-^'^ 
 
 (6 
 
 1 
 
 
 *^ 
 
 Ol 
 
 1 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 "3 
 
 ! 
 
 
 «f 
 
 "a. 
 
 0) 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 J5 
 
 
 
 
 .5 ' 
 
 15 
 
 CL 
 
 
 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 td) 
 
 <: 
 
 0) 
 
 
 ^" 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 3 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 <> S 
 
 E 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 1 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 -o 
 
 <2> 
 
 
 % 
 
 c 
 
 0) 
 
 S 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 f/) 
 
 0) 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 C^ 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 sc^S 
 
 
 
 
 /d?^ 
 
 -OJ- 
 
 -^ 
 
 
DISCOURSES 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 CLOSE COMMUNION 
 
 ^ 
 
 BY DAVID LrOGDEN, 
 
 PASTOR OP THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH IN SOUTHINGTON. 
 
 NEW HAVEN: 
 
 PRINTED BY HEZEKIAH HOWE & CO. 
 
 1834. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1834, by 
 
 David L. Ogden, 
 in the Clerk's office of the District Court of Connecticut 
 

 ^^. 
 
 % \ 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 The following discourses were delivered to 
 the author's own people. They are, with a few 
 alterations, now published at their request, and 
 particularly for their use. They were original- 
 ly divided into shorter portions for the conven- 
 ience of delivery ; but that division is not here 
 retained. After a powerful revival in which 
 upwards of one hundred and fifty were added to 
 the church and many more about to be added, 
 it seemed proper to enter upon a course of in- 
 struction which should involve the points here 
 discussed. The author had not the intention of 
 attacking any denomination of christians, or of 
 defending the one to which he has the honor and 
 the happiness to belong; but of delivering in its 
 place the truth of Christ to his own people, for 
 the purpose of giving their minds a right direc- 
 tion, irrespective of the feelings or views of oth- 
 ers. In the pulpit he has nothing to do with 
 other denominations, but only to make known 
 the gospel of Christ according to the best under- 
 standing he can get of it from the scriptures. 
 
4 PREFACE. 
 
 He does not ask the question therefore whether 
 others agree or disagree ; whether they are pleas- 
 ed or displeased. To his own Master he stands 
 or falls. What he says he sincerely believes. 
 And though he would be happy to persuade 
 those who differ from him to believe in like man- 
 ner; yet this is not his object so much as the 
 instruction which he feels bound to give to those 
 who are committed to his charge. He is not 
 unacquainted with the power of prejudice, and 
 the entire fruitlessness of endeavoring to con- 
 vince a man who holds himself armed in self- 
 defence, or committed to an opposite side. 
 He would prosecute his inquiries with the ut- 
 most good-will to all men, and with the sincere 
 desire that both his people and himself may 
 come to such conclusions as shall be pleasing 
 in the sight of God. With these things honest- 
 ly premised, if any shall impute wrong mo- 
 tives to him, or be displeased at the plain truth 
 which he brings out, the fault will be another's, 
 not his. 
 
 The above remarks in substance, were made 
 to the people on the delivery of the discourses. 
 The same the author would now say to such as 
 shall give these pages a perusal. He seeks no 
 controversy. He makes no demands but those 
 
PREFACE. 5 
 
 of candor and a christian spirit. He has not 
 sought novelty. He has given his own thoughts 
 freely, without carefulness to distinguish those 
 obtained by observation from those obtained by 
 reading. His great aim has been simplicity. 
 He wished to reduce the subject to the level of 
 every candid inquirer, however illiterate, if he 
 will only read the Bible with the spirit of a little 
 child, willing to learn and willing to do the will 
 of God. 
 
 1* 
 

 CONTENTS. 
 
 ■/ 
 
 Discourse I. The Mode of Baptism, 9 
 
 Discourse II. Close Communiori, 47 
 
 Discourse III. Infant Baptism, 81 
 
 Discourse IV. The same subject continued, . . . . .118 
 
 Discourse V. Utility and practical importance of 
 
 Infant Baptism, 133 
 
DISCOUR>SE I. 
 
 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Acts i. 5. 
 
 " For John truly baptized with water, but ye shallbe bap- 
 tized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." 
 
 These are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 as recorded by Luke in his introduction to one 
 of the most interesting histories that the world 
 affords. They describe in the plainest manner 
 what the mind of Christ is in regard to the mode 
 of baptism. It is such a mode in regard to wa- 
 ter as the baptism here promised is in regard to 
 the Holy Ghost. It is easy then to determine 
 the fact by referring to the next chapter, where 
 this baptism with the Holy Ghost is particularly 
 recorded. It consisted not in dipping or im- 
 mersion, but in pouring out. After the baptism 
 had taken place, Peter explains it by saying, 
 " This is that which was spoken by the prophet 
 Joel ; and it shall come to pass in the last days, 
 saith God, I willpoM?' out of my Spirit upon all 
 flesh." This baptism is beyond all question a 
 different mode from immersion. The disciples 
 were not immersed in the Holy Ghost, for we 
 read, "There came a sound from heaven, as of 
 a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house 
 where they were sitting." The sound, not the 
 
10 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Holy Ghost, filled the house. You know how 
 sound fills a house. It is nothing more than its 
 being heard all over the house. And moreover, 
 the apostle expressly says, on summing up the 
 evidence which he had been stating concerning 
 the wonderful facts that had occurred, ' There- 
 fore 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 
 now see and hear." This is the way then that 
 the baptism of the Holy Ghost was performed ; 
 that is, it was poured out — it was shed forth. 
 On the supposition that the word baptize means 
 to immerse, our Saviour would be made to say, 
 John truly immersed with water, but ye shall be 
 immersed with the Holy Ghost. And then the 
 next chapter would flatly contradict the prom- 
 ise, and show that instead of being immersed, 
 the influence spoken of was poured out or shed 
 forth upon them. 
 
 This you see is a plain scripture argument, 
 that baptism in the sense that our Lord Jesus 
 Christ requires it, is not immersion ; for he 
 gives the definition of the word by his own acts. 
 This argument, however, does not imply that 
 immersion will not answer the end of baptism. 
 It implies only that baptism by a small quantity 
 of water is the original, scriptural mode, and 
 that baptism by immersion is an unnecessary 
 addition. The latter is not so appropriate as 
 the former. If then baptism is to be adminis- 
 tered to a given subject but once in his life, it is 
 plain that to be baptized by immersion, or any 
 
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 11 
 
 Other way, after one has been baptized by- 
 sprinkling or pouring, is to submit to a mere 
 nullity to say the least, and probably a sin. 
 
 These observations being before you in ref- 
 erence to our text, I propose now to examine 
 in a series of discourses, the mode of baptism, 
 the proper subjects of baptism, close commun- 
 ion, and whatever may come up in this connex- 
 ion. In doing this I shall make it my endeavor 
 to avoid all severity of remark in regard to any 
 other denomination of Christians ; and under 
 the influence of prayer and the Holy Spirit, to 
 seek after truth. My object will be to lay be- 
 fore you some of the plainest and sincerest con- 
 victions of my own mind in regard to these sub- 
 jects. Without this I could not discharge my 
 duty as a christian minister to whom so many 
 souls are committed. If there is any thing in 
 the whole compass of divine truth on which my 
 mind is made up, and which every year of my 
 life, and the whole drift of christian experience 
 confirms, it is these things which I am about to 
 present to your consideration. 
 
