w ciHcrMCisiox Am baptism. iSACRAMKNTS OF Till ('()VENA?\T OF GKACE HKING A CANDID C>)NS1DEKATI0X OF TIIK POIN'rS AT ISSUE BETWEEN PE8P>YTEIJIANS AND P>ArTIST8. RELATIVE TO BAPTISM ITS SCOPE MEANING MODE, ^ AND SUBJECTB, BY REV. R K. NASH, I^afttor of Centre Clnirch, ROBESOy COUNTY, N. C. PRINTED AT THE PRESBYTERIAN OFFICE, FAYETTFVILLE, X. C. 1S59. /o;^3 CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM, SAUKAMEI^TS OF THli COVE.NANT OF GRACE, BEING A CANDID CONSIDERATION OF THE POINTS AT IS8UE BETWEEN PESBYTERIAXS A^D BAPTISTS. RELATIVE TO BAPTISM ITS SCOPE MEANING MODE, AND SUBJECTS, BY REV. F. K>1S"ASH, P*astor of Centre Ohiirch. ROBESON COFNTY, N. C. PRINTED AT THE PRESBYTERIAN OFFICE, FAYETTEVILLE, X. C. 1859. ^c- •> "particular" — particiil^lfb. ^ if " disciples*' — disciple. ^^'^^ v /r 3 The period should be left " reference in parenthesis. 10 " sea"— seal. lo "sign-token" — sign, token. :?d from bottom.— Perio In this, follows the example of Christ and Paul 3 Order of discussion . . . 4 One chnrch oi (ilod, lOi e.sxcuthd and fniihinn'iihi' truth. 5- Why the Church is both riuldi: and itivhthlc <> W!iy the Chureh lias always had sacraments 7 "What are Si-.craments 7 No foioe without the covenant K Augustin and Calvin cyaoted S- The coveiiiint witl; Abrah.im (iep.. xix .-lioun to l>e that of Grace ~. \^ Argument condensed . . . \'i^ Corollaries 1 :? C n A P T E K I 1. Kite of b;iptism ; wl:;:t it is 15 Agrees with circnmci-io-i in ^ve thi gs l(i Differs in two 1 (> Augustin quoted 17 Does not Ho in the oatw.ud application of water 17 Five tliii!ii.s necrssaiv to (he outward lite i^> CONTENTS. H;i,ptisiu ix .^acraitu'iit to a covenant 21 Two changes necessary before man is fit for baptism 22 More than an obli«^ation to obedience 23 A sio-ii and Peal of the covenant ......' 24 C II A F T F. R III. Dhristinn bnptisin a perman^'nt institution 26 Xii.zianzinns and Tnrtullian 26 The mode not e^^^ential . 27 Tins disev\ssio)i not an attack, btif, a defence 28 The Baptist chMrch honore ? 29 Spirit of bigotry and high chureliism opposed 30 Robert Hall and C. H, Spurgcon 31 This Fpiiit schismatical 32 Our position stat-'d 84 Order of discussion 35 Our Saviour did not directly teach any pai'ticular mode. . . 35 Reasons for tins 36 Some places where i'nmersion cannot go as a permanent in- stitution : 87 The Greek word " Baptizo" in tbe New Testament wl'cn used in connection with baptism refers to tiie institution, not to the mole of applying the water 39 Views of Pres-^.yteiian church as stated in her Confession. . 40 Oalvin and Wit'^ius quoted 41 Another view of the case . . 45 The (rreek prepositions 51 CHAPTER IV. Point of agreement between all Christians 66 Point at issue, and mode of treating it 57 Infants included in the commission 67 Infants in the covenant 68 The church first organized 61 Infants in the church 62 CONTENTS. T The Jewish Church the Church of God 62 Infants members of the kingdom of God 65 Calvin quoted .* 65 Infants are holy 66 Infants baptized in all the early ages of the church 67 Calvin, Brown, Augustin, Erasmus 68 OBJECTIONS. No " Express Command" answered 69 No " Express Instance" answered 71 Cannot exercise faith and repentance answered 72 How faith and repentance are prerequisites 72 The right of infants to baptism rests precisely upon the same ground with that of adults 73 The objection deprives infants of the inheritance of life. . 74 The system we oppose 77 The system we love 78 INTKODrOTiOiV, Tiie iimttei', {iiid imicli of the ibrni of tlie ])resen1" unpreteiuling woj-k, was delivered in Sennons to tlie ])eople of luj cliai'ge. The impression niade ])y these Sermons, on the minds of many of (lod's dear people, led to the ex- pression of a desire on their part, for ;]ieir pnblica- tion. This desire, communicated with miicli Jelicacj'and kindness on their part, their Pastor li:i>, c >nsented to gratify. The topics liandkd liave been so often and ably discussed by the first minds tlie church lias ]>roduced, that it would be idle !<> ])]-etend to any oi'iginality. ISTothino' new can be said on eitlier side. The object liad in view by the antlior, Ijas been to condense in- to as narrow a compass as possible, the Scripture ar- guments that go to sustain Uie vievvi and ju-actice of the Presbyterian Church in I'elation to the Sacra- ments of Cii'cnmcision and nii[)rism. And, in do- ing tills, he luis not hesitated to use the best argu- ments lie Iuid been able to lay his hands on. VII IXTRoDrcriON. He has also, in many places, used the language of others when it has suited his purpose in the plan of his argument, and run with the general current of his thoughts. It has been his constant desire to present his views in such immediate connexion with the Covenant, from wliicli they derive their meaning and efficacy, that the humblest minds might compre- hend them. He has avoided prolixity as much as possible, and in every position songht to leave oftt all side issues, and go directly to the heart of the matter. In doing this, he is aware that many points having an important bearing upon the ques- tions involved, have been left out. Bnt still, he thinks enough has been said to establish the fact, that the Presbyterian Church, in her views and prac- tice, stands upon the ground d^ the Covenant, and is sustained by all the Scripture. * % ^' '^.r-^. CHAPTER TK^K v. CIRCUMCISION A SACRAMENT OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE. Matthew xxviii: 19, 20. "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- manded' you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." This is the great commission our Lord and Saviour gave his disciples, when, shortly before his ascen- sion, he sent them forth to teach the nations. This same commission he gives to all his minis- ters, in every age, and it alone constitutes a suffi- cient authority for Siy of them to preach the Gospel of the Son of God. Bearing these indentures, they are God's ambas- sadors, and may take along with them, wherever they go, the promise, "Lo, I am with you always." It is of the first importance, not only that the full meaning of this commission be reached, but also that the mutual bearings and relations of its several parts be distinctly understood. For unless this is done, the ambassador himself will neither know the extent of his credentials, nor the just proportion of the duties devolving upon him. 2 2 IN'ow, a careful analysis of this commission will show that it contains the following particular: 1st, Powder to teach; 2ncl, Authority to disciples ; 3rcl, A right to baptize ; 4th, Authority to require those taught, d'.scipled, baptized, "to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." In this charter of ministerial rights and obliga- tions, it is of importance to observe that 'teaching" and "discipling" go before "baptizing," and obe- dience. to the commands of Christ follows aftej' alL By observing this order of Christ's commission, the unity, peace, purity and efficiency of the church are always promoted. By violating that order, schism, dissension and great ecclesiastical inefficiency have invariably ensued. It has been the glory of the Presbyterian church, that she has ever sought to abida^by the teaching of her Saviour, and to observe the order of God's house as given in her commission. She never baptizes without first teachwg and dis- eipling. But is it asked, " Does she not baptize in- fants ?" Yes, she does ; but 7iever luithoiit a fore- running discipling of one or both parents, and their infants occupying the relation of minor heirs of the covenant of life. She places baptism secondary to teaching and dis- cipling, just as our blessed and wise Master did in the commission. Aud in this respect she follows his l)right and illustrious example ; for it is a telling fact, that though he spent his dear life in indefatigable labor, in teaching and discipling, he never (in all his life on earth) baptized a single individual with wa- ter. Jno. iv : 2. And in this respect she follows, too, in the footsteps of Paul, the great apostle to the Gentiles, for we hear him saying, "I thank God I baptized none of yon, but Crispus, and Gains, and tlie household of Stephanus." And the reason he gives is this : ''For Christ sent me not to baiMze^ but to preach the Gosjyel^ "What ! Christ sent Paul not to haptlze ! Then baptizing is subsidiary to preach- ing. He, then, who places baptism upon an equal- ity with "teaching and discipling" inars the order of Christ's commission, goes contrary to the example of Christ and the inspired apostles, and in the same degree displeases the Master, and hinders the pro- gress of his cause. Whether Mr. Monroe in his Sermons " Faith and Baptism," together with all those writers who agree with him, does not do this in the opinion that im- mersion is the only Scripture mode of baptism — - that infants are to be excluded from the church — and that God's acknowledged people are not to be permitted to hold communion together at the Lord's table, unless they believe in immersion baptism, we leave to the impartial reader to determine, after he has passed through this discussion. It was certainly very uncharitable in tlie ruthor of '^ Faith and Baptism" to insinuate, as he does. tliat those ministers who differ with him in opinion about baptism, " do not preach all the counsel of God." See 4th page of Introduction, and that there is danger that " the doctrine of Jesus " in their hands will be only "a bleeding victim on the altar of pop- ularity." See page 96. If the reader will pardon the candor of the writer of these pages, he will say that, he never felt a stron- s:er temptation to offer a bleeding victim on the al- tar of popularity than just here. Thankful for the restraints that the fear of God has put upon him, he will only say that there is no- thing in the standards of the Presbyterian church, on this subject, that he does not cordially approve, and which he feels unwilling both to teach and de- fend on all suitable occasions. IN'or is there any- tliing lurking under the name of baptism, as used and taught by our adorable Redeemer, that he does not love and try to teach. The whok of what we wish to pass in review be- fore the reader, wall range itself under tlie following general divisions : 1st. Circumcision and baptism, sacraments of one and the same covenant — their nature and design. 2nd. The sacrament of baptism — wherein it con- sists — its meaning and purpose. 3rd. The mode of baptism. 4th. The subjects of baptism. There never has been but one true church of God on earth. This is so, because there never has been but one true God to pity fallen man, and one true Saviour to redeem him, and one true Spirit to win and draw him back to his recovered life. The infinite counsels of wisdom and peace be- tween the three Persons of the adorable Trinity date back "before the Ibundation of the world" and lo- cate themselves in unfathomable eternity. The principles upon which salvation was to be wrought out, evolved themselves from the depths of the Divine Mind. Being the result of Infinite intel- ligence, they are all harmonious and never have or can change. The salvation of Abel, Abraham and Paul was wrought out upon precisely tlie same prin- ciples, which all had their home in the bosom ot' God. The church is only the outworkings of these sav- ing principles, and must, therefore, be one and only one. The ages have presented to the eyes of men differ- ent developments of this one church, but its essen- tial features have ever been the same. From x\dam to Abraham — from Abraham to Mo - ses — from Moses to Christ, and from Christ down to the present time, it has had one Lord and Head, one Faith and one Spirit. Flaviug one Lord and standing upon the platform of a common faith in him, as Messiah and Mediator, it has gone forth to the discharge of the duties of its day, animated and impelled by one and the same Spirit. Adam, and Abraham, and Moses stood upon the same foundation — Jesus Christ — felt the constrain- ing force of a true faith, and accomplished their sal- vation through the operation of his Spirit within them. This church of the Lord Jesus has always been both visible and invisible. And this is in conse- quence of the twofold nature of man, as he is com- posed of body and spirit. As the spirit of man is invisible, the work God does upon it in the way of its salvation is invisible, save as it is evinced through the activities of his body. And as there is a very intimate connexion in man between