurities, like 
 Python from the mud of the deluge, sprang infant baptism?" 
 — a learned, beautiful, and complimentary comparison. 
 
 But we are told that " Infant baptism is an evil because 
 of the connection it assumes with the moral and religious 
 training of children," 
 
 In support of this ambiguous charge, Dr. Howell gives us 
 an heroic, though lugubrious defense of "Baptists," who, it 
 seems, are "malignantly pursued," with "reproaches and 
 defamations," by naughty pedobaptists — the "odious charge 
 being rung perpetually in the public ear that they pay little 
 or no regard to the moral and religious training of their 
 children." 
 
 "Heretofore," he says, "Baptists have thought it scarcely 
 worth their while, on this topic, to defend their opinions or 
 practice with any special carefulness." For this reason he 
 considers himself the more imperatively called upon to do 
 this needful service. And having performed it, we hope the 
 defence will be perfectly satisfactory to "the million" for 
 whom it was written. But as the persecution complained 
 of is a raw-head and bloody-bones affair which has nothing 
 to do with the subject before us, we shall let it pass. We 
 have, moreover, nothing to say in reference to popish per- 
 versions of infant baptism — we have already dealt with them. 
 
 But when he represents "the press and the pulpit of all 
 classes" as teaching "baptized young people" that they 
 have "been purified by baptism," and do not require to be 
 born again, we wonder at his unblushing effrontery. Do 
 not the pastors of pedobaptist churches address their children 
 "as sinners?" Do they not labour for their conversion? 
 Do they not exhort them to personal religion? And is this 
 incompatible with warnings against acting "the part of un- 
 grateful deserters ?" May they not be considered members 
 of the visible church, and yet be urged to make their calling 
 and election sure? 
 
 And what is there to be sneered at, except by an infidel, 
 in the language cited from Dr. Campbell : " Under such a 
 system it is hardly extravagant, with Richard Baxter and 
 Dr. Miller, to believe that in nineteen cases out of twenty, 
 our children would grow up dutiful, sober, serious, and be- 
 
200 STRICTURES ON 
 
 fore they reached mature age, recognize their membership in 
 a personal act, with sincerity and edification ?" Instead of 
 superseding the work of the Spirit and the necessity of per- 
 sonal repentance and faith, those divines enforce these im- 
 portant points upon the "baptized young people" of the 
 church, on the ground of their baptism, which so strikingly 
 sets forth the former as a privilege which they are entitled 
 to claim, and the latter as a duty which they are bound to 
 discharge. 
 
 A consistent pedobaptist must be orthodox. " The sancti- 
 fication of the Spirit and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus 
 Christ" cannot but constitute a leading feature in his reli- 
 gious system. One of the great recommendations of infant 
 baptism, as formerly of circumcision, is its connection with 
 the moral and religious training of children ; and we only 
 wish the Divine intention in this matter were faithfully carried 
 out in all the churches of Christ. 
 
 Dr. Howell writes for "the million" — that is, for Buncombe. 
 Hence he says: "Infant baptism is an evil, because it 'is the 
 grand foundation upon which rests the union of Church and 
 State." 
 
 He tells " the million" that " Infant baptism is inseparable 
 from the union of Church and State." Of course, then, all 
 the churches in the United States, except the antipedobaptist, 
 are united to the State ! 
 
 But, perhaps, he means that every State church must be a 
 pedobaptist church. What then? Every State church has 
 had a ministry — popish, prelatical, presbyterial, or congrega- 
 tional — and every State church must have a ministry of some 
 sort: is the ministry, therefore, to be abolished? 
 
 We can very well conceive, however, that an antipedo- 
 baptist church, if it had the chance, might be as closely 
 united to the State as is the Romish or Anglican establish- 
 ment. Dr. Howell says truly, that the union of Church and 
 State began with Constantine. He does not seem to be 
 aware that the first Christian emperor was not baptized until 
 shortly before his death, when Eusebius baptized him by 
 pouring. Yet Constantine had more to do with the affairs 
 of the church than any monarch that ever swayed the British 
 sceptre, not excluding Henry YIII. 
 
DR. HOWELL'S EVILS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 201 
 
 That was the age when the quasi antipedobaptlst principles 
 of Tertullian prevailed, and it became quite fashionable, in 
 many places, to postpone the baptism of children, on the su- 
 perstitious grounds already noted. Yet never was the church 
 more closely wedded to the State than in the days of Con- 
 stantine and his immediate successors. Every sciolist in 
 church history knows that infant baptism had nothing to do 
 with this unholy alliance. 
 
 Instead of saying " that the practice of baptizing infants 
 did not spread extensively till after Christianity became the 
 State religion," it would be more consonant to the truth of 
 history to say, that it was less prevalent in the age of Con- 
 stantine than in primitive times, when we never hear of the 
 head of a family being baptized without his children. 
 
 But when the superstition of Tertullian and the worldliness 
 of Constantine united their influences in corrupting the sim- 
 plicity of Christians, they began to postpone baptism. The 
 mother of Augustin did not baptize him, for fear he might 
 fall into sin afterward. And Augustin says that this was 
 common in his day ; forasmuch as they did not lay so much 
 stress upon sins committed before baptism as after, thinking 
 that baptism washed away both original and actual sin. 
 Basil, Gregory Nyssen, Ambrose, and others, labored hard 
 to bring the church back to the apostolic practice in this 
 matter. Gregory Nazianzen, who was contemporary with 
 Constantine, pointedly rebukes the people for postponing 
 baptism. He says: "Art thou a youth? fight against plea- 
 sures and passions with this auxiliary strength : list thyself 
 in God's army. Art thou old ? Let thy gray hairs hasten 
 thee. Strengthen thy age with baptism. Hast thou an in- 
 fant child ? Let not wickedness have the advantage of him. 
 Let him be sanctified from his infancy. Let him be dedicated 
 from his cradle, in the Spirit. Thou, as a faint-hearted 
 mother and of little faith, art afraid of giving him the seal, 
 because of the weakness of nature." 
 
 Speaking of those who neglect baptism, he says : " Some 
 of them live like beasts, and regard not baptism. Some value 
 baptism, but delay the receiving of it, either out of negli- 
 gence, or a greediness longer to enjoy their lusts. But some 
 have it not in their own power to receive it, either because 
 
202 STRICTURES ON 
 
 of their infancy perhaps, or because of some accident entirely 
 involuntary ." lie then proceeds to denounce this disregard 
 and postponement of the ordinance. 
 
 Now let it be remembered that it was during this decline 
 of pedobaptism that the union of Church and State was ef- 
 fected. And yet Dr. Howell says that " infant baptism is 
 inseparable from the union of Church and State. They are 
 essential to each other !" 
 
 He seems to take great pleasure in recognizing the Ana- 
 baptists of Germany as his spiritual ancestors — this being 
 necessary to make out the uninterrupted succession of anti- 
 pedobaptist immersers. But cannot he see that the apostle 
 of those worthies, Thomas Munzer, did all in his power to 
 unite Church and State upon an antipedobaptist platform? 
 Indeed, the Church was to be the state ; and Munzer was to 
 be both king and priest in this glorious theocracy. Ad- 
 dressing the peasants and miners, he says: "When will you 
 shake off your slumbers? Arise and fight the battle of the 
 Lord. The time is come. France, Germany and Italy are 
 up aud doing. Forward, forward, forward! Dran, dran, 
 dran! Heed not the cries of the ungodly. They will weep 
 like children, but be you pitiless. Dran, dran, dran! Fire 
 burns. Let your swords be ever tinged with blood. Dran, 
 dran, dran! Work while it is day." He signed himself, 
 "Munzer, God's servant against the ungodly." And in his 
 letter to the prince he wrote, "Munzer, armed with the 
 sword of Gideon." 
 
 The curious reader may find a fuller account of the "Bap- 
 tist" union of Church and State, at the time of the Reforma- 
 tion, in the History of Dr. Merle D'Aubigne. But as Dr. 
 Howell insinuates a caveat in reference to the reliableness of 
 that historian, we will cite a paragraph or two on the subject 
 from the Church History of Dr. Gregory, who, so far as we 
 know, is universally considered an historian, equally erudite 
 and candid. He says: 
 
 It was observed that, in a very early period of the Refor- 
 mation, certain of the disciples of Luther, and particularly 
 one of the name of Muncer, adopted opinions in some in- 
 stances apparently replete with enthusiasm, and on some 
 occasions proceeded to the disturbance of the public tran- 
 
DR. HOWELL'S EVILS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 203 
 
 quillity. From these reformers proceeded the sect of the 
 Anabaptists. They first made their appearance in the pro- 
 vinces of Upper Germany, where the severity of the magis- 
 trates kept them under control. But in the Netherlands and 
 Westphalia they obtained admittance into several towns, and 
 spread their principles. 
 
 The most remarkable of their religious tenets related to 
 the sacrament of baptism, which, as they contended, ought 
 to be administered only to persons grown up to years of 
 understanding, and should be performed, not by sprinkling 
 them with water, but by dipping them in it: for this reason 
 they condemned the baptism of infants ; and rebaptizing all 
 whom they admitted into their society, the sect came to be 
 distinguished by the name of Anabaptists. 
 
 To this peculiar notion concerning baptism, they added 
 other principles of a most enthusiastic as well as dangerous 
 nature. They maintained that among Christians, who had 
 the precepts of the gospel to direct, and the Spirit of God to 
 guide them, the office of magistracy was not only unnecessary, 
 but an unlawful encroachment on their spiritual liberty: 
 that the distinctions occasioned by birth, or rank, or wealth, 
 being contrary to the spirit of the gospel, which considers 
 all men as equal, should be entirely abolished: that all 
 Christians, throwing their possessions into one common stock, 
 sh' .dd live together in that state of equality which becomes 
 members of the same family: that, as neither the laws of 
 nature, nor the precepts of the New Testament, had imposed 
 any restraints upon men with regard to the number of wives 
 which they might marry, they should use that liberty which 
 God had granted to the patriarchs. 
 
 Such opinions, propagated and maintained with enthu- 
 siastic zeal and boldness, were not long without producing 
 the violent effects natural to them. Two Anabaptist prophets, 
 John Matthias, a baker of Haerlem, and John Boccold or 
 Beukels, a journeyman tailor of Leyden, possessed with the 
 rage of making proselytes, fixed their residence at Munster, 
 I an imperial city of Westphalia, of the first rank, under the 
 sovereignty of its bishop, but governed by its own senate 
 and consuls. As neither of these fanatics wanted the talents 
 requisite in desperate enterprises, great resolution, the ap- 
 
204 STRICTURES ON 
 
 pearai^ce of sanctity, bold pretensions to inspiration, and a 
 confident and plausible manner of discoursing, they soon 
 gained many converts. Among these were Rothman, who 
 had first preached the Protestant doctrine in Munster, and 
 Knipperdoling, a citizen of considerable eminence. 
 
 Emboldened by the countenance of such disciples, they 
 openly taught their opinions; and not satisfied with that 
 liberty, they made several attempts, though without success, 
 to become masters of the town, in order to get their tenets 
 established by public authority. At last, having secretly 
 called in their associates from the neighbouring country, 
 they suddenly took possession of the arsenal and senate 
 house in the night, and running through the streets with 
 drawn swords, and horrible howlings, cried out alternately, 
 "Repent and be baptized/' and, "Depart, ye ungodly." 
 The senators, the canons, the nobility, together with the 
 more sober citizens, whether Papists or Protestants, terrified 
 at their threats and outcries, fled in confusion, and left the 
 city under the dominion of a frantic multitude, consisting 
 ehiefly of strangers. 
 
 Nothing now remaining to overawe or control them, they 
 set about modelling the government according to their own 
 wild ideas; and though at first they showed so much reve- 
 rence for the ancient constitution as to elect senators of their 
 own sect, and to appoint Knipperdoling and another prose- 
 lyte consuls, this was nothing more than form ; for all their 
 proceedings were directed by Matthias, who, in the style, 
 and with the authority of a prophet, uttered his commands, 
 which it was instant death to disobey. 
 
 Having begun with encouraging the multitude to pillage 
 the churches, and deface their ornaments, he enjoined them 
 to destroy all books except the Bible, as useless or impious: 
 he ordered the estates of such as fled to be confiscated and 
 sold to the inhabitants of the adjacent country: he com- 
 manded every man to bring forth his gold, silver, and other 
 precious effects, and to lay them at his feet: the wealth 
 amassed by these means he deposited in a public treasury, 
 and named deacons to dispense it for the common use of all. 
 The members of this commonwealth being thus brought to a 
 perfect equality, he commanded all of them to eat at tables 
 
dr. howell's evils of infant baptism. 205 
 
 prepared in public, and even prescribed the dishes which 
 were to be served up each day. 
 
 Having finished his plan of reformation, his next care was 
 to provide for the defense of the city; and he took measures 
 for that purpose with a prudence which betrayed nothing 
 of fanaticism. He collected large magazines of every kind: 
 he repaired and extended the fortifications, obliging every 
 person, without distinction, to work in his turn: he formed 
 such as were capable of bearing arms into regular bodies, 
 and endeavoured to add the stability of discipline to the im- 
 petuosity of enthusiasm. 
 
 He sent emissaries to the Anabaptists in the Low Coun- 
 tries, inviting them to assemble at Munster, which he digni- 
 fied with the name of Mount Sion, that they might set out 
 to reduce all the nations of the earth under their dominion. 
 He himself was unwearied in attending to every thing ne- 
 cessary for the security or increase of the sect; animating 
 his disciples by his own example to decline no labour, as 
 well as to submit to every hardship; and their enthusiastic 
 passions being kept from subsiding by a perpetual succession 
 of exhortations, revelations, and prophecies, they seemed 
 ready to undertake or to suffer any thing in maintenance of 
 their opinions. 
 
 While they were thus employed, the Bishop of Munster, 
 having assembled a considerable army, advanced to besiege 
 the town. On his approach, Matthias sallied out at the 
 head of some chosen troops, attacked one quarter of his 
 camp, forced it, and after great slaughter returned to the 
 city loaded with glory and with spoil. Intoxicated with this 
 success, he appeared next day brandishing a spear, and 
 declared, that, in imitation of Gideon, he would go forth with 
 a handful of men, and smite the host of the ungodly. Thirty 
 persons, whom he named, followed him without hesitation 
 in this wild enterprise, and, rushing on the enemy with 
 frantic courage, were cut off to a man. 
 
