s cf/RixTfAM smnm / s» v utsm** *utm*wi i ■ ' ''- LETTERS ON THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM ADDRESSED TO the members of the united congregations of georgf^s Creek and the Tent, By ASHBEL G*FAIRCHILD, THEIR PASTOR, Isa LIf. 14 15. "As many were astonished at thee, his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men; so shall lie SPRINKLE MANY NATIONS. Matth. XXVIII. 19. Teach ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." UNIONTOWN. PRINTED r,v William H. Wihtton. is: JO In the miMication of the following letters, the authap has consulted the wishes of some of the people of his charge* who were of opinion that most of the treatises on baptism are too large, and too learned, for the bulk of reader?.— He has endeavored to compress the leading argument on th^ subject within as narrow a compass as possible, choos- ing rather to omit some important particulars, thar o tire the patience of the reader. His principal aim has been to accommodate the style and reasoning to the most moderate capacity. His own people, for whom they are intended, know that an unusual amount of ministerial duties have lately devolved u r»n him, a rrpared to overlook the imperfections which he has uot had time to remove* IETTE&T, On tuo uode of Baptism, Christian Brethren, In the investigation of any question, relating to dodrine or duty, our first inquiry should be, "What say the ycripiiues!** However plausible the theories which men may adopt, and however in- geniously they may be defended, if «.hey do not agree with the testimony of id, they are unworthy of any countenance. A strict regard to i hie principle will prove of essential benefit to us in the discussion of the sub ec .mder consideration. The zealous advocates of immersion censure us for not complying with their mode of Baptism. In this case, our pro- per course is to appeal to the Scriptures. Do they contain any com- mand for dipping or immersion' No, not one. The command is to oap- tize; and this is not a command to dip, as is easily proved by a number of passages where the sense in which tire sacreo writers used the word dearly appears. The meaning of tlie word Baptize. It is not necessary to refer you to he original Greek, to ascertain the meaning of this word, for it can be discovered by ?ny one wit© reads our English translation. Take the words of John the Baptist in Math. -II. 11. "He (Christ) shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fiie," •end let me ask what is the meaning of Baptize in this passage? D qs it signify the same as dip or plunge? He shall "dip or pluuge yon into the Holy Ghost and into the fire!! Surely an interpretation so shocking oannot for a moment be tolerated by anyone who has the slightest ac- quaintance with the Scriptures. But again let me ask how this piop.ie- cy of John was fulfilled. A little before the day of Penticost, our bless- ed Saviour said to his disc ijles, "John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the I L>!y Ghost not many days hence." Acts, I. 5. and when theday arrived, bow were they baptized? By being dipped or plunged in the Holy Ghost? No, but by the Spirit POLKED OUT on them. For Peter, on tha t very occasion, decla ed that therein was fulfilled the prophecy of Joe), in which God said, "1 will pour out of my spirit/' Again I ask how were the disciples baptized with fire' By beingdipped or plunged into cloven tongues of fire? No. Inthe ,-J, verse it is said that tongues SAT UPON them. See Acts, II 3. Inn aware that some ingenious writers have labored to prove tha: he Apostles were immersed ina wind, and in support of *heir opinion, (|t.« fee Acs II, 2, "and suddenly there came a sound from heaven, AS OF a mighty rushing wind, and it filled all the house where they were sit- ting." But here we discover that it is not said that there was a wind in the bouse, but that the sound which came from heaven was like the* und ot a mighty rushing wind, ki . d his sound U^-d • lervaded the whole fcotise, So then the promise of the baptism oi the tioiy ohust was fuj- filled by the pouring out of the Holy Ghost. And we sec that to ex- plain the word baptize by dip or plunge leads to the greatest extravi- gances. The expression to baptize with the Holy Ghost very often occurs in the Scriptures, and the sacred writers always explain it of the Spirit's in- fluences shed down, poured out or falling upon a person. Thus Acts If 17 "I will POUR OUT of my spirit. Acts X. 44, The Holy Ghost FELL ON all them that heard the word, 1 ' Titus III. 5, 6, "The washing of re- generation and the renewing of tne Holy Ghost shed on us [we are not dipped in it] abundantly through Jesu3 Christ." Some suppose that by the washing of regeneratien is meant being "born of water," and by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, being "born of the spirit," as our Saviour says "born of water and of the spirit." If so, it proves beyond a doubt that the water of baptism is to be shed down or sprinkled upon the sub- ject. Such is the account which the inspired writers give us of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and such their explanation of the meaning they attach ed to the word baptize. But some Baptist writers seem to think they can give a better explanation of their own. They do not indeed dare to say that men were dipped or plunged in the Holy Ghost, but that they were overwhelmed by the Holy Ghost. What do they mean by this un- scriptural expression? Bo they use it as a softer word for dipping or immersion in the Holy Spirit? Or do they mean by it something less than immersion, as pouring for instance? If so, they give up the point in dispute. But if they mean that the faculties of men were overwhelmed or disordered by the spirit, this is contrary to the word of God. For the Apostles were never in more complete possession of their mental facul- ties than they were on the day of Penticost, after receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost This would not have been the case if the faculties of their minds had been overwhelmed. At any rate the scriptures tell us that men were baptized with the Holy Ghost by having the spirit poured out, shed down or falling upon them, and the inference is that they were al- so baptized with water, by having the water poured, shed down, or falling upon them, and this is enough for our purpose. The baptism before dinner- Further, to show that the inspired writers did not use the word Baptize to signify dip or plunge we refer you to Luke XI. 37, 38, where we are told that the Pharisee marvelled that Jesus had not washed before din ner. The word translated washed, is in the original cbaptisthe, from baptizo to baptize; literally rendered thus "He marvelled that Jesus was not baptized before dinner." But did he wonder that Jesus was not im- mersed? No, for this washing, or as it is in the eriginal baptizing, is explained in Mark VII. 3, 4, whence it appears that the Pharisee, accord- ing to their traditions, washed their hands always before they ate; and it seems that the Pharisee with whom our Saviour took dinner wondered that he had not complied with the tradition. From the whole, it appears, then that when a persons hands only were washed, the person himself was said to be baptized according to the true meaning of the word The baptizing of tables or couches. In Mark VII 4, wc read of another tradition respecting "washing o cups, of pots, of brazen vessels, and tables. The word washing is in the Greek baplismous, baptisms; and the'word translated tables is klinai, prop- erly the couches on which the Jews lay at their meals So that here is the baptism of tables or couches. Was this performed by immersion ?Did die Jews take their couches to a river and plunge them under water? No one will say so who has the slightest acquaintance with Jewish antiquities. — It appears then, that by a baptism, the Evangelist Mark did not mean an immersion. Nebuchadnezzar baptized xrith dew. In Daniel IV. 24, 25, is the pr> phecy, that the king should eat grass aa an oxen, and be wet with the dew of Heaven. The word wet, is in the Greek of the Seventy bapto, the root ufbaptizo to baptize: Hence it ap- pears that. Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with the dew of Heaven. But how? by immersion or by sprinkling? More instances of the same kind might be produced, but enough has been said to satisfy you, that the word baptize was not used by the Sa- cred waters to signify dip or plunge. And hen^e, we so often meet with the expression to baptize WITH tenter, not under water, as it would stand if the word meant, to dip or plunge* In Luke III. 10 the following words are found, kudatibapUzo humas. Literally WITH water I baptize "you." Here in parsing hudati with water, without a preposition, the very rule of grammar which is quoted, shows that the water was the instrument with which the ]>erson was baptized; and the idea conveyed is, that the water was applied to the person, not the person to the water. Some Baptist writers, seem to place great reliance upon human air ity, and bring forward an array of great names on their side of the ques- tion. But if the questien were to be decided by men's opinions, I Could produce three times as many learned men against them. 1 trust 1 have explained the meaning of the word baptize by Scripture itself, which is al- Vyays the safest guide, j * Who would say 1 din or plunge vou with water. f The word baptiza tu baptize is no nrfiere translated to dip in the New Testament. Schleusner and Parkhurst, two of the most eminent Lexicogra- phers, say that it is not used in auch a sense in the New Testament. The Heathen writers indeed seem to have made use of the word, to signify tithei a greater or less degree of wetting. Scapula and Stephanus render the word bj lavo and abluo and Suidas by ntadefacio, lavo, abluo, purgo, rnundo, to moisten, to wash, to cleanse. Origan, a Greek writer of the second cen- tury, speaking of the Touring of the water on the wood by order of Elijah, uses the word baptizo, and calls it a baptising of the won others it is not . Sir. J oseph Huber o( Danville Ky. in a letter to the ed- itor of the "Pedobaptist , ' a periodical published at that place, writes, "1 re- ■cid*.! upwards of three vears in the capitol of the Grand Seignior's dominions sa aGreekfamily of the first respecSbility. During that time 1 was present at four b plisms, two in the family and two in the immediate neighborhood:"" - — "The company r?ere all seated on the sofas around the roam. ,i rable stood'in the middle with a ba.on of water on it. Tne Papa, or i*riest was th».n sent for, who upon entering the room was received by lhe father of the fttfant and led to the baptismal water, which he consecrated with a short prayer, and the sigu ot the cross: then the mother presented to him her 'iabe Which he laid on his left arm. and in the name of the Father. Son aod Holy f>ho«t he thrice dipped his hand intotho water and dropped s&me of it on Ike chihVs foreheud giving it a name. 1 may hore remark (he adds) that 1 never Jieurd during my stay in Constantinople >f adult baptisms nor of the ordinance r '**'v>z performed by immersion in a single instance. [See Evang. Luth. intell. Sept. 1829 Shall w** supposs that these Greeks "understand their •own language" or not? What 6hrrll we say of their practising infant sprinb- f shall show, m a suitable place, that, we are not to take pattern iiou John's baptism, but from Christ's. But supposing for argument's sake that we are to follow John. What proof is there that he immersed ?