his soul and body, both exerting an important mutual influence, God has so constituted his church, that in the great work of salvation it shall touch and rouse the whole man, so that when this shall have[jbeen accomplished, the whole man — body and soul — shall stand an eternal monument to Christ's power to save. The sacraments of the visible church have changed with every dispensation, just as the light of the gos- pel has increased upon it. But this has been only a change of outward developments, in ceremonies and ordinances, and implies no change in the church itself. The church from Adam to Abraham, had the sacrament of sacrifice. From Abraham to Moses, it had the sacraments of Circumcisio7i. From Moses to Christ, the sacraments of CircumcJsiori and Pass- over^ and from Christ to onr day, it has liad Baptism and the Lord's Supper. ]S"ow, the chief reason for the institution of these Sacraments in tlie church, ^vill probably be^'found in the fact that our Saviour, having redeemed the body, as well as the soul of his people, it was fit, that it, in the use of these sacraments, should go through a preparatory process here, and thus aid the soul, in its preparation for the skies, and so soul and body become mutual helpers, in the work of salva- tion. As God has appointed the sacraments of the church tor the edification of the members thereof, they are never rightly observed, except where the man — body and soul — is emijloyed. The body must be concerned about the outicard sign^ and the sonl with the thing signified. When any sacrament of the church, is thus receiv- ed, in the mutual activities of the whole man, it is always effectual, in the accomplishment of the thing divinely intended. The foregoing observations are thought important, to enable the reader to understand the force and practical bearing of what follows. What then are sacraments? "Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the cov- 8 eiiant of grace, immediately instituted by God liim- self, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him, to put a difference between the chnrch and the world, and to engage the church in the service of God according to his word." " Con. Faith," chap. 27, sec. 1. All sacraments imply the existence of a covenant or promise on the part of God, for as they are signs and stcds^ they are useless unless they sign and seal some- thing. ]lTow, a sign and sea by themselves are of no value. If put upon a blank sheet of paper, they are worth- less ; because they convey no right, and seal no obligation. But if they be attached to a paper, in which an estate is conveyed, then they sign and seal the right and title, to what is given in the deed. Just so, if we exclude the covenant of God frolii the church, they become ineffectual and value- less ; but let the soul understand and embrace the covenant, with its priceless blessings, and they be- come to it as precious as the blessings themselves. Thus, in the right use of the sacraments, the cove- nant with its promises and hlessings^ constitutes the matter about wdiich the soul is engaged, and the performance of the outwai'd rite what occupies the body. These views harmonise with what the great Augustine says w^hen he defines a sacrament to be "a visible sign of a sacred thing" or "a visible form of invisible grace," and also with Calvin when he says, ''There is never any sacrament without an antecedent promise of God^ to. which it is subjoined as an appendix." From this elevated position the careful reader is now asked to look at the sacrament of circumcision. The first question that naturally arises here is this : Was there an antecedent covenant which this sacra- ment signed and sealed? Certainly there was. See Genesis xvii : 4 — 11. (The reader is asked to take his Bible and turn to the reference and read it carefully.) Here the covenant was, "I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee." This was the gist of the whole transaction. All the rest is only subsidiary. At any rate, no one will question this position, that all that is implied in heing a God to Ahraham is included in this covenant. Xow, the promise, '*a God to thee," includes every thing that rational im- moirtals need, whether they be sinless or sinning. The holy angels need no more, and fallen man can- not be more highly blessed. Is a Saviour necessary to the fallen and the lost? Yes. Was Abraham such? Yes. * Then to be "a God to Ahraliam^^ implied that God would provide a Saviour for him. Were pardon, regeneration and sanctification necessary to fit Abraham for heaven ? Yes. Then all these are implied in the words, "I will be a God to thee." iSTow, what covenant was this? The old covenant 10 of works? Certainly not ; for in all that, God oiever did, because lie nev&r could^ promise the sinner to be his God. Was it the covenant of circumcision, in which God merely separated the Jewish nation in the posterity of Abraham, and promised to multiply them and give them the land of Canaan? No, not this alone. For though God in the covenant does promise these things, yet they were only incidental Uessiiigs of an earthly nature^ growing out of the great fact that God had become his God and the God of his seed. But that this was the very heart of this covenant appears very plain from the testimony of the Apos- tle Paul, who says, "To Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not to seeds as of many, but to thy seed, which is Christ," Gal. iii : 16. Christ, then, included in the covenant was its very life. Including Christ, it by necessity included all the blessings of his death and mediation. It was, therefore, the covenant of grace, because it contained the promise of a Saviour. But what is the testimo- ny of the Apostle on this point? "This I say, that the covenant^ \Yh.\Q\\ was -confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannut disannul, tha': it should make tlie promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the laAV, it is no more of promise : but God gave it to Ahrahaiit by ])romise." Gal. iii: IT, 18. IS'ow, here the Apostle directly asserts that the 11 covenant made willi Abraham was ^'' corifi i med in Christ,'' and that the " inheritance " it secured to him was of "promise," or grace. Xow, if it is ne- cessary to render this more plain, if possible, let it be asked, What ''inheritance" was this \ The reply can only be, the inheritance oi pardon^ justification and eternal ///">, of which the Apostle had just been speaking. jS'ow, then, if the promise of eternal life through him ''who was made a curse for us" was contained in the Abrahamic covenant, then that covenant was none other than the covenant of grace, and all the cavillers in the world cannot prove to the contrary. What was the visible sign-token or sacrament of this covenant with Abraham? God answers, "Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin ; and. it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and. you." Gen. xvii: 11. Circumcision, then, was the visible token or sacra- ment of this covenant, and. this covenant was the covenant of grace. Therefore, circumcision was a sacrament of the covenant of grace, and occupied precisely the same relation to the covenant under the old, that baptism does under the new dispen- sation. It is regarded as all-important to a correct under- standing of this subject, that the reader fully possess himself of the foregoing argument, for just here is 12 made tlie very strongest point in the whole Baptist argument. Our Baptist friends assert that the covenant with Abraham w^as a kind of national covenant in which temporal blessings w^ere chiefly promised. Circum- cision was a token of nationality, and the blessings pertaining to that, a sacrament at most only of the Jewish church, and not of the church of Christ, and therefore furnishes no argument for the baptism of infants. But if, as we have shown, the covenant with Abra- ham was the covenant of grace, and the token of that covenant a " sign of the righteousness of faith," as the Apostle asserts, (see Ilom. iv: 11,) then the whole argument breaks down and has no force. For the benefit of the reader, we will here give the whole of our argument in a condensed form. The covenant with Abraham (Gen. xvii) was the covenant of grace, 1st. In its very nature. For ''I will be a God to thee and thy seed," embraces all that is contained in the covenant of grace. 2nd. From the exposition of the Apostle Paul when he says, "not to seeds as of many, but to thy seed^ which is Christ.'''' Is there grace in the gift of a Saviour? Is there grace in his atoning work? Is there grace in his mediatorship on earth and in heaven? Then this 13 vas a covenant full of c^race, and grace was its chief and abounding glory. 3rd. From the apostle's explanation of circumci- sion, the token of this covenant, he does not call it a sign or token of nationality or Judaism, but he says expressly, Abraham '' received the sign of cir- cumcision as a seal of the rigJdeoiisness of faith which he had yet being nncircumeised." *' Righteousness of faith'' pertains to the covenant of grace, therefore circumcision was a sign and ■seal of the covenant of grace. There are certain corollaries, that follow from the foregoing argument, of vast practical importance to th« church of God. 1st. iN'o sacrament can be of itself absolutely ne- cessary to salvation. For if the sacrament is neces- sary, then all infants dying in infancy without bap- tism are lost, but all evangelical Christians unite in the sentiment, that they are saved. Our Saviour says of infants, " Of such is the kingdom of heaven;" and we have reason to believe the penitent thief was taken to Paradise, without the sacraments. 2nd. IN'o sacraments put men in a state of salva- tion. It was not circumcision that put Abraham in covenant with God : it was only the sign of a pre- viously existing covenant relation. His forerunning interest in the covenant, by the mercy of God, en- titled him to the sign thereof. " He received the sign of circumcision, as a seal of the righteousness 14 of faith, which he had yet being iincircumcised.?* So in baptism, men in adult years do not obtain an interest in the covenant through their baptism, but they receive the sign of baptism as a seal of the '' rig7iteoi(s?iess of faith^^ which they have before baptism. The '' righteousness of faith" going be- fore baptism, is just as necessary to entitle a man to this sign of the covenant, as it was to entitle Abra- ham to circumcision. So with our infants, we do not baptize them to introduce them into covenant with God, but because they are already in the covenant by reason of the promise, '' I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed." 15 CHAPTEE II. Bi.PTISM— ITS EELATION TO THE COVENANT XATUKE AND MEANING. The comtnission our Lord and Saviour gave his ministers when he sent them out to " teach," empow- ers them to baptize in the name of the Holy Trini- ty. Matt, xxviii : 19. The charge to baptize being coupled with the command to preach the gospel, shows that it was intended by the Master to go along with that, to all the world. Baptism, then, must go where the gospel goes, and he who has the right to lift up his voice in the utterance of its precious ti- dings, is equally authorized to place upon all who are won by his instructions, this sign and seal of the covenant of life. It is not only the right but the duty of all minis- ters of the Gospel to baptize. The facts which es- tablish their ministerial character, confirm their right to all the offices pertaining to their ministry. Baptism is one of the offices of the ministry, there- fore it is the right and duty of every minister to baptize. What then is baptism ? " It is a sacrament of the Kew Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also, to be unto him a 16 sign and seal of the covenant of grace, the blessing?* thereof, and of his giving himself to God, to walk in newness of life. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized " in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," Con. of Fai'th, chap. 28, sec. 1. This is Christian baptism. IS; ow let us see, how it agrees with cireti'mcision, and how it differs from it. 1st. It is a sacrament of the visible church. So was circumcision. 2nd. Instituted by God. So was circumcision. 3rd. For admission to the visible church. So of circumcision. 4th. It is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace^ and the blessings thereof. So w^as circumcision, as we have shown. 