 Nor are they so unimportant as many seem to 
 imagine. Insisting on immersion as the only 
 valid baptism, and a denial of infant baptism, 
 are errors which are generally accompanied by 
 other errors of great importance in christian 
 practice. Some of these errors will appear in 
 the progress of our investigations. Not the 
 least of them, in my judgment, is, that where 
 there are not counteracting circumstances in 
 the piety and intelligence of the man, he be- 
 
12 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 comes 50 absorbed in the defence of his pecul- 
 iarities, as to lose the force of that enlarged 
 christian siisceptiblity and enterprize, which is 
 the glory of the present age. 
 
 It IS moreover true, that all scripture is given 
 by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doc- 
 trine, for reproof, for instruction in righteous- 
 ness, that the man of God may be perfect, thor- 
 oughly furnished unto all good works. And 
 therefore, whatever belongs to the institutions 
 of God should be set forth at the proper time 
 and in the proper place. 
 
 On the mode of baptism then, let us examine 
 first the baptism of John, and then the baptism 
 of the apostles. 
 
 It is represented that John came in the wil- 
 derness of Judea preaching, Repent ye, for the 
 kingdom of heaven is at hand. And the num- 
 bers that went out are thus described by Mat- 
 thew : " Then went out to him Jerusalem, and 
 all Judea, and all the region round about Jor- 
 dan. And were baptized of him in Jordan, con- 
 fessing their sins." iii. 5, 6. Mark says, "And 
 were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan." 
 i. 5. 
 
 Now let us see if there is any evidence that 
 John immersed a single individual. It is said 
 by Josephus that there were from eight to ten 
 millions of inhabitants in these countries. And 
 the sacred writer says that all of them were 
 baptized by John. It is probable, though not 
 certain, that John commenced his ministry at 
 thirty years of age, because that was the age of 
 
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 13 
 
 majority among the Jews. If so, as all the peo- 
 ple, according^ to Luke, were baptized before 
 Christ was, the work must have been done in 
 six months, because John was only six months 
 older than Jesus. This time was insufficient to 
 baptize any approach towards all the people 
 above mentioned, by immersion, if John had 
 stood in the water all the time. But if we make 
 the largest allowance, suppose two years, for 
 John to baptize previous to the baptism of Je- 
 sus, the work could not have been done. I do 
 not suppose that the word all is to be taken in 
 its literal sense, for w^e afterwards read of some 
 who had not been baptized of John. It cannot 
 however signify a small number. Out of the 
 eight or ten millions, one million at least must 
 have been baptized, if the phraseology of the 
 evangelist has any show of truth. Now if we 
 suppose two years for the duration of John's 
 ministry previous to the baptism of Jesus, and 
 that he stood in the water night and day for the 
 whole of that time, and baptized one in a min- 
 ute, he could not have baptized but a little over 
 a million of persons. It needs nothing but a 
 simple arithmetical calculation to see this. You 
 have only to find the number of minutes in two 
 years ; which are one million, fifty one thousand 
 and two hundred. But no one will pretend that 
 either John or any other man could sustain such 
 a labor as this for two years, without any sleep. 
 Suppose then that he stood in the water eight 
 hours of the day for two years, and baptized 
 one in a minute. You have now three hundred 
 2 
 
14 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 and fifty thousand and four hundred minutes oc- 
 cupied in baptising ; and consequently, that 
 number of baptisms which took place. This too 
 is more labor than a man can sustain ; and yet 
 the number falls very far short of the evangel- 
 ist's description. Three hundred and fifty thou- 
 sand people does not approach near enough to 
 eight millions to warrant a writer to call it all, 
 in any appropriate sense of the word. It is a 
 plain impossibility then that John should have 
 baptized this great number by immersion in the 
 short space of time that the New Testament al- 
 lots to his ministry. And yet in some way he 
 did actually baptize a greater multitude than this. 
 We have no distinct mention how it was done ; 
 but the circumstances of the case forbid the idea 
 of immersion. If he took a bunch of hyssop, 
 and standing in the Jordan, sprinkled the water 
 on the people who stood on the shore as Moses 
 did the blood of the covenant mentioned Heb. 
 ix. 19. the baptism of many thousands in a day 
 was practicable. In this way he might have 
 presented to the Jews a ritual purification which 
 was analogous to all their customs, and easily 
 understood. Jesus was probably baptized by 
 pouring water on his head. This case is distin- 
 guished from all the rest by many peculiarities. 
 Had as much time been occupied in all John's 
 baptisms as in that, he could not have baptized 
 " Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region 
 round about Jordan," 
 
 In the next place, the description which John 
 himself gives of his baptism, strongly implies 
 
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 15 
 
 that it was not done by immersion. " I indeed 
 baptize you with water unto repentance ; but he 
 that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose 
 shoes I am not worthy to bear ; he shall bap- 
 tize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." 
 What correspondence is there between immer- 
 sion in water, and the pouring out of the Spirit? 
 What significancy, on the supposition of immer- 
 sion, in John's description of his proceedings ? 
 I indeed dip you in water, but he ^h^W pour out 
 upon you the Holy Spirit? Does dipping sig- 
 nify pouring ? Now if you understand John's 
 baptism to be sprinkling or pouring, which, as 
 I have shown, is the only possible mode in the 
 space of time which he occupied, then the de- 
 scription is natural and impressive. I indeed 
 sprinkle or pour water upon you"; but he shall 
 pour upon you the Holy Ghost. This is simi- 
 lar phraseology with that of our text, and de- 
 mands, like that, the idea of pouring rather than 
 dipping. Thus far I think is clear. 
 
 There are two things which are alleged 
 against this view, which, however, are great- 
 ly misunderstood by those who allege them. 
 One is, that Christ is said to go up straight- 
 way out of the water with John ; and the 
 other, that John is said to be baptizing in 
 Enon near Salim, because there was much wa- 
 ter there. In regard to the first, it is plain that 
 the action of going up from the water is noth- 
 ing more than ascending the banks of Jordan, 
 for that action took place after the baptism. 
 The Greek word translated ^^wentvp^^ is never 
 used to designate rising from under the water, 
 
16 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 but always signifies to go up, ascend in such a 
 way as you go up a hill, a tree, an eminence, 
 ,&c. It is therefore going up the banks of the 
 river, and not going up from under the water. 
 There certainly can be no proof then that either 
 John or Jesus went further into the river than 
 up to their ankles, or that they went in at all 
 any further than for John to dip up water in his 
 hands. 
 
 The other passage, which speaks of John's 
 baptizing where there was much water, does 
 not say why the water was needed. And it is 
 just as likely to be needed for the supply of the 
 multitudes of men and beasts that were collected 
 together, in the way of drink, as for immersion. 
 It is much more likely, because much water was 
 not as necessary for immersion as for suste- 
 nance ; it being sufficient for the former pur- 
 pose, that a small brook should be scooped out. 
 But a single brook would not answer the wants 
 of the multitude in the way of drink. The prob- 
 ability then is, that the much water is mention- 
 ed as an accommodation to the multitude, just 
 as it is for a Methodist camp meeting. But 
 would any one say in the latter case that it was 
 for the purpose of immersion ? It seems then 
 very plain that John did not baptize by immer- 
 sion, because the time occupied in his ministry 
 makes it an absolute impossibility ; and all the 
 references to his baptism can be much more ea- 
 sily and satisfactorily explained on the supposi- 
 tion of his sprinkling or pouring, than on that of 
 immersion. 
 