 The death of their prophet occasioned at first great con- 
 sternation among his disciples; but Boccold, by the same 
 gifts and pretensions, which had gained Matthias credit, 
 soon revived their spirits and hopes to such a degree, that 
 he succeeded the deceased prophet in the same absolute di- 
 18 
 
200 STRICTURES ON 
 
 rection of all their affairs. As he did not possess that enter- 
 prising courage which distinguished his predecessor, he 
 satisfied himself with carrying on a defensive war; and with- 
 out attempting to annoy the enemy by sallies, he waited for 
 the succors he expected from the Low Countries, the arrival 
 of which was often foretold and promised by their prophets. 
 
 But though less daring in action than Matthias, he was a 
 wilder enthusiast, and of more unbounded ambition. Soon 
 after the death of his predecessor, having, by obscure visions 
 and prophecies, prepared the multitude for some extraordi- 
 nary event, he marched through the streets and proclaimed 
 with a loud voice, "That the kingdom of Sion was at hand: 
 that whatever was highest on earth should be brought low, 
 and whatever was lowest should be exalted." In order to 
 fulfil this, he commanded the churches, as the most lofty 
 buildings in the city, to be levelled with the ground: he 
 degraded the senators chosen by Matthias, and depriving 
 Knipperdoling of the consulship, the highest office in the 
 commonwealth, appointed him to execute the lowest and 
 most infamous, that of common hangman, to which strange 
 transition the other agreed, not only without murmuring, but 
 with the utmost joy; and such was the despotic rigor of 
 Boccold's administration, that he was called almost every 
 day to perform some duty or other of his wretched function. 
 In place of the deposed senators, he named twelve judges, 
 according to the number of tribes in Israel, to preside in all 
 affairs, retaining to himself the same authority which Moses 
 anciently possessed as legislator of the people. 
 
 Not satisfied, however, with power or titles which were 
 not supreme, a prophet, whom he had gained and tutored, 
 having called the multitude together, declared it to be the 
 will of God, that John Boccold should be king of Sion, and 
 j sit on the throne of David. John, kneeling down, accepted 
 of the call, which he solemnly protested had been revealed 
 likewise to himself, and was immediately acknowledged as 
 monarch by the deluded multitude. From that moment he 
 assumed all the state and pomp of royalty. He wore a 
 crown of gold, and was clad in the richest and most sump- 
 tuous garments. A Bible was carried on his one hand, a 
 naked sword on the other. A great body of guards accom- 
 
dr. howell's evils op infant baptism. 207 
 
 panied him when he appeared in public. He coined money 
 stamped with his own image, and appointed the great officers 
 of his household and kingdom, among whom Knipperdoling 
 was nominated governor of the city, as a reward for his 
 former submission. 
 
 Having now attained the height of power, Boccold began 
 to discover passions which he had hitherto restrained, or in- 
 dulged only in secret. As the excesses of enthusiasm have 
 been observed in every age to lead to sensual gratifications, 
 the same constitution that is susceptible of the former being 
 remarkably prone to the latter, he instructed the prophets 
 and teachers to harangue the people for several days con- 
 cerning the lawfulness and even necessity of taking more 
 wives than one, which they asserted to be one of the privi- 
 leges granted by God to the saints. 
 
 When their ears were once accustomed to this licentious 
 doctrine, and their passions inflamed with the prospect of 
 such unbounded indulgence, he himself set them an example 
 of using what he called their Christian liberty, by marrying 
 at once three wives, among whom the widow of Matthias, a 
 woman of singular beauty, was one. As he was allured by 
 beauty or the love of variety, he gradually added to the 
 number of his wives until they amounted to fourteen, though 
 the widow of Matthias was the only one dignified with the 
 title of a queen, or who shared with him the splendor and 
 ornaments of royalty. 
 
 After the example of their prophet, the multitude gave 
 themselves up to the most licentious and uncontrolled grati- 
 fication of their desires. No man remained satisfied with a 
 single wife. Not to use their Christian liberty was deemed a 
 crime. Persons were appointed to search the houses for 
 young women grown up to maturity, whom they instantly 
 compelled to marry. 
 
 Together with polygamy, freedom of divorce, its insepa- 
 rable attendant, was introduced, and became a new source 
 of corruption. Every excess was committed, of which the 
 passions of men are capable, when restrained neither by the 
 authority of laws nor the sense of decency ; and by a mon- 
 strous and almost incredible conjunction, voluptuousness was 
 
208 STBICTURES ON 
 
 engrafted on religion, and dissolute riot accompanied the 
 austerities of fanatical devotion. 
 
 Meanwhile the German princes were highly offended at 
 the insult offered to their dignity by Boccold's presumptuous 
 usurpation of royal honors ; and the profligate manners of his 
 followers, which were a reproach to the Christian name, filled 
 men of all professions with horror. Luther, who had testified 
 against this fanatical spirit on its first appearance, now 
 deeply lamented its progress, and having exposed the delu- 
 sion with great strength of argument, as well as acrimony of 
 style, called loudly on all the States of Germany to put a 
 stop to a frenzy no less pernicious to society than fatal to 
 religion. 
 
 The emperor, occupied with other cares and projects, had 
 not leisure to attend to such a distant object ; but the princes 
 of the empire, assembled by the King of the Romans, voted a 
 supply of men and money to the Bishop of Munstcr, who, 
 being unable to keep a sufficient army on foot, had converted 
 the siege of the town into a blockade. The forces raised in 
 consequence of this resolution were put under the command 
 of an officer of experience, who, approaching the town toward 
 the end of spring, in the year 1535, pressed it more closely 
 than formerly ; but found the fortifications so strong, and so 
 diligently guarded, that he durst not attempt an assault. 
 
 It was now above fifteen months since the Anabaptists had 
 established their dominion in Munster: they had, during 
 that time, undergone prodigious fatigue in working on the 
 fortifications and performing military duty. Notwithstand- 
 ing the prudent attention of their king to provide for their 
 subsistence, and his frugal as well as regular economy in 
 their public meals, they began to feel the approach of famine. 
 Several small bodies of their brethren, who were advancing 
 to their assistance from the Low Countries, had,been inter- 
 cepted and cut to pieces ; and, while all Germany was ready 
 to combine against them, they had no prospect of succor. 
 
 But such was the ascendency which Boccold had acquired 
 over the multitude, and so powerful the fascination of en- 
 thusiasm, that their hopes were as sanguine as ever, and 
 they hearkened with implicit credulity to the visions and pre- 
 dictions of their prophets, who assured them that the Al- 
 
ft. howell's evils op infant baptism. 209 
 
 mighty -would speedily interpose, in order to deliver the city. 
 The faith, however, of some few, shaken by the violence and 
 length of their sufferings, began to fail ; hut heing suspected 
 of an inclination to surrender to the enemy, they were 
 punished with immediate death, as guilty of impiety in dis- 
 trusting the power of God. 
 
 By this time the besieged endured the utmost rigor of 
 famine ; but they chose rather to suffer hardships, the recital 
 of which is shocking to humanity, than to listen to the terms 
 of capitulation offered them by the bishop. At last, a de- 
 serter, whom they had taken into their service, being either 
 less intoxicated with the fumes of enthusiasm, or unable any 
 longer to bear such distress, made his escape to the enemy. 
 He informed their general of a weak part in the fortifications 
 which he had observed, and assuring him that the besieged, 
 exhausted with hunger and fatigue, kept watch there with 
 little care, he offered to lead a party thither in the night. 
 The proposal was accepted, and a chosen body of troops ap- 
 pointed for the service ; who, scaling the walls unperceived, 
 seized one of the gates, and admitted the rest of the army. 
 
 The Anabaptists, though surprised, defended themselves 
 in the market-place with valor, heightened by despair; but 
 being overpowered by numbers, and surrounded on every 
 hand, most of them were slain, and the remainder taken 
 prisoners. Among the last were the king and Knipperdoling. 
 The king, loaded with chains, was carried from city to city 
 as a spectacle to gratify the curiosity of the people, and was 
 exposed to all their insults. His spirit, however, was not 
 broken or humbled by this sad reverse of his condition ; and 
 he adhered with unshaken firmness to the distinguishing 
 tenets of his sect. 
 
 After this, he was brought back to Munster, the scene of 
 his royalty and crimes, and put to death with tortures, 
 which he bore with astonishing fortitude. This extraordi- 
 nary man, who had been able to acquire such amaziDg 
 dominion over the minds of his followers, and to excite 
 commotions so dangerous to society, was only twenty-six 
 years of age. Together with its monarch, the kingdom of 
 the Anabaptists came to an end. 
 
 From this perfectly trustworthy account of Dr. Howell's 
 IS* 
 
210 STRICTURES ON 
 
 ecclesiastical ancestors, it is clear that they wanted nothing 
 but the power to establish their own church upon the ruins 
 of the churches then in favor, and to substitute their own 
 beautiful theocracy for every political " ordinance of man" 
 then in existence. That they were "strongly baptistical" 
 cannot be questioned. They are pronounced good " Bap- 
 tists" by Dr. Howell, who, whatever may be the feeling of 
 some fastidious antipedobaptists, is not ashamed to call them 
 " brethren." And truly there is a family likeness between 
 them — they seem to be of one blood. Dr. Howell has 
 scarcely any thing more to the point than the following 
 modest and beautiful language used by his " brethren" of 
 the sixteenth century: "The baptism of infants is a horrible 
 abomination — a flagrant impiety, invented by the evil spirit 
 and by Pope Nicholas II." " To baptize a child is of no 
 more use than baptizing a cat I" 
 
 They may have held some other principles not quite so 
 much to the mind of Dr. Howell as their opposition to infant 
 baptism. In met, they were the Mormons of the sixteenth 
 century, and the Mormons are the Anabaptists of our times 
 — though Dr. Howell claims that honor for "the denomina- 
 tion" of which he is the invincible champion. But wc 
 submit, that the Mormons contend for "believers' baptism," 
 and that by immersion alone ; and in defiance of the Consti- 
 tution of the United States they have established a politico- 
 ecclesiastical government — a union of Church and State — 
 exhibiting many of the beautiful features of the Anabaptist 
 theocracy. And yet Dr. Howell says : " The union of 
 Church and State rests for its foundation upon infant bap- 
 tism, without which it cannot exist. Destroy infant baptism, 
 and you destroy the union of Church and State. That un- 
 hallowed relation is no longer possible." What a Daniel is 
 this come to judgment 1 
 
 But "Infant Baptism is an evil, because it injures the 
 credit of religion with intelligent men- of the world." 
 
 There is some ambiguity in this language — all the better 
 though for Dr. Howell. There is a sense in which religion 
 does lose credit with the men of the world, on account of 
 infant baptism. Worldly people are ready to say with Dr. 
 Howell, "The baptism of a little infant! What sense or 
 
dr. howell's evils of infant baptism. 211 
 
 reason is there in it ? there is none." But then they are 
 ready to say the same of the baptism of an adult — they say 
 the same of the breaking of bread in the Lord's supper. 
 They see no sense or reason in any of the simple rites and 
 services of Christianity. So the philosophers, the intelligent 
 men of the heathen world, saw no sense or reason in circum- 
 cision — " The circumcision of a little infant ! What sense 
 or reason is there in it? There is none." But must all the 
 mysteries of religion be laid aside, because they may be 
 to the Jews a stumbling block, or to the Greeks foolish- 
 ness? 
 
 But there is a sense in which it may be desirable that 
 religion should maintain its credit with intelligent men of 
 the world ; and in this sense we deny that infant baptism, 
 properly performed, ever injured it in their estimation. It 
 never did, unless perhaps in the case of those "intelligent 
 men of the world" who have been unhappily brought under 
 the influence of such men as Dr. Howell, who take pains to 
 caricature and ridicule the ordinance. We should not, how- 
 ever, consider a man remarkable for intelligence, though he 
 might be worldly enough, perhaps, who would mistake the 
 hackneyed charges of Dr. Howell for argument: — infant 
 baptism is irrational — unauthorized — the very essence of 
 equivocation and deception — a sectarian device — therefore it 
 dishonors religion ! 
 
 Now as this is nothing better than assumption, baseless 
 assumption, and slanderous withal, we shall deny it in toto; 
 and on the contrary we maintain, that the due performance 
 of infant baptism has a most happy tendency to impress 
 reflecting minds with the beauty and majesty of religion; 
 and this result we have witnessed on multiplied occasions. 
 And we deliberately declare, that beneficial effects can be 
 produced on the minds of intelligent men of the world, by 
 the public solemn administration of this edifying ordinance, 
 which cannot be produced by any other agency. 
 
 And observe, we speak that we do know, and testify that 
 we have seen: we do not deal in mere assumption and dog- 
 matic assertion about something which, in the nature of the 
 case, we have no means of proving — for we defy Dr. Howell 
 to prove that the credit of religion was ever injured by infant 
 
L12 STRICTURES ON 
 
 baptism, except in such cases where the ordinance was not 
 performed in a becoming manner, as religion frequently suf- 
 fers from a stupid sermon, or where the " intelligent men of 
 the world" are of the prejudiced classes to which we have 
 alluded. 
 
 The charge that " Infant Baptism enfeebles the power of 
 the church to combat error" is made by Dr. Howell with his 
 usual modesty. 
 
 He relieves the monotony of his vain repetitions, however, 
 by a little fancy work about the errors of pedobaptist 
 churches and their mutual criminations. All, of course, are 
 bound up in the same bundle with popery, because, for- 
 sooth, popery practises infant baptism. Protestants can say 
 nothing against the " theological monstrosities" of popery, 
 because infant baptism is one of them, and they practice 
 infant baptism. Is not that reasoning? The antipedobap- 
 tist churches alone are immaculate, and therefore they alone 
 can cope successfully with the corruptions of popery — ay, 
 and the corruptions of Protestantism, too ! The wonder is, 
 that those corruptions ever had any existence, seeing that 
 "the denomination," pure and incorruptible, has come down 
 from the apostles, by uninterrupted succession, to — Munzer, 
 Roger Williams, and Dr. Howell, the infallible representa- 
 tives of the martyrs, confessors, and defenders of its "faith 
 and order." 
 