5th. It is a sign and seal of our covenant en- gagement to God, to walk before liim in newness of life. So was circumcision. In five things then they agree. In what do thej differ? 1st. Baptism is a sacrament of the 'New, circum- cision of the Old Testament. 2nd. Circumcision was a bloody sacrament, indi- cating a suffering, bleeding Saviour to come. Bap- tism is a watery sacrament, indicating a Saviour come, and bloodshedding over. IT Kow then, the j agree in ^ve particulars, and differ in two and these the most unimjportant. Are they not then, essentially the same ? and do they not occupy precisely the same relation to the vipible church, and 'he covenant of grace, upon which that church stands? In confirmation of this view of the case, see what the great Augustin says : " The sacraments of the old Law ouly promised the Saviour, ours," i. e. those of the T^ew Testament, " give salvation." *' The sacra- ments of the Mosaic Law, announced Christ as af- Urvmrds to come, ours announce Ilim as already come." There is then, no difference in the sacraments themselves, only in the outward rite, and the rela- tion they sustain to the Saviour — circumcision pre- figures Christ, baptism announces him as come. Xow, whatever the nature of baptism may be, it rannot lie in the outward application of water^ or in the mode of applying the water. 1st- It does not lie iu the outward application of water. The proof of this point wnll lie in showing, that circumcision did not consist merely of the outward rite, and if circumcision did not, much more bap- tism does not, by unavoidable consequence. Under the Old Testament, admission to the Church, and all the blessings of the covenant, were held forth to believers, under signs and figures. This was em- phatically a dispensation of cerenionies ; yet, even 18 under this, every sign held forth a spiritual myste- ry, upon which the faith of believers rested. Thus, while the rite of circumcision was enjoined, as the ceremony of initiation to the fellowship of the church, the Jews were at the same lime instruct- ed in the nature of the sign, in the command to " cir- cumcise the foreskin of their heart." Dent, x: 16. The outward sign then — the cutting of the flesh, im- ported the cutting of the heart, and the consecration of that to the service of God. To conscientious and true believers, who received the outward rile in testimony of their faith, God promises this, "The Lord thy God will circumcise thy hearty and the heart of thy seed." For what purpose? "To love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, tliatthou may- est live." Deut. xxx: 6. Then, tlie outward cir- cumcision in the flesh, was a sign that signified the circumcision of the heart, audit was this spiritual cir- cumcision which introduced a man to the covenant of grace and all its blessings. For its efi'ect was, " that thou mayestlove the Lord thy God with'all thy heart." Thus, it is evident, in getting down to the true nature of circumcision, we penetrate through the mists and shadows of the ceremonial Law, and find ourselves standing upon precisely the same founda- tion of the disciples of our Lord. "Well then does the apostle Paul say of all Christians, they " stand upon the foundation of the apostles," and is this all ? If BO, we have made no progress in our argument, 19 Ko. This is not all- — *' are bnilt upon the foundation of the apostles, and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone." Eph. ii : 20. Did the prophets — the old Je^vish prophets, who received the sign of circumcision, stand upon the foundation which has Jesus Christ for its comer stone ? Then we all stand together there. They got upon it through the grace ot God, and entered into visible fellowship with the saints through the out- ward rite of circumcision. We get upon it, through tlie same grace, and enter into visible fellowship with those standing there, through baptism. What then is the difference ? The grace is the same, the effect of that grace the same, the fellowship the same, the foundation the same, and the blessings the same. Well, what is the difference? There is none, but the mode of introduction into the visible church. Tlie ancient people came by circumcision, we by bap- tism. The Jiature of the initiatory rites must there- fore be the same. This being the case, what does the apostle Paul testify ? Why this, " He is not a Jew, who is one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. Bat he is a Jew. who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God.'^ Xow then, if circumcision under the old dispen- sation of forms and ceremonies, did not consist 20 merely of the outward sign, but had a spiritual meaning under the sign, which must be reached, in order to understand its nature and meaning, much more baptism, under the simpler form of the church in these gospel times. The application of water to the person baptized, whether by sprmkling, pouring, or immersion, gives us no clue, of itself, to understand the nature of tlie rite. Every body sees that the act is nothing, and yet, while this is so, all the circumstances of the outward act, are necessary to baptism. Each of the five fol- lowing things are neoessanj to the outward rite. — 1 . Water. 2. Using water, either by sprinkling, pour- ing or immersion. 3. By a minister. 4. The words of institution, or in the name of the Holy Trinity. 5. The minister acting in his ofHcial char- acter. If a single one of these particulars fail, we can- not have the outward sign of baptism. But with all of them combined, we find no intelligent meaning, if we stop with the outward ordinance. What does all this mean, is the natural inquiry tliat constantly arises in the mind ? If it ])e said, the water of bap- tism cleanses the body, the objector may immediate- ly reply, I can wash better at home. If it l)e said, the outv.-ard ri{e cleanses the soul, he may reply, it is both contrary to reason, and the nature of things, that water applied to the body, siiould cleanse the 21 goiil. But, if it be said, this is a sacrament institu- ted by God himself, every body who believes the statement, is prepared to find a sufficient reason in it, for God is always wise. What- then does baptism as a sacrament mean ? In answer to this question, let the following thoiights be duly considered : Every sacrament implies a pre-existent covenant, to which it is affixed, and every covenant supposes parties covenanting. Baptism then, being a sacrament to a covenant, necessarily requires a suljject covenanting. AYithout a subject to be baptised, there can be no baptism, and this subject must be both capcibU of covenanting, and absolutely covenanting. We can- not baptise a brute, because it is incapable of cove- nanting. We cannot baptise a man, according to the intention of the great Head of the Church, who is unwilling to covenant with God, because, in the ve- ry nature of covenants, it is necessary that the par- ties be free, and willing. Is then, baptism a sacrament to a covenant ? Cer- tainly it is. For when the penitents of Pentecost inquired, ''Men and brethren what shall we do?'' Peter replies, ''^ Be haptiscd every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ." Xow, observe, upon what he bases his instruc- tion to them to be baptised. "For" says he, "the promise," i. e. covenant, "is unto you, and to 22 your cliildren, and to all afar off, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call." Acts ii, 38, 39, Here then, is baptism, distinctly represented as a sacra- ment to a covenant, — and man is the subject of the rite, because he is a rational, free agent, capable of nnderstanding. Having now the sacrament, and the covenant, and the suljject — man, are we ready to baptise ? i^o. Wliy ? Because the suhjeet must not only be capa- ble, hut fit. " Eejyent^ and be baptised," said Peter, to the converts of Pentecost. *' If thou helievcst with all thy heart, thou mayest," said Philip to the Eu- nuch. Man, as the subject of baptism, needs to have two important changes pass upon him, before he can be fit for that solemn rite. 1. He needs that his mind be enlightened, in' a knowledge of the covenant. — 2. He needs that his heart be made willing to em- brace the terms of the covenant. To effect these, God has given the Bible, the Church, the Ministry, the preached Gospel, and the Holy Spirit. Through these great agencies, God designs to hold forth his covenant of life to the intelligence of man, that through that intelligence, He may win his heart to its terms, and thus he be made j?z5 to covenant with God. When through the teaching of the Word, and experience of the Spirit, a man knows the covenant, and does actually covenant, then, and not till then, is he prepared for baptism, wliicli is a sacrament, of the covenant. A person thus enlightened, has learned to love, desire, and long after, the blessings of the covenant. Thus feeling, he seeks a public recognition, and in baptism, takes his place in the visible Church of Christ, professing his faith in Him, and vowing to walk with Him '' in newness of life." This now gives a meaning to baptism. In this light, we do not now look upon it as a superstition, or a mysterious mummery, but an intelligent act, having a meaning — both performed and received for good and sufficient reasons. Nor is this all. For we have not half fathomed the depth of the meaning of this glorious institu- tion, if we stop with making baptism merely an ini- tiatory rite, by which we profess Christ, and cove- nant to obey his commands. It is much more than this. We do not get down to the heart of the mat- ter — the moving, stirring life of the institution, if we stop here. For baptism, as a sacrament to a cove- nant, is God's sig7i and seal^ confirming to the^^ subject thereof, all the benefits contained therein. While on the one hand, baptism obliges the re- ceiver, to walk ^' in newness of life," it at the same time, imposes upon God, the covenant obligation, to make good to such, all covenant blessings. Such as a justified state — a sanctified heart — the "forgive- 24 ness of sins, the resurrection of tlie dead, and the life everlasting." The thing, then, signified in the baptism of every believer, is just this — The reception of such person into the covenant of grace, as it is administered un- der the 'New Testament. ISTot, by any means that this of itself puts such in covenant with God, but only signifies and shows forth publicly the fact of a previous covenant relation. N'ow, as circumcision was the sign and seal of the covenant, under the Old Testament, (see Gen. xvii : 11; Eom. iv: 11,) so baptism which comes in its place, (see Col. ii : 11,) is the sign of God's covenant, and (as the great Basil says) *' the inviolable seal thereof." Reception into the covenant of grace, always im- ports these two things, and it matters not whether that reception dates back to the days of the prophets, or locates itself in the present time. 1. Communion with Christ and his Church, and an actual participation in all the benefits of such a state. 