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 17 
 
 After all, it is to be observed that the baptism 
 of John was not christian baptism. This is 
 clear from the facts that it was not instituted by- 
 Christ ; that it was not administered into the 
 name of the Father and of the Son and of the 
 Holy Ghost ; and that it was set aside by the 
 apostles. That it was not instituted by Christ 
 must be admitted by all, because it began before 
 his ministry, and during the existence of the 
 Jewish dispensation of the church. It was pre- 
 paratory to, not confirmatory of, the Christian 
 dispensation ; for John's preaching was, " Re- 
 pent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," 
 not, already come. And that it was not admin- 
 istered into the name of the Trinity is virtually 
 declared in the nineteenth chapter of Acts, 
 where it is said that certain individuals who had 
 been baptized by John, had not so much as heard 
 whether there were any Holy Ghost. And in 
 this same account it is stated that they were 
 baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, that is, 
 received christian baptism, of which they were 
 destitute before.* Thus the baptism of John 
 
 * Our opponents say that John's baptism is not set 
 aside, but identified with christian baptism in this pas- 
 sage. They understand the fifth verse to be a continua- 
 tion of Paul's speech, and not the declaration of the his- 
 torian. On this supposition it would be difficult to see 
 the force of Paul's reasoning ; for he seems to be ac- 
 counting for the fact that these disciples had not heard 
 of the Holy Ghost. And the way he does it, is on the 
 principle that John baptized with reference to a Messiah 
 about to manifest himself, and not one already come. 
 
 2* 
 
18 THE MODE or BAPTISM. 
 
 was clearly set aside as not answering to the 
 christian dispensation already commenced. It 
 is hardly necessary to say that a baptism which 
 
 But on the supposition that he declares the disciples of 
 John to have been baptized in the name of the Lord Je- 
 sus, he virtually says that they have heard of the Holy 
 Ghost, notwithstanding their declarations to the con- 
 trary. 
 
 1. The interpretation of our opponents then puts Paul 
 in the attitude of asking a question of no significancy 
 when he said, " Unto what then vrere ye baptized '?" 
 
 2. It makes the fifth verse a mere tautology, being 
 nothing but a repetition of what was said in the fourth 
 verse. 
 
 3. It implies that John's disciples all believed in Jesus 
 as the Messiah ; whereas w^e are expressly informed that 
 they did not — that they mused in their hearts whether 
 John himself were not the Christ. Luke iii. 15, 16. 
 
 4. John baptized with the indefinite instruction that 
 they should believe on the Messiah who was about 
 to manifest himself: the apostles in the name of Je- 
 sus as the Messiah definitely ascertained and pointed 
 out. John could nc^t do this, because he did not himself 
 know that Jesus was the Messiah till about the close of' 
 his ministry. John i. 31,33. Ifihen John baptized in 
 any name at all ; that is, if he did any thing more than 
 wash the people in token of the necessity of in ward clean- 
 sing; he could not have baptized definitely in the name 
 of Jesus, of whom he knev^^ nothing. Our opponents 
 then represent the apostle as contradicting the known 
 fact in the case ; or else as affirming that the disciples of 
 John were virtually, but not really, baptized in the name 
 of the Lord Jesus. But if virtual baptism will answer 
 the purpose, they need dispute no longer about the mode 
 of baptism — they will find no difiiculty in admitting that 
 we are all baptized as well as they. 
 
 5. If tkey in v. 5. were baptized by John only, then 
 Paul laid his hands on all that were thus baptized, not 
 merely on these twelve here mentioned. For the word 
 
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 19 
 
 was not appointed by Christ ; which was not in 
 the name of the Trinity ; and which was ex- 
 pressly set aside by the apostles, wants three 
 essential qualities of christian baptism. 
 
 them in v. 6. must refer to the same persons as the word 
 iheij in v. 5. If they were baptized by John only, " upon 
 thevh^'' — the same persons were Paul's hands laid. What 
 other noun can be supposed to be represented by the 
 pronoun them than the persons just mentioned, viz., all 
 that were baptized by John in the name of the Lord Je- 
 sus ? 
 
 6. When Apollos knew only the baptism of John, 
 Aquila and Priscilla " expounded unto him the way of 
 God more perfectly." Acts xviii. 26. Hence it appears 
 that the baptism of John was not the way of God in such 
 perfection as Christianity sets it forth. 
 
 7. That the disciples of John were baptized again by 
 the apostles, is evident from the universal baptism of the 
 three thousand on the day of Pentecost. It is incredible 
 that John should have baptized " Jerusalem and all Ju- 
 dea and all the region round about Jordan," and yet so 
 large a number as three thousand be found at a Jewish 
 festival, none of whom had been baptized by him. 
 
 For all these reasons then I cannot accede to the in- 
 terpretation which our opponents adopt of the passage 
 in question. Indeed, it appears to me so contrary to 
 the obvious meaning, so far fetched, so at variance with 
 the other representations of scripture, that I cannot but 
 think that no man can propose it without a system in his 
 eye which he is determined to support. The simple in- 
 terpreter of the sacred volume, whose only business it is to 
 know what is the mind of the Spirit, would hardly do so. 
 The fifth verse then is plainly the declaration of the his- 
 torian , and not of Paul. It means that when these disci- 
 ples heard the words of Paul recorded in the fourth 
 verse, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Je- 
 sus. That this expression is only an abbreviation for 
 the customary formula of Christian baptism, see Acts 
 viii. IG., X. 48., Rom. vi. 3. Gal. iii. 27. 
 
«U THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 You see then, my brethren, what becomes of 
 the notion that going down into the water for 
 baptism is following Christ. Besides the evi- 
 dence that he was not immersed, Christ never 
 received christian baptism. It would have been 
 manifestly improper, had he received it. It 
 would have had no significancy. What has the 
 holy Jesus to do with a rite which is intended 
 to hold forth the necessity of inward purification 
 on the part of the receiver ? "What has the Sa- 
 viour to do with a rite which signifies that the 
 person receiving it, if an adult, has faith in him? 
 Could Christ believe in himself? Did Christ 
 repent ? Was he born again ? If you follow 
 Christ in his baptism, you must go without re- 
 pentance, without faith, without being born 
 again, without the name of the Father and of 
 the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Is this chris- 
 tian baptism ? 
 