— Uf one but the circumstance that he baptized a part of the time at Jordan Our Baptist friends say that he chose that river for the sake «f deep wa- ter for immersion. But this is assertion without proof. I can assign a much more probable reason , fqr John spoke uniformly of baptizing WITH, (not under) water. John appeared m the wilderness of Judea, in fulfillment of the prophecy that he should be -'the. voice of one crying in the wilderness.** iVow it is well known that that wilderness is very scarce of water And as the river Jordan ran through it, there was no other as suitable place of resort where the immense multitudes that flocked to his baptism, could obtain water for themselves and their beasts to drink. For we read that "Judea and all Jerusalem and ihe region round aboutJordan came to John &. was baptized. Math. III. 5. This ^ceouat of the matter is confirmed by the fact that John afterwards re- moved to Enon. a short distance from Jordan 'because there wes much water there " Tnis much water (in the Greek polla hudato) as travellers tell us, consists of a number of small springs of good wholesome water. much preferable fordrink to that of Jordan And ibis accounts for John':: removal thither; for if he had wanted deep water to immerse he would not bave left Jordan. Our Baptist friends urge that it is said, Matth. Ill, that they were bap* tizedire Jordan. But this does not prove that they were immersed; for the Israelites are said to have been baptized in the sea, 1 Cor. X. 2. and we know that they were not immersed. And in Josh. III. 13, the Priests are represented as standing in Jordan, and yet from the 8th vers© of the chapter it appears tnat they only stood at the brink of the river. It is agreed that the Greek word en translated in is rerdered at'ii more than one hundred places in the new Testament, and in an hundred and fifty others it is translated,^. If it be so interpreted here that John bap- tized the people at Jordan, there is no proof that he plunged his disciples under the water, no more than the fact recorded in history that AleNan- der's soldiers entered a stream to drink, proves that they went under the water. Whether wq should follow John's or ChrhCs baptism. After all, in whatever mode John baptized his followers, it can be uo example for us to follow. Wv are not to take paUera from Lis baptism but from Christ's. John's baptism, as well as the s*crtiiccs and eeremo* riies of the old [dispensation, were of divine authority while they last od ; but are not now in force. John was only the R .reruBaer of on; Lord and his baptism was only preparatory to, and superceded by that efChrist who instituted his baptism afior his resurrection and just befoie his is cersionto heaven. He then commanded his disciples "tote.. L SUA IONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father &, of the Son and of * ie ' * - c . • > vi ii i This was the first command «, >ap* *;ae i;; the-n«uue i*l um rfaorrd Trinity John's baptism v:s intended cn!r 8 for one nation, ihc Jews; but Christ's was intended for "all nations. " lohu did not baptize in the name of the Father Son and iloly Ghost, for those whom he had baptized [Acts. XIX. 2, 3.] had not heard of a Holy Ghost, which could not have been the case, ifthcy had been bap tized in that name. Though the Jews generally were baptized by the forerunner ofeur Lord, professing repentance and the expectation that the Messiah was about to make his appearance, yet when he actualy appeared, they rejec- ted him, and joined in the cry, "crucify him, crucify him." Thus, after our Lord's death, and just before Penticost, only one hundred and twen 1y real disciples could be found in allJerusalem, Acts, 1. 15- * The re-baptising atEphesus. But what puts this matter beyond doubt, is the account we have of the rebaptism of certain disciples whom Paul found at Ephesus, and who had only received John's baptism. Read Acts XIX from the 1st. to the t>th verse inclusive. When these disciples had assured Paul, "that they had not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost ,1 he asks them "unto what then were ye baptized." The very question implied that there had been more than one institution of baptism, and he would know whether they had received John's or Christ's. Accordingly tley answered "unto John's baptism-" This explained the matter, for John did not baptize in the names of the adorable Trinity. He only admin- istered the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on him that should come AFTER HIM, that is on Christ Jesus. Paul having given this explanation to the disciples, caused them to re- ceive Christ's baptism from the hands of some minister, who accompa- nied him in his travels, verse 5, "when they heard this they were bapti- zed in the name of the Lord Jesus. | i?ecause John's baptism being now done away, they could not be considered regular members of the church, until they received the new baptism instituted by Christ. I am aware that some of our Baptist brethren employ many ingenious * It must be quite plain to every unprejudiced mind, that the old dispensa- tion did not end, nor did the new begin, till the death of Christ. He obser- ved the passover and other Jewish institutions down to !hat period. The veil of the temple, which hid the holy of holies from the public gaze, was rent at the death of our Lord, to shew that the Jewish ritual was abolish- ed. John preached that the kingdom of heaven, that is the gospel dispen- sation, was at hand, and not that it had already come. And our Lord decla- red that great as John was, the least in the kingdom of heaven, or gospel dispensation was greater than he. And John said of Christ, 'He must in- crease but I must decrease. " John III. 30. We hope therefore that in saying as we do, that John's baptism did not belong to the gospel dispensa- tion, we shall not be charged with calling it a heathen baptism. f This expression does not mean that they were baptized with the Holy fjliost, but it denotes water baptism. For it is said of the Samaritans, .#cts VIII. 16, that they were baptized in the name of the £ord Jesus, but yet the Holy ohost had not fallen on them, and after the Holy ohost had fallen on Carnelnis and his friends, they were baptized in the name of the Lord. Acts X. 47, 4S. •■devices to obscttts the meaning of this passage, and nothing would fcti more" easy than to refute (heir explanation of it. But J need oidy quote the sentiment of the Rev. Robert Hall, tho roost eminent of the English Baptists. He says "that there is not, ih the whole compp.'c ol theological controversy, a stronger instance of the force of prejiulh o in obscuring the plain meaning of a passage of scripture," than is found iu the interpretations of some of his Baptist brethren. And he ^csoa to show by the rules of grammar, that the persons on whom Paul bid hi* hands, verse G,Jweve the very same who were baptized in the nan, c of lid: Lord Jesus, verse 5, so lhat by the construction of some Baptist, J'nul ■•must have laid his hands upon all that John baptised, (and that, too, before he, Paul w^s converted.) and that (hey all spake with tongurn &. prophesyed. which is ineffably absurd.* Indeed the most intelligent Baptists of our day with Mr. Hall, have given up John's baptism. And it is evident from Acts XV11I. 25, 20, that such asknow no other, have need of some Aqoilla and Friscilla to "expound unto them tho way of it cannet be any part of his example which we are to imitate. All the pro6f j that he was immersed is derived from the expression "He went up straightway out 6t of the water;" which the Baptists suppose tomean, that he went up from under the water. But this is a construction which the words will not bear. If we examine th'e words in the originpl, we find them to 6e the very same that would bo used, in case a person had gone down the banks to the edge of the water. The word apo, here translated ovt of more commonly signifies from, and indeed this is the very first meaning 'assigned to it in the Lexicon. So that the language proves no more, than that our blessed Saviour ascended the banks from the water, and'eveh if it were admitted that he trod into the edge of the stream for the Conve- nience of -the administrator, it would be far from proving that he weiit under the water.j Why Jesus was baptmed. But as much is said about following bur Saviour to Jordan, let us in- ' quire why he was baptized. We observe . 1 . Although he was baptized by John, yet it was not with John's bap tism, for that was the baptism of Repentance, arid our Lord had no sin to repent of. * See Hall on communion . . t The ancients wore a covering for only the soles of tbeir feet called sab- dais or shoes. And.yi a warm climate it would not have been unpleasanftb step intoaitrbam. 