2. An engagement to obedience to all Christ's commands. Now, that both of these are sealed in baptism, there can be no question. As to the former, the apostle Paul expressly says "we are baptised into one body," (1 Cor. xii : 13.) And as Christ is the Head 25 of that body, baptism must put ne iuto communion with Christ and his church. And that all the bene- %h of such a relation are sealed unto us, will ap- pear from the fact that, the apostle Peter regard- ed them as so sealed, and sure, that he uses the emphatic language, " we are saved by baptism." Ist Pet. iii : 21. Now, whatever may be the critical interpretation of this text, there can be no question that the apostle regarded baptism as sealing salva- tion to all true believers. As to the latter, baptism seals our obligation to obedience^ because the apostle Peter describes it as *^ the answer of a good conscience towards God." Ist Pet. iii : 21. Baptism, therefore, forever stands, as the " inviolable seal" of communion with Christ. I say it seals Christ, dear reader, and all the blee- dings that are in Him. The application of the wa- ter in this ordinance is God's speahing sign^ put up- on the person of the believer, signifying to him, and the church that God — the God of the covenant, is his God. And it is God's seal, in its spiritual im- port, by which all the blessings mentioned in the covenant are confirmed unto it. 26: CHAPTEE III. BAPTISM — ITS MODE. Christian baptism was not given to the church as n. permanent i7i8titution^ until the Saviour about to leave the world, sent forth his disciples to preach the gospel. Matt, xxviii : 19. John's baptism was given of God, but it was the baptism of repentance, heralding a present Saviour, and crying in the wilderness, ^' behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of tlie world." It was temporary, and designed to prepare the way for Christ's permanent institution. Nazianzinus calls John " the middle person between the Old and New Testament." Tertullian says of him, "he was the boundary set between the Old and New, at which Judaism should terminate, and from which Christianity should be- gin." John's baptism was something intermediate, in- tended as it were, to break the severity of the old rites, and prepare the minds of the people for the simpler forms of a pure Christianity. ' . "Whether it was the christian baptism or not, is of little consequence to determine, though there can be no doubt it allied itself more immediatelv with 27 Christianity, as John was Christ's immediate fore- runner. John's Baptism, and that of Christ's Disciples, be- fore the gospel commission was given, were design- ed to prepare the way fur that change about to be effected, in the visible church, when her sacraments — the signs and seals of her covenant, should be so altered, as to represent a Saviour come, atonement finished, and salvation won. Now, in instituting the sacrament of baptism, it is only reasonable to expect that a wise Saviour, knowing its great importance to his church and peo- ple, would leave nothing essential to the rite, in a state of obscurity. But this most manifestly he has done, if the mode of applying the water in baptism is essential to the validity of the ordinance. For in no text of the Bible, is it said, that baptism shall be performed by immersion, sprinkling, pouring, or in any other mode. jSTay, further, it is asserted, and contradiction is challenged here, in no case of lap- tistn recorded in the Bible is it said, whether the su})jeet Jjaptized, was baptized hy immersion or in any other mode. Then, we think, we may safely commence this discussion by saying, that our Saviour did not re- gard the mode of baptism, as essential to the rite. There are several modes of baptism, practised among men ; such as sprinkling or pouring, immer- 28 sion, the sign of the cross, and the use of oil, salt, and spittle. All evangelical churches use sprinkling or pour- ing, except the Baptist. This uses imniersion. The Puseyite the sign of the cross. The Roman Cath- olic the oil, salt, and spittle. "We haye no difficulty in distinctly stating it as our opinion that all these have the Christian bap- tism, except the Eoman Catholic* As Presbyteri- ans we stand pledged by our book, to recognise all the rest, as churches of our Lord Jesus, and their members as brethren. In discussing then, this immaterial point — the vxode of baptism, we do not wish, or intend, to unchurch any who differ with us, nor do we desire to write one word which will disturb the harmony which it lias been our good fortune to enjoy with brethren of other churches. All that the writer of these pages intends, is to assert for himself, as a teacher of gos- pel truth, the fullest liberty of investigation, and when he thinks he has arrived at the meaning of tlie divine word, to communicate that meaning to his own people, (and all others who shall honor him with their attention) so that they, and the standards of our church shall be vindicated from any charges of unsoundness that may be brought against them. * The General Assembly of the Presbyterian church, at their rcs- sions, in Mav 1845, decided the question, "Is baptism in the church of Rome ralid?" in the negative, by a vote of 173 to 8. 29 The only argument we shall hiave here, will bo with our Baptist brethren, and this by a kind of necessi- ty laid upon us. For, we must show our reasons for the views we Presbyterians hold, or by silence seem ashamed of them, or afraid to assert them. Just here, we wish to pause, while we ask per- mission of the reader to say a few things, in order that we may place ourself right with him. We distinctly assert that we have no controversy with the Baptist Church, in the odious sense of that word. We believe it to be an honored church of Christ. We would not injure it in the slightest de- gree, if we could ; we would not proselyte one of its members. We would not take from it, its dearly beloved Immersion. We have no sympathy with those bitter controversialists who can see no good in it, and denounce it as au evil. On the other hand, we regard it as one branch of the family of Jesus, and in many respects, we honor it. Yes, we honor the Baptist church, and bid her God speed in the work of the Master. We honor her because she holds a pure gospel — because, with this gospel in her hand, and regulating the pulsa- tions of her great heart, with Robert Hall at her head in the early part of the present century she did much to drive back from the shores of England, the invading forces of French Infidelity — because she was foremost in reviving the Protestant church to a tense of its obligations to the perishing heathen, or- 30 ganised the first Foreign Missionary Society of mod- ern times in England ; and in the person of William Carey, translated the Word of God in India, so as to make it accessible to three luindred millions of the human family, or one third of our race. All honor then, to that church, which is thus highly hon- ored of God — the pages of whose history are illus- trated with such names as Carey and Fuller, and Byland, and Flail and Judson, and Spurgeon. But we do not love, and we have no patience with that spirit of bigotry and liiglichurcliism, found among many of our Baptist brethren, which seeks to unchurch portions of the family of God, as good as they, and cut the ties of christian union among Christ's people, and that too, upon a point of com- paratively trilling importance ; and that we are not singular in the opinion that these sentiments are f/?- tolerant^ anti-chrlstian sind tmwlse, will appear from the testimony of many of the wisest and best men the Baptist church has ever produced. As a specimen of this testimony, we introduce Rob- ert Hall and C. FI. Spurgeon ; the first, ranking with the most learned, eloquent, and pious men of his day — the latter, we believe to be the foremost preach- er of the age. Hall says " the policy of intolerance is exactly proportioned to the capacity of inspiring fear. The Church of Eome for many ages, practis ed it, with infinite advantage, because she possessed ample means for intimidation. But what was policy 31 ill her would be the height of infatuation in us, who are neither entitled by our situation, nor by our crimes, to aspire to this guilty pre-eminence. I am fully persuaded that few of our brethren have duly re- flected on the strong resemblance which subsists be- tween the pretensions of the church of Ivome and the principles implied in strict communion ; Ijoth tqual- hj intolerant j the one armed wiih pains and penal- ties; the other, I trust, disdaining such aid ; the one, the intolerance of power, the other of weakness." — Worhs^ vol. 1 p. 358. Again, in accounting fur the fact that the Baptist church has not come up to her duty in the measure of ics success, he says, " J>nt though we have not "drunk with the drunken," if we liave unwittingly '^beaten ourfcllowservants" by as- suming a dominion over their conscience; if we have severed ouj-selves from the members of Chric^t and under pretence of preserving the purity of chri:itian ordinances, violated the christian spiiit ; if v;e have betrayed a lamentable want of that -'love., which is tlie fulfilling of the law," by denying a ];lace in our churches to those who bebing to the ''church of the first born," and straitening their avenue till it has become narrower than the way to heaven, we may easily account for all that has follow^ed, and have more occasion to be surprised at the compassionate Redeemer's bearing with our infirmilies, than at his not bestovring a signal blessing upon our labors." — Worlcs, vol. l,p. 390. 3*2 In giving ins views of tlio intolerance of the cliurch of England, Spurgeon says, *'I think this bears rather liard on our friends — the strict com- munion Baptists. 1 should not like to eay any thing liard against tliem, for they are about the best peo- }>le in the world; but they really do separate them- selves from the great body of Christ's people. The Spirit of the living God will not let them do this re- ally — but they do it professedly. I do not believe it is wilful schism tliat makes them thus act ; but at the same time, I think the old man within has some hand in it." As to the matter of schism, to which Spurgeon al- ludes, let the following illustration be considered: Two ministers, strangers to each other, and educa- ted under widely different circumstances, are pas- sengers together on a vessel at sea, which is wreck- oil on an unknown continent, and all lost but them- selves. Their desolate condition draws them very close!}' together, and they soon know and love each other. With hearts burning with love to the Saviour, and the perishing around them, they preach togeth- er the gospel of salvation; many are converted and the time comes when these heathen are to be received by baptism into the visible church. It is agreed that half shall be baptised by one of these ministers, and the rest by the other. The first takes his subjects into the middle of the fc^tream and immerses them ; the other stands upon 33 its bank, and sprinkles them. After the ceremonr, minister A enquires of minister B why he does not baptise the people. B replies, I have done so. No, says A, you have only sprinkled them, and that is not baptism. Neither you nor yours have the chris- tian institution, you cannot come with us to the Lord's table, and enjoy there the communion of saints. But replies B, let us not fall out about this, it is only a matter of opinion between us — our Sa- viour left no express direction, I acknowledge your immersion as valid ; if you prefer it, practice it. I hope you will extend the same courtesy to me, and let us live and labor together as brethren. No, re- plies A, we cannot live or labor together, we can- not commune together, because your views are un- Bound on the mode of baptism. Which of these would be guilty oi schism in the body of Christ ? Let the impartial reader answer. Let no professed disciple of Christ think the sin of Bchism to be a small one. It is pestilent, ruinous : and let it be observed that this sin does not consist alone in external division. The worst schism is that which destroys the grace of charity among God's peo- ple. " Whatsoever violates this, is the most destruc- tive, moral schism, as much worse than an unwilling breach of outward order, as the malicious tearing in pieces a man's living body, is worse than accidental tearing of his clothes. I know not how to judge of Christianity, than by charity. Xor know I, when 34 among them that profess there is less of either, than with them that would confine and engross both to their several parties ; that say here is Christ and there he is; and will have the notions of christian, of saint, of church, to extend no farther than their own arbitrarily assigned limits, or than as they are pleased to describe their circle. Nor doth it sa- vor more of uncharitableness in any, to think of enclosing the truth and purity of religion, only with- in their own precincts, than it doth of pride and vanity, to fancy they can exclude thence every thing of offensive impurity." — Rowers Works^ vol, 1, p^ 483. Now, we design in this discussion to occupy B's place. We will not attack A's mode of baptism by immersion, as not christian, and therefore, not valid. We acknowledge its validity. What we shall assert and prove, will be this, that our mode of baptism hy sjyrinkUng is as good as his, and is better backed, both by the letter, and spirit of Scripture^ and then, if he insists upon it, that both cannot stand together, we shall require him, in the name of our common Master, and by the love he bears his cause, to unite with us, in executing the great commission, "go teach and baptise " in our mode of sprinkling. The subject will be considered in the following manner. 1. AV^e shall show that the Saviour has left no ex- press direction as to the mode of applying the water in baptism. '2. IJis intention in this. .3. The sources of inlbrniatiun on this subject ; x\'hat they are, and what they teach. 