 Christ did no sin, neither was guile found in 
 his mouth. Did he then receive a rite which 
 signified that he needed purification from sin ? 
 Christ was not baptized into the name of the 
 Trinity. Did he then receive christian baptism ? 
 Christ did not repent, did not believe, was not 
 born again. Did he then receive a rite which 
 signified that this change had taken place, or 
 ought to take place ? Christ was baptized at 
 thirty years of age. Did he then receive a rite 
 which has no respect to age, but which ought to 
 be received as early at least as a man is capable 
 of serving God ? Christ was not baptized till 
 all the people had been baptized, thus signifying 
 
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 21 
 
 thai all the people should be ceremonially clean- 
 sed before he made his appearance as the Mes- 
 ^ siah. Is such delay proper in christian bap- 
 tism ? Would such an example be a good one ? 
 Whatever then was the design of Christ's bap- 
 tism, it is clear that it was never intended as an 
 example for his followers. If you follow Christ 
 in his baptism you must wait till you are thirty 
 years old ; and if you have passed that period 
 it is too late. You cannot be baptized. Among 
 all the exhortations of the apostles you cannot 
 find one which says you must follow Christ in 
 his baptism. This is quite a modern doctrine. 
 There is no more reason for following him in 
 that than in the subsequent particulars, going 
 immediately into the wilderness to be tempted 
 of the devil, fasting forty days and forty nights, 
 &c. All these things were probably the quali- 
 fications for his office as the great High Priest 
 of his people. As he was of the tribe of Judah 
 the priests at the temple had no authority to in- 
 duct him into ofiice. And yet to fulfill all right- 
 eousness, to comply with all the external ap- 
 pointments of God in regard to the priest's of- 
 fice, it was proper that he should be set apart 
 according to the usages of the church. Hence, 
 if John poured water on his head, and the Holy 
 Ghost descended upon him, he received the 
 proper signs of his official character. The 
 High Priest was washed with pure water and 
 anointed with the oil of the tabernacle as the 
 external qualifications for his office. So Christ 
 being arrived at the proper age, and being desi- 
 
22 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 rous of fulfilling all righteousness, was washed 
 with water, and anointed not with the sign but 
 with the thing signified, the Holy Ghost.* Thus 
 it appeared that he was the Anointed of the 
 Lord, that is the Messiah. Thus it appeared 
 that the Spirit was not given to him as to other 
 High Priests by measure, but that he was filled 
 with the Spirit. Thus Christ the great High 
 Priest of our profession, as the apostle calls 
 him, was inducted into his office ; and therefore 
 from that time and not before, he went forward 
 to execute that office. He immediately went 
 into the wilderness and suffered temptation, 
 that he might be qualified by experience " to 
 succor them that are tempted, having been temp- 
 ted in all points like as we are, though without 
 sin." He went forward and preached, and did 
 a thousand things which testified of his charac- 
 ter, and then offered up the great sacrifice of 
 himself as the crowning act of his priestly of- 
 fice on earth. Hence the evangelist, when he 
 speaks of the ministry of Christ as the sub- 
 ject of testimony on the part of the apostles, de- 
 scribes it thus : " Beginning from the baptism 
 of John, unto that same day he was taken up 
 from us." Acts i. 22. Here you see the be- 
 ginning of Christ's official character was at the 
 baptism of John. 
 
 Christ's baptism then was wholly peculiar. 
 It was accompanied by circumstances which no 
 other baptism ever had. The heavens were 
 
 * See Acts x. 38. 
 
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 23 
 
 Opened and the Spirit of God descended like a 
 dove and lighted upon him ; and a voice from 
 heaven was heard, saying This is my beloved 
 Son, in whom I am well pleased. Was this a 
 common baptism ? Was it an example for poor, 
 unworthy sinners to follow ? If it were not said 
 to be such an example by honest, well-meaning 
 men, I should call such a doctrine the height of 
 profaneness. To us, my brethren, belongs the 
 baptism of sinners, not the baptism of the Holy 
 One of Israel. Let us follow what he appoint- 
 ed for us, not what he appropriated to himself, 
 and marked by such peculiar circumstances as 
 to set it apart for ever as a peculiar act. 
 
 Having shown that John's baptism was not 
 immersion, and not christian baptism; and that 
 the baptism of Christ included in it, was of too 
 high, peculiar and holy a character for us sin- 
 ners to pretend to ; I proceed now to show, that 
 the baptism which the apostles administered 
 was not performed by immersion. 
 
 I shall examine four cases, the three thousand 
 on the day of Pentecost, the case of Paul, that 
 of the Phillipian jailor and that of the Ethiopi- 
 an eunuch. If it appears that these were not 
 performed by immersion, it will not be supposed 
 that any were. 
 
 1. The three thousand. — On this point I will 
 quote from Prof. Stuart of Andover who has 
 published a very candid article in opposition to 
 the views of our Baptist brethren. " The ques- 
 tion apposite to our purpose is : Where and 
 how were they baptized?^^ 
 
34 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 " Was it in the brooks or streams near Jeru- 
 salem ? I cannot find this to be probable. The 
 feast of Pentecost being fifty days after the pass- 
 over must have fallen into the latter part of the 
 month of May, and after the Jewish harvest. 
 In Palestine, this is usually a time of drought, 
 or at least of great scarcity of rain. The brook 
 Kidron, on the east of Jerusalem, was not a pe- 
 rennial stream ; and the brooks on the south of 
 the city, from the fountain of Shiloh or Gihon, 
 were not adequate, without some special prep- 
 aration, for the purpose of baptism by immer- 
 sion ; as one must be prone to think, from the 
 representations concerning them. Nothing can 
 be more natural, moreover, than ihe supposi- 
 tion, that if the apostles baptized the three thou- 
 sand in either of the streams around Jerusalem, 
 it would have been mentioned ; just as it is said 
 of John, that he baptized in the Jordan. No 
 such mention however is made." 
 
 "We must conclude, then, that if baptism by 
 immersion was practised on this occasion, it 
 must have been in baths or washing places. I 
 do not say that this was impossible, for every 
 one acquainted with the Jewish rites must know 
 that they made much use of ablutions ; and 
 therefore they would provide many convenien- 
 ces for them. But let it be remembered, in res- 
 pect to the present occasion, that a great many 
 of the three thousand were foreigners. How 
 many belonged to the city of Jerusalem, we 
 cannot tell. But we may ask, did the apostles 
 baptize without individual confession and pro- 
 
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 25 
 
 fessioii, like that of the eunuch insisted on by 
 Phihp ? We can hardly deem this probable. 
 Supposing then, that these were required, and 
 that the apostles resorted to private baths in or- 
 der to baptize, would one day, or rather, some 
 three quarters of a day suffice to perform such 
 a work? On the supposition that only the 
 apostles baptized ; and granting, moreover, that 
 Peter ended his sermon at nine o'clock in the 
 morning, (" the third hour of the day") whereas 
 he only began it then ; the consequence would 
 be, that for the remaining nine hours of the day 
 1. e. 540 minutes, each apostle must have bapti- 
 zed, on an average, one in about two minutes, 
 inasmuch as each would have had 250 baptisms 
 to perform, if they were equally divided." 
 
 For these reasons Prof. Stuart concludes that 
 the multitude on the day of Pentecost could not 
 have been immersed. But the impossibility is 
 still more confirmed, if we allow half an hour 
 for Peter's sermon, and one hour more for the 
 individual confession of the persons to be bap- 
 tized. We have then 450 minutes left for each 
 apostle to baptize 250 persons ; that is, one in 
 less than a minute and a half. If a man can 
 baptize some half a dozen at this rate, when he 
 is sacrificing solemnity to see how fast he can 
 do it, he could not two hundred and fifty. It 
 may be added also, that the great parade and 
 ceremony of immersion, could not be had among 
 all this multitude of strangers, who could nei- 
 ther have been provided with a change of dress, 
 nor be accommodated with one by the inhabit- 
 
 Jl. 
 