2 io 2. It was not believer's baptism, for that would be to believe on himself whereas he was the great object of faith 3. Nor was it a baptism in the name of the Father, SON and Holy 'Ghost, for then he would hate been baptized in his own name. So then it was neither John's baptism, nor believei's baptism, nor a baptism in the name of the Trinity that he received How then can it have been intended as an example for ue? Has our blessed Lord, have his disciples said any where that he was baptized as an example for us? No brethren. Then let us hear the true reason from his own lips. John seemed at first unwilling to administer the ordinance lest the idea should be conveyed, that Jesus had become a disciple of his; an idea which some in our day are fond of inculcating. But Jesus said to him ''Suffer it to be so now, for thus itbecometh unto fulfil all righteousness Matth. III. 15. Here then is the true reason of his baptism from his own mouth. Compare it with wh4t he says, Matth. V. 17. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. It appears there was some precedent, some type exhibited in the ancient law which he was to fulfil by his baptism.* What this type was may be seen in Levit. VIII. 6, and Exodus XXIX, 4. The priests under the law, were types of Christ; and as they were set apart to their ministry by the washing of water, so our Lord the great anti-type was, through his forerunner, "in- troduced into his ministry by the washing of water. The Aaronic priests were also anointed with oil. So our blessed Lord in fulfilment of the type, received the anointing of the Holy Ghost, for the Spirit rested on him in the form of a dove. The priests under the law entered upon their office at 30 years of age, and this accounts for the fact, that our Saviour delayed his baptism till that age. This taken m connexion with the words of the Father, who in ah audible voice from heaven proclaimed "This is my be- loved son," show that the Lord Je3us was just entered upon the duties of iiis ministry. Let it not be charged upon us, that we are making the Lord Jesus "a priest after the order of Aaron," for the accusation is false. We say, if there is any truth in the epistle to the Hebrews, the Jewish priests were types of Christ, and these types were fulfilled b) him. And this is the on* ly rational or scriptural account that can be given of his baptism. To follow him then in this particular, is to follow him into his ministry. Let us not attempt this. Let us imitate him daily in his piety toward tho Father, and his benevolence to mankind. So far as his conduct is i mi- table by us, let us daily take up the cross and come after him. But let us r*ever suppose that by baptism we fulfil all righteousness, so that we may safely dispense with such duties as the observance of the Sabbath, family prayer, and the religious education of our children. • * The righteousness which our Saviour fulfilled by his baptism, must have "been that either of the moral, or of the ceremonial law. It could not have been the righteousness of the moral law, for that law did not require his baptism* We must then look to the ceremonial law for the true reason of it. It BETTER 21, The mode of baptism continued. Christian Brethren. In my former letter I explained the nature of John's, baptism, and showed the true reason why Jesus was baptized. We now see with what propriety our Baptist friends refer us on all occasions to the third chapter of Matthew, to find out how baptism is now to be performed. That chapter tells us only of John's baptism, which neither appears to have beer, immersion, nor if it were, could it be binding on us under the new dispensation. If we would know how baptism is now to be ad- ministered, we must look at those instances of it which occurred after Christ instituted his baptism. This took place as we have seen, not till after his defth and resu section, Matth. XXVIII. 19. The Acts of the Apostles furnish us with the account of the baptisms occurring subse quently to thatevent. These I shall therefore notice in order. First how^ er, I shall consider, The prophecies respecting Christian Baptism. As lightly as some professed Christians esteem the Old Testament, I think they all must admit that its prophecies are true. If so, it is not difficult to so: lie the point in dispute. For it appears to me, that it is as clearly fore- told of Christ that he should baptize by sprinkling, as that he should suf- fer and die. See Isa. LII. 13, 14, 15. "Behold my servant shall deal pru- dently, he shall be exalted and extolled and be very high. As maay were astonished at thee, his visage was so marred more than any man, and hia form more than the sons of men, so shall he sprinkle many nations." This is pirt of a prophecy which is continued through the L1II chapter, and from which Philip preached Jesus to the Ethiopian Eunuch ; the bible not being then divided into chapters as now. It can apply to none but Christ, whose visage was more marred than any man. Moses and the priests, under the law sprinkled only the Jews, but Christ was. to. sprinkle many- nations. I would next observe that this prophecy, is throughout, a very literalone, as you will discover, if you will read the whole, and the part of it which respects the sprinkling of many nations is to be taken as literally as any part. If it be objected, that Christ aaptized none himself, I reply, the dif- ficulty is removed by John IV. 1, 2 "Jesus baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus himself baptized not but his disciples. 1 '* We have another striking prophecy in Ezek. XXXVI. 25, 26. "Then," says God, "will 1 sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be clean, from all your filtlriness and from all your idols will I cleanse you." Let it not be said that this sprinkling refers to the influence of the spirit and a- new heart, for these are distinctly mentioned in the next verses as sepa * The ordinance administered by Christ's disciples before his death, as it belonged to the old dispensation and was preparatory to the new; must have bejp of the same import as the baptism of John. 12 rato things, "a new heart AL$0 will I give you," and "I ^ill put my spirit within you." The baptism o/3000 in Jerusalem. Lot U9 now trace the fulfilment of the3e prophecies, 19 the baptisms ■which took placo after Christ instituted his baptism. The* first instance id that of the 3000 in Jerusalem, Acts II, 41. "Then they that gladly re- ceived his word were baptized, and the same day there were added unto them about, 3000 souls. I know that some have ventured to deny that they were all baptized and added on the same day. But if my system required snch direct contradiction of the word of God to support it, 1 am sure I would abandon it at once. I ask now, what evidence is there that these 3000 were immersed? None at all, but the very reverse. It was nine o'clock whon Peter begftn his sermon, they were afterwards exhorted with many ;wo*ds, and much time must have been spent in examining s% many can- didates ; so that a very small part of the day remained for baptism. la t these circumstance* would the apostles have undertaken to immerse 250 a persons each? As to the seventy they were never authorized tobaptire, and 1 if they were it does not appear that they were present, for,the 14th verse says, that "Peter stood up with the eleven?' But even supposing that the 70 were present and assisted them in the work, where could they find the water for so many to im merse in. There was no river in or near Jerusalem, and the brook Kidron, which is without the city, is dry a great part of the year, and at no time affords, depth of water for immersion. Nor is there the slightest intimation that they went out of the city to a' stream"— And where could the 12 apostles and the 70 disciples have found 82 pla- ces in Jerusalem suitable for immersion? Some writers have imagined that they obtained of the rulers and chief Jews the loan of their bathing houses. But can any one suppose that the very men who had put Jesus to death, and were breathing nothing but persecution against his followers, should come forward on the occasion and politely offer the use of their baths? The supposition is too extravigant for credulity itself. The impres- sion made on every candid mind, by the reading of the passage, is that the 3000 were baptized on the spot, and this could have been dpne by tho twelve, in one hour, by sprinkling or pouring. Wo may see another fulfilment of the prophecy in the Baptism of Cornelius and his household. He was a Gentile, and one of those many nations whom Christ should sprinkle. See Acts X. 44, 48. *The Holy Ghost, fell on all them that heard the word. Then said Peter, can any man FORBID WATER that these should not be baptized? And he commanded them to be baptized &c." Here again I ask, where is the evidence that these persona were im- mersed ? The very expression of Peter precludes that idea, n Can any man "forbid water V 1 What meaning is therein this language if the water was not to be brought for the baptism? Would any, man speak of the forbid ding of a pond or a river in such a case? Besides, I think it quite evident from tlie account tha,t the whole transaction took place in the house. 13 The Baptism in the Jail of Philippi This baptism is recorded in the XVI. chapter of Acts, and must appear to every unprejudiced mind, to have taken place, in the jail, about mid- night. Some indeed contend that they went out to a river, because it is said in versa 30th. that the jailor "brought them out," But this er- ror is corrected by reading the 24th. vers?, from which wo learn that as the Apostles had been thurst into the inner prison* they were only •'brought out" into the outer or main part, where the baptism took place. We may also gather from the 27th Terse that the jailor's house was joined to the prison, and no doubt communicated with it by a door. For the jailor, awaking out of sleep, saw at once the situation of the prison; and Paul, from the inner part, could see that he was about to kill himself and by speaking in a "loud voice" made himself heard. This destroys at onco the hypothesis of the Baptists, who think, because the jailor ^brought them into his house," verse 34, that the apostles must have been put to a river; whereas they only passed from the outer prison into his house, through a door. The supposition that they went out to im- merse is attended witn the greatest difficulties. It was about midnight : and it would have been death, according to the laws of the country, to have let the prisoners out at any hour. Would the apostles have encour- aged the jailor to violate the laws of the land, or to risk his life, when if he had to be immersed, his baptism could have been delayed a few days? Besides the language and conduct of Paul and Silas, the next morning, prove, if there was any sincerity in them, that they had not been out of prison bounds. When the magistrates sent saying "let these men go," the apostles refused sayings "Nay but let them come themselves and fetch us out." Could such language be used without hypocrisy by one, who had been out in the night to a river? All the circumstances go to prove beyond a doubt, that this baptism took place iu the prison.