 Dr. Howell, however, ought not to draw quite so extrava 
 gantly upon his fancy for his facts. In doing this he has 
 perpetrated the following libel : — 
 
 "Among Methodists, a very striking corruption is the 
 baptism and reception to their communion, of 'seekers.' 
 And who are these seekers ? They are persons who desire 
 to be saved, and manifest feeling on the subject of religion, 
 • but who professedly have not a living faith in Christ, nor 
 any well-grounded hope of eternal life. Against this, Pres- 
 byterians of all classes protest. They pronounce it a gross 
 error, palpably unscriptural, and not to be endured ! The 
 Methodist brother is not at all disconcerted, lie tells them 
 plainly, and tells them truly: The baptism of seekers is, to 
 Bay the least, as lawful as the baptism of infants. It is, in 
 truth, attended with prospects even more encouraging, sineo 
 
these seekers may soon be rejoicing in hope, but of infants, 
 no such expectation is reasonable. The Scriptures favor 
 one as much as they do the other. His assailants cannot 
 answer him. They are silent. He is henceforth uninter- 
 rupted." 
 
 Now, candid and intelligent "Presbyterians of all classes," 
 and some antipedobaptists too, who are acquainted with 
 Methodist terms and usages, know very well that we baptize 
 none as " seekers" that do not measure up to the standard 
 laid down by St. Peter on the day of Pentecost, when the 
 three thousand who were "pricked in the heart, said unto 
 Peter and to the rest of the apostles, men and brethren, what 
 shall we do?" Peter did not tell them to postpone their 
 baptism until they should possess the full assurance of faith 
 and hope; but he said unto them, Repent, and be baptized, 
 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remis- 
 sion of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." 
 So we say to every seeker of salvation. And we baptize 
 none unless they repent and believe the gospel, and promise 
 by God's grace to lead a holy life. 
 
 Such penitents Dr. Howell would call believers, and im- 
 merse them by the thousand, if he had a chance. And we 
 have never found a Presbyterian, of any class, that would 
 reject them. The difference between us is this: our Cal- 
 vinistic brethren, including the antipedobaptists, would try 
 to make them feel safe, without possessing the knowledge of 
 salvation by the remission of their sins, through the direct 
 witness of the Holy Ghost; but the Methodists would press 
 them forward to the attainment of this blessing, and would 
 not let them rest satisfied with their baptism, their associa- 
 tion with believers, their supposed election, effectual calling, 
 and infallible perseverance, or any thing else short of the 
 inward witness of their acceptance in the Beloved, and the 
 incontestible proofs of their possessing the regenerating 
 grace of the Holy Ghost, symbolized in the rite of initia- 
 tion. 
 
 Who ever heard a " Methodist brother," or sister either, 
 defend the baptism of seekers on the ground invented by 
 Dr. Howell? and what Presbyterian was ever silenced by 
 such a defence ? 
 
214 STRICTURES ON 
 
 Dr. Howell's next argument is decidedly rich! "We are 
 not sure that it ought not to be assigned the highest rank in 
 the discussion: "Infant Baptism is an evil because it is the 
 great barrier to Christian union!" 
 
 He has the advantage of us here. We cannot retort the 
 argument. We cannot say that antipedobaptist exclusive- 
 ness is the great barrier to Christian union. It is, indeed, a 
 barrier. It savors very much of schism, and is therefore to 
 be deplored as an evil. But there are greater evils than that 
 in the world — greater barriers than that to Christian union. 
 Bigotry, which, however frequently connected with that ex- 
 clusiveness — sometimes being its parent and sometimes its 
 offspring, but which in thousands of happy exceptions is not 
 connected with it at all — bigotry is a far greater obstacle to 
 Christian union. It is the grand obstacle. "Master, we saw 
 one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us ; 
 and we forbade him, because he followeth not us." That is 
 the spirit that prevents Christian union; and if one wishes to 
 know more of its manifestation, let him read Dr. Howell on 
 the Evils of Infant Baptism. 
 
 Dr. Howell will let you cast out as many devils as you 
 please, provide you plunge the demoniacs into the water, and 
 drown the evil spirits which possess them. He will unite 
 very cordially with you, provided you frame your organs of 
 speech to pronounce his shibboleth. Otherwise, he can have 
 no union with you at all, as "it would be a combination 
 against the truth and purity of religion!" Alas! such a 
 bigot knows but little of the spirit of charity which is the 
 cement of Christian fellowship, which recognizes the right 
 of private judgment in all, and which asks of no man any 
 thing besides a "professed subjection unto the gospel of 
 Christ," a sincere recognition of him as the Lord of con- 
 science, to whom alone we must stand or fall. 
 
 In observing the spirit of this volume, we are reconciled 
 to the ostracism dealt out to us by its author. We can afford 
 to "stand by" ourselves, when ordered to do so by men who 
 in their own esteem are so much holier than we. 
 
 Dr. Howell repeats one of his former charges in the fol- 
 lowing form: "Infant baptism is an evil, because it prevents 
 the salutary impression baptism was designed to make upon 
 
DR. HOWELL' S EVILS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 215 
 
 the minds both of those who receive it and those who witness 
 its administration. " 
 
 We have already shown that this charge is not true. And 
 it cannot be made true by Dr. Howell's caricature of the 
 ordinance. He gets into heroics, however, when contrasting 
 "believers' immersion" with "baby-sprinkling." Now we 
 do not deny that baptism may be solemnly administered by 
 immersion — a believing subject and serious spectators may 
 be edified by the ordinance thus performed. But this is not 
 always the case. 
 
 Dr. Howell calls infant baptism "a farce." We shall not 
 so designate adult immersion. We should think it would be 
 more like a tragedy to a delicate, modest female — we feel 
 very sure she must shrink back from it with feelings of 
 revulsion — at any rate, we cannot witness it without such 
 feelings. The emotions of transport which Dr. Howell 
 attributes to the candidates do not always obtain ; and with 
 all the declamation about "believers' baptism," it is not 
 always believers that are baptized, even when antipedobap- 
 tists are the immersers. 
 
 Speaking of the candidate, Dr. Howell says, "He is to be 
 baptized but once in his life." But why only once, if bap- 
 tism be not valid unless the subject be a regenerate believer, 
 and he should prove to have been self-deceived, or a hypo- 
 crite, or should turn from the holy commandment delivered 
 unto him, and afterward repent and obtain forgiveness? 
 Why not give him then, what he never yet had, "believers' 
 baptism ?" One and twenty reasons might doubtless be 
 assigned for this omission; but they would be as unsatisfac- 
 tory, on antipedobaptist grounds, as the same number paraded 
 by Dr. Howell to prove that infant baptism is the most dam- 
 nable evil this side damnation. 
 
 And happily we have reached the last of those formidable 
 arguments. This one and twentieth sapiently affirms that 
 "Infant baptism retards the designs of Christ in the conver- 
 sion of the world." 
 
 The force of Dr. Howell's arguments has been getting 
 " small by degrees and beautifully less" — if any comparison 
 be possible among such microscopic objects. Rhetoricians 
 tell us when our arguments are weak, we must put them all 
 
216 STRICTURES ON 
 
 close together, and they will help to support each other; 
 and if any are specially feeble, put them in the middle, and 
 by no means in front or rear. Unfortunately, however, for 
 Dr. Howell's arguments, none of them have the least degree 
 of strength — they are all as weak as water, being in fact 
 composed of that element — but perhaps that which is the 
 most obviously without strength is put last. 
 
 Dr. Howell sees four or five denominations struggling for 
 existence in a little village, which is just able to support one. 
 Immediately, the wicked demon of infant baptism is con- 
 jured up before his mind. "All these expenditures of time, 
 and strength, and money, and men, are results of our divi- 
 sions, and they have their seat principally, if not wholly, in 
 infant baptism?" Set aside infant baptism, and at once Pre- 
 latists become Presbyterians, or Presbyterians become Pre- 
 latiste: both of them become Independents, or Independents 
 become Prelatists or Presbyterians. Arminians become Cal- 
 vinists, or Calvinists become Arminians. Or they all consent 
 that the five, or five hundred, points on which they differ are 
 of no importance, being so completely overshadowed by the 
 mammoth evil, infant baptism, which is now utterly de- 
 stroyed by the one and twenty arguments of this little 
 book. 
 
 Some ill-mannered sectarian might, indeed, suggest that 
 where there are so many sects there is a convenient way of 
 making one the number less — antipedobaptists might re- 
 nounce their errors, abandon their schismatic platform, and 
 connect themselves with some one of the other communions, 
 according to their predilections in regard to doctrines or 
 polity. It would not do for them to urge to the contrary, 
 their understanding of the Word of God, their convictions of 
 duty, and the like, for every pedobaptist might urge the 
 same. How preposterous then is such an argument against 
 infant baptism. 
 
 The question of the translation of the Bible is, moreover, 
 brought into the discussion. A less adventurous polemic 
 would have left that out. Does Dr. Howell really think that 
 men have lost their senses? We know he is writing for 
 '•the million ;" but then not all of these are utterly stulti- 
 fied. 
 
dr. howell's evils of infant baptism. 217 
 
 Can any man with one grain of reason imagine that the 
 American Bible Society, composed almost exclusively of 
 Christians who do not believe that the word baptism, in the 
 New Testament, means immersion, could sanction, publish, 
 and circulate a translation of the Scriptures for the Burmese, 
 Chinese, or any other heathen nation, in which that word 
 should be so rendered ? — especially when they issue no ver- 
 sion among Christians that does not leave untouched that 
 sacred term, which like Jesus, Christ, angel, prophet, apostle, 
 evangelist, epistle, and many an expressive term besides, 
 enters into and enriches the theological vocabulary of every 
 Christian tongue ? 
 
 "Would immersionists sanction the rendering of baptism by 
 purification, or pouring, or sprinkling, which we believe to 
 be the action to which the word refers ? And who is guilty 
 of the schism — who is chargeable with the controversy — we 
 who are willing to let the original word remain without ren- 
 dering it according to our own view of the ordinance, or the 
 immersionists, who will not be satisfied unless it be rendered 
 in accordance with their peculiar notion ? Let a candid 
 world — let common sense — decide. Yet this is a proof of the 
 evils of infant baptism. 
 
 And so, according to Dr. Howell, is the fact that Moham- 
 medans and heathens are scandalized by the vices of Euro- 
 pean and American merchants, and sailors, and soldiers, 
 who were baptized in their infancy. And were not the 
 heathen, in ancient times, scandalized at the vices of the 
 Israelites, who had all been circumcised in their infancy? 
 And is no one scandalized at the vices of many who have 
 been buried by Dr. Howell and his brethren in " a. liquid 
 grave" ? But what does all this prove ? 
 
 To adduce this as a charge against infant baptism, is as 
 ridiculous as Dr. Howell's attempt, again repeated, to fasten 
 the odium of all " the strifes between Baptists and Pedobap- 
 tists" upon the latter. We suppose where the latter discuss 
 this subject once, the former bring it into discussion twenty 
 times. We rarely refer to it-, except, as in the present in- 
 stance, to wipe off aspersions and to defend the truth so re- 
 peatedly and so unscrupulously assailed. We do not affect 
 the name of " pedobaptists :" we are satisfied with that of 
 19 
 
218 STRICTURES ON 
 
 Christians : the common salvation — not any particular part 
 of it — having been given us in trust. But Dr. Howell and 
 his brethren have monopolized the ordinance of baptism, and 
 from the title they have assumed — having shortened their 
 old family name — it would seem that the ordinance has mo- 
 nopolized them. We are, therefore, to be charged with "pre- 
 venting the progress of the gospel," by "engendering per- 
 petual strife, disunion, and reproach," when we occasionally 
 claim to have some part and lot in the matter of Christianity. 
 And this proves the evil — the damning evil — of infant bap- 
 tism ! 
 
 In his concluding chapter, Dr. Howell says : "I flatter my- 
 self that I have shown that infant baptism is an unmitigated 
 evil." Self-flattery, indeed ! Flattery is praise given where 
 it is not deserved : such praise Dr. Howell gives himself at 
 the close of his arduous labors. "Whether or not " the mil- 
 lion" for whom he writes will endorse the award, we cannot 
 say. 
 
 We recognize, with the most appropriate consideration, 
 his condescension in calling us his " pedobaptist brethren," 
 after having ranked us with the worst of papists. He gra- 
 ciously invites us to pull down our respective churches and 
 seek more comfortable quarters in his communion ; and he 
 seems to take it for granted that we will do so, now that he 
 has enlightened us on the subject, which he thinks it probable 
 Ave had never before investigated. If he really has any ex- 
 pectation that we will do so, painful as may be the task, we 
 must, nevertheless, dispel the delusion. He is reckoning 
 without his host, and the calculation is entirely false. 
 
 His address to antipedobaptists in pedobaptist churches, 
 we hope will not be lost upon them — if there be any to profit 
 by it. "We do not happen to know any such. They will not 
 feel much complimented by the charge of cowardice, hypo- 
 crisy, and pride, so liberally preferred against them. 
 
 With the congratulations offered to his " beloved Baptist 
 brethren," we have nothing to do — it is a family affair. It 
 might be as well, however, to keep such matters within " the 
 denomination." If they are so ignorant and impressible as 
 to be bamboozled into the notion that multiplied thousands 
 of " Baptists" have gone to the gibbet and the stake, on ao 
 
dr. howell's evils or infant baptism. 219 
 
 count of antipedobaptist principles, and that those principles 
 have been practised and defended by their " fathers/ 7 in every 
 age of the church, it seems cruel to deprive them of the com- 
 fort such hallowed reminiscences afford. This may be con- 
 sidered a case coming within the range of the poetic maxim : 
 "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." We will 
 not, therefore, disturb them with a single doubt concerning 
 the uninterruptedness and apostolicity of their succession. 
 Meanwhile, we know that it is as sheer a fable as the popish 
 prelatical succession, while it is a hundred-fold more con- 
 temptible, and has not a thousandth part as much apparent 
 evidence to sustain it. 
 