26 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ants of Jerusalem. And when any thing of this 
 sort is done, it is customary with the sacred wri- 
 ters to give some notice of it ; but not a hint is 
 given to tell us how the baptism was perform- 
 ed. The baths in the city were, moreover, in 
 the hands of those who were unfriendly to the 
 apostles, and would not therefore be furnished 
 for baptism. Every circumstance .that can be 
 thought of, forbids the idea of immersion on this 
 occasion. 
 
 2. Let us next look at PauVs baptism. — 
 Paul " was three days without sight, and nei- 
 ther did eat nor drink," — so greatly was his body 
 weakened by the wonderful scene through which 
 he passed on his way to Damascus. In this 
 ^veak condition Ananias being sent of the Lord, 
 found him. After addressing him in an appro- 
 priate manner, he said, " And now why tarriest 
 thou ? arise and be baptized, and wash away thy 
 sins, calling on the name of the Lord. And 
 immediately there fell from his eyes as it had 
 been scales ; and he received sight forthwith, 
 and he arose and was baptized. And when he 
 had received meat he was strengthened." Now 
 here observe, brethren, that all the circumstan- 
 ces seem to be related, and yet no leaving the 
 house in search of water for baptism. It is not 
 merely said, he was baptized, but he arose and 
 was baptized. If he left the house why should 
 not that circumstance be mentioned as well as 
 his arising? ' He arose and went to the water 
 and was baptized,' must have been the declara- 
 tion if that circumstance was actually added to 
 
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 27 
 
 his arising. But the next circumstance seems 
 to intimate that he was unable to leave the house 
 till after his baptism. It is said, " when he had 
 received meat he was strengthened." His 
 strength then did not come till after his bap- 
 tism. Now can all this be said of a sick man ; 
 can so much particularity be had in the narra- 
 tive of his baptism, and yet the circumstance of 
 his going out of the house for a river or bath be 
 omitted, if such a circumstance took place ? 
 The plain face of the account shows us that he 
 was not immersed. Whoever else was immers- 
 ed, this account clearly intimates that Paul was 
 not. 
 
 3. So also the jailor^ — He was baptized at 
 midnight, in the prison by Paul or Silas. They 
 could not have gone out for water, because such 
 a step was death by the Roman law ; and more- 
 OTer, the apostles were too much wounded and 
 sore to have done so. The jailor brought them 
 out, not of the prison but of the dungeon where 
 they were placed ; for it appears that in the 
 morning they were not yet out. They would 
 not go out till the magistrates themselves sent 
 and fetched them out. If they had gone out in 
 the night, and then solemnly told, the magis- 
 trates that they would not go out,^ would such 
 conduct look like that simplicity aa^ godly sin- 
 cerity on which they acted ? 
 
 To say that there was a bath in the prison in 
 which the jailor could have been immersed, is 
 merely putting a supposition or a guess for a 
 fact. Who knows that there was a bath ? What 
 
28 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 historical evidence is there of such a conven- 
 ience in prisons under a heathen government? 
 Christianity alone has introduced such comforts. 
 If therefore there should be found a bath in the 
 prison at Calcutta under the British govern- 
 ment, this affords no probability of the same 
 thing under the despotism of ancient Rome. 
 The whole face of the story compels us to con- 
 clude that the jailor was baptized by water which 
 was brought in, and that he was consequently 
 sprinkled, not immersed. 
 
 I will just observe in passing, that when Cor- 
 nelius and his friends were baptized, Peter said, 
 " Who can forbid water that these should not 
 be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost 
 as well as we ?" Is not this the most natural 
 language for a man to use who expected to bap- 
 tize in the way that we do ? and most unnatural 
 for one who baptized by immersion ? Would it 
 not be straining the passage to suppose that Pe- 
 ter meant to say. Who can forbid going to the 
 water ? When he speaks of the water as the 
 thing forbidden, such an interpretation would 
 speak of the persons as the things forbidden. 
 
 4. The Ethiopian eunuch. — " They went 
 down both into the water, both Philip and the 
 eunuch ; and he baptized him." Nothing but 
 an acquaintance with the mode of river baptism 
 practised by some at the present day, would ever 
 lead a man to suspect that dipping or immer- 
 sion was here meant. The history says no such 
 thing, nor hints it. It appears that the eunuch 
 was sitting in his chariot and reading about the 
 
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 29 
 
 Messiah in the fifty second and fifty third chap- 
 ters of Isaiah, in which there is a prophecy that 
 he should sprinkle many nations. He did not 
 understand of whom the prophet spake ; but 
 when Philip preached unto him Jesus, and 
 showed that the whole prophecy was uttered of 
 him, as " they came to a certain water," the eu- 
 nuch said, " See here is water, what doth hinder 
 me to be baptized ?" Who has any authority 
 to say that this "certain water" was a river? 
 Why not a little stream or brook ? Indeed it is 
 almost certain that no river was there, because 
 there is none at the present day ; and rivers in 
 those countries always make habitable places. 
 Hence if a river had been there it could not have 
 been a desert.* And moreover, as the eunuch 
 was reading a prophecy about the Messiah's 
 character and sufiferings ; and as in that prophe- 
 cy it is expressly said, " So shall he sprinkle 
 many nations ;" how strange would it be for the 
 eunuch to suppose that baptism was dipping? 
 When therefore he said, " See here is water, 
 what doth hinder me to be baptized," it is alto- 
 gether the most probable that he had the idea 
 of sprinkling, as baptism. Surely he would not 
 
 * The word desert is by some referred to Gaza rather 
 than to the way. The fact, however, appears to be, that 
 Gaza was devastated by Alexander, and afterwards re- 
 built by Gabinius. It was devastated again a little be- 
 fore the siege of Jerusalem : but it was at this time full 
 of inhabitants. See Kuinoel on the passage, and Rosen- 
 mueller also. The word desert then refers to the way, 
 and not to Gaza, 
 
 3* 
 
30 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 expect to be immersed to fulfil a prophecy about 
 sprinkling ! 
 
 After all these plain and obvious things in 
 the eunuch's baptism, the phrase going down 
 into the water as our translation has it, can cer- 
 tainly mean nothing more than what is always 
 the fact when you step into water ; especially, 
 as every Greek scholar knows that going down 
 to the water and coming up from it is just as 
 good a translation as the one we have. Indeed 
 Prof. Stuart shows that it is n[iore agreeable to 
 the Greek usage. But let the translation stand 
 as it is, the same idea is had ; for in stepping 
 into water you must needs go down. There is 
 no necessity of supposing that the eunuch went 
 under water. Nay the contrary is implied by 
 the Greek words, which are the same as those 
 used concerning our Saviour's baptism. These 
 have already been remarked upon. To go up 
 here then is not to rise up from under a fluid, 
 but to go up in such a manner as you go up a 
 tree, a ship, &,.c. Since then going down into 
 the water was feefore the baptism and coming 
 up out of it was after, what can this signify as to 
 the mode ? Philip and the eunuch both went 
 down. Did they both go under water? 
 