* TVc baptism of the Eunuch. Ofali ! he baptisms occurring after the Lord Jesus instituted his baptism, only one appears to have been administered at a stream; namely, tint of the Ethiopian eunuch. But the circumstances were peculiar. He was trav- elling through a desert on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza when Philip fell in his company and preached unto him Jssus. See Acts VIII. 26, 27, He desired to be baptized, and coming to a certain water (ti hudor) it was convenient to obtain some for that purpose. He exclaimed, "See here *Itis not probable that the jailor kept a baptismal fount in the prison, though some Baptist churches in the cities have those conveniences to immerse in. This is giving up river baptism. The practice may become general among thera; and the transition thence to pouring or sprinkling is easy I have lately heard something said about monumental testimony in favor of immersion, which means just this — a kind of trough has been found supposed to h ive been anciently used for dipping, But whether it was the very same used in the house ofCornelius and the jail of Philippi they v/ill not venture to say. Query? may It not be one of the baths of the., chief men of Jerusa- lem! 14 is water, what doth hinder me to he baptized?" He did not say, "here is much water,' 1 '' or "here is a river, 11 for the stream appears to have been too small to have a name. Jerome Sandys,* and others who travelled that road, assert that there is no stream in ihose parts more than ankle deep. It was natural for the eunuch to go down out of his chariot, to or into the brink of the water, both outof respect to the ordinance, and for the con- venience of the administrator; and the words in the original prove nothing more. But the construction which our opponents put upon the words, leads to the absurdity that both baptizer and baptized were immersed. For what is said of the one is said of the othe:, "They went down both into tl'e water, both Philip and the eunuch. 11 Verse 38. And so in the next verse it is said of both, "They were come up out of the water. 1 ' We may further observe that Philip had just been explaining the proph- ecy concerning Christ, one clause of which said, that He should sprinkle many nations. And doubtless tnis very clause was the foundation of the instruction which tiie eunuch received on the subject of baptism, and which occasioned his desire to have that ordinance administered to him. How improbable that in these circumstances Philip should immerse him. The baptism of Saul afterwards called Paul. We have an account of this interesting" baptism in two places, fust in Acts IX. 18. "And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had Leen scales, and he received sight forthwith and arose and was baptized.'''' — Next in Acts XXII. 16. Ananias said to him. And now why tarriest thou "arise and be baptized.'"' It should seem that Saul, being exhausted by long fasting, and the exercises of his mind was reclining on a bed or couch, for he looked up upon Ananias, Acts XXII, 13. And it appears that he rose up and was baptized on the spot. This is strikingly manifest in the original Greek. In v. 18. the words are anastas cbaptisthc, standing up he was baptized So in Acts XXII. 1G. anastas baptisai, standing up be baptized; and it is fairly implied that he received baptism in a stand- ing posture. Nor is it at all probable that in his weak bodily state (Acts, IX. 9.) he would have gone out to a stream or pond to be immersed. And now what evidence do our Baptist friends bring to prove that Saul was put under the water? Why the same kind which they produce in the case of Lydia. It is just this, that there was a river near Damascus, therefore Saul must have been immersed. Wonderful logic! As well might some future historian attempt to prove that Dr. Green of Philadelphia baptized by immersion because the river Delaware is near the oily!! Change of Clothing. It is remarkable that there is not the slightest intimation, in the Scrip tures, of a change of clothes on any occasion of a baptism. But this would have been°very necessary, both for decency and comfort if immer- sion had been practised. Nor would a change ot clothing have been too trifling a circumstance to be mentioned. For it was not deemed * See Hicron. Do Loc. Heb. and Sandys travels. 15 unworthy cf notice that Stephen's murderers "laid down their clothes.'* Acta VII. 58. And of Jesus when he washed his disciples feet, it is said John XIII 4, that he laid aside his garments, and in verse 12 that he took thera again. Why then is it that in no instance of baptism, a single word is said about clothes. The reason is that they were bapti- zed in such,a mode as rendered a change of garments unnecessary. The baptism of the Israelites We are informed in 1 Cor X. 1, 2. that the Israelites "wereall baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. But how? By immersion? No, for * They went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground." Exod XIV 22. The ungodly host of Pharoah were indeed immersed, but it is not said that they were baptized. "And the waters returned and cov- ered the chariots and the horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh." Exod. XIV. 26. The mode in which the Israelites were baptized is explained in David 1 9 sublime and beautiful description of the passage of the Red Seo. Psalms LXXVII, 15, 17. "The waters saw thee O God, the wa- ters saw thee. They were afraid, the depths also were troubled. The clouds POURED OUT water." So then they, were sprinkled with rain from the clouds and with the spray of the mighty ocean foaming and tumbling around then. How do ourBaptjsl friends evade the force of this argument? Why they say the Israelites were baptized, not by being plunged into the sea, nor yet by water applied to them, but by having the cloud above their heads and a wall of water on each side. A strange baptism indeed, without a drop of water touching the subjects! If persons can be bap- tized raeiely by being surrounded with water they might be Inclosed in tight vessels and sunk under water. But would this be a true baptism? I shall only add, that admitting as our opponents do, that this baptism was a type or figure of Christian baptism, I cannot see how they refuse to administer that ordinance to infante; for the Israelites were all bapti- zed, children as well as adults. Noah in the Ark, Great stress is sometimes laid upon the salvation of Noah by wa* ter, 1 Peter, UI 20, 21. "Eight souls were saved by wafer. Tlfeelike figure whereurito, baptism doth now save us " I ask was Noah immer* sed? No. he rode secure above the angry billowr, while the unbelieving world sunk beneath the flood There are several other texts which favor the mode of baptism by the application of water; such as 1 John V. 8, "There are three that bear witness on eirtb, the spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree in one." Now we know that the spirit is POURED out, and the blood of Christ was SHED, and as the whole three agree in one it is natu- ral to conclude that the water of baptised is to be pcured or shed doicn — AgaiR, John III. 5. "Except a man be born of water and of the spirit"-™* 16 Now we have shown that to bo b»m of the spirit is to have the spirit pour- ed or shed upon us. Titus III. 5, 6; so to be born of water must be to have water similarly applied to ua. Once more, Heb, X. 22, "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." Here the apostle speaks first, of the sprinkling of the precious bloodofChristupontheconscier.ee; and secondly of the sign which corresponds thereto; namely, the outward cleansing of baptismal water sprinkled upon the body lam aware that sbmesay "sprinkling is not cleansing" but in this they contradict God, who says, '-I will sprinkle clean water upon you and you shall bo CLEAN." Ezekiel, XXXVI The import of Baptism . Our Baptist brethren seem to mistake the true intent and meaning of the ordinance of baptism. Instead of regarding it as a sign of the clean- sing influences of the blood of Christ, and of his spirit, they think it is intended to represent the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord, and hence they conclude that it should be administered by immersion. But they are mistaken in supposing that dipping the body in water is any true representation of Christ's death and burial. For if you will read the ac- count in Mark, you will see that our saviour was not buried in one of our American graves and covered with earth; but his body was carried into a Sepulchre or vault hewn out of solid rock and entered by a door* and there it was laid. And in what respect does immersion re- semble such a burial? What is the resemblance between laying a dead body in a little apartment, hewn out of the rock, rolling a stone against the door, sealing it solemnly and leaving it there three days; I say what is the resemblance between this, andsuddeoly plunging a living body un- der water and lifting it out again. The similitude is little better than that ' of the blind man who supposed the light of the sun waslike the noise of a cannon. Paul, that elegant scholar, never had a thought of such a re- semblance, when he spoke of being buried with Christ. Col. II 11, 12* Robinson, the Baptist historian,- confesses that this allusion of the Apostle to burying is misapplied by his brethren, because they take their /Ideas of the matter from EBglish graves. Mr Judson, Baptist missionary to BurmahjSays that no one is qualified for water baptism, until he has ■'experienced that burial with Christ , And you will agree with : those Jearaed men if you consider that in the baptism of which Paul speaks we are said to be "circumcised" as well as "buried with 'Christ " (Jiead the whole passage) and if a literal burial is here meant a literal circumcision is also meant.