 And here we take leave of Dr. Howell, with whom we 
 should not have become so intimate, had we not been re- 
 quested to pay him some attention, in view of the respectable 
 denominational endorsement which he has procured for his 
 modest and unassuming volume 
 
220 CLASSICAL AND SCRIPTURAL USE 
 
 CLASSICAL AND SCRIPTURAL USE OF 
 BAPTISMAL TERMS. 
 
 Banto. 
 
 Hestchius, who lived in the fourth century, and is the 
 oldest native Greek lexicographer, gives avtxsio, antleo, as a 
 meaning of bapto. Antleo means to draw, to pump, to shed 
 or spill. 
 
 Gases, another native Greek lexicographer of high repute, 
 in the beginning of the present century, gives the following- 
 definitions : — jSps^w, breclw, to wet, moisten, bedew : to steep, 
 drench : to rain, drop : to soak, suck, imbibe — rtXw**, to 
 wash — ysfu£u, gemizo, to fill, to load — j3i>0i£io t bnthizo, to 
 plunge, dip, immerge : to sink, drown — cw-rxiw, antleo, to 
 draw, pump : to shed, spill. 
 
 Schrevellius defines it mergo, to put under water, dip, 
 plunge, sink, immerse, overwhelm : to immerse one's self: 
 to be drowned — intingo, to dip in, wet, moisten — lavo, to 
 wash, bathe, moisten, besprinkle, bedew — Jmiiiio, to draw, or 
 draw forth, as water from a well — hauriendo impleo, to fill, 
 by drawing, draining, drinking, etc. — perco, to perish, be 
 lust, as a ship at sea. 
 
 Scapula makes it mean to immerse, to plunge, to stain or 
 dye, to wash. 
 
 Ursinus renders it to dip, to dye, to wash, to sprinkle. 
 
 Groves, following the foregoing, defines it to dip, plunge, 
 immerse: to wash: to wet, moisten, sprinkle: to steep, 
 imbue: to dye, stain, color. 
 
OF BAPTISMAL TERMS. 221 
 
 Lexical authorities of this purport, might be readily mul- 
 tiplied, but this is not necessary. 
 
 The classical citations relied on by these lexicographers, 
 in support of the various meanings assigned to bapto, are 
 numerous. We give a sample. 
 
 Homer, in his Battle of the Frogs and Mice, says the frog 
 " fell breathless, and the lake was tinged, or dyed with 
 purple blood" — zfidit-tzto 6' aij-iatt hlpviq rtoptyvpeq. 
 
 Aristophanes, (Hipp. lib. i.,) speaks of a comedian who 
 painted or dyed, j3art t-o^ei/oj, his face with tawny colors. 
 
 Aristotle (de Anim.) speaks of a certain substance which, 
 "being rubbed or squeezed, stains, fiajtifsi, the hand." 
 
 Other authors, in like manner, use the word in reference 
 to dyeing the hair of the head. In none of those cases was 
 the object dipped into the coloring fluid, but the latter was 
 applied to the former. 
 
 So pregnant are these proofs, that Dr. Carson, a great 
 immersionist, is obliged to admit that bapto has other mean- 
 ings, and literal meanings, too, beside that of plunging, 
 which some have the temerity to say is its only meaning. 
 This learned writer says: "Hippocrates used bapto to denote 
 dyeing, by dropping the dyeing liquid on the thing dyed. 
 When it drops upon the garments, baptetai, they are dyed. 
 This surely is not dyeing by dipping. Nearchus relates that 
 the Indians dye, baptontai, their beards." " Bapto," he says, 
 "signifies to dye by sprinkling as properly as by dipping, 
 though originally it was confined to the latter. Nor are such 
 applications of the word to be accounted for by metaphor, as 
 Dr. Gale asserts. They are as literal as the primary mean- 
 ing. It is by extension of the literal meaning, and not by 
 figure of any kind, that words come to depart so far from 
 their original signification." 
 
 Bapto occurs in the following places in the Septuagint: — 
 Exod. xii. 22 ; Lev. iv. 6, 17 ; ix. 9 ; xi. 32 ; xiv. 6, 16, 51 ; 
 Num. xix. 18 ; Deut. xxxiii. 24 ; Josh. iii. 15 ; Ruth ii. 14; 
 1 Sam. xiv. 27 ; 2 Kings viii. 15 ; Job ix. 31 ; Ps. lxviii. 23 ; 
 Ezek. xxiii. 15 ; Dan. iv. 30 ; v. 21. 
 
 In the New Testament it is found in Matt. xxvi. 23 ; 
 Mark xiv. 20 ; Luke xvi. 24 ; John xiii. 26 ; Rev. xix. 13. 
 It has frequently been shown that bapto, in many of the 
 19* 
 
222 CLASSICAL AND SCRIPTURAL USE 
 
 foregoing passages, as a rendering of the Hebrew iabal, can- 
 not mean to plunge the subject all over in the element — that 
 sometimes it denotes only a partial immersion, as in the case 
 of the bunch of hyssop, the end of which only was dipped in 
 the blood in the basin — the finger of the priest, which was 
 dipped in the oil in his left hand — and the living bird, cedar 
 wood, scarlet, and hyssop, all of which were dipped in tho 
 blood of the slain bird — of course, only very partially wet 
 with it. In Ezekiel, it means simply dyed, without any 
 reference to mode, and is so rendered by our translators ; 
 and in Daniel, it means sprinkled, or icct, as it is rendered in 
 the common version. 
 
 But we lay little stress on the preceding testimonies — 
 profane or sacred — as the word bapto is never used of tho 
 Christian ordinance. 
 
 Bo7tfr/£b. 
 
 Gases, in his Lexicon, gives the following as the meaning 
 of j3a7trt£« : — j3p£#a>, breclio, to wet, moisten, bedew: to steep, 
 to drench : to rain, drop : to soak, suck, imbibe — H%vvui, 
 pluno, to wash — fcowa, louo, to wash, bathe — avraiw, antleo, 
 to draw, pump : to shed, spill. 
 
 Suidas, in the tenth century, renders to sink, plunge, 
 immerse, wet, wash, cleanse, purify. 
 
 Schrevellius renders by mergo, to put under water, dip, 
 plunge, sink, immerse, overwhelm : to immerse one's self: 
 to be drowned — abluo, to wash, to wash off, to make clean, 
 to purify — lavo, to wash, bathe, moisten, besprinkle, bedew. 
 
 Stephanus renders, to dip, immerse, to merge, submerge, to 
 cover with water, to cleanse, to wash. 
 
 Scapula: to dip, immerse, dye: to plunge, submerge, cover 
 with water : to cleanse, wash. 
 
 Hedericus : to dip, immerse : to cover with water : to 
 cleanse, wash. 
 
 Schleusner : to plunge, immerse : to cleanse, wash, purify 
 with water. 
 
 Wahl: to wash, perform ablutions, cleanse: secondly, to 
 immerse. 
 
OF BAPTISMAL TERMS. 223 
 
 Bretschneider says it means often to dip, and often to 
 wash or cleanse. 
 
 Groves gives these meanings: to dip, immerse, immerge, 
 plunge: to wash, cleanse, purify: to baptize: to depress, 
 humble, overwhelm. 
 
 But we are performing a work of supererogation in citing 
 these lexical authorities for the various meanings of this 
 word. Dr. Carson, whose "position is, that it always signi- 
 fies to dip, never expressing any thing but mode," acknow- 
 ledges, "I have all the lexicographers and commentators 
 against me in this opinion." Prima facie evidence, on such 
 a question as this, that he was wrong in his opinion and 
 fatuous in trying to maintain it. 
 
 The classical authorities cited in support of these various 
 meanings are numerous : we give a few examples. 
 
 Aristotle speaks of uninhabited lands, which at low water 
 are not baptized, that is, not overflowed. Strabo uses the 
 word in a similar association. 
 
 Plutarch speaks of Otho's being baptized with debts — that 
 is overwhelmed with them. So Plato : " They do not baptize 
 the common people with taxes" — that is, they do not lay 
 heavy taxes upon them. So Diodorus Siculus: "To baptize, 
 or burden, the people with taxes." Josephus speaks of the 
 city being baptized by the robbers — that is, overwhelmed by 
 them with calamities. 
 
 Hippocrates speaks of baptizing a blister plaster with 
 breast milk — of course, by pouring it on or moistening it 
 thereby. 
 
 Greek writers also frequently speak of being baptized with 
 wine, that is, filled with it — with intemperance, or with 
 sleep, that is, oppressed by it — and they use the word in 
 other associations, which, like the foregoing, imply the appli- 
 cation of the element to the subject and not the subject to 
 the element. In this way it is used in the only two places 
 in which it occurs in the Apocrypha. Ecclns. xxxiv. 25; 
 Judith xii. 7. 
 
 It is, however, of but little moment, with what restriction 
 or extension of import the term is employed by profano 
 writers, when we know that the inspired writers use it in 
 the sense of washing or cleansing, without any reference to 
 
224 CLASSICAL. AND SCRIPTURAL USE 
 
 mode. The connection of the several places where it is used 
 in the sacred volume, shows, indeed, that the purifications 
 spoken of by this term were in no case effected by plunging, 
 but in every instance by affusion; but the term itself ex- 
 presses the idea of purification, and not the mode by which 
 it is effected. 
 
 The word baptizo occurs in the following places of Scrip- 
 ture: — 
 
 In the Septuagint: 2 Kings v. 14; Isa. xxi. 4. 
 
 In the New Testament: Matt. iii. 6, 11, 13, 14, 16 ; xx. 22, 
 23; xxviii. 19; Mark i. 4, 5, 8, 9; vi. 14; vii. 4; x. 38, 39; 
 xvi. 16; Luke iii. 7, 12, 16, 21; vii. 29, 30; xi. 38; xii. 50; 
 John i. 25, 26, 28, 31, 33; iii. 22, 23, 26; iv. 1, 2; x. 40; 
 Acts i. 5; ii. 38, 41; viii. 12, 13, 16, 36, 38; ix. 18; x. 47, 
 48; xi. 16; xvi. 15, 33; xviii. 8; xix. 3, 4, 5; xxii. 16; Rom. 
 vi. 3; 1 Cor. i. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17; x. 2; xii. 13; xv. 29; Gal. 
 iii. 27. 
 
 In 2 Kings v. 14, our translators render the word "dipped;" 
 but as the action expressed by tabal, baptizo, in the 14th verse, 
 is what Elisha commanded in the 10th verse, by the use of the 
 Hebrew raJiats, fcouu, to wash, "Go and wash in Jordan seven 
 times — and thou shalt be clean," there is no necessity of sup- 
 posing that Naaman plunged himself into the river, but, rather, 
 made a sevenfold application of the water to his person ; and so 
 Jerome understood the text, rendering it, "lavit in Jordane." 
 
 In the other passage, Isa. xxi. 4, the LXX use the word 
 in a metaphorical sense — "fearfulness baptized me;" but 
 this excludes the notion of plunging and implies a copious 
 pouring or overwhelming — which, in the case of water, would 
 be the application of the element to the subject, not the 
 subject to the element. 
 
 So Mark x. 38, 39 and Luke xii. 50: if the baptism here 
 spoken of refers to the Saviour's martyrdom, it means that he 
 was to be overwhelmed with sufferings, or rather, sprinkled 
 with his own blood. This the fathers call, baptisma san- 
 guinis, a baptism of blood. 
 
 A similar construction is given, by some, to that famous 
 passage, 1 Cor. xv. 29; "Else what shall they do which are 
 baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are 
 they then baptized for the dead?" This text, however, can- 
 
OF BAPTISMAL TERMS. 225 
 
 not be used in controversy, because of its obscurity. As a 
 matter of curiosity, we give some of the interpretations which 
 have been placed upon it. 
 
 1. Tertullian thinks St. Paul alludes to vicarious baptisms, 
 such as obtained among the Marcionites, who, when any one 
 died unbaptized, put the dead body under the bed, and a 
 living man in the bed to personate the deceased, by giving 
 the baptismal responses and receiving the ordinance on his 
 behalf. — A preposterous conceit! 
 
 2. Some of the papists pretend it teaches purgatory. Thus 
 Bellarmine says no other text is needed, as this clearly esta- 
 blishes the doctrine. He interprets baptism in this place, as 
 the voluntary endurance of afflictions or penances, by some 
 men on earth for others in purgatory ! 
 
 3. Charles Taylor suggests that the text alludes to the 
 Jewish purification after pollution by the touch of a dead 
 body, presuming that the Jews attached to this baptism "the 
 idea of an illustration of the national hope of a resurrection." 
 Rather a violent presumption. 
 
 4. Some consider the baptism a washing of the corpse in 
 jrder to burial. As if the apostle had said: "If the dead 
 rise not, why wash them? Do men give respect where there 
 is no hope ?" 
 
 5. Gerdesius makes the apostle argue: if you deny a 
 resurrection of the dead, then baptism itself must be a bap- 
 tism of those who are never to have a resurrection — an 
 ordinance for the dead. 
 
 6. Aquinas makes the baptism literal, but "the dead" he 
 considers figurative. The mortui, tW vexpuv, are peccala, 
 sins, dead works, for the removal of which we are baptized. 
 
 7. Luther, Melancthon, Piscator, and Beza translate super 
 mortuos, " upon the dead," and say that the parties baptized 
 received baptism upon the graves of other Christians, in that 
 act professing their faith in the resurrection of the dead there 
 buried. 
 
 8. Theodoret interprets "for the dead," for Christ, and 
 makes the baptism a representation of the death and resur- 
 rection of Christ. Why set forth his resurrection, if being 
 dead he riseth no more, death having eternal dominion over 
 him? 
 
226 CLASSICAL AND SCRIPTURAL USE 
 
 9. Others render, " for the dead man/' namely, Jesus 
 Why are they baptized for him, if he is dead and will con- 
 tinue dead for ever ? What have they to expect from one 
 who is never more to have an existence? 
 
 10. Cajetan says they who are baptized for the dead, are 
 buried under the water, buried for the dead, as dead in Christ 
 — and in that they profess themselves dead to the world in bap- 
 tism, that they may rise to a newness of life, they by that 
 baptism profess the resurrection of the dead. 
 