 Thus you see, my brethren, from this concise 
 view of John's and the apostles' baptism, that 
 no instance of immersion can be made out, but 
 that there is much more evidence of the contra- 
 ry. How absurd then to talk of immersion as 
 constituting an essential quality in baptism, as 
 though a man could not be baptized without it ! 
 
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 31 
 
 But we have another claim to examine. It is 
 confidently said that the Greek word Baptizo 
 always signifies to immerse ; and therefore, 
 when the Saviour gave the command to baptize, 
 it was the same thing as to command immersion. 
 With how little truth this is said, you can be 
 able to determine from what has already been 
 laid before you. If the circumstances of John's 
 baptism and of the apostles' were such as to for- 
 bid the idea of immersion, as I trust has been 
 shown, it is very clear that it is not the meaning 
 of the word. No matter what scholars have said, 
 since no declaration contrary to this is bottomed 
 upon the Bible. The usage of heathen writers 
 with which scholars are familiar is one thing : 
 that of the Bible is another. If scholars should 
 say that the word always means to immerse, the 
 unlearned reader of the New Testament could 
 see that they said falsely, because the word ex- 
 plains itself. 
 
 There is a great misrepresentation on this 
 subject which is frequently made, perhaps unin- 
 tentionally, to those who do not understand 
 Greek. It is a mingling of the testimony of hea- 
 then writers with that of the inspired penmen 
 of the scriptures. The heathen poets and histo- 
 rians have very extensively used the word bap- 
 tizo in the sense of immersion, though some- 
 times in the sense of a partial washing. Even 
 according to their use of the word then it is 
 manifestly proper to sprinkle in baptism ; be- 
 cause, unless you can make out a universal use 
 of the word in the sense of Immersion, you do 
 
32 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 not establish the point that immersion is essen- 
 tial to the word. But the New Testament wri- 
 ters use the word quite differently — seldom if 
 ever for immersion. Nay in some cases you 
 cannot even make sense, if you translate it by 
 that idea. Since then the inquiry is for the 
 meaning which the apostles attached to this 
 word, and not for that which Homer and Thu- 
 cydides gave to it ; I cannot see any use in go- 
 ing beyond the Bible. Any plain reader of the 
 scriptures can see that the word, where it is ap- 
 plied to the ordinance of baptism, does not mean 
 to immerse, for the reasons a[lready stated in this 
 discourse. Our text alone compared with the 
 next chapter, settles this question. And surely 
 all the circumstances of baptism both of John 
 and the apostles, confirm it. 
 
 In such a state of facts, what have men who 
 are conversant with classical or heathen writers 
 only, to do with deciding the question as to the 
 meaning of baptizo in the New Testament? If 
 appeal must be made to scholars, of which how- 
 ever there is no necessity, let us look to those 
 who are versed in Biblical criticism, rather than 
 classical. And who is superior in this respect 
 to Prof Stuart? He maintains in the article 
 already alluded to* that the word baptizo does 
 signify to immerse for the most part, in the 
 classical, that is, what the Bible denominates, 
 heathen writers. No scholar he says will de- 
 ny it. He proves his position by a sufficient 
 
 * See Biblical Repository for April, 1833. 
 
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 33 
 
 number of quotations. He afterwards pro- 
 ceeds to the New Testament usage, and main- 
 tains that the word is used quite differently; and 
 that it is impossible to determine the mode of 
 "baptism from the New Testament, except that 
 some of the cases contain clear indications of 
 probability against immersion. . After a very 
 full investigation of the subject, he says, "I do 
 consider it as quite plain that none of the cir- 
 cumstantial evidence thus far," (that is in the 
 Bible,) " proves immersion to have been exclu- 
 sively the mode of christian baptism, or even 
 that of John. Indeed I consider this point so far 
 made out, that I can hardly suppress the convic- 
 tion, that if any one maintains the contrary, it 
 must be either because he is unable rightly to 
 estimate the nature or power of the Greek lan- 
 guage ; or because he is influenced in some 
 measure by party feeling ; or else because he 
 has looked at the subject in only a partial man- 
 ner, without examining it fully and thoroughly." 
 
 I do not appeal to this respected gentleman 
 as authority. I would call no man master on 
 earth. But since those who say that baptizo 
 means to immerse, are perpetually talking of the 
 decision of scholars on the question, I thought 
 it might not be improper to introduce a scholar 
 to your notice. 
 
 I repeat it then, it is the heathen writers that 
 use the word baptizo in the sense of immersion; 
 and it is these on which scholars are united in 
 regard to the meaning of the word. But in the 
 New Testament, the case is entirely different. 
 
34 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Now shall we take the heathen for our instruct" 
 ors on this subject, or the writers of the New 
 Testament ? The latter use many words in a 
 different sense from that in which the ancient 
 heathen Greeks used them. And from their 
 different manners, customs and general circum- 
 stances, it is not strange that they should. 
 
 If it could be made out that baptizo always 
 signifies to immerse when applied to other things 
 than the ordinance in question, I cannot see that 
 it would hold the same here ; because the cir- 
 cumstances of the case limit its signification. 
 It is admitted by all that the word Deipnon 
 which is used for the Lord's Supper does, in 
 every other use of it, invariably signify a feast — 
 a full meal. And yet nobody pretends that it 
 signifies so in its application to the ordinance of 
 the Supper. If any would take sides on a con- 
 troversy about the meaning of the word Deip- 
 non, that side which claimed that it means a. full 
 meal, would have the victory. And if its usual 
 signification is to settle the point of its meaning 
 in regard to the Lord's Supper, then no one can 
 maintain that a small piece of bread and a spoon- 
 ful of wine is the Lord's Supper to any individ- 
 ual. Nothing but a full meal could stand for it. 
 Now would not every one say that this was an 
 absurd conclusion, a miserable criticism ? And 
 yet it rests on precisely the same principle as the 
 conclusion respecting baptizo which we are op- 
 posing. Admitting that it signifies to immerse in 
 other applications, it must signify the same, it is 
 said, when applied to the ordinance, notwith- 
 standing circumstances forbid that signification. 
 
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 35 
 
 But we cannot admit that baptizo does signify- 
 to immerse in other applications of it. The 
 New Testament writers, sometimes use the word 
 in the sense of mere washing. For example, 
 "And when they came from the market, except 
 they wash they eat not. And many other things 
 there be which they have received to hold, as 
 the washing of cups and pots, brazen vessels 
 and tables."* Here the original word which 
 is translated washis haptizo, and the other which 
 is rendered washing is baptism. Now did the 
 Jews immerse themselves whenever they came 
 from market ? And did they immerse their ta- 
 bles, or rather couches, for that is the meaning 
 of the Greek ? To the same purpose is Luke xi, 
 38. " But when the Pharisee saw it, he mar- 
 velled that he had not first washed (baptized) 
 before dinner." So also it is said in Heb. ix, 10. 
 of the Jewish ceremonies, " meats and drinks 
 and divers washings.'' Here the original word 
 is baptisms. Now we know that these " divers 
 w^ashings" or baptisms were, for the most part, 
 sprinklings. Thus we read of the sprinkling of 
 water of purifying upon the Levites, Num. viii, 
 7. ; sprinkhng of the unclean, xix, 18. So also 
 we read of the blood which was sprinkled, &c. 
 'Indeed, sprinkling is the most common em- 
 blem employed in the scriptures for purification. 
 We read of the blood of sprinkling, and the 
 sprinkling of the blood of Christ. And when 
 the influence of the best things is mentioned, it 
 
 * Mark vii, 4. 
 