* So in the parallel passage, Rom. VI, 4, 5, ,6, we are said to be planted fas trees) to be crucified, and to be dead as well as buried with Christ in .the baptism there spoken of. The true meaning of all this, is, that by that spiritual baptism which was repre- sented under the old dispensation by circumcision and by bantism under * The Hermian*andStlcucians put a literal construction on the expression ""to baptize with fire," and hence some drew persons who had been baptiziid through the fire; others applied a hot iron to their ears. ft the new, believers ore crucified to the world, die unto sin and arise to a new life, as Christ died, was buvicdand rose again, "Wherein," says the apostle, "that is in this baptism ye are risen again through tie faith of the operation of God.'" But this cannot be said of water baptism, for a per- son might be sprinkled or dipped a hundred times, and yet be destitute of faith. It is true one class of Baptists affirm that Baptism cleanses from sin, and they quote the words of Annanias to Saul. Acts XXII. 16, "arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins." But they omit the im- portant words which next follow, "calling on the name of the Lord Jesus." And which prcve that Saul was not to be cleansed by an outward sign, but by faith in Christ. They lay great stress on 1 Peter III. 21, "Bap- tism doth now save us." But does Peter say this of water baptism? No; he guards us against such an awful delusion by adding immediately "Not the puttingaway the filth of the flesh but the answer of agood conscience" that is a conscience sprinkled with the blood of Christ, which answers to, or corresponds with the outward sign. '•Wnat good," it is asked, "can a little water do you?" Jn reply, I ask what good ean much water do you? A little bread and wine is all that is, necessary in thcLoixTs supper. And let us guard against the mistake Peter once made, John XIII. When Jesus said, "if I wash thee. not thou hast no part with me," Peter thought it was the outward washing which was to afford him benefit, and hence concluded like many in oar day, that the more water the better. He said "Lord not my feet only, but also my hands and my herd." But Jesus reproved his carnal views and said, "He that is Washed needeth not, save to wash his feet but is CLEAN EVERY WHIT. "> After all I am glad to know that some of onr Baptist brethren, minis- ters, as well as people lay as little stress upon baptism as we do. And while they aim at soundness in the faith, they are free from that haughty sectarian spirit, manifested by others. Far from uniting with Infidels in their attacks upon particular denominations, they are willing to co-oper- ate in every measure for the advancement of vital religion. With such Baptists the only contest likely to arise is, which shall most promote the glory of God and the welfare of immortal souls. But alas, we are con- strained to say that there are othersywho, while they do not profess to hold that immersion is essential to salvation, still give evidence that they are too willing to countenance that idea. They make immersion the principal subject of their public and private instructions. Mankind in every age have been prone tosubstttute the outward form for the inward grace; and the effect of such preaching is, that too many of their people have an undue confidence in the efficacy of immersion. Hence some of them speak of obtaining great' light and deliverance from the burden of sin by passing under the water. Hence the indefatigable zeal they exert to in- duce persons of other communions to be immersed, amounting in some instances to a degree of persecution. Hence too the utmost soundness in doctrine and holiness of life, the mosi deep repentance, and eminent faith cannot fit a man to communewith them, unless he has been under the water. They proiess to hope indeed, that through their exertions, all sects will in time come to be immersed. But what great benefit will ac- crue to mankind if they should succeed? What great advantage to com- 3 18 < pensate for the strife and discord they will produce? Will men be made more holy by being re-baptized in another mode? Is it a fact that pevsons who have been immersed are more distinguished than others for chanty, that greatest of all the graces? Are they more observant of the sabbath, more attentive to family religion and other duties, more active in promo- ting the advancement of the Redeemer's kingdom in the world? O that they would employ all this zeal and labor in winning, souls to Christ I know they try tojustiy therzeal for immersion by saying that there is but "one baptism," and that "if they are right all others are wrong."— But they might as well argue that because there is but one ordinance of prayer if they are right who pray standing, all who kneel are wrong, and have no prayer at all. Supposing, for argument sake, that others have made a mistake as to the quantity of water, and the exact mode of apply ing it, can this be of such cosequence in the view of the infinite God, as to nullify the seal of his covenant and set a^ide the baptismal vow? No. its well might Presbyterians say, "There is but one Lord's supper, and if we are right in sitting down at a table to receive that ordinance, the Baptists are wrong, and have no real supper because they do not sit at tables.'" Indeed it is astonishing that men laying such stress upon modea and forms, as some Baptists do, should be so careless about the admin- istration of the supper, for they know that the Disciples first partook of it at a table. If a priest were to come and proclaim among us that there is but one ordinance of marriage, an-a that all our marriages are null and void, if the ceremony has not been performed according to the Romish church; would we not at once reply to him that though we admitted the validity of his marriages, that of ours couldnot there6y be impaired,- for that a variation in the ceremony can never set aside the marriage covenant. So should we say to our zealous advocates of immersion when they urge us to be re-baptized, on the pretence that our baptism is good for nothing. We should tell them indeed that if their mode is the most showy, ours is the most scriptural; but that even if we have made a small mistake in the outward form it cannot set aside the seal of the great Jehovah. We should add, that after having received the baptism instituted by Christ, to go and submit to that of John, (ff+* supposing that Jonn immersed) is travelling back from the Christian toward the Jewish dispensation — is trifling with the baptismal vow— is pouring contempt on the seal of the God of Heaven. May the Lord discover tosuch, the uncharitable course they are pursuing towards their brethren of other denomiaations. May he impart to them that wisdom which is peaceable as well as pure. And may he vouchsafe to us all, the baptism of his holy spirit -and then how- ever separated by ordinances here, we shall all sit down to one marring? supper in the kingdom of God. AMEN. 19 LETTEP. Hi, > On the subject* of Baptism. Christian Brethren. It has often been observed in religious ccntro* ' Versies that men do not usually resort to misrepresentation and abuse, Until reason and scripture have failed thorn. And I do not doubt that it is a ' grief to many pious Baptists, that some of their brethren betray the weak- ness of their cause by the use of those unhallowed weapons. Indeed, it is te be regie! ted by all, that there should be any, who as if they were conscious of tii-.' weakness of their system, should try to support it by bitter words — charging their Pedo-baptist brethren as, not sincere in ' their belief — branding them with Popery, and pour^pg^a torrent of pro- • fane ridicule upon what they call infant sprinkling. Whilst we bear with meekness the revilings of such men, let us reply to them only by arguments drawn from the word of God. This I hope I shall be enabled to do. In the preceding letters, I briefly stated to you my views of the mode of baptism'. In this and the following I shall in a few words dis cuss the quest ion. Who are proper subjects of that ordinance? And here let me observe that our church holds as firmly to "believer's baptism" as our opponents do; that is we maintain that believing adults ure to receive Christian baptism if they have not been subjects of that ordinance before. And yet our baptist friends appear to think that such baptisms are inconsistent with our system. They quote such passages as ActsXVIII. 8, "many of the Corrinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized." Here, say they, believers were. baptized, therefore the Co- rinthians must have been Baptists. They do not consider thai by fllis mode of reasoning they would conclude our two congregations to be" - Baptists also; for it is well known that many adults have been lately baptized in our churches. So then the only question to be discussed at present is, Whether a believer having been baptized himself may have his children admitted to (hat Ordinance,. I affirm that he may; and in support of my views shall claim the liberty of referring you to any part of Ihe scriptures which may have n bearing on the subject, for it is all the' work of inspired penmen. '-ALL SCRIPTUPE" says Paul, "is given' by inspiration of Cod, and is profitable for doctrine.