1. The commission our Saviour gave his disciples, contains no specific directions as to the mode ol bap- tising. The direction is "go, and baptise"; and as water is the element, the whole of it is just this, "go baptise with water." 'Not only so, but in no single instance of baptism by tlie apostles, under the eye of the Master, or af- ter his ascension to glory, is there a single act record- ed, or circumstance related, that proves directly any particular mode of apjdying the water in baptism. To prove this, the fact need only be stated, which it is su[)posed will not be disputed, that although the mode of baptism has been canvassed in the church for centuries, by the ablest minds and ripest schol- ars, not one of them, has ever been able to bring forward any direct^ positive jiroqf in favor of any par- ticular mode. Kow, what does this prove, but that the Saviour did not mean to confine the administra- tion of the ordinance to any particalar mode, lest weak man should make baptism to consist in the mode, and thus exalt the outward sign, to the im- portance and dignity of the thing signified? 2. Several explanations may be given of the fact, that our Saviour did not give express directions on this subject, each of them going to show us his in- tention in this matter. S6 Ist. Water baptism represents to us a great spir- itual mystery, i. e. soul pxmfication^ effected througli the blood and Spirit of Christ. '^\\^ force of the figure lies in the application of pure water to the person of the subject, not in the amount of water used, or in the manner of using it. For as water cleanses the defilements of the body, so the blood of Christ those of the soul. And as the efficacy of Christ's blood to cleanse the soul, depends not upon the amount shed, but upon its intrinsic value, so the ef- ficacy of the water representing it, depends not up- on its quantity, but upon its pureness. Accordingly it is well said by Dominions A. Soto, as quoted by Witsius, '' In baptism there is some- thing essential^ as the washing with water, and some- thing accidental as the washing in this or that man- n^r." Our blessed Saviour then, no doubt intended by leaving his disciples without express instruction as to the mode, to teach them that baptism consist- ed in the washing, not in the mode of doing it. He intended, therefore, to call ofi" their minds from the "accidental" and fix them upon the e5^ the institution, and not to the mode of applying the water. 2. When it is used in the Scriptures, it very often bears along with it a very different idea from that of immersion. It is thought important that the reader notice dis- 40 Knctly our petition here. We do not assert tliaf. ^'haptiso " never means immersion ; on the contrary, we think it often means this, ^ay^ that its primary meaning is to immerse. But what we say, is this, that it often meaiis smnethiiig else^ and very differ- ent fro-m immei'se ; and according ta the n^ind of the Spirit, conveyed to us in the language of the New Testament, it simply means to- loasJi^ to cleanse, — Pictet says, "the Hebrew word which the Septua- giut renders haptizein^ (2 Kings v: 14) is taken for a Hebrew word which means to wash ; hence, the word Jyaptizein^ is simply used for to wash. — Theolo- gy iP-^^^- As applied to. the rite of baptism, it means th^fact of cleansing , and 7iot the mode by which it is done. TiiiSy we think, is the ground taken by our Con- fession, on this subject. That is a slander upoui out* church wliich represents it as holding that all modes but its own are unscriptural, and therefore, to be de- nounced. Tlie great men who formed our Book were loo wise of head, and large of heart, to think of sundering the ties of christian fellowship upon tho minor point of the mode of baptism ; their language accordingly i&y "-dipping the person in water is not 'necessary '^ but baptism is tightly administered by pouring or sprinlding water upon the person.'^ — Con. Faith, cliap>. 28, sec. 3. This was the view ta- ken of this subject by Luther, Calvin, and Witsius. Neither of these great men ever taught (as some de- 41 sire to make them) that ^^haptizo'' meant only im- mersion, and ahoays immersion. Luther's works are not before us, but Dr. Fuller quotes him as say- ing "Baptism is a Greek word, and may mean im- mersion." But he does not say it alivays, but only may mean immersion. Calvin says, Institutes, chap. 15, Sec 19, ''' Bo/p- Ubo^'' signifies to immerse, and the rite of immersion was practiced by the ancient church." But does Calvin say that haptho always means immersion? Does he say that the ancient church always practiced immersion, and regarded every other m.ode of bap- tism invalid ? jSTo, he says no such thing. What then, is his testimony on this point? As he is a wit- ness put on the stand by our Baptist brethren, let us have hig whole testimony. Listen to him. "But whether the pei"8on who is baptised, be wholly im- mersed, or whether thrice, or once, or whether wa- ter be only pouf^ed or sprinkied upon him, is of no iiThportanee. Churches are at liberty, in this respect, to act according to the diiference of countries." Wiiat says Wifeius, the most learned divine since Calvin? "Though J'^^?^/^6m propeHy signifies to plunge, or dip, yet it is also inore generally used for any washing y— Witsius'' Eoon. of Gov. B. ^y., cli. 16, uec. 11. All that is meant to be shown here, is, that the Presbyterian Church, through her Confession, and the great and good men whose words we haye (juo- 42 ted, regarded the religious meaninq of hajptizo^ as it is connected with the institution of Christ, as any wctshing vjith water in the name of the Holy Trinity. The attention of the candid reader is also called to the following remarks taken from one of the most learned works issued from the press of this country, Com. on the Acts, by Dr. J. A. Alexander, vol. 1, p. 84 : " Even granting^ that this Greek verb orig- inally meant to immerse, i. e. to dip or plunge — a fact which is still earnestly disputed, — it does not follow that this is essential to its meaning, as a pe- culiar christian term. On the contrary, analogy would lead us to suppose, that like other Greek terms, thus adopted, it had undergone some modification of its etymological and primary import. As Pres- byter no longer suggests personal age, nor Deacon, menial service, nor Supper a nocturnal meal, as ne- cessary parts of their secondary christian meaning, why should this one word be an exception to the general rule, and signify a rnere mode of action, as not less essential than the act itself? Even if it could be shown that immersion was the universal practice, both of Jews and Christians, it would prove no more than the universal practice of recli- ning at meals, and mixing wine with water.'- Dr. Fuller says : "In commanding his disciples to be baptised, Jesus knew what act he enjoined, and he could be at no loss for a word clearly to express bis meaning." Certainly this is so. "If Jesug meant immerse, and nothing else, the word was haptizoy Certainly if he meant iminerse^ but that is the very point in debate. Did he mean immerse ? We would like to ask the Doctor if Jesus meant neither of the modes specified, or all^ what word would he then have used? Why, the very word he has used, laptizo^ for that in the Scripture usage means either^ and covers all the rest. This we now proceed to prove, and we ask the candid reader to take his Bible, and turn to the pas- sages, as we progress in this discussion. In Heb. ix: 10, we read about the Jewish "service," which the apostle says ''stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washhigsy ''Baj)tis77iois,^' divers bap- tisms. Does the word here mean only immersion ! T3efore this can be made to appear, it must be shown that in the Jewish service there were no washings, but by immersion, which can never be done. Mark vii: 4, we read, "And when they come from the market, except they wash," '-^haptisontair — - baptise, "they eat not." And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing," ipajytismous^ baptisms,) of cups and pots, and brazen vessels and tables." Kow, these are some of the items of the Jewish service, to which the apostle alludes above. Does not the word here mean to wash f Luke xi : 38, " And when tlie Pharisee saw it, he marveled, that he had not first washed," (ebaptisthe, baptized) before dinner." We submit these passages to any impartial man, to saj, whether they mean immersion. " The Pharisees, when they come from market, except they hajytize^ eat not." Hence tlie Pharisee marveled at our Lord, because he haptized not be- fore dinner. Now, if " hcvptizo'^ here means, to wash^ the meaning is very plain. But if as our Bap- tist friends say, it means immersion, then the mean- ing is very obscure, if it bas any at all. With this rendering of tlie word, their new version of tbe Bi- ble, will read thus, "The Pharisees when they come from market, except they immerse themselves, eat not," " and when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first immersed himself," and then tlieir translation will state a very questionable thing, for there is no evidence that the Pharisees immersed themselves before meals, and then it would not be true, that this Pharisee marveled at our Lord, be- cause he had not first immersed himself. But if it be said that the above texts refer to the tradition of the elders mentioned by Matt, xv : 2, and alludes to the washing of the hands, and when we wash our hands, we dip them in water, I reply, that we may v/ash tlje hands either by dipping, or pouring water upon them, and the fact of washing determines nothing, as to the mode in which this \9 45 done*' Besides, even if we allow that washing cannot possibly be done except by dipping, still, if we dip in order to baptize (wash) then it is very cei*- tain that there is a difference between dipping and baptizing^ for baptizing (washing) is the end^ dipping t?ce means to that end. It is however a matter of very little consequence how they baptized (washed) their hands, for the word ^^ hapjtizd'^ here clearly ex- presses the thing done i. e. the washing, and not the manner of doing it. Again, John in speaking of his baptism, and that of the Saviour, uses, with respect to both, the same word, ^' haptizo ;" if therefore, it refers to the mode^ and means immersion in the case of John, so also in that of our Saviour, Luke iii : 16, "I indeed bap- tize (bapiizo) you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, he shall baptize {})ap>ti3o) you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." I^ow, dear reader, let us read this text according • There is a passage in 2nd Kings, iii : 11, which doubtless has^ap- peared strange to many, and which we think throws light on thi» aubject. The passage refers to a part of the office of Elisha as ser- rant to Elijah. King Jehoshaphat asks, " Is there not here a prophet of the Jews 'f and is answered " Here is Elisha, who poured water on the hands of Elijah,'''' i. e. who was his servant. Here the wash- ing was by pouring. In reference to this washing of hands, "Pitts. Acco. Mo. Rd." Page 24 has this, " Bt-fore they rise from meat, x servant steps into the middle of the company with a basin of water, Uke a coffee pot, and lets the water run upon their hands, one afl«v another as they eU." 4^ to the theory of our Baptist friends, and see wliai we shall make of it. Remember Dr. Fuller says, " baptiso^^ ]\iQt means immersion, and nothing else, and refers to the mode. " 1 indeed immerse you with water ; but he shall immerse you with the Ho- ly Ghost and with fire.'' Paraphrased according to this rendering, it would i-ead thus, I indeed according to my 7node of bap- tism, immerse you with water, Christ according to his mode of baptism shall immerse you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. Kow it is very evident, this is a most forced, un- natural, and untrue construction. There are threvj reasons that must destroy it. 1st. We have no account in all the Scripture of any being immersed in the Holy Ghost. 2nd. We have no information from Scripture of any man, dipped, plunged, immersed in fire, by our Saviour, but the finally damned. 