36 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 is represented by sprinkling. Thus Christ is 
 spoken of as sprinkling many nations. And God 
 promises the blessings of the gospel in the follow- 
 ing remarkable language : " Then will I sprin- 
 kle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean ; 
 from all your filthiness and from all your idols 
 will I cleanse you." With such a sanction, ad- 
 ded to all the other evidence, how can I fail to 
 be satisfied that sprinkling is peculiarly appro- 
 priate in baptism ? 
 
 All these things are confirmed by two allu- 
 sions in the New Testament, the baptism of 
 Moses and that of Noah. Paul says, the Isra- 
 elites " were all baptized into Moses in the 
 cloud and in the sea."* Now here we are sure 
 that if any water touched them at all, it was 
 sprinkled upon them; for the history of the 
 transaction tells us, " They went into the midst 
 of the sea upon the dry ground : and the waters 
 were a wall unto them on their right hand and 
 on their left."t The Egyptians who pursued 
 them were immersed, but not the Israelites. 
 " The Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the 
 midst of the sea." 
 
 The second allusion is by Peter. He says 
 that in the days of Noah " eight souls were sa- 
 ved by water, the like figure whereunto baptiSm 
 doth also now save us, not the putting away of 
 the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good 
 conscience towards God."J If Noah's being 
 saved by water is compared to baptism, it is 
 
 * 1 Cor. X. 2. t Ex. xiv. 23. 1 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21. 
 
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 37 
 
 certain that it was not immersion ; for no water 
 touched him unless it might be sprinkling of 
 the surge, or of the rain. The world of the un- 
 godly were plunged beneath the wave. In 
 both these cases the only immersion which took 
 place was had by the wicked. The people of 
 God had nothing to do with it. 
 
 As the argument from scripture fails to prove 
 that immersion was the mode of baptism insti- 
 tuted by Christ, we are referred to the testimo- 
 ny of history, which, it is said, may be consid- 
 ered as a fair interpreter of scripture on this 
 subject. Our limits will not permit an extensive 
 examination of this argument. For the facts, 
 we shall avail ourselves of the investigations of 
 Prof. Stuart. During the first century nothing 
 definite occurs. As early as the third century 
 it appears that immersion was generally prac- 
 tised, at least in Africa. Not however immer- 
 sion like the modern Baptists, but what was 
 called the trine immersion, that is dipping the 
 body under three times, once in the name of 
 each person of the Trinity. Baptisms by sprink- 
 ling or affusion were even then allowed in cases 
 of sickness. And cases are mentioned, without 
 any such reason, of baptism by pouring water 
 on the head. But the same testimony shows 
 also a most disgusting particular, which is, that 
 every one, " men, women and infants were com- 
 pletely divested of all their garments, in order 
 to be baptized. Revolting as this custom was, 
 yet it is as certain as testimony can make it." 
 I will quote one sentence from Ambrose as a 
 4 
 
38 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 specimen : " Naked were we born into the 
 world ; naked came we to the baptismal font. 
 How absurd then that he whom his mother 
 brought forth naked, the church received naked, 
 should enter heaven with riches." " For 1600 
 years," says Brenner, a writer quoted by Stuart, 
 *' was the person to be baptized, either by im- 
 mersion or affusion, entirely divested of his 
 garments." This disgusting peculiarity shows 
 how they might have varied also in regard to 
 the quantity of water, from the apostolic prac- 
 tice. 
 
 A man acquainted with Ecclesiastical history 
 can easily account for these customs without 
 supposing that they are the institution of God, 
 especially, as the New Testament contains such 
 clear evidence as we have already seen, against 
 them. There was a spirit of self-righteousness 
 and worldly wisdom brought into the church by 
 converted philosophers, which soon gave rise 
 to human inventions. This was the foundation 
 of the great fabric of Popery. Hence, as the 
 Lord Jesus Christ appointed the application of 
 water to the body to signify the necessity of the 
 pouring out of the Spirit on the soul — a cleansing 
 operation : it was probably argued in the spirit 
 of worldly wisdom and self-righteousness, the 
 more the better. If little water was appointed, 
 then surely a large quantity will be so much 
 the better. Hence they not only immersed, but 
 immersed three times. And as the water which 
 our Lord appointed was applied to the naked 
 skin on the face, that principle too was carried 
 
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 39 
 
 out ; and the water was applied to the naked 
 body entire. This was that natural principle 
 of human depravity to substitute an external 
 cleansing for an internal one ; and to make a 
 universal washing necessary where Christ had 
 appointed only a partial one. Thus they re- 
 versed the Saviour's own declaration, " He that 
 is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but 
 is clean every whit ;" that is, a ceremonial 
 washing — that which signifies or sets forth in- 
 ward, spiritual washing, has no need of a copi- 
 ous flow of water, but a little is as good as much. 
 
 Now shall we take testimony as to what was 
 done in Africa more than two centuries after 
 Christ, to contravene the testimony of the Bi- 
 ble as to what was done by inspired men ? The 
 African fathers, it seems, baptized by dipping 
 each person three times, naked. Does the Bi- 
 ble give any hint of such a thing? They bap- 
 tized infants as well as adults in this manner. 
 So that the testimony, if it be taken for immer- 
 sion, must be taken also for Infant Baptism. 
 "Why not take the decision of the Saviour 
 himself, that in a ceremonial washing a little 
 water is as good as much? " He that is washed 
 needeth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean 
 every whit." 
 
 From the plain common sense investigations 
 which we have now made on the authority of 
 the word of God, our only rule of faith and 
 practice, we find no difficulty in ascertaining^ 
 that Baptizo does not mean to immerse ; that 
 neither John's baptism nor that of the apostles 
 
40 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 affords a single certain instance of immersion ; 
 and that in some cases, as the multitude that 
 came to John and the short time he had, and 
 the multitude that came to the apostles on the 
 day of Pentecost, immersion was out of the 
 question, because it was an impossibility. To 
 say that a miracle might have been wrought in- 
 these baptisms is mere trifling, because it is only 
 a supposition, there being no record for it ; and 
 because it would be contrary to God's universal 
 method of proceeding, miracles being had only 
 when a sufficient occasion called for them. 
 