 11. Epiphanius, Calvin, and others, think St. Paul refers 
 to clinical baptism, when the subjects were baptized, pro mor- 
 bus, "for dead," as the old English translation has it — that 
 is, pro derelidis, when they were as good as dead — in articulo 
 mortis. 
 
 12. Estius also thinks there is a reference to death-bed 
 baptisms, but interprets pro mortuis, by pro statu mortuorum, 
 " for the state of the dead.^ If men are thus baptized for 
 the dead, does not this imply a hope of the resurrection? 
 
 13. Wesley says, modestly : " Perhaps baptized in hope of 
 1 Vssings to be received after they are numbered with the 
 dead." He adds, "or baptized in the room of the dead," 
 according to the interpretation of Le Clerc and others. 
 
 14. Le Clerc, Doddridge, Junius, Doderlein, Newcome, and 
 others, translate, " baptized in room of the dead," referring 
 to Dionysius Halicarnassus : " They decreed to enlist other 
 soldiers, in place of those who had died in the war." So the 
 parties in question were baptized and admitted into the ranks 
 of the militant church, in the room of those who fell in the 
 persecution. 
 
 15. Maldonat considers the baptism metaphorical, to wit, 
 martyrdom — suffered for the testimony of the resurrection of 
 the dead. 
 
 16. Macknight considers the baptism metaphorical, to wit, 
 sufferings, and supposes that there is an ellipsis of the resur- 
 rection: "What inducement can they have to suffer death 
 for believing the resurrection of the dead ?" This differs but 
 little from Maldonat's interpretation. 
 
 17. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Hammond, Bloomfield, and 
 others, consider the baptism literal, and suppose there is an 
 ellipsis of the resurrection. They think there is a reference 
 
OF BAPTISMAL TERMS. ~ 227 
 
 to those articles of the Creed rehearsed at baptism — " the 
 resurrection of the body and the life everlasting" — q. d. : 
 " What will they benefit themselves, who are baptized in hope 
 of the resurrection of the dead, if the dead rise not at all ?" 
 
 The noun Bdrtttdfia occurs in Matt. iii. 7 ; xx. 22, 23 
 1 xxi. 25 ; Mark i. 4 ; x. 38, 39 ; xi. 30 ; Luke iii. 3 ; vii. 29 
 xii. 50 ; xx. 4 ; Acts i. 22 ; x. 37 ; xiii. 24 ; xviii. 25 ; xix. 3, 4 
 Rom. vi. 4; Eph. iv. 5 ; Col. ii. 12; 1 Pet. iii. 21. 
 
 Banrta^iog. 
 
 The noun Bartr'tfytoj occurs in Mark vii. 4, 8 ; lleb. vi. 2 ; 
 ix. 10. 
 
 The passage in Mark has occasioned considerable contro- 
 versy. Yet it seems easy enough of interpretation — especially 
 when collated with John ii. 6 ; iii. 25, 26. These texts in- 
 fallibly determine the mode of those Jewish baptisms : they 
 were purifications by pouring and affusion — not by immer- 
 sion. 
 
 The washing of hands spoken of in the 3d verse is by nearly 
 all allowed to have been by pouring. There is, however, 
 some obscurity in the language, rtvyix^, vl^uvtcu ta$ x^? a i- 
 
 Dr. Campbell renders : " washed their hands by pouring a 
 little water upon them" — as if pugme meant a handful, to 
 which he supplies vbato^ of water. But this, ingeniously as 
 it is defended, is more like making Scripture than translating 
 it. 
 
 The common version renders, " wash their hands oft," fol- 
 lowing the Vulgate and some other Latin versions, which 
 read " crebrb laverint manus." To the same effect is Castalio, 
 who has scepe instead of crebrb. It is supposed they read 
 rtvxvrj, which might be taken for rtvxva, and that for rtDxvwj. 
 But, as has been observed, there is no proof that there is such 
 a word as rtvxvyj, and if there were, it is not found in any 
 copy of Mark, and is not at all apposite. 
 
228 CLASSICAL AND SCRIPTURAL USE 
 
 Tho first Syriac translators render it by a word denoting 
 " carefully," or " diligently," which rendering our translators 
 put in the margin. This suits the place, but is no translation 
 of the word. 
 
 Theophylact renders " up to the elbow." But if the word 
 can be proved to mean elbow, still "up to" in the dative is 
 not tolerated by the critics. 
 
 Lightfoot, followed by many others, renders " up to the 
 wrist" — that is, as far as the fist extends. He quotes the 
 Rabbins, who say that " the hands were to be washed to the 
 break or joint." But there is the grammatical objection to 
 putting " up to" in the dative. 
 
 But as the word rtvy^ means the fist, the dative rtvy/Mtj, 
 must mean, "with the fist" — as it is also in the margin of 
 the common version. So Beza and others: "unless they 
 have first washed their hands with the fist," "which expla- 
 nation," says Bloomfield, " is confirmed by the customs of 
 the Jews, as preserved in the Rabbinical writings, and even 
 yet in use." The dative, says Parkhurst, is used adverbially 
 — " to wash the hands with the fist — i. e., by rubbing water 
 on the palm of one hand with the doubled fist of the other." 
 This sense is easy and apposite. The washing could be ef- 
 fected in a basin, or by having water poured upon the hands 
 by an attendant — the Jewish mode of ablution, indicated, as 
 we have elsewhere stated, by the word vL^avtai. 
 
 Some consider vi^weai generic to fiarttiGoivt at — the former 
 meaning generally to wash: the latter to wash by dipping. 
 Campbell accordingly thinks that the Jews washed their 
 hands by pouring before meals, except when they came from 
 market, when they washed them by dipping. 
 
 But, as Bloomfield observes, "This is best explained, 'un- 
 less they wash their bodies/ (in opposition to the hands 
 before mentioned,) in which, however, is not implied im- 
 mersion, which was never used, except when some actual, 
 and not possible pollution, had been incurred." This dis- 
 poses of Campbell's difficulty arising from the mention of 
 washing before eating, after coming from market, when they 
 never ate without washing. 
 
 Instead of considering vi-^uvtou generic to fiarttiGiovtai, we 
 should rather consider the latter generic to the former. Both 
 
OP BAPTISMAI TERMS. 229 
 
 mean to wash, but nipsontai alone defines the mode, namely, 
 by affusion. 
 
 They could baptize in no other way in the use of the 
 vessels which they kept for these purifications. And 
 it is remarkable that Campbell, after rendering the verb 
 Part-tlcfcovtac, "dipping them/' that is, the hands, renders the 
 noun PaTitisuovg in the fourth and eighth verses, baptisms, 
 assigning as reasons: — 
 
 "First, It is not an ordinary washing, for the sake of 
 cleanliness, which a man may perform in any way he thinks 
 convenient, that is here meant; but it is a religious ceremony, 
 practised in consequence of a sacred obligation, real or 
 imagined. Secondly, The analogy that subsists in phra- 
 seology between the rites of the old dispensation and those 
 of the new, ought, in my opinion, to be more clearly ex- 
 hibited in translations of Scripture than they generally are. 
 It is evident, that first John's baptism, and afterwards the 
 Christian, though of a more spiritual nature, and directed to 
 a more sublime end, originated in the usages that had long 
 obtained among the Jews." 
 
 A very just remark. He adds: — 
 
 "I am not for multiplying technical terms, and therefore 
 should not blame a translation wherein the words baptize, 
 baptism, and others of the same stamp, were not used, if in 
 their stead we had words of our own growth of the same 
 import." 
 
 If we had — that is tantamount to saying, we have not. 
 Nor have we. Nor has the Latin — hence Jerome transferred 
 the Greek words, and in this respect and for the same reason, 
 he has been imitated by our translators (except when the 
 Jewish baptisms are spoken of) and by those who have 
 translated the Bible into a hundred other tongues. 
 
 Campbell pleads for uniformity in admitting or rejecting 
 the original words, and yet he is not uniform himself in this 
 matter, for which he gives a lame apology. He says : — 
 
 "If it be asked, why I have not then rendered $a.7ttlau>vtai, 
 in the preceding clause, baptize? I answer, 1st, That the 
 appellation, baptisms, here given to such washings, fully 
 answers the purpose; and, 2dly, That the way I have 
 rendered that word shows better the import of the contrast 
 20 
 
230 CLASSICAL AND SCRIPTURAL USE 
 
 DCtween ifc and vC^iovtai, so manifestly intended by the 
 evangelist." 
 
 Now, instead of manifestly intending a contrast between 
 those words, we believe he used them as interchangeable 
 terms, so far as the action of purification is concerned. For 
 that the action expressed by the latter word was that of a 
 Jewish baptism, we have the testimony of another evangelist: 
 "And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine 
 with him; and he went in and sat down to meat. And when 
 the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed 
 before dinner." Luke xi. 37, 38. Christ had not come from 
 the market, hence nothing but the washing of hands, ex- 
 pressed in Mark by nipsontai, was proper, according to the 
 Jewish custom ; yet the Pharisee marvelled that he did not 
 baptize himself before dinner. 
 
 Campbell renders this place in Luke, "used no washing;" 
 but why did he not render Sj3a7tYia9r] dipped, so as to observe 
 uniformity, as he renders fiarttLcsoivtai, dipping, in Mark? 
 Obviously, because the action expressed by baptizo in Luke 
 was the same expressed in Mark by nipto, which he renders 
 to wash, and that "by pouring" He knew too that the 
 Jews did not immerse themselves before dinner: it never 
 was their custom; nor did they, nor could they, immerse 
 their couches and tables every time they ate. And for this 
 reason more than for any other, we suspect, Campbell, after 
 translating the baptismal verb, "dipping," transfers the bap- 
 tismal noun, in the next verse, as he could not commit so 
 gross an outrage on common sense, as to make the Jews 
 immerse their couches before reclining on them at meals. 
 He could manufacture Scripture enough, without committing 
 any great absurdity, to make them dip their hands, after 
 coming from market; but he could not go so far as to make 
 them dip their bodies or their couches on all occasions before 
 meals: hence in Luke, he speaks of "using washing," and 
 in Mark, the "baptisms of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, 
 and beds." 
 
 We are thus forced to the conclusion that these baptisms 
 were washings or purifications by water, poured or sprinkled 
 on the hands, or entire persons, or on the furniture, for 
 which ceremonial purposes vessels of water, containing two 
 
OF BAPTISMAL TERMS. 231 
 
 or three firkins apiece, were kept in the house, as St. John 
 expresses it — "after the manner of the purifying of the 
 Jews." And yet some talk about their effecting this "purify- 
 ing" by plunging — the word baptismos meaning nothing 
 else — as if men, women, and children, cups, pots, brazen 
 vessels, and beds, were, or could be, plunged into these 
 waterpots! 
 
 Bant tarns- 
 
 The noun partita f fa is used only as the agnomen, or sur- 
 name, of John, the forerunner of Christ: it occurs in Matt. 
 iii. 1; xi. 11; xiv. 2, 8; xvi. 14; xvii. 13; Mark vi. 24, 25; 
 viii. 28; Luke vii. 20, 28, 33; ix. 19. 
 
 Olxog and Oixia. 
 
 We have had occasion to note the difference between owcoj, 
 a family and otxta, a household, and its important bearing 
 on the subject of Infant Baptism. The following ingenious 
 and learned observations on the meaning of those terms are 
 from Taylor's unanswered and unanswerable work on Apos- 
 tolic Baptism. 
 
 The Greek term for house, otxoj, corresponds exactly with 
 our usage of the English word ; and the distinctions are uni- 
 formly preserved throughout Scripture, without any instance 
 of confusion or interchange. As applied to persons, this 
 Greek term signifies a continued descending line of many 
 generations. So we have the house of Israel, and house of 
 David, the nearest line of consanguinity that can be drawn 
 to Israel, to David, through any indefinite number of gene- 
 rations. It signifies also & family living at the same time, 
 and usually under one roof, contemporaries. With the addi- 
 tion of a syllable, oiki-AS, otxt-AX, it changes its application, 
 and imports the attendants on a family, the servants of various 
 kinds, or the house-noLD — whoever holds to the house. Mar- 
 riage or adoption might engraft a member of the house-hold 
 
232 CLASSICAL AND SCRIPTURAL USE 
 
 into the family; yet that is not according to the appointment 
 of nature, but is an arbitrary convention of civil society. 
 
 The term house, in the sense of a building or as signifying 
 a series of descending generations, can have no connection 
 with the subject of baptism of persons. Neither has the 
 term 7iouse-noLT) any immediate connection with this subject, 
 Scripture affording no instance of a house-nohD being bap- 
 tized, as such; though individuals comprised in it might be. 
 "We are therefore restricted to the consideration of the term 
 house in the sense of family ; and it corresponds perfectly 
 with our English term. Had it been rendered fam ily at first, 
 no error could have arisen on the subject of baptism. There 
 can be no family without children. A man and his wife are 
 not a family. When a young woman is advanced in preg- 
 nancy, she is " in the family way ;" — when her child is born, 
 she has a family ; yet this term is seldom used absolutely, 
 unless three or four children or more compose the family. 
 A widow with six or eight children is left with a large family : 
 and speaking of them, we ask, " whether the whole family be 
 well?" — whether all be at home?* 
 
 The same precisely is the application of the Greek term 
 oixos, oikos, in the New Testament. I know no instance in 
 which it imports a married pair not having children ; or the 
 parents distinct from their children ; but in several instances 
 it imports children distinct from their parents. For the 
 Apostle Paul baptized the family of Stephanas ; but he did 
 not baptize Stephanas himself; and he salutes the family of 
 Onesiphorus himself, who was probably absent from them ; 
 or he might have been dead, leaving an unsettled family be- 
 hind him. 
 
 Scripture always employs this term oixo$, oikos, family, to 
 import the nearest degree of kindred, by consanguinity gene- 
 rally, yet not excluding marriage ; and by descent generally ; 
 yet in one instance by ascent of parentage : never varying how- 
 ever from the notion of the nearest possible degree of kindred. 
 
 * Tliis is so obviously the meaning of the word family, that even an 
 antipedobaptist sings: 
 
 Millions of infant souls compose 
 The family above." 
 