^ I am sure my brethren, you will believe an inspired apostle in preference to those who tell you. that the old Testament is done away and so is not profitable for doctrine. That part of the word of God is still in force ;ar.d such ofitg institutions as have not been set aside by Christ and his apostles, are ev idently binding on us at this very moment. After these remarks I pro eeed to show. 1 That infant3 teen once, by ihe appointment of Gcd, adviitted with, in the pah of his church, and received the existing seal of his cove nant. 20 2 That in fants^hace never been 1 excluded by the authority' of God ', and consequently are still entitled to membership. In support of my firsfproposition, I observe, that God had a church under the Old Dispensation. This is'almost too evident to require proof, and yet some of the Bap list brethren, in maintaining their system, have been driven to deny that God had even a church on earth until the day ofPenticost, or until the time of John the Baptist! And was the God of heaven then without a church for the first four thousand years of the world's existence ? Did he call out a cho- aen people and separate them to himself from, all the nations of the earth? Did he often interpose for tbem by the most astonishing mira- cles? Did he raise up among them a succession of distinguished proph- ets and holy men. through whomhejnade known his will? And did he appoint for them the most solemn ordinances, directing their faith to the blood of a saviour? And notwithstanding all this, was there no church established for the^lqry of his name? But this sentiment so dishonor- able to Godj is contradicted by the New Testament. In Acts Vfl. 38, Stephen says, "This is lie (Moses) that was with the CHURCH IN THE WILDERNESS, with the ANGEL that, spake to him in the mount Si- nai, and with our fathers, who received the LIVELY ORACLES to give onto us."* See also Psalms XXII. 22 *'In the midst of the congregation will I praise thee." What David here calls a congregation, the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews calls a church; for he quotes him as saying '•in the midst of the CHURCH, will I sing praise unto thee," Heb. II. 12, Granting then, that there was a churchy under the old dispensation, the next question is, How were persons admitted into that church? How would a heathen who wished to renounce Idolatry, embrace the true religion, and enter the church of God; how I say, would such an one be admitted; and what religious rites would he undergo? The answer to this question is found in Exod. XII. 48, 49. He must be circumcised, and then he would be allowed to eat the Passover, which held about the same place in the ancient church, as the Lord's supper with us. But were his children to be left out and counted st'll as heathens? No; the same Eassagesays, "Let all his males be circumcised and then let him come and eep the Passover." Thus we see that when parents were admitted into the church, their children were also admitted, and received the same re- ligious rite with themselves. * The word ecclefia here translated church, is the same which is used Acts II 47 "and the Lord added unto the church (te ecclesia) daily such 3S should be saved. There can be no doubt that the church in the wilderness was a church of God, aid had the best preacher the world ever saw, viz, the Lord Jesus himself, who appeared and spake to them m the form of an angel. Was that a "tumultuous assembly" in which Christ was losing praises'? It might not have been a church sn which females were authorised, to speak and- to rale. I. Cor. XtV. 34, 35. Still however it was a church of God. 21 But what was the origin and design of crcumcision? It was net a part of the law given by Moses; but w?# instituted as the seal of a remarkable covenant which God made with his church through Abraham Of this Cove- nant we hav« an account in two places; first in Gen. XII. 1. 3, when God first called Abraham and promised the blessing of a Saviour. Then in Gen^ XVII, 1. 14, thirty years after, when God confirmed his covenant with the addition of some particulars, and appointed circumcision as its seal. Af- ter an attentive perusal of those passages you will be prepared for the fol- lowing remarks. 1st. It included children as well as pirents. "I will be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee" XVII, 7. 2d. It was to be an everlasting covenant XVII. 7. It could not be abol- ished with the law of Moses, from which it was separate and distinct. Gal. Ill 17. "This I say that the covenant which was confirmed before of G 1 in Christ, the law which was 430 years after cannot disannul that i* should make the promise of none effect." 3 Circumcision was the first seal of this covenant XVII 11. "It shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you." Rom. IV 11. The covenant however was not dependent, on circumcision for its existence; for it was made with Abraham 30 years before that seal was appointed, and consequently the abolition of circumcision far from affecting it, only left room to substitute a less painful and oppressive rite as its seal. The import of circumcision. Let us now consider that rite, by which infants of eight days old were recognized as members of the visible church, and see if it did not hold as high a place as baptism now does. 1. Circumcision bound those who were subjects of it, to keep the whole law. Gal. V. 3 "I testify to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." And does baptism require more of us? 2. Circumcision was a sign of holiness of heart. Rom. II. 29, "Circum- cision is that of the heart." Deut. XXX. 6. "And the Lord thy God shall circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seedy All agree that bap- tism is a sign of regeneration. 3. Circumcision being a bloody rite, pointed to the blood of Christ. It was a seal of that covenant which promised the blessings of a Saviour, - Baptism directs our view to the same blood of sprinkling. Heb. X, 22,. "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water " 4. Circumcision was the "seal of the righteousness of faith." So says Paul, Rom. IV, 11. The same is true of baptism. Mark XVI. 10,: "He that bdieveth and is baptized shall be saved." Such was the nature of the ordinance administered to infanta of- eight days old; and you cannot but perceive that if the opponents of infant bap- tism, had lived under the Old Dispensation, with their present views, they would have brought objections against all the regulations respectingthem which were established by God himself. From what has been said, it appears that circumcision under, the Old -Dispensation and baptism under the New, hold pretty much the same- 22 place, and signified the same' things, and this is plainly implied in the lan- guage of the Apostle, in Col. II 11, 12, #ierc he brings them together, and reoresents the change effected by regeneration as expressed by both. Be- sides; the covenant, aswehave shown, is still in existence. If so, it must now have a seal. This is certain if God meanthis covenant to continue in force. But circumcision has been abolished, so that if it now have any seal, that seal must be baptism. If baptism be now the seal of the covenant, then it holds the place which circumcision once did. If any object to this account, because only males were circumcised, but both sexes are bapti- zed, I answer that females, under the former dispensation, were admitted into the church by Sacrifice, or by virtue of the admission of the males. For we gather from thelaw,(ExodXIL) that if the males were circumcised, the females were admitted at once to the passover. But the coming of Christ, instead of abolishing the privileges of the male children, as Bap- tists say it has done, has only ENLARGED that privilege, by extending the seal to the other sex, so that the distinction made by circumcision i.i get aside in baptism. Gal. III. 27, 28, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ There is neither Greek nor Jew, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither MALE nor EEMALE ' for ye are all ONE in Christ Jesus." Now there are some will tell you, that "circumcision was only a mark or badge of Jewish descent. 1 ' But how opposite is this to truth; for that ordinance was by no means confined to jews Strangers of any nation who embraced the true religion, were admitted to circumcision. Exod. XII, 48, 49. "One law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the stranger." And if half the world had embraced the religion of Jehovah, they would have beeto circumcised. Some too, will tell yon, that circum- cision was a sign of temporal biasings only, particularly of a right to the land of Canaan. But was Ishmael and Abraham's servants to possess that land? Yet they were all required to be circumcised. Gen. XVII. 23. Be- sides: look at the promise, (V. 7) "I will be a God unto thee and unto thy seed after inez'' Does not this include more thin the riches and honors of this. world? Others again will say that the covenant only hud a reference to Christ, as the seed of AbraLim. And it is true it had an important refer- ence to him, as the sotiTce of salvation, but it included all Abraham's spir- itual seec", whether Gentiles or Jews as being united l< Christ the head. Seu til.!. III. 29. "If ye are Christ's ye are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the prdnrisfc.*' And the seal of that covenant was applied to iafants of eight days oM. * It is objected by sr>r?c, that the OU Testament church was only a typical one. Pat Lad they a typical saviour, and- a typical ' .to be admitted to all the distinguishing privileges of Christ's family. •21 THEIR OWN Olive tree." It follows then, that if there was no church under the Old Dispensation, there is none at this day. In the XXI chapter of Matth . our Saviour represents the Jewish church under the similitude of a vineyard. See verses 33 — 43. Our Lord decla- red in explanation of the parable(v.43) that "the kingdom of God should he taken from the Jews, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." The expression kingdom of God, cannot here signify either the kingdom of grace or of glory, neither of which the unbelieving Jews pos- sessed. It must therefore mean the church, which is his visible kingdom ;.". the world, and the passage shows that we are introduced into the same vineyard, from which the Jews were thrust out; and are admitted into the same church, from which they were ejected. But a perusal of the II chapter to the Ephesians, will decide this point. They had bee^ heathens, (vs. 11, 12) But having been now brought into the church of God, they were "fellow citizens of the saints, and of the household of God, and were built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." vs. 19, 20, not of the Apostles only but of the Apostles and PROPHETS. Could ?ny thing be more clear as to the sameness of the Jewish* and Christian churches.