 Let me now turn your attention to a passage 
 often quoted in favor of immersion, Rom. vi. 4. 
 " Therefore we are buried with him by baptism 
 into death.'* 
 
 That the apostle does not intend to refer to 
 plunging or immersion as baptism, I think is 
 plain for the following reasons : 
 
 1. His argument would be interrupted by such 
 a reference. He is showing the death to sin which 
 Christians that are true to their profession un- 
 dergo. Accordingly, he uses various similitudes 
 such as death, burial, crucifixion, resurrection — 
 all which must be applied to the subject upon 
 which the apostle is discoursing, that is, a pecu- 
 liar sort of death, a death to sin. If you turn off 
 one of these similitudes to the mode of baptism, 
 the argument is interrupted, and the mind is 
 diverted from the main point before it. And 
 then why should we select one of these simili- 
 tudes or figures rather than another ? Why for 
 example, should we select burial rather than 
 
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 41 
 
 crucifixion ? And if burial signifies the mode 
 of baptism, what does crucifixion signify ? And 
 so also- if the resurrection mentioned in the 
 fourth verse signifies a resurrection from the 
 water, how comes it about that the apostle says 
 that the resurrection which he means, is amoral 
 one — raising to walk in newness of life ? And 
 moreover, in the fifth verse he directly explains 
 this resurrection to be that which is not yet ac- 
 complished — we shall be. Unless then you 
 suppose that the christians whom he addressed 
 were at that time actually under the water, and 
 the apostle was speaking of them as coming up, 
 you cannot apply this resurrection to coming 
 up out of the water. 
 
 2. There is a manifest antithesis or contrast 
 kept up between the burial of christians by 
 baptism and their resurrection. But the resur- 
 rection is a moral one, a rising from sin to ho- 
 liness — newness of life. How then can we 
 take the burial in a physical sense as a burial 
 under water, and the resurrection to which it is 
 put in contrast in a moral sense as the apostle 
 limits it — raised up to newness of life ? Here 
 then is the resurrection described as something 
 not yet accomplished, to be had in all the acts 
 of a christian life ; and yet the burial, on the 
 supposition we are examining, is a physical bu- 
 rial, confined to one literal act, and that an act 
 of a physical kind, an immersion in water ! 
 It would be a strange mixture of ideas to talk 
 of a moral resurrection as opposed to a physic- 
 al burial; for observe the apostle does not 
 4* 
 
42 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 speak of rising from the water but rising to 
 newness of life. He speaks of being dead to 
 sin, buried to sin, and rising to righteousness. 
 Nor does he speak of baptism as burial, but 
 " baptism into death." Here then we have the 
 resurrection of which the apostle speaks entire- 
 ly a moral idea : and here is the burial which 
 must needs be a moral idea, or else the antithe- 
 sis is not preserved. 
 
 3. The words buried with him, in verse 4, 
 have evidently the same meaning as the words 
 dead with Christ in v. 8. ; for the same conse- 
 quences are said to follow, viz. living with 
 Christ ; or maintaining a new life. Now if you 
 interpret the first as a literal burying in water, 
 how will you interpret the second ? The se- 
 cond is beyond all question a moral death — ^a 
 death to sin. For the same reason the first is a 
 moral burying, a burying to sin. 
 
 4. The idea of baptism is an idea of purifi- 
 cation. It is washing with water. But the 
 idea of burying which you take as a similitude 
 of baptism, is an idea of pollution. No place 
 is so polluted and loathsome as the grave. How 
 then can baptism be represented by it ? Or how 
 can baptism represent the grave ? If you take 
 the burial in a physical sense, you must connect 
 these physical ideas with it, viz. loathsomeness 
 and pollution : but if you take it in a moral 
 sense as implying merely a moral burying — a 
 carrying out of the figure of death to sin, these 
 ideas need not be attached to it. If you say 
 that it is Christ's burial alone to which it ap- 
 
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 43 
 
 plies, and therefore the idea of corruption is 
 absent ; you involve yourself in another diffi- 
 culty. You must now find a likeness between 
 dipping under water and being laid in a sepul- 
 chre hewn out of a rock. 
 
 5. The interpretation which I give of this 
 passage is strengthened and placed beyond all 
 doubt, at least to my mind, by referring to Col. 
 ii. 12. the only other passage in the New Tes- 
 tament which is supposed to refer to the mode 
 of baptism under the description of burying. 
 " Buried with him in haptismy The words 
 into death are omitted here, but plainly impli- 
 ed. Thus we have the idea of burial. Now 
 what is the opposite — the resurrection? "Ye 
 are risen with him through the faith of the op- 
 eration of God, who hath raised him from the 
 dead." Here then is a moral resurrection which 
 christians undergo in this life, just as in the 
 passage we are considering, opposed to buried 
 with him in baptism. Now does it not destroy 
 the whole meaning of the buried with him in 
 baptism into his death, held up in contrast with 
 the risen with him which is definitely fixed to a 
 moral subject, to understand it of a literal im- 
 mersion in water? What contrast or antithesis 
 can be found between immersion or burial in 
 water, and rising " through the faith which is of 
 the operation of God ?" If you say it is rising 
 from the water, you contradict the apostle ; for 
 he says it is " rising by the faith which is of the 
 operation of God ;" or in other words, the 
 words of the passage in Romans ; " to newness 
 
44 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 of life." Surely we should let the apostle in- 
 terpret his own language, and not put a mean- 
 ing upon it to suit our convenience. And then 
 too, the baptism here spoken of is affirmed to 
 be the circumcision of Christ in the preceding 
 verse, that is, the circumcision of Christianity. 
 So that this baptism by which we profess to be 
 Christ's, and become dead to sin, may be affirm- 
 ed of infants as well as adults; the condition 
 being necessarily implied as in the case of adults, 
 when they walk in newness of life. 
 
 For these reasons then I cannot but think 
 that the apostle does not, in the sixth chapter 
 of Romans, speak of the mode of baptism at 
 all. To suppose that he did, would be to in- 
 terrupt the course of his argument without any 
 need of so doing ; it would be to destroy the 
 contrast which he is maintaining between a 
 moral burial and a moral resurrection ; it would 
 be to take away the whole force of the eighth 
 verse, where it is said that we are dead with 
 Christ and shall live with him ; it would be to 
 introduce a comparison between loathsomer>ess 
 and cleanliness and affirming them to be alike, 
 and it would be to contradict the plain declftra- 
 tion of the same apostle in his epistle to the 
 Collossians. 
 
 Thus it is clear beyond all reasonable dispute, 
 that the scriptures do not hold forth immersion 
 as baptism ; but if any mode is specially brought 
 to view, it is sprinkling or pouring ; that being 
 the most common emblem of purification. 
 What folly and presumption to disturb the 
 
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 45 
 
 church of Christ by insisting upon something 
 which cannot be proved from scripture ! Stand 
 fast, then, my brethren in the liberty wherewith 
 Christ hath made you free ; and be not entangled 
 in the yoke of bondage. Let not external or- 
 dinances which are the mere badges of your 
 character, take the place of the character itself. 
 Put on the new man which after God is renew- 
 ed in knowledge and true holiness. Let the 
 word of God dwell in you richly in all wisdom. 
 Search the scriptures. Let no man deceive you 
 with a show of knowledge and with vain words. 
 And above all, let not the confidence with which 
 a man may talk in the maintainance of unscrip- 
 tural opinions, lead you to doubt whether he 
 may not have truth on his side. Confidence 
 may arise from ignorance or depravity, or sect- 
 arian pride. To the law and to the testimony: 
 If we speak not according to that word, it is 
 because there is no light in us. " The Bible, 
 the Bible," said Chillingworth, " the Bible is the 