OF BAPTISMAL TERMS. 233 
 
 It excludes servants or the House-noLB. An unimpeach- 
 able instance of this presents itself in the allusion to Noah, 
 Heb. xi. 7, who was saved by means of the ark, with his 
 family. The Apostle Peter assures us, 1 Peter iii. 20, that 
 only eight persons were saved in the ark, Noah with his 
 wife, and his three sons with their wives : it follows that no 
 part of his household is included in the term " family," used 
 by the writer to the Hebrews. The children of Noah saved 
 with him in the ark, were certainly adults, for chronologers 
 allow the youngest of them a hundred years of age. I pro- 
 ceed therefore to show, that this term family denotes not only 
 minors, but children in the youngest possible state of life. 
 
 The apostle, describing the qualifications for a Christian 
 bishop, 1 Tim. iii. 4, insists that he should be "one who 
 ruleth well his own family, having his children in subjection 
 with all gravity — for if a man know not how to rule his own 
 family, how shall he take care of the church of God ?" Here 
 it is evident, the children are the family, in a state of pupil- 
 age, and youth, which requires ruling and guidance by their 
 father. 
 
 In 1 Tim. iii. 12, we find a precept which directs that a 
 deacon be the husband of one wife, riding well his children, 
 even his own family — his issue. Lest this should admit the 
 possibility of equivocation, the apostle marks the family as 
 his own. Nothing can be more a man's own than his chil- 
 dren ; and the force of the Greek term warrants any degree 
 of strength that can be annexed to it. Therefore, in both 
 these places and connections, it fixes the parties designed by 
 it, equally in reference to the bishop as the deacon, to natural 
 issue or family. Nor can these children be adults, for then 
 the term tided could not be applied to them : they must be 
 young children, under their father's direction, subject to his 
 command and obedient to his control — he is to rule them. 
 
 But these children being under the rule of their father, 
 though still young, are somewhat advanced in life. In proof 
 that the term family imports babes and sucklings, consult the 
 advice of the apostle to young women, 1 Tim. v. 14: "I 
 would have the young widows to marry, bear children, and 
 guide their offspring, ocxo8s67toif£cp, oikodespotein, literally to 
 despot ise their family." This order of the words is defini- 
 20* 
 
234 CLASSICAL AND SCRIPTURAL USE 
 
 tive : " marriage, — child-bearing, — chlld-degpotising.'* This 
 third term must mark that guidance, care, and assiduity con- 
 cerning infant children, which mothers feel with the most 
 lively anxiety. Who interferes with a mother's solicitude 
 for her infant? — the father may sympathize with it when in- 
 disposed : he may express his fondness when it is in health ; 
 but it is the mother who must despotise it, govern it, direct 
 all its motions and watch all its ways. This is the appoint- 
 ment of God in his providence. These could not be foster 
 children, for the apostle speaks of child-bearing; nor could 
 they be adults, for then, neither could their mother despotise 
 them ; nor could she be young if her children were of mature 
 age. Observe also the change of term. The father, bishop, 
 or deacon, was to nile his family: the mother is to despotise 
 her offspring, her infant, with maternal solicitude. The in- 
 fant family is of necessity attached to the mother; and the 
 mother is attached to the infant family, by Divine appoint- 
 ment. 
 
 I demand, therefore, valid reasons why tha family attached 
 to their mother Lydia, Acts xvi. 15, was not a young family. 
 Moreover, seeing that daughters are always more attached 
 to their mothers than sons are, and for a longer term of 
 years, I demand also valid reasons for denying that Lydia's 
 family were daughters, in whole or in part: since there is 
 the greater chance that they were daughters, rather than 
 sons. Lydia was a native of Thyatira, but settled at Phi- 
 lippi. That she was on a visit, or on a journey of traffic, 
 does not appear. That conjecture is set aside by the mention 
 of her family and her residence, which must have been a 
 large house, to accommodate several lodgers — Paul, Silas, 
 Luke, etc.; and a congregation in addition to her family." 
 
 It is said of Lydia, that "her heart was opened by the 
 Lord; and that she attended to the things spoken by Paul:" 
 but nothing of this is said of her family. The baptism, of 
 her family evidently accompanied her own, and is spoken of 
 as a matter of course connected with her own baptism — 
 '•And when she was baptized, and her family." 
 
 There is no salutation to any of Lydia's family in the 
 Epistle to the Philippians: — if her family were sons of mature 
 age and members of the church, has not this omission its 
 
OF BAPTISMAL TERMS. 235 
 
 difficulty? The fixing of the term brethren to the family of 
 Lydia, in a restricted sense, is unwarranted by the fair con- 
 struction of the passage. In the instance of Lydia's family, 
 the children might be young; and every thing leads to that 
 conclusion; but in a numerous family, the certainty that 
 some must be young is greatly heightened. 
 
 Scripture uses the word all and whole, to import many — 
 numerous. The application of this word to families deserves 
 notice. It imports many in lesser numbers, Matt. xiii. 56: 
 "his mother Mary, and his brethren James and Joses, and 
 Simon and Judas, and his sisters, are they not all with us?" 
 Admitting an equal number of sisters as of brethren, it 
 makes eight or nine with the mother: a large or numerous 
 family. 
 
 The nobleman who came to our Lord to beseech him to 
 cure his son, had servants who met him; and, as became a 
 nobleman, literally a little king, he had a numerous house- 
 hold; for we read, John vi. 53: the father believed with all 
 his household." Now here notice the necessity of preserving 
 the distinction between house, the word used by our trans- 
 lators in the sense of family, and house-B.om ; for the story 
 seems to say that this nobleman had only one son; but he 
 had many domestics: the household was numerous, but all 
 his household was believers. 
 
 Paul uses the term, Acts xvi. 28, speaking to the terrified 
 jailer — "Do thyself no harm; for we are all here" — many 
 prisoners, besides Paul and Silas. 
 
 The consequence is inevitable, that families distinguished 
 by the word all or whole, had many children, since children 
 are the family. Acts xviii. 8: Crispus, the ruler of the syna- 
 gogue, believed with all his numerous family. Cornelius 
 the Centurion feared God with all his numerous family, Acts 
 x. 1. This particular was so striking, that it is repeated; 
 for Peter reports the angel to have said to Cornelius, Acts 
 xi. 14, that not only himself, but "all his family should be 
 saved," by the word to be spoken to them. This is not 
 noticed in the first account of the appearance of the angel ; 
 but it was a striking fact; and the apostle knew it to be true 
 from his own observation. This is included also when Cor- 
 nelius says — "we are all here present before God" — my 
 
Si36 CLASSICAL AND SCRIPTURAL USE 
 
 family is numerous. This idea even runs through the story 
 — "moreover the Holy Ghost fell on all them who heard the 
 •word" — on the numerous assembly. 
 
 As Cornelius selected for his piety the soldier whom he 
 sent to Joppa, who was "a devout man," there can be no 
 doubt, that he also heard the discourse of Peter to the family, 
 and most probably, those two domestics who accompanied 
 him in bringing Peter, were also at this meeting. Now as 
 the Holy Ghost fell on all who heard Peter speak, these 
 members of the house-hold of Cornelius were among the first 
 fruits of the Gentiles; but they were not of his family, 
 though consecrated and baptized at the same time with their 
 master. 
 
 The assembly baptized at Cornelius's, was a kind of 
 epitome — representatives of the future Gentile church; and 
 therefore contained individuals of every description, young 
 and old — rich and poor — masters and servants — high and 
 low — foreigners, natives of countries near, and distant coun- 
 tries. Julian the Apostate, who acknowledged only two 
 eminent converts to Christianity, named Cornelius the Cen- 
 turion as one of them. 
 
 Now is it probable that Crispus should have a numerous 
 family, that Cornelius should have a very numerous family, 
 but no young children in one of them? although the word 
 expressly signifies young children ! The families are spoken 
 of as being baptized: no exceptions are marked; and the 
 most numerous of all was baptized by the Holy Ghost, as well 
 as afterwards with water. 
 
 This leads to the history of the Philippian jailer who re- 
 joiced believing in God, with all his numerous family, Acts 
 xvi. 34. He could not have been an old man. His first in- 
 tention after the earthquake — "he drew his sword, and would 
 have killed himself" — is not the character of age, which is 
 more deliberate in its determinations. The action is that of 
 a fervid mind. In like manner, "he called for lights, and 
 sprang in." The original well expresses the strenuous 
 action of a man in the vigor of life ; yet this man had a 
 numerous family, which, according to nature must have con- 
 tained young children. Cornelius was a soldier too, and 
 
OF BAPTISMAL TERMS. 237 
 
 taking human life as generally modified by professions, had 
 young children in his very numerous family. 
 
 Luke was a good Greek writer, and relates the history of 
 the jailer with his customary precision. He says Paul ad- 
 vised him: ''Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou 
 shalt be safe, with thy family. And they spake unto him 
 the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his Jwuse-noLD, 
 to all in the jail." He brought all in his power under the 
 word as Cornelius had done ; but it is not said, that all who 
 were in his Jwuse-nohD, attendants, prisoners, etc., were bap- 
 tized, which is said of the whole company at Cornelius's, 
 but "he and his family were baptized:" "he rejoiced with 
 all his numerous family, believing in God." All heard the 
 word; but only his family accompanied the jailer in baptism. 
 This jailer became one of the Philippian brethren; and 
 would not lose the opportunity of attending the consolatory 
 exhortation at Lydia's, and of bidding his spiritual fathers 
 farewell. 
 
 The baptism of this family is spoken of as that of Lydia, 
 as the ordinary course of events: the children accompanying 
 the father, as is perfectly natural; but his family was more 
 numerous than that of Lydia, as appears from the use of the 
 word all which is not applied to her family. 
 
 "I will take you," says the prophet, Jer. iii. 14, "one of a 
 city, or two of a tribe, and bring you to Zion." Considering 
 the isolated nature of the first conversions, it is wonderful 
 that we have so many instances of the baptism of families', 
 but if we could trace the establishment of a church within a 
 limited neighbourhood, we might expect to find more con- 
 nected instances of this practice. 
 
 The church at Philippi, though apparently consisting of 
 a few members only, especially when first planted by the 
 Apostle Paul, affords two families, that of Lydia, and that 
 of the jailer, which were certainly baptized. 
 
 The church at Corinth also offers two families baptized, 
 that of Crispus and that of Stephanus ; besides an uncertain 
 number of others. 
 
 Stephanus was " the first fruits of Achaia," 1 Cor. xvi. 15 ; 
 and Paul confesses that he baptized his family. Crispus, the 
 chief of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, with all his 
 
238 CLASSICAL AND SCRIPTURAL USE 
 
 numerous family, Acts xviii. 8 ; and many of the Corinthians 
 believed and were baptized. 
 
 The family of Crispus is said to believe, but it is not 
 marked as baptized. Their baptism will readily be 
 granted ; for to leave this believing family unbaptized 
 would cut up " believers' baptism" by the very roots. The 
 same reasons imply that among the " many Corinthians" 
 baptized, others beside Crispus had families. 
 
 Stephanas, who was a deputy from the church of Corinth 
 to Paul, had been baptized and was a member of that church. 
 Neither of these particulars is recorded ; but if Stephanas 
 were not of their body, how came they to depute him, for 
 the purpose of obtaining answers to questions in which their 
 body was concerned ? and if his family were not attached to 
 the church at Corinth, what relation could it have to the 
 state of parties in that church ? or why recollect it in con- 
 junction with Gaius and Crispus? Stephanas, their father, 
 is described as the first fruits of Achaia : are we obliged to 
 take this term in the sense of "first convert?" This worthy 
 man might have resided at a short distance from Corinth, 
 and yet be a member of the Corinthian church. 
 
 The church of Corinth, then, presents two particulars 
 which have not heretofore occurred in the history of bap- 
 tism : — that Crispus, the head of his family, was baptized by 
 Paul, separately from his family, which was not baptized by 
 Paul ; and that the family of Stephanas was baptized by 
 Paul, separately from its head or father, who was not bap- 
 tized by Paul : directly contrary to what we have remarked 
 of Crispus. 
 
 But if we admit that the family of Crispus was baptized, 
 because we find it registered as believing, then we must 
 admit the same of all other families which we find marked 
 as Christians, though they be not expressly described as 
 baptized. That of Onesiphorus, 1 Tim. i. 16, 18, and iv. 19, 
 which the apostle distinguishes by most hearty good-will for 
 their father's sake, not for their own, and to which he sends 
 a particular salutation. Also, that of Aristobulus, and that of 
 Narcissus, Rom. xvi. 10, 11, which are described as being 
 " in Christ." We have this evidence on this subject—; four 
 Christian families recorded as baptized — that of Cornelius, 
 
OF BAPTISMAL TERMS. 239 
 
 of Lydia, of the" jailer, and of Stephanas. Two Christian 
 families not noticed as baptized — that of Crispus, and of 
 Onesiphorus. Two Christian families mentioned neither as 
 families nor baptized — that of Aristobulus, and of Narcissus. 
 Eight Christian families, and therefore baptized ! although 
 as there was no such thing previously as a Christian family, 
 there could be no children of converts to receive the ordi- 
 nance ! 
 
 Have we eight instances of the administration of the 
 Lord's supper? Not half the number. Have we eight 
 cases of the change of the Christian Sabbath from the 
 Jewish? Not, perhaps, one-fourth the number. Yet those 
 services are vindicated by the practice of the apostles as 
 recorded in the New Testament. How then can we deny 
 their practice on the subject of Infant Baptism, when it is 
 established by a series of more numerous instances than can 
 possibly be found in support of any doctrine, principle, or 
 practice derived from the example of the apostles ? Is there 
 any other case besides that of Baptism, on which we would 
 take families at hazard and deny the existence of young 
 children in them. 
 
 Take eight families at a venture in the street, or eight 
 pews containing families in a place of worship, they will 
 afford more than one young child. Take eight families on 
 an average: suppose half to consist of four children and half 
 of eight children : the average is six : calculate the chances, 
 that in forty-eight children, not one should be an infant : it 
 is hundreds of thousands to one. But there is no occasion 
 that absolute infancy should be the object: suppose children 
 of two or three years old, the chances would be millions to 
 one, that none such were found among forty-eight children, 
 composing six families. 
 