* See also v. 14. We have no right to exclude infants. This point b sing proved, it follows, that infants having been original- ly admitted into the visible church, cannot now be excluded without Di- vine authority for that purpose. But where in all the Scriptures, can we find such authority. Where, in his word, does the great Jehovah, tell us that though he once admitted infants to his chnrch, to be trained up in hisnurture and admonition, they shall now be admitted no more? Where I say do we find the least shadow of an authority for excluding them?— There is none either in the Old or New Testament. And what are we that "swe should assume to ourselves the right of dictating, as to who should, or who should not, receive the seal of his covenant? Who are we, that we should banish from the visible church those whom the God Of heaven has admitted into it, on whom he ha? set his seal, for whom Jesus has shed his • blood : — should cast them out, because according to our views, they ought .never to have beenieceived; because we happen to think that it can do no good to baptize them? What arrogance of senseless dust and ashes! Nei- ther the Lord Jesus nor his apostles, ever excluded little children, but did the very reverse, as we shall hereafter show. I am awave that some have urged, that the law by which infants were admitted to' ie o'iurcb, is so old as to be out of date. Bm is the author- ity of the lawi Oi - tament for their admission, he would stand just on as good ground as thwc vrlio, for the same reason exclude, children from the visible church. 1ETTSE IV, Infant Baptism Continued. The arguments from the New Testament Christian Brethren : We would not have you suppose that there is no evidence for infaR* baptism in the New Testament, for there is enough; as much as might be expected. But even if there were none, that circumstance would not authorize us to exclude infants from the seal of membership. For I hava fhown in my last letter that God once admitted them to his visible churcri, and that their right of membership has never been since taken away; and ©f course it remains the same under the new asunder the «.ld dispensation. But if infants now have the right of raembersnip they must be baptized. - But let us proceed to the New Testament, and see if it doei not fur* •Bish evidence of the right of infants to baptism. Little children belong to the Kingdom of God. I shall first refer you to Mark X. 13—16, "And THEY BROUGHT young children to him that he should touch them, and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But wh-:n Jesus saw it he was mu<5h displeased, and said, suffer the LITTLE CHILDREN to come unto me and forbid them not, for OF SUCH is the kingdom of God.'' Hore let me remark, that our Saviour speaks of children too young to -come to him of themselves, for these were brought to him. And "Jesus took them up in his arms" (verse 10) And the parents must have been be- Jfeversin Christ, ^r they would not have brought their children to him for %\& blessing. "But why," it is asked, "is it not said that Christ baptized them." I an- swer for two good reasons. Firs!, because Christ never baptized any him- self, either adults or infants. Secondly, because Christ had not yet insti- tuted his baptism. The Gospel dispensation was not fully opened until af- 9i ter his death. It was not till after his resurrection from the dead vhrts be gave the command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Ho# ly Ghos*. Until the death of Christ circumcision was the seal of the cov- enant, and these children had doubtless received that seal and had beett thus dedicated to God by their parents. — These are ample reasons why it was not said that Christ baptized them.* Observe the action of our Lord on this occasion, "he put his hands on them and blessed them." You often hear the qHesliort "what good can it do to bring infants to Christ?" The Lord Jesus as if to stop all cavilling on the subject, pronounces his Messing upon them. And would he have bles- sed those who were incapable of a blessing? Observe too, the declaration he makes respecting them. "Suffer them to come unto me and forbid them not." Thedisciples had opposed the pa- rents when bringing l heir children to him. But we are told Jesus was dii- pleased, much displeased with them for such conduct; as he is, doubtless, with ail those who would forbid pious parents to present their chiloren to . him. . "Suffer them to come unto me" says Christ "for OF SUCH is the KINGDOM OF GOD." He does nc t say for adults like untasuch be'ong to the kingdom of God. And it would bestrange if our Saviour had said svfer little children to come to me, for that adults belong to the kingdom. O'ir Saviour surely did not reason in such a way. But 1 e says, OF SUCH is the kingdom, of God. The expression kingdom of Gcd y must here signify either the kingdom of glrry,or the visible church. If it mean the kingdom of glory, then it follows that infants are admitted into heav- en, and if so, why should we exclude them from the church on earth?— Slnll we attempt to be more pure than God? If he receives them into his heaven y kingdom, shill we reject them? ZJut if the expression mean th« visible church, then it proves at once, that infants are a part of that church; the kingdom of God Leina composed in part at least OF SUCH, that is eflittlo children. But ifuHy are entitled to membership, it is evident that they are proper subjecis of baptism.! The promise to you and your children.. Acts H. 33, 30. If the Apostles had intended to abolish the promise of the covenant, made to believers and their children the day ot Pentecost would have been the very time to carry into effect tneir purpose; for the gospel dis pensation was then folly opened. But did they do so' No, on the contra- ry Pe*er spoke to the Jews in this language, Acts II 3S, 39, "Repent ani * 1 am clearly of opinion that the Apostles and 120 Disciples never recei- ved Christian baptism at ail; and for this reason. They were admitted into the church of God by circumcision. And when the unbelieving part of the Jews, were by a Judicial stroke, cast out of the church, they remained in it and cons nmed the church to which the 3000 were added on the day of Pentecost. C.ri.-stian baptism having been instituted after the death of Christ and consequently after the unbelieving Jews were cut off; to have adminis- tered that ordinance to the disciples would have implied that they bad al»« teen cast out of the church. i Luke IX. 47, 48, is also a strong proofthat infanta are fitsubjects of baptiasa 28 fee baptized every oae of you fur ihe remission of sins and ye shall r©cei?a the gift of the Holy Ghost, for the promise is unto you and to YOUR CHILDREN." The promise here mentioned, does not refer to the pn ph« ecy of Joel, far back in the chapter, for that was a promise of miraculous gifts, and we are not to suppose that the whole 3000 were to receive those fifes. At any rate it was a promise urged by Peter as a reason why tho . ews and their children should be baptized. "Repent" says he "and bo baptized every one of you" — "for tl>e promise is u n to you and your chi Idre n ." But if we refer to Gal. HI. 29, when the Apostle says "If ye are Christ'd ye are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise;" if we con- sider that they were Jews to whom Peter spake; that they laid peculiar ♦tress upon the promise of the covenant "I will be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee; 1 ' that this promise was always in their minds and oa ihe r tongues; we may at once perceive what they would understand by "THE PROMISE." They would naturally refer to the Abrahamic cove- nant. From the time of Abraham they had been admitted into the church together with their children, and they were too tenacious on this point to t five it up. And when Peter urged them to be baptized and become mem- bers of the gospel church; we may easily imagine what a struggle would be occasioned by their parental feeling. And if they had expressed them in words, they would say, "What? Shall we abandon the covenant of our God and the promise to our children? Shall we become members of the church ourselves, and ieave our children with outcasts and heathens?" No, sayf Peier,for under the new dispensation which is now commenced,' 'the prom- ise is unto you and to YOUR CHILDREN." Nor is it confined to you Jews, for it is now to be extended to the Gentiles "To all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." The promise is 99 wide as to include parents and their children, and it is so long as to reach to the ends of ihe earth, "to all whota the Lord shall call." Therefore, "Repent and be baptized every one of you." Now upon the supposition that Peter meant to exclude infants from bap- flam, we make him argue thus — "The promise is to you, O ye Jews; there for« be baptized. The promise is also to your children, but they are not to be baj tized. Or, though the promise was once to your children, it is now revoked." Surely Peter did not argue thus.? In 1 Cor. VII. 14, Paul says, "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband; else were your children unclean, now they are HOLY." How are the children of belio vers holy, unless in this sense that they are included in the rovenant and are by dedication holy to the Lord. Those who render the passage "else were your children illegitimate, now they are legitimate' 1 '' make the apos- tle reason most absurdly; lor they make him to say, that if neither parent is a believer, the children are illegitimate!! Household baptism. Out of six or seven baptisms of which we have a circumstantial ac- * I consider the assertion of some miters, that Peter meant only full grown .children, because that small children are Dot capable of the blessings of tbe *pirit, as to ridiculous to deserve a refutation 2i) eount in the book of Acts, as occurring under the gospel dispensation, there are at least three instances in which the whole Household wet* baptized. And this is as large a proportion as could be expected, aa some of them certainly had no fimilies. It is said of Lydia, Acis XVI. 15, "She was baptized and her houselialdP Some Baptists have indeed supposed that her family must have consisted entirely of adul f . believers because Paul and Silas are said to hive comforted the brethren ai act house, (v. 40) But tins is a great mistake. And if you look at the 3d. and 4th. verses, you will find that Timothy occompaned the apos:les to Philippi;&. ifyoure-.d v.s. 10,11, 12 you will see that Luke, the writer of the account, joined them atTroas; for tie speaks in the first person, ^lous- ing from Troas, WE c i:ne to Samothr.acia, — and thence to Pbilippi " From the fifteenth verse vou will also learn that Luke was one of llmso whom Lydia constrain I <> abide at her house, '.'and sheccnst-ainedUS" Bo then it was not Lydia's children but their ministerial brethren:, that Paul and Silas comforted at her house after tiieir liberation from prison. At any rate Lydia appears to have been the only believer in the family. — It i3 said of her alone, "whose heart the Lord opened that she attended to the things spoken by Paul" (v. li) and again "she besought us saying, .'if ye have judged ME to be faithful come into my house. 