3rd. The very construction destroys itself, for it gives up the point in debate. What is the point! Why, whether haptizo refers to the mode or institu- tion of baptism. To show that haptizo refers to the mode, our Baptist friends make John say, I immerse you with water, Christ shall immerse you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. E^ow let it be asked, why does John immerse with water ? The answer is, to baptize: why does Christ immerse with the Hol^ Ghost ? The answer is, to baptize. *7 Then tliere is a difference according to their own showing between immersion and baptism. They are two things, distinct and different ; immersion is not baptism, and baptism is not immersion. Kow see how much more simple and natural our construc- tion of this passage is: "I indeed baptize (wash, cleanse) you with water, but there cometh one after me, lie shall baptize (wash, cleanse) you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." This reading abstracts our minds from the " accidentaP' mode, and fixea tJiem upon the " essential" baptismal cleansing. But there is another view of this case, which not only strengthens, but confirms our view of Baptism. How was the baptism of Jesus Christ, to which John refers, described before John's day ? — What language was used by the Prophets respect- ing it? and how^ was this baptism to be performed? Let us see, God speaking by the mouth of the Pro- phet Isaiah says, " For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty. I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed." Isa. xliv : 3. This is a promise to God's people, in gospel times. '* I will pour ivater^ I will pour my Spirit.'^ Here is a direct allusion to baptism, and it refers imm^- diately to what John says Christ will do. Is there then here the least hint at immersion ? Certainly not. But let it be distinctly noticed, that this prophetio promise embraces in its ample scope not only " him that is thirsty," but also " thy seed." Here then is 4S gospel baptism by pourhig^ reachinpj expressly to the children of believers. Again, Isa. lii : 15, " He," i. e. Christ, " shall sjyrinkle many nations." This is another })rophecj running directly in the line of John's promise. Is there any allusion to immersion here? No. More than 600 years before his coming, Isaiah cries, in the language of inspired prophecy " He shall sprinhU many nations," and John, Christ's immediate fore- runner, takes up the prophecy, and applies it to Christ, in the language " He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." The two together amount to a demonstration in favor of sprinkling. Again God says by the mouth of Ezekiel, ''I will sprmlde clear water upon you, and I will cleanse you.'^'^ The sprinkling and cleansing are the same. All, I believe admit, that this promise refers to gos- pel times. John applies it, " He," i. e. Christ " shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Here again by inspired nien^ sprinkling and bap- tizing are connected, but there is nothing said about immersion. Passing the burying ground of the old propheti and the sepulchre of glorious old John, we come and take our stand among the generations when the Prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel locate themselves, and enquire, are there any voices that come to us in the same strain? Yes, listen ! From the throbbing heart of the church, this song bursts, " We are com« 49 to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant." — This, then, was Isaiah's and Ezekiel's glorious Sprinlier and John's mighty Baptizer. Bat in com- ing to the Sprinkler, Baptizer, and Mediator, was that all the Church had to sing of? No : " And to the hloocl of sprinkling^ which speaketh better things than that of Abel." Heb. xii : 24. The climax of the song is, that they had come through the Medi- ator, to haptisnial — spriiikled hlood^ or sprinkled, washing, cleansing blood. And if we wish to know who these are that sing, the apostle will answer, " Elect, unto obedience and sjjrinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." 1st Pet, i: 2. Now, that we are not mistaken in applying these prophecies of the Old Testament to that bap- tism which John asserted for Jesus Christ, will ap- pear, if we inquire hov/, in what manner, or mode, the baptism of the Holy Ghost was performed. What saith the Scripture ? " But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come iqyon yoic^ Acts i : 8. No immersion here, " Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye see and hear." Acts ii : 33. " As I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning." Acts xi : 15. " And they of the circumcision which believed were 6 50 astonished, because that on the CTentiles was poured Old tlie gift of the Holy Ghost.'- We learn from these passages of Scripture, that the baptism of which John speakg as performed by Jesus Christ, " comes upon," " falls upon," is " pour- ed out," but in all this there is not the slightest alhi- sion to immersion. We ask then, in view of these Scriptures, what does God witness as to baptism ? We answer, most clearly that it means to wash^ to cleanse. What does lie witness as to the mode in which the purifying power comes to the soul ? We answer, his witness is, that it ^' comes ujyon,-^ "falls upon," " is poured out." Why then, as water baptism is only an em- blem of this, we have the testimony of God m favor of sprinkling, and this far exceeds the testimony of all the lexicographers in the world in favor of im- mersion. What then is the conclusion of the whole matter? Just this: That '^ haj>tizo^' used in a Scripture sense to express this ordinance, means washing only ^ Kud. has no reference to any particular mode. It neither means immersion, sprinkling, nor pouring, for these are only different ways of washing. But the bap- tism of the Spirit is expressly called sprinlclmg. As to the Greek prepositions, on which so much stress is laid in this discussion, we have this ^:o remark ; nothing can be made of them, to determine one way or the other, in favor of any mode of baptism, for 51 they all have so many meanings, that no wise schol- ar will attempt to confine them to any particular signification in all cases. Their meaning varies ac- cording to the relation they bear to the sense when they occur. Take for instance the prepositions *' Eis'"' and "^/i," and let us see what bearing they have upon the mode of baptism. The baptism of the eunuch by Philip is a case in point, Acts viii : 38. "They went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch and he baptized him." , Xow our opponents find here one uf their strong- est passages. They ask, does not the Bible say '•' went down into the water," and if they went *• in- to the water," what did they go for but that the Eu- nuch might be immersed ^ Here our opponents say is {mf/ie/'sio?i, and it is not worth while to deny it, and it is only a cavil to do so. But let us look at the words in the original lan- guage, and see if we who sprinkle have not occasion to complain of the translators. They went down " eis to h udor^ ''into the water." But " ^/V means to^ unto^ as'well as into. This we prove from tlie following three texts : 1st. Matt, vi : 26, *' Behold the fowls of the air" ifec. The original is ■" emblepsate eis.'''' " Look unto the fowls of the air." Here it means unto and not into. 2nd. Matt- xxi : 1, " and when they drew nigh unto ("t^/V') 52 Jcrr.salem, and were come to ("6^V') Betbpage. Here it is to^ and not into. 3rd. John xx : 3, 4, " So the,y ran both together, and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first " e/«" to the se- pulchre/^ Here it is to^ and not into. Here then in all these texts, and many others that might be cited, the translators give "^Z^" the meaning of to^ and iinto.^ and yet, as if to ac- commodate our Baptist friends, in the transaction of Philip and the Eunuch they translated it into. Surely we have reason to complain, but we will not, for we know that it bears various meanings. Only read the text with " m" translated to or unto^ and all the immersion gloss is taken off. All we intend however to show is, that nothing can be proved as to the mode of baptism from the rendering of any of the Greek prepositions. Before dismissing this part of the subject, we must notice a Baptist comment on " enP An author of that church cites eleven texts of Scripture, '4n all of which except two, and thousands of others in the New Testament, the Greek word " {???" is rendered in by the translators of the English version. In two instances " ^?i" is rendered loltJi^ that is loltli wate7\ instead of in icater. and the said rendering tends to obscure the meaning greatly." Xow, it is only the one saying of Jolm the Bap- tist, which the two evangelists, Matthew and Mark record, in different languages, and which is here 53 compiainea ot. Matthew has this 'i indeed uap- tize jou (" g?i") with water — he shall baptize jou ("f7i") loith the Holy Ghost" iii : 11. Mark i : 8, ''I indeed have baptized you {"' e?i") with water, but he shall baptize you (" 6/?,") with the Holy Ghost. ^' Does " 671'^ translated with^ obscure the mean- ing ? We think not. But let us try the other translation. " I indeed baptize you " m" or " into'^ water, but there cometh one after me, He shall baptize you '' zV or " into''' the Holy Ghost, and " into''' lire." Does this re- move the obscurity? Does it not increase it a hun- dred fold ? What I Jesus baptize a man in or into the Holy Ghost, and into fire ! ! In all the history of the church, who ever heard of such a case ? In all the manifold workings of Christian experience, when is the occasion on which Christ baptizes m, or into the Holy Ghost and into fire? The baptism of Jesus Christ by John, is another place where our Baptist friends gladly avail them- selves of our common version, though they abuse it in other places. Matthew iii: 16, it is said, " Jesus after his baptism went up straightway " apo tou hu- datos''' out of the water." But ''^ apo means from as well as " out of^' as any Greek Lexicon will show. The text read with this rendering, takes off all the immersion gloss, and does not prove one way or the other, in favor of any particular mode of baptism. 54 iliere are two other texts, that are used with much effect in this discussion by our Baptist friends, which we must notice. The first is Matt, iii : 5, 6 ; the second John iii : 23. In first, it is said that mul- tituaes went out to John from Jerusalem and Ju- dea, and all the regions of Jordan and were baptiz- ed of him in Jordan. In the second that he was baptizing in Eno7^nQ2iV to Salim. How these facts have no force in favor of immersion, unless it can be shown that " ^w" translated here in^ always means in. But we have seen that the learned translators of our vei-sion, say that it sometimes means " withy^ as any Greek Lexicon will show. Now then substitute " wiW^ for " m" and see how they will read. "Then came to him Jerusa- lem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptised of him ^' wiW^ Jordan, 1. e. with the water of Jordan. "John was baptiz- ing " wiW^ Enon, i. e. with the water of Enon. Now the texts are stript of all their immersion ap- pearances, and we have the naked fact of baptism without any allusion to the mode. C>n the other hand, it is more than j^'^^^ohle^ nay almost oeviAiin that Cornelius, Lydia and the Jailor were baptized by sprinkling, because they were bap- tized in private houses where there were probably no means of immersion, and all the probabilities are m favor of sprinkling in the case of the three thousand of Pentecost, because it was aln\ost impossible with- 55 out indecent haste, to immerse such a multitude in one day. Here then, we rest the (question of the mode of baptism with the candid reader, satisfied as we are that the truth will not suffer in his hands, alter he has impartially and patiently weighed in his mind, the force and bearing of the preceding argunientg pfiid facts, 56 CHAPTER lY. THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM ^THE RIGHT OF INFANT BAP- TISM DIVINELY CONFERRED. let. Thess. v:21. — "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." This direction of the inspired apostle has refer- ence to Christian doctrine and practice. With respect to every thing pertaining to these, which will stand the test of lyroof^ i. e. severe inves- tigation, he bids Christians "hold fast." By impli- cation they are to abandon, to kt go every thing that will not stand this test. We are just as much bound to abandon what will not stand this test, as we are to " hold fast'''' that which will. The exhor- tation to " prove all things," implies a sure rule, by which every thing that professes to be good may be proved. That rule is the inspired word. " Search the Scriptures." By tliis, we propose \.ci prove what is good, in our Presbyterian views and practice relative to the sub- jects of Christian baptism. All evangelical christians agree in this, that for adults, that is, for those grown to years of account- ability, the profession of repentance, and faith in the Lord Jesus, are necessary prerec^uisites for baptism. 