 Or, supposing Baptism were completely out of sight — 
 " How many young children would be found on the average, 
 in eight families, each containing six children V What 
 proportion do these eight families, identified and named in 
 the New Testament, bear to that of Christians also identified 
 and named? The number of names of persons converted 
 after the resurrection of Christ, in the Acts of the Apostles, 
 is twenty-eight, Four baptized families give the proportion 
 
240 
 
 USE OF BAITISMAL TERMS. 
 
 of one In seven; The number of names of similar converts 
 in the whole of the Now Testament is fifty-five. How many 
 converts may be fairly inferred from the History of the Acts 
 of the Apostles ? ten thousand ? — this gives one thousand bap- 
 tised families. How many from the whole of the New Tes- 
 tament? one hundred thousand? — this gives ten thousand 
 baptized families. How many must be allowed during the 
 first century and down to the days of Origen ? one million ? — 
 it gives one hundred thousand baptized families : ten mil- 
 lions? — the proportion is one million of baptized families. 
 
 This calculation, or one to the same effect, can neither be 
 evaded nor confuted ; for if this proportion be reduced one- 
 half, still Origen, whose great-grandfather, grandfather, and 
 father were Christians, and who himself travelled into the 
 countries, and among the churches, where Christianity was 
 first established, who was the most inquisitive and learned 
 man of his time, could not be ignorant whether the churches 
 received infant baptism from the apostles or not ? Could he 
 have any inducement to deceive or to be deceived on this 
 most notorious matter, this every-day public occurrence ? 
 
 Font in the Baptistery of Constantine at Rome. 
 
PRIMITIVE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 241 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE PRIMITIVE MODE 
 OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Great explorations have recently been made in the Ceme- 
 teries of the martyr-church at Rome ; but the results of those 
 researches have not yet been spread before the public. We 
 are told they are of the most thrilling interest. The dis- 
 coveries previously made have prepared us to expect some- 
 thing more than a mere gratification of our curiosity. Refe- 
 rence is made on page 118 of the foregoing Treatise, to the 
 Baptistery in the Catacomb of Pontianus, outside of the Por- 
 tese gate at Rome. We copy an engraving of this venerable 
 memento of the heroic age of Christianity. 
 
 The precise year in which this Baptistery was constructed 
 cannot be determined. It must have been, however, shortly 
 after the martyrdom of the apostles. It appears that it was 
 21 
 
242 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE 
 
 made before the Cemetery was ex- 
 cavated, as the former was but six 
 feet square, while the latter was cut 
 out of the rock above and around, 
 and gradually enlarged, as the axe 
 of the persecutor furnished the 
 tenants for the narrow cells. 
 
 The size of the Baptistery obvi- 
 ously precludes the idea of plung- 
 ing in administering the sacred 
 rite. Independently of this con- 
 sideration, however, that point is 
 determined by a picture rudely 
 painted on the walls of the Bap- 
 tistery, representing the baptism 
 of Christ. The Baptist stands on 
 a rock, pouring water on the head 
 of the Saviour, who is standing in 
 the river — the Holy Dove descend- 
 ing on him, the emblematic Lamb 
 standing meekly by, and an angel 
 witnessing the solemn scene. Be- 
 christ baptized by John Baptist. neath is the Cross, studded with 
 gems, having suspended, on its transverse beam, the sym- 
 bolical letters A and CI — the Alpha and Omega. 
 
 Similar representations of the primitive mode of baptism 
 are found in other places. The following is taken from the 
 
PRIMITIVE MODE OF BAPTISM. 243 
 
 church on the Via Ostiensis, at Home. " The outside," says 
 Mr. Taylor, " is a plate of brass covering a substance of wood. 
 The figures are partly in relief, partly engraved. Some of the 
 hollows are inlaid with silver. The inscriptions are in Greek, 
 with the motto BAnTICHC. The door which it covers is 
 dated 1070 ; but the plate is much older than the door ; and 
 from the letters, it is manifestly of Greek origin and very 
 ancient workmanship." 
 
 A similar picture constitutes the centre-piece of the dome 
 of the Baptistery at Ravenna, which was erected in 454. The 
 Baptist is pouring water out of a shell, or something like it, 
 on the Saviour's head, which is surmounted with a glory — the 
 Holy Dove is seen descending upon him. The river is per- 
 sonified by the figure over which is the word IORDANN. 
 We give a copy of this representation. 
 
244 
 
 PRIMITIVE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 One of the ancient fonts, alluded to on page 114, is repre- 
 sented in the following plate. A candidate is seen kneeling 
 by it, offering his petitions to Heaven, and a hand points from 
 the clouds above him, in token of the divine approval. Other 
 candidates are kneeling on the ground receiving baptism, 
 the water being poured upon them out of a vase. 
 
GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 Ablution of children, 44. 
 
 Abyssinia, baptism in, 83. 
 
 Adult subjects not all believers, 
 215. 
 
 Aytct, 30. 
 
 Agrippinus was rebaptized, 53. 
 
 Alford on Christ's baptism, 104, 
 105. 
 
 Ambrose testified to infant bap- 
 tism, 38: on virtue of bap- 
 tism, 125. 
 
 Anabaptists, origin, 55, 202 : 
 English Calvinists, 56 : Ger- 
 man, etc., heretics, 189. 
 
 Ananias probably an elder, 72. 
 
 Andrews, Bp., on baptismal re- 
 generation, 132. 
 
 AvBp'o-Troc, 49. 
 
 Anti-missionary Baptists, 191. 
 
 Apocrypha, use of baptizo in, 94. 
 
 Apostles baptized children, 33. 
 
 Apostolical Constitutions on 
 oil, etc., in baptism, 116. 
 
 Aquinas on baptism for the 
 dead, 225. 
 
 Aristotle quoted, 94. 
 
 Athanasius baptized boys when 
 a boy, in sport, 76. 
 
 Augustin on baptism of in- 
 fants, 38, 135: on Jay-bap- 
 tism, 69: on John's baptism, 
 102 : taught damnation of 
 unbaptized infants and bap- 
 tismal regeneration, 125,126: 
 on John iii. 5, 149 : his pious 
 use of baptism, 157 : on bap- 
 tism of children of unbeliev- 
 ers, 167 : called baptism the 
 
 21* 
 
 door of the church, 168 : on 
 delay of baptism, 201. 
 
 Augsburgh Confession on virtue 
 of baptism, 128. 
 
 Augsburgh, Diet of, on virtue 
 of baptism, 128. 
 
 Bacon, Lord, on lay-baptism, 
 65. 
 
 Baptismal regeneration, how 
 originated, 124 : various 
 views of, 125. 
 
 Baptismal robes, pants, etc. ,109. 
 
 Baptisma sanguinis, 224. 
 
 Baptism for the dead, 224. 
 
 Baptisterium, 91, 114. 
 
 Barnes on 1 Cor. vii. 14, 28. 
 
 Basil puts baptism for circum- 
 cision, 26 : baptized in in- 
 fancy, 38 : on baptismal re- 
 generation, 125. 
 
 Believers' baptism, 21, 215. 
 
 Bellarmine on baptism for the 
 dead, 225. 
 
 Beza's rendering of Mark vii. 3, 
 228. 
 
 Bible translation, 216, 229. 
 
 Bigotry of some antipedobap- 
 tists, 214. 
 
 Bingham on virtue of baptism, 
 140. 
 
 Blaurock, anabaptist, 55. 
 
 Bloomfield on 1 Cor. xv. 29, 
 226 : on Mark vii. 3-8, 228. 
 
 Blunt immersed by Dutch ana- 
 baptists, 56. 
 
 Bohemians rebaptized, 59. 
 
 Booth, his electrical bath, 89. 
 
 Bossuet on Albigenses and 
 
 245 
 
246 
 
 GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 Vaudois, 40, 44 : on Bohe- 
 mian rebaptizers, GO. 
 
 Bw, 27, 34. 
 
 Bridges on women's baptism, 
 65. 
 
 Buccold, anabaptist, 203. 
 
 Bunyan favored open commu- 
 nion, 57: denied that baptism 
 is a church ordinance, 159. 
 
 Burnet teaches baptismal re- 
 generation, 139. 
 
 Burying in baptism, 109. 
 
 Cajetan on baptism for the 
 dead, 226. 
 
 Calvin teaches baptismal re- 
 generation, 128, 153: refers 
 1 Cor. xv. 29 to clinical bap- 
 tism, 226. 
 
 Calvinists in this country repu- 
 diate baptismal regeneration, 
 128. 
 
 Campbell, Dr.„ on Mark vii. 3-8, 
 228. 
 
 Campbellites on administrator 
 of baptism, 63 : their hetero- 
 doxy, 180, 190. 
 
 Carson on bapto and baptizo, 
 221, 223. 
 
 Carthage, Council of, on bap- 
 tism of new-born infants, 37 : 
 on exorcism, 115. 
 
 Cartwright on administrator of 
 baptism, 54 : on John iii. 5, 
 149. 
 
 Castalio's rendering of, 7ruy/un, 
 227. 
 
 Catacombs, inscriptions and 
 pictures in, 118, 198. 
 
 Catechism of Church of Eng- 
 land on baptismal regenera* 
 tion, 130. 
 
 Cathari charged with heresy, 41. 
 
 Cecilian, 53. 
 
 Celestius on infant baptism, 38. 
 
 Children bound by their pa- 
 rents, 157 : benefits of their 
 baptism, 168, 199, 211. 
 
 Christians, so-called, Arians, 
 191. 
 
 Christ's baptism, 105, 114. 
 
 Chrysostom puts baptism for 
 circumcision, 26 : on infant 
 baptism, 38 : on John's bap- 
 tism, 102: on Christ's bap- 
 tism, 105: on baptism for 
 the dead, 226. 
 
 Church, essentially one in all 
 ages, 24 : difference between 
 catholic and particular, 160. 
 
 Church-membership, election 
 and birth-right basis of, 162, 
 184: of children, 168. 
 
 Circumcision before Moses, 23, 
 179: superseded by baptism, 
 23. 
 
 Clinical baptism, 59, 80, 226. 
 
 Communion, open, 56. 
 
 Compulsory baptism inadmis- 
 sible, 167. 
 
 Comus, Milton's, 94. 
 
 Constantine's baptistery and 
 baptism, 114, 200. 
 
 Cooper, Bp. , on lay-baptism, 66. 
 
 Cornelius, baptism of, 87, 149. 
 
 Covenant, baptismal, 13: Abra- 
 hamic, identical with Chris- 
 tian, 23, 154, 178. 
 
 Cranmer teaches baptismal re- 
 generation, 129. 
 
 Crispus, baptism of, 238. 
 
 Cyprian, on baptizing children 
 at birth, 26, 38 : recognized 
 affusion, 117. 
 
 Dagg, Dr., on 1 Cor. vii. 14, 28. 
 
 Delay of baptism, why encour- 
 aged by some, 201. 
 
 £iu<pzt>cK BxvTtr/usiZ) 79. 
 
 Dionysius, case reported by 
 him, 75. 
 
 Doddridge and others on 1 Cor. 
 xv. 29, 226. 
 
 Donatus, 54. 
 
 Donne on John's baptism, 104: 
 on virtue of baptism- W 
 
GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 247 
 
 Dwight on hereditary basis of 
 church-membership, 167: on 
 duty of church to baptize 
 children, 169. 
 
 Dye, a meaning of bapto, 93. 
 
 Election basis of church-mem- 
 bership inconsistent with the 
 birth-right basis, 162. 
 
 Eliberis, Council of, authorized 
 laymen to baptize, 59. 
 
 England, Bp., on virtue of bap- 
 tism, 127. 
 
 England, Church of, teaches 
 baptismal regeneration, 126. 
 
 Enon, 107. 
 
 Ephesus, case of disciples at, 
 102. 
 
 Epiphanius on Christ's baptism, 
 104 : refers 1 Cor. xv. 29 to 
 clinical baptism, 226. 
 
 Estius on 1 Cor. xv. 29, 226. 
 
 Eunuch not immersed, 100. 
 
 Eusebius baptized Constantine 
 by pouring, 114. 
 
 Exorcism, 115. 
 
 Exorcists baptized, 59. 
 
 Faber on Albigenses and Val- 
 lenses, 40, 43. 
 
 Faithful, applied to church- 
 members, including infants, 
 198. 
 
 Family baptisms, 32, 49, 231. 
 
 Fathers, why cited for infant 
 baptism, 39: on the mode, 
 113. 
 
 Fidus baptized children on the 
 eighth day, 26, 37. 
 
 Flanders, anabaptists of, Patri- 
 passians, 189. 
 
 Florence, Council of, on bap- 
 tismal regeneration, 126. 
 
 Gale on bapto, 221. 
 
 Gerson on virtue of baptism, 
 127, 138. 
 
 Gill, Dr., on 1 Cor. vii. 14-28, de- 
 nies that baptism is a church 
 ordinance, 160. 
 
 Goode, Gorhani, &c. on bap- 
 tismal regeneration, 141. 
 
 Good men, Albigenses, 42. 
 
 Goodwin, J., on evils of anti- 
 pedobaptism, 50. 
 
 Gregory Dr., on anabaptists, 
 202. 
 
 Gregory, Nazianzen, on infant 
 baptism, 37: on delay of 
 baptism, 201. 
 
 Gregory, the Great on trine im- 
 mersion, 115. 
 
 Hall, R., on Acts xix. 1-7, 103. 
 
 Helvetic confession on bap- 
 tismal regeneration, 128. 
 
 Henricians believed in infant 
 baptism, 42. 
 
 Hereditary church-member- 
 ship, 22, 184. 
 
 Heretics, baptism of, 53 : in 
 primitive church, 187: among 
 antipedobaptists, 188. 
 
 Hildreth on R. Williams, 139. 
 
 Holiness, baptismal, 28, 49. 
 
 Hooker on lay-baptism, 66 : on 
 virtue of baptism, 149. 
 
 Horsley on virtue of baptism, 
 140. 
 
 House and household, 231. 
 
 Hoveden on creed of Albigen- 
 ses, 42. 
 
 Immersional crucifixion, 113. 
 
 Immersionists, bold and bigot- 
 ed assumptions of, 119. 
 
 Immersion more rigorous than 
 circumcision, 78 : figurative, 
 81 : origin of, 114: not safer 
 than affusion, 119. 
 
 Infants, damnation of unbap- 
 tized, opposed, 41, 124, 129, 
 149, 165. 
 
 Initiating ordinance, baptism 
 an, 159. 
 
 Innocent I. authorized laity to 
 baptize, 59. 
 
 Irenceus on infant baptism, 34, 
 198. 
 
248 
 
 GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 Jailer, family of, baptized, 33, 
 235: baptized by affusion, 87. 
 
 James, King, objected to wo- 
 men's baptizing, 65. 
 
 Jerome on infant baptism, 38 : 
 on affusion, 87. 
 
 Jesse, first anabaptist pastor in 
 England, 56 : defended open 
 communion, 57. 
 
 Jew, baptism of a, 161. 
 
 Jewish baptisms, 79, 82, 84. 
 
 John's baptism, affusion, 81 : 
 not Christian, 102 : localities 
 of, 106. 
 
 Jordan, 106. See John's baptism. 
 
 Judaism falsely charged on in- 
 fant baptism, 177. 
 
 Judith's washing, 9-1. 
 
 Justin Martyr puts baptism 
 for circumcision, 26 : on in- 
 fant discipleship, 34 : on 
 John's baptism 102 : on the 
 mode, 117. 
 
 Kedron, no baptistery, 86. 
 
 Kingdom of God, 24. 
 
 KA/v&>v, 85. 
 
 Knipperdoling, anabaptist, 204. 
 
 Kuinoel on Christ's baptism,105. 
 
 Kupicc, 96. 
 
 Lay-baptism, 53. 
 
 Le Clerc on baptism for the 
 dead, 226, 
 
 Limbus infantum, 124. 
 
 Longobardi, king and queen 
 baptized by pouring, 114. 
 
 Lord's supper, not enjoined ex- 
 plicitly on women, 48 : not a 
 full meal, 97. 
 
 AiL»T,CV, 91, 151. 
 
 Lutherans, Evangelical, repu- 
 diate baptismal regenera- 
 tion, 128. 
 
 Luther, error of, on ministry, 
 61: taught baptismal re- 
 generation, 128 : opposed 
 anabaptists, 208 : on 1 Cor. 
 xv. 29, 225. 
 
 Lydia and family baptized, 32, 
 234: by affusion, 87. 
 
 Macknight, 29, 226. 
 
 Maclay, Dr., invective of, on in- 
 fant baptism, 175. 
 
 Majorinus rebaptized, 53. 
 
 Maldonat on baptism for the 
 dead, 226. 
 
 Manicheans, Albigenses so 
 called by enemies, 40, 41. 
 
 MaQmw<r*rt, 33, 34. 
 
 Marcionites' baptism for the 
 dead, 225. 
 
 Matthias, anabaptist, 203. 
 
 Melancthon on virtue of bap- 
 tism, 128. 
 
 Methodists falsely charged with 
 Romanizing tendencies and 
 holding baptismal regenera- 
 tion, 181 : practice in regard 
 to subjects of baptism, 212. 
 
 Midwives licensed to baptize, 
 59, 64. 
 
 Miller, Dr., on hereditary 
 church-membership, 162. 
 
 Ministers proper administrators 
 of baptism, 71 : usually bap- 
 tize their own converts, 72. 
 
 Mormons, anabaptists, 180, 
 192, 210. 
 
 Munster, anabaptists at, 194. 
 
 Munzer, a pastor before he was 
 anabaptist, 55 : tried to 
 unite church and state, 202. 
 
 Naked subjects of baptism, 
 83. 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar not immersed 
 in dew, 93. 
 
 Neophytes, newly-baptized, em- 
 bracing infants, 198. 
 
 Ni^mTm, 84, 228. 
 
 Novation rebaptized heretics, 
 53 : was baptized in bed, 59. 
 
 Oath of midwives, 64. 
 
 0«/*, c/Ksr, 32, 231. 
 
 Olive-tree, emblem of church, 
 
GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 249 
 
 Opus operantis — operatum, 143, 
 147. 
 
 Origen on infant baptism, 36, 
 198 : on John's baptism, 81 : 
 on baptismal regeneration: 
 125 : ancestors of, 240. 
 
 Original sin set forth in infant 
 baptism, 184. 
 
 Owen's, Dr., election basis of 
 church-membership, 163. 
 
 Oxford teaching on baptismal 
 regeneration, 141. 
 
 IW<*, 27. 
 
 Papists recognize baptism of 
 heretics, 60. 
 
 Parseus held damnation of 
 non-elect infants, 165. 
 
 Parents may contract for their 
 children, 47. 
 
 Parkhurst on 7rvy/ut.yi, 228. 
 
 Paul, reasons of, for not bap- 
 tizing, 72 : baptism of, 86 : 
 consistent in regard to cir- 
 cumcision, 121. 
 
 Paulus on Christ's baptism, 
 105. 
 
 Pearson teaches baptismal re- 
 generation, 139. 
 
 Pelagians confronted by infant 
 baptism, 184. 
 
 Pelagius held infant baptism, 
 38. 
 
 Pentecostal baptisms, affusion, 
 85. 
 
 Perkins held the damnation of 
 non-elect infants, 165. 
 
 Peter Bruis, 40. 
 
 Peter Martyr on damnation 
 of non-elect infants, 165. 
 
 Peter of Clugny slandered 
 Albigenses, 40. 
 
 Pledges, baptismal, 155. 
 
 Plunging, no scriptural mean- 
 ing of bapto, 93. 
 
 Tlveu/u*, 97. 
 
 Polish Socinian anabaptists, 
 189. 
 
 Popish baptism, question on 
 validity of, 54, 64. 
 
 Popliniere on creed of Albigen- 
 ses, 42. 
 
 Presbyterians on lay-baptism, 
 54. 
 
 Prior Philip's note on sponsors, 
 35. 
 
 Proselyte baptism, 33. 
 
 Purgatory found in 1 Cor. xv. 
 29, by Bellarmine, 225. 
 
 Purifications, Jewish, 80, 84, 
 227. 
 
 Puritans on administrator of 
 baptism, 54. 
 
 Pusey on baptismal regenera- 
 tion, 147. 
 
 Quakers reject baptism, 19. 
 
 Rebaptization improper, 53, 
 71. 
 
 Reformers not rebaptized, 59. 
 
 Regeneration, why baptism so 
 called, 151. 
 
 Reinerius slandered the Ca- 
 thari, 41. 
 
 Rigaltius, 53, 59. 
 
 Romans consecrated their chil- 
 dren to their deities, 166. 
 
 Rothman, a pastor before ana- 
 baptist, 204. 
 
 Ruffmus, 36. 
 
 Sacrament defined by Church 
 of England, 131. 
 
 Saints, church-members, in- 
 cluding infants, 30, 198. 
 
 Salt's account of Abyssinian 
 baptism, 83. 
 
 Sanctification, how promoted 
 by baptism, 158. 
 
 Se-Baptists, 55. 
 
 Servetus, an antipedobaptist, 
 189. 
 
 Seventh-day Baptists, 191. 
 
 Seventy disciples, the, 86. 
 
 Shedding forth of the Spirit, 
 baptism, 90. 
 
 Sign, or symbol, baptism, 154. 
 
250 
 
 GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 Simon Magus baptized, not re- 
 generated, 149. 
 
 Sin, washed away in bap- 
 tism, according to some, 
 124, 207. 
 
 Slave children offered to bap- 
 tism by masters, 167. 
 
 Smith, se-baptist, 55. 
 
 Socinus denied baptismal re- 
 generation, 139. 
 
 Sprinkling, 79, 98. 
 
 Stephanas, family of baptized, 
 32, 232. 
 
 Sunday-schools for the children 
 of the church, 169. 
 
 Sumner, Abp., on virtue of 
 baptism, 143. 
 
 Taylor, C, on baptism for the 
 dead, 225 : on o/xjc and qikia, 
 231. 
 
 Taylor, Jer., on case of Ana- 
 nias, 73 : on argument ex 
 concesso, 121 : on damnation 
 of unbaptized infants, 128: 
 on virtue of baptism, 134 : 
 on initiatory character of 
 baptism, 161. 
 
 Tertullian on 1 Cor. vii. 14, 29, 
 31,166: on delay of baptism, 
 35, 202 : on sponsors, 35 : 
 on administrator, 53, 61, 63 : 
 on plunging, etc., 115: re- 
 cognized affusion, 118: on 
 baptism in Church of Rome, 
 119: on baptismal regenera- 
 tion, 125 : on baptism for the 
 dead, 225. 
 
 Theodoret on baptism for the 
 dead, 225. 
 
 Toulman on strict communion, 
 56. 
 
 Trent, Council of, on virtue of 
 baptism, 126. 
 
 Tunkers, 190. 
 
 Two-seed Baptists, 192. 
 
 Union of church and state 
 falsely charged on infant 
 baptism, 200. 
 
 Universalist antipedobaptists, 
 190. 
 
 Urban II. authorized women to 
 baptize, 59. 
 
 Vicarious baptisms, 225. 
 
 Vulgate reading 1 Cor. vii. 14, 
 29. 
 
 Waldenses, confessions of, on 
 infant baptism, 44. 
 
 Wall on Albigenses, 40. 
 
 Warburton on Quakerism, 19. 
 
 Washing before baptism, 114. 
 
 Water,how sanctified by Christ, 
 105. 
 
 Wayland, Dr., on administra- 
 tor of baptism, 58. 
 
 Wesley on baptismal regenera- 
 tion, 140, 141 : on baptism 
 for the dead, 226. 
 
 Westminster assembly, on ad- 
 ministrator of baptism, 54 : 
 on hereditary church-mem- 
 bership, 161 : taught that 
 baptism unites the subjects 
 thereof to the church, 168. 
 
 Wet, a meaning of uapto, 93. 
 
 Whitgift on lay-baptism, 65. 
 
 Williams, Roger, 55, 189. 
 
 Winchester, antipedobaptist 
 universalist, 190. 
 
 Wolff's account of oriental 
 baptists, 82. 
 
 Women's baptizing, 59. 
 
 Zipporah, case of, 70. 
 
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Genesis xvii....23, 52, 162, 1G7 
 
 Exodus xv. 5, 19 81 
 
 Numbers xix..... 80, 95 
 
 1 Kings xviii. 33, 34 81 
 
 2 Kings iii. 11 84 
 
 v. 14 224 
 
 2 Chron. xxx. 18, 19 123 
 
 Psalm cxxxix. 15, 16 163 
 
 Isaiah xxi. 4 224 
 
 xliv. 3 155 
 
 liii. 12 112 
 
 lxiii. 1-3 98 
 
 Jeremiah xi. 16 25 
 
 li. 13 107 
 
 Ezekiel xvi. 4 116 
 
 xxiii. 15 221 
 
 xxxvi. 25 155 
 
 Daniel iv. 33 93, 221 
 
 v. 21 93, 221 
 
 Matthew iii. 6 82 
 
 11 88, 100 
 
 13 104 
 
 viii. 11, 12 24 
 
 xxi. 43 24 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Matthew xxviii. 16-20... 15, 16, 
 33, 71 
 
 Marki. 4 139 
 
 i. 9 100, 106 
 
 vii. 3, 4, 8 84, 227 
 
 x. 13-16 27 
 
 xvi. 16 15, 40, 46 
 
 xi. 37, 38 230 
 
 Luke xii. 50 105 
 
 xviii. 15 27 
 
 Johni. 28 107 
 
 ii. 6 84, 230 
 
 iii. 3 155 
 
 iii. 5. ..14, 26, 97, 149, 153 
 
 25, 26 13, 84 
 
 vii. 22, 23.. ..23, 154, 179 
 
 Actsi. 3-8 88, 91 
 
 ii. 1-4 88 
 
 16-18 89 
 
 33 91 
 
 38, 39. ..15, 22, 27, 52, 
 139, 152 
 
 vii. 45 24 
 
 viii. 13-24 152 
 
 36-39 ....15, 21, 100, 
 153 
 
 ix. 10-18 72, 86 
 
 x. 38 105 
 
 47, 48.. ..19, 22, 74, 87 
 
 xi. 15, 16 89, 91 
 
 xiii. 46 25 
 
 xv. 8-10 78 
 
 xvi. 1-3 121 
 
 251 
 
252 
 
 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 
 
 PAGE PAOB 
 
 Acts xvi. 15 52, 87, 234 Ephesians iv. 5 71 
 
 33, 34 87, 236 
 
 40 33, 100 
 
 xix. 1-7 19, 102 
 
 xxii. 16 15, 140, 153 
 
 xxiii. 8, 9 97 
 
 Romans vi. 1-11 109, 157 
 
 ix 163 
 
 xi. 16-24 25 
 
 xv. 7 123 
 
 1 Cor. i. 12-17 32, 52, 72 
 
 vii. 14 28, 52, 166 
 
 ix. 19-22 122 
 
 x. 1,2 52, 80 
 
 xi. 28 49 
 
 xv. 29 224 
 
 xvi. 15 32 
 
 Galatians i. 11, 12 17 
 
 ii. 3-5 121 
 
 iii.. 7-9 23 
 
 17, 18 23,154 
 
 26-29.. .14,26,111 
 
 v. 2-6 122 
 
 vi. 12, 13.. . : 122 
 
 v. 25-27.. ..140, 150, 
 
 153 
 
 vi. 1 31 
 
 Colossians ii. 11, 12 26, 112 
 
 iii. 20 31 
 
 1 Tim. iii. 4, 12 
 iv. 14.... 
 
 .233 
 
 Titus iii. 5, 6 14, 91, 150 
 
 Hebrews iii. 1-6 24 
 
 viii. 10-12 156 
 
 ix. 10-14 80, 95 
 
 x. 22 153 
 
 xi. 7 233 
 
 xii. 24 112 
 
 1 Peter iii. 20 233 
 
 iii. 21 15, 153 
 
 1 John v. 8. 
 
 105 
 
 Revelations xvii. 1, 15 108 
 
 xix. 11-15 98 
 
 THE END. 
 
 STEREOTYPED BY L. JOHXSON AND CO. 
 PHILADELPHIA.