1 ' She docs not say "if ye have judged US to be faithf-il as though there were oihev bo- havers in the family, but "If ye have judged ME to be faithful. f f is remarked by ('reek scholirstkat the word oiko", translated "house- hold," in more than fifty piace3 in the Septuagint signifies one's children* and that when servants and lodgers are designated, the word used isoihia. Now the word used to express the family of Lydia is oihoz, v:rJ would bo understood by every Jew who read Greek, to mean her chiidrGfi. And in- deed the Syriac translation of the New Test amen t^made hear the times of the Apostles, says "and when she [Lydia] was baptized and the CHIL- DREN OFHErl JOUSE." Now if the sacred writer did not mean to in- timate that her children were baptized, why did he employ a word .which every Greek scholar in those days would take to mean children, li id also worthy of notice, that this same word is used in 1 Cor. I. 1G, where Paul •ays "I baptized the (oikos) bojusehobl, pf t Stephanus," which ir.eans that he baptized Stephanui childrei . now that s ■ ie have argu&l thai 'ha household of Stopharfis rqust have b^en all adult believer.-;, be.ause we read (1 Cor.XVI, lrf) that his HOUSE "addicted themselves to the min- istry of the saints." But here the Greek . >rd used is not oihoe, children, but oikia, servants, and these, not the children are said to have a.iriisfered to ihe saints. So in the account of u.c baptism of tlie Jailors faariiiy the the word u? r J is oikos, and it is added that"he was baptized, :, wdA X, HIS, straightway"* Acts XVI, 33. Nor Jo we meet v. )i<:i ace * It is said "that the apostles spake, the word to ;ss" bin this is xxj more tuan may he said oHmy me who jn t- Ra- tion i;i which notwithstanding there may ho many i the 34 verse in which we are told, that- "lie rejoiced Ik lieviu i ,1 wii t>H his house," prove his family to have been all believers, for tiic Gfri?*U ptpiJfd'c-is,heli?ving, is in the singula!! number denoting I ral thfl Ja : lievei himself ami nothing more. "He believing in G^l rejpieucl »a or al! his house" i* the true «u easing. 30 •fa person bora of Christian parents, being baptized himself in adult years. Thus yoa see that the New Testament furnishes sufficient evidence that children are to he baptized ; and if the sacred writers had employed any other language on the subject than they did, I do not ihink itr.oukl sat- isfy our Baptist friends. If for instance, the scriptures had said that ^little children" belong to the elwrch, they would have argued that adult belie- vers are sometimes called little children. If we had been told in the word, that children have a right to baptism they would have explained the expression of"full grown children. 1 ' If it had. been said that the Apostle* took up little children hi their arms and blessed them, they would have con- tended that they must have been children of at least 10 or 12 years old - • It is not difficult to evade the force of a passage H it contain a sentiment repugnant to our feelings* I have room only to answer a few objections. 1. It is objected that infants ought not to be bound to serv» God before they can give their consent. 1 answer, why did God require that little children should be bound by circumcision to obey his law? Children in all countries are bound by the laws of the country before thgy ha\~ con- sented to their. ; why then should they not be re mired to obey God ? 2. The question is asked "Vihat good can it do to baptize infants?" In reply, I ask '■Wkai good can it do to baptize adults?" If it be said that edults can undersiand the obligation laid on them in baptism. I answer, Bo can parents understand tlieir duty when they dedicate their children to God; and so £an children at an early ffffebe mad •■ foumlcrslu.'id^some- thing of sl.e : r privileges and their duty^ The Apostle asks the question in Rom. Ill 1 "Wiiat profit is there of circumcision ? M And Je answers the ]uestion "MUCH EVERY WAY." So we reply to these who ask, what profit there is of infant baptism, MUCH EVERY WAY," at least m, much as there was in infant circumcision. If parents are only faithful to their cnildren, the- blessing of the covenant will descend upon them, Isa. XLIV, 3. Gen. XVII, 7. Prov. XXII. 6. JBot says one, "Why cannot I bring up my children as well without having them baptized " But you might as, well s-i "Why cannot I serve God myself without going to the Lord's table otattending U> any cf GodV ordinance " One reply to all this is sufficient ;< Who art thou O man that replvest against God?" 3. It is objected that infants cannot have faith and repentance end therefore ought not to b< baptized. I answer, neither does God require faith and repentance of infants. B:it sayf tiie objector, "the scriptures Bay 'believe and be baptized.^" No; L*e exact words of the scripture are "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that belie- veth not sh'dl be damned •" Mark XVI. 16. If we apply any part of this passage to infants we must apply i he whole to 1 hem, and if we argue from it that they cannot be baptized f.:'.id them to eat because they cannot work? Neither then should we apply 'he other passage to the case of infants. Circumcision, says Paul, wr.s "a seal of the righteousness of faith."-* But did Abraham object to apply ingihat jeal to his children* Did he say "Lord why should I "rply 'he seal of FAITH, to ny child. Let me wait till he has faith?" No; the holy patnarch cheerfully submitted to the direction of the Lord. Let us imitate his excmple. 4. Jt if slanderously affirmed that iifant baplhmis a device of PcjiC' ry and teas not practized by the ancient churches* 1 trust however that I have shown that it was piactiscdby the apostles; and a slightexamina* tion of history will show that it was universally practised in the succeed- ing ages of the church. Some Baptist writers indeed sensible that the tesh timony of history is against them, slander the ancient Fathers as though they were not competent witnesses in the case. Cut if they committed some errors in point of doctiine this would not disqualify them for tesuV lying to facts. They could surely make no mistake as to the fact whelh-' er infant biptism was practised in their day or not; and what do thty Bay? Justin Martyr, who wrote forty years after the apostles, and was put to death for the gospel, says, We hate net received the carnal lt,f tpit* itual circumci&ion ly baptism, and it is enjoined on all jcrions to re- ceive it inthe same manner. Here baptism is distinctly recognized as holding the place of circumcision, and as applicable to the same subjects. The same writer says that many were living in his d;»y "who weie disci- pled unto Christ when they wore LITTLE CHILL-KEN." Now infants are called disciples, Acts XV. 10, and these could. have Leen made such enly by I; pi ism. Ti?neus who was born before the death of the apostle John, and often «at lender the preaching of Poilycarp, John's disciple, affords the most •atisfactory proof, in his writings, of the prevalence of infant bap- lism. in his time. Turtulltan, who flourished about an hundred years after the apostles specking of the ce.'obra'ed passage in 1 Cor. VII. 14. "The unbelieving husband," says inexplanatiun of it, 'Jlf either of the parents were Chris- tian, the children were enrolled in Christ ly early hapiu m. Origen, who was born eighty the years after the apostles and who was celebrated for his learning and piety, declares that "The church had a ^command from the apostles to baptize infants ." And he brings foiwrrd the practice of infant baptism in support of the doctrine of human depra- vity. His words are, "Infants are baptized for the remission of sins;, uhen if there utre noikh g in infant; which needed forgiveness the graco of baptism would be needless to .lien-." 'Cypiian, 153 years after the aynsile?, mentions that a question arose in his day, whether infants should be baptized on the 8th day for whether * Those who say that infant baptism, on the mode by sprinkling, origina- ted from Popery cannot produce u. particle of authentic history to support their assertion. The truth is, that all those sects which never suomitted to the Pope's authority, hut even contended against him, do now, and always did practice infant baptism. "Witness the Greek or eastern church, the Sy- rian church and several others. 32 arv other day would be (suitable. This question was submit tod to a conneil cf t>G bishops, assembler' atl'arihage fromdilTerent parls of the church Th« deci ion of the council is preserved al kngth in the writings of Cyprian, and it is rem rkable that not one of the bisheps present, intimated a doubt of the propriety of infant baptism. Passing by the testimonies cf Ambrose, Chrysc istom, Jerome and others we come to that of Augustine, the great extent of whose learning entitle* him to credit in matters of history. Kc says, • That he had never heard of it NO SOC1E : - Y of mo.:, so thinking or practising, or anyone, man saying it was unlawful to baptize infants. So in the next 700 years, there is not so much as one man to be found, who cither spoke for or prac- tised such cLlay, but al! the contrary. And when in the year 1130, one Bf "t among tne Waldenses, or A!bi£.>cnses declared against the baptizing of infants ; s being incapable ofsalcation, ihe main body of that people i j- ject»d their opinion and they of'ti.em who held ii, quickly disappeared, there being no mure persons heard of holding that tenet until the rising of the German antipedobaptists in 1522. Foran accountof the origin of the first Baptist churches, see Mo3beim*B Eccl: Hist: Cent. XVI. Sect. III. Chap. HI.