57 Ko man ought to be baptized, unless he professes to repent of all his sins, and exercise a gospel faith. This it is believed, is the extent of the faith and practice of the Baptist church. Presbyterians go farther than this, and say, not only penitent believ- ers, but their infant offspring ought to be baptized. In other words, we hold the Scripture validity of infant baptism. Our Baptist friends deny it. The single point involved in this discussion then is this, whetlier infants are entitled to baptism, according to the constitution of the church of the Lord Jesus? We shall discuss this question in these two as- pects ; 1st. Test, try, " prove" the practice of infant bap- tism by the Scriptures of truth. 2nd. Put the objections urged against it to the same severe test, that the people of God may be aided in their efforts to " hold fast that which is good," and let go that which is evil. 1st. Is infant baptism Scriptural? Ought in- fants of believing parents to be baptized ? Yes ! and only yes ! AYhy ? Because it is in accordance with the whole tenor of Scripture, the spirit and ge- nius of Christianity, and the usage of the church, ever since there has been an organized one upon earth. How do we know this ? Because 1st. The com- mission our Saviour gave his Siposiies includes the??}, ''Go je^ tQRch all nations, baptizing them." Here 58 this position is taken, or point made, that the com- T/iission to baptize reaches as far as that to " teach^ It is not limited by our Saviour, and man has no rjojht to do so. As he laid the obligation upon his apostles to teach all nations^ so to the same extent, ro baptize all nations. Now if this is fo, we ask would this commission be discharged, this command be obeyed, if they had confined their teaching to the adult population of the nations? Certainly not. Why? Because children are a part of the nations. To teach the nations, they must teach the children of the nations as Well as the grown men. So when they are commanded to baptize the na- tions, it is no obedience to go and baptize the adult population, and stop there, because the commission does not stop there : it runs farther, and takes in the children. Obedience to any of God's commands to !k' proper^ must reach to the extent of the command ; any thing else is an attempt to limit God's suprema- cy, and is of course offensive to him. As tken, to fulfil Christ's command, we must ''teach" the children, so to obey his command to baptize, we must baptize the children, because in hoth. cases "all nations" includes the children. 2. The children of believers have always been in the covenant with their parents. Now, whether the covenant in Gen. xvii, be the covenant of grace or circumcision, or both, as we think, it matters not, to this argument; in either 59 case, It will answer our purpose. IIow do we know that Abraham was embraced in this covenant ? The reply is, he is mentioned in the promise, "I will be a God to thee." Is any body else interested in this covenant ? This can only be answered properly by referring to the promise. AYhat then, docs the pro- mise say. " And to thy seed." Then the ''seed,'^ the children^ are in the covenant with Abraham. If this is so, the covenant is as good to them as to Abra- liam. Now, that this was God's design, will appear from the fact, that the sign — token of God's outstanding covenant, was put upon the "seed" — the infants of the covenant, as well as upon Abraham himself. Circumcision, therefore, stands out in all the ages down to Christ and the establishment of the christian churcl), the perpetual sign,, witnessing to the fact, that infants may he in covenant with God. That this covenant was the outworking of the cov- nant of grace, we think we have satisfactorily made to appear, and if so, then by the express command of God, infants were recognised in circumcision, as God's covenant children, capable of inheriting the blessings of the covenant, which were union with Christ, justification, regeneration, sanctification, and eternal life. But to evade the force of this argument, our Bap- tist friends say "there were two transactions in which Abraham was a party. The covenant of 60 grace, confirmed unto him, when he was seventy -five years old. — Gren. xii: 1 — 1; and the covenant of cir- cumcision made with him when he was ninety years old" (and nine.) — Gen. xvii. Now, it is asked, why call one of these the cove- nant of grace, and refnso that title to the other ? — Let us examine them, and see if both are not a mani- festation of one and the same covenant. The first contains an account of Abraham's call to leave his father's house, and go unto a land of which he knew nothing, coupled with the promise " In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed." This is all that this transaction contained. Now, what was this but the breaking out of clear- er light from the covenant of grace, fixing the old promise of the " seed of the woman," in the family of Abraham, and conferring the high distinction up- on this servant of God, that Messiah should come out of his loins ? And liere, in this promise, we find the secret of that marvelous strength of heart and nerve displayed by the man of God on Mt. Moriah, which entitled him, to be called " the father of the faithful." All then that this transaction did, was to " preach the gospel" to Abraham by locating the Messianic prophecies in his family. This was the view the apostle Paul had of it, for he says " and the Scrip- tures foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gosjM unto Ahra- ei ham, saying in thee shall all nations be ^blessed." Oal. iii : 8. This, then, according to the apostle, was the " preaching of the gospel unto Abraham," and as much and no more the covenant of grace, than the preacliing of the gospel now is. That recorded in Gen. xvii, is a more enlarged transaction, in v/hich the located promise of Messi- ah on the house of Abraham begins to work in the developoient of the fact that " God would he his God^ and the God of his seedP And now, Abraham having been chosen, called, and separated from the rest of the Princes of his age, and his family select- ed as that from which Messiah should come, God proceeds to manifest farther his covenant grace, by organizing in his family his visible church and fixing the visible sign of initiation^ in the circum- cision of the flesh. Here then was when God first organized his church, and circumcision was the door of entrance thereto. Why then call one of these transactions, the covenant of grace, and not the other ? The last is certainly a more full manifestation of grace than the first. But the very admission that the first is a develop- ment of the covenant ofgrace,/?6C^*5ect can be shown. And this brings us another step in our argument, which is to prove, '4th, That the coming of Jesus Christ did not nar- rov\^ or detract any thing from tlie mercy of God. This it must have done, if any who obtained it un- der the old dispensation, do not obtain it under the new. But infants obtained mercy to be in covenant with God under the old, and must attain to the same under tlie new dispensation, or Christ has by his coming limited, narrowed down, and restrained the a])oundrng of that mercy. This cannot be, for in all the ages pasty every change in tlie order of God^s dealings with man, has been in tlie way of enlarge- ment and progress. One opening dispensation has never gone behi'^.d that which has preceded it in the manifestation of God's love and mei-cy. Pro- gress is the great law of life and wisdom ; and this God has sanctified in the eyes of all intelligences, 56 bj making it the order tor developing the fulness and power of the great principles of salvation. Xow that our Saviour did not disregard this law in the days of his flesh, will appear from what is recorded in Mark x : 13, 14, " And they brought young children to him 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 un- to me, and forhid the jn not, for of such is the king- dom of God." This text is commended to the care- ful consideration of the reader, for it contains, as we conceive, proof positive and direct to the poii-it we are handling. Not that our Saviour on this occa- sion, baptized these '^little children;'' but that Ae distinctly recognized their membership in the king- dom of God, and if Christ here asserts for them membership in the kingdom of God, surely they are entitled to that rite of the church by which they are recognized as members thereof. On this passage Calvin has this, ''Inst." B. 4, ch. 16, sec. 7: ''For it is not to be passed over, as a thing of little importance, that Christ commanded infants to be brought to liim, and added as a reason for this command 'for of such is the kingdom of God.' If it. be reasonable for infants to be broug-ht to Christ, v/hy is it not allowed to admit them to baptism-'the sign of our communion and fellow- ship with Christ. If of them is the kingdom of God, why should they be denied the sign which opens as it were, an entrance into the church ?" That infants of parents in covenant with God belong to God, and are in covenant with him, will appear from the pro- mise, " I will be a God to thee and to thy seed," as well as from the fact that when God commanded his church to be gathered together, he did not permit their " little ones," or even those that " sucked the breast" to be absent. Deut. xxix : 10, 11 ; Joel ii : 10, and of these he sajs : they " were born unto me." Eze. xvi : 20. Witsius says : " Infants belong to the church ; all who belong to the church have a right to baptism, and as a consequence infants ought to be baptized." " Econ. of Gov." vol. % page 437. 5th. The apostle Paul in 1st Cor. vii : 14 repre- sents the children of one or hoth helieving parent:^ to he ''''holyy His language is, " For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the (believing) wife ; and the unbelieving wife by the husband : else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. " This stands as a reason why those in the marriage relation, who had joined the church and had unbe- lieving companions, should not separate from them. ]S^ow he says, their children are " holyP Wheiher we understand this literally or federally^ it amounts to the same thing in this argument. For if the children of believing parents are really holy, they have clearly a right to baptism, which puts them in visible communion with the holy of earth. If they 2,v^ federally holy, (as " Foedus," means a covenant,) federally means to occupy covenant relatione, and if 67 so, then still tlioy have a right to baptism, which is the sign and seal of the covenant in winch they are interested. 6th. We have accounts in the Scriptures of whole families being baptized : " Lydia and her household," Acts xvi : 15. The Jailor at Philippi, "He and all his straightwa}'.*' x\cts xvi : 33, and "the household of Stephanas.'* 1st. Cor. i : 16. Kow upon every principle of rea- son and common sense, it ought to be taken for granted that in some, or all of these families, there were infants, unless it is proved to the contrary, which never has been done. If there were infants in any of these families, the}^ certainly were baptized. 7th. Infants of believing parents were baptized in all the early ages of the Christian church. On this point we will content ourselves with citing the opinions of learned, pious and godly men, vvho were not only qualified to testify on this matter, but whose vrorld-wide reputation gives weight to any witness they may bear. Calvin says, " Infants there- fore cannot be deprived ot baptism, without a man- itVst evasion of the divine will. What they (i. e. the opposers of infant baptism) what they circulate among the uninformed multitude, that after the re- Burrection of Christ, a long series of years passed, in wliich infant baptism was unknown is contrary to truths for there is no ancient writer who does nut refer its origin, as a matter of certainty to the age of the apostles." "Inst." B. 4.. ch. 16^ sec, 8. 68 Dr. Jno. Brown says, "Even Pelagius whose learn- ing was considerable, and who had traveled through a great part of the Christian world, whose darling opinions powerfully tempted him to deny infant bap- tism, declared that he had never in all his travels heard of any who denied infants' right to baptism." <■' Divinity" page 538. The great Angustin; in his book against Pelagius, as quoted by Watson, says : " It hath been the cus- tom of the church in all ages to baptize infants." "Divinity," page 364. The learned Erasmus says: "Infant baptism has been used by the church of God for Q^^ov\i fourteen hu7idred yearsP "Watson's Divinity," p. 364.'* Those, then, are some of the reasons upon which the practice of the Presbyterian church in baptizing her infants rests. It will be seen by the careful and candid reader, that she is well sustained by Scrip- ture, as well as by the brightest names that adorn the pages of the church's history. ' Having then tested or " proved" as the apostle di- rects, infant baptism to be true mid good,, let us "hold it fast." * Pictet says : " It is clearly proved from the testimony of Irenae- us, Origen, Cypnau, Ambrose, and Cyril, and many other writers that infants were baptized : and in the Council held at Carthage A. D. 418, an anathema is pronounced on him who denies that nevy. born infants ought to be baptized." "Theology," p. 414. 69 OBJECTIONS. We now proceed to notice 2nd. The chief objec- tions urged against infant baptism, and we wish to put these to the same severe test — to " prove" them as the apostle tells us, so that we may "hold fast" to them or let them go, as thej shall be sustained or not bj sound reason and the word of God. 1st. It is said thei-e is no '^ exjjress coimnand''^ for baptizing infants. This is not denied. But we cannot eee that thcro is any need for an express command for a rite like this, which basing itself on the covenant of God, signs and seals the rights with v.diicli that covenant invests them. Besides there is an express command for circumcising infants, and as we have abundantly shown, that baptism comes in the place of this, and holds tlie same relation to the covenant, the express command to circumcise, amounts to an express com- mand to baptize. There was no neediov an express command for admitting infants to covenant privi- leges which they had enjoyed from time immemo- rial. On the other hand, we have a riglit to call for an express provision on the part of God, s'lowing thut under the Gospel, he has divested our children of covenant rights, which all the children of believers have enjoyed from Abraham down to the coming of Christ. Now is it not a principle recognized and acted Yd on by ail bodies in which legislative power resides, that in amending laws, altering charters, and chang- ing constitntions, all of the old remains in full force except (hat wliich ^6^ expressly changed by public enactment, or by unavoidable implication? So if it be contended that God has changed the laws of liis house, we ask how ? When? Where? AVe Hsk to be pointed to the amending act, and the Clause specified which changes the old law. If this c.iiDiot be done, we mast hold to the old covenant onslitulion, which has a'uaran teed and perpetuated our chuich rights and (hose of our children. Eat before our Ba])tist brethren can fairly avail themselves of this objection, they must show their shicerity by their consistency in observing the rule they would lay on us. Now do they do this? Let us see. They observe the Christicm.- Sabbath ; have they any express command for this? It they have, let them show it. They preach the gospel on the Sabbath day, this is the great htcsiness to which they devote it; any express QommBswd for this? If there is, let them show it. They admit females to the Lord's table; is there any ^a?/>r^.s.9 command for this? If thei"e is, let them bhow it. 2\ow let them be con- sistent, and abandon the observance of the Chris- tian Sabbafh, give np making that a day of pulpit labor, andcease admitting females to the Lord's ta- ble, or give up their persistent stickling about an express command for infant baptism. S-nd. It is said there is " no express instance of in- fant baptism," in all the New Testament. "If the reader will find recorded the l)a|)tism of one infant, we will consider the point settled for- ever." Thus at one time, thej want an exjjress cmrimtnid, and at another an express instance. But this express mode of reasoning will not do. If strictly applied, it will destroy the very church itself. If we are to do nothing but what we have an express command for, a large part of our duty will be left undone ; and if we are to believe nothing but what we have an express example of, a great part of our creed will be undermined. To illustrate this w^e give the following example. It is agreed on all hands that the rite of circumcis- ion on the eighth day was instituted in the family of Abraham, and that it was practiced to the time of John the Baptist. Now if the fact that there is no express example of infant baptism is a sufficient reason for its rejection, then it will reject female communion, imd oMige those who use it thus to de- ny that there was any such rite as infant circurncis- ion on the eighth day among the Jews ; for we are very much mistaken if there is an express instanee of this in all the Bible history from Abraham to John the Baptist. It will also drive them into the error of asserting that many of the churches of the apostles did not practice the rite of baptism ; 72 tliat tliej iieitlier baptized adults nor infants; for there is no express exa?nple of any baptism at all, either in the church of Antioch, or Iconiuin, or lionie. or Theesalonica, or Colosse. And because there is no express example, are we prepared to assert that there was no baptism in any of these churches ? Sure- ly a principle that leads to snch extremes as these, ought to be abandoned — a principle that thus flies in the face of the common sense of mankind, vvhich asserts that there is no nse in giving express exam- ples of what is altogether common, ought to be giv- en up. 3rd. It is urged that infants ought not to be bap- tized, because they cannotexercise faith and repent- ance. " Now we solemnly pledge ourselves that if our brethren will only produce one single text from the New Testament, where it is said that infants can and do exercise faith and love, then we will take the little ones and baptize them." " Faith and Bap- tism," page 93. This whole objection proceeds upon the false hy- pothesis, that it is faith and repentance which enti- tle one to baptism, whereas it is the covenant rela-^ tion man sustains to God which gives him this right. Faith and repentance are prerequisites to baptism only as they show in their out workings, that a man sustains this covenant relation. Any farther than ihis^ they have no bearing upon the question. And even here, they can be made a test no farther than 73 they will apply ; but they do not apply to infants, therefore they can never be made a test of their qualifications. The Baptist argument here would be good against infants, if there was no covenant running before the rite of baptism, but as there is, upon which the rito itself is based, and from which it derives all its mean- ing, it is necessarily unsound. The reason why faith and repentance are prere- quisites, is because they are a part of the blessings of the covenant, and being possessed by a man, they show that he is in the covenant and therefore enti- tled to its sign. Now faith and repentance can no more be made a test of infants' right to the sign of the covenant, than the possession by a grown man of a portion of a father's estate determines the right of minor heirs. His right to a portion of the estate of a dead father, deter- mines on the provisions of his will, and the right of minor heirs rests upon the provisions of that same will. Suppose this elder brother to adopt the argu- ment of our Baptist brethren, and see to what i! would lead. He says to himself, " the law requiree two things as prerequisites before any one shall come into personal possession of landed property^ and these are a sound mind and mature years. Mj younger brothers and sisters have no right to any of the property because they have not the prerequi- fites the law requires. I will therefore exclude 74 tbera, and appropriate to myself all the estate." AVhat would the law eay to snch a man if he pro- ceeded to act upon this reasoning? \Yhy just this, *'If you want to know the right of minor heirs, you must not contrast their present circumstances with yours, but look to tlie will of your father; are they mentioned in the will? If so, then they inherit with you, and though like you, they may not liavo come into possession, yet in due time they will." We have little patience with that infatuation which leads some to do all they can to disinherit the minor heirs of our father's covenanted estate. The tender babes — the ^^hrejj ha'''— ''infants on the breasts" whom Jesus our dear elder Brother loved so well before he left lis, strangers in this strange world, of these he said, my Father loves them, ^' of such is the kingdom of heaven," — save them, take care of them, guard their rights, train them up for God. The objection reaches too far ; for it not only dis- inherits the minor heirs of the covenant, but con- signs them to everlasting bankruptcy and ruin. It leaves thevi without the inheritance of life. The argument, if it means anything, runs thus, faith and repentance are necessary to baptism, but infants cannot exercise faith and repentance, there- fore infants should not be baptized. Let us try the argument in another shape, and see if it does not lead to the results above asserted : faith and repent- ance are necessary to salvation, but infants cannot n exercise faith and repentance, therefore infants can* not be saved. Xow can any body tell why this argumeni: should not be as good in one of tliese cases as in the other? He who adopts it, ought in consistency to follow it, where it goes; and then what becomes of-the salva- tion of infants? If our Baptist friends will press it against the bap- tism of infants, let them follow it. It will not do for them to say here that they do not adopt this conclu* BJon, but believe that all infants, dying in infancy, are Baved through the atonement of Christ ; /'or t/ic two cannot stand together. To preserve consistency, one or the other must be given up. Either the argu- ment or the o2nnion. Which will our Baptist breth- ren prefer? The author of "Faith and Baptism '' Beems inclined to hold on to the argument, and let the dear children go. On page 42. afrer (pioting the text, *'I am the vine, ye are the branches," he asks "if Christ is the true and living Yine, and believers upon him are the living branches, can there be any conceivable advantage in grafting a lifeless, withered branch into this sacred and holy vine; and more es- pecially, as such grafting can only be a mere profes- sion, and not a reality?" Here infants and believers are contrasted. Be- lievers are ''Hiving hranches^^' infants are lifeless^ withered hrf\xn^\iQ^^ and to graft such by baptism in- to the living vine, would be attended with no eon- T6 ceivahle advantage. This passage contains two verj grave inaccuracies. In theology and infact^ it is un- sound. Men are never grafted into the '' living vine" by baptism. If they are not grafted in before that^ you cannot pat them in hy that. Baptism is not a converting ordinance. It seals this grace, but never confers it. So much for the theology. Now for the fact. In- fants are ^^ dead,, withered^'' branches. They are not ^'hranchAS^'' at all. T\\qj 2iVQ livhig huds w^on the living branches, already grafted into the living vme, and hold the same relation to the vine, Christ Jesus, that their living parent branches do. Hence, God says, "I will be a God to thee and to thy seed." Hence, Peter, "the promise is to you and to your children." But, if we grant that they are *' lifeless branches," then there are two difficul- ties in the way of our Baptist bretliren in making out their salvation, which to us, seem absolutely in- surmountable. The first is this, if they are " lifeless branches," then the apostledirectly asserts that such ■*'are fit only to be burned," and dying in infancy, they must be lost. This saying of the apostle holds them in fetters as remorseless as fate. The second iis this, the apostle teaches in Homans, that there is mo ''grafting into the living vine, Jesus Christ, but hj jfaith,^^ and they say infants cannot exercise tfaith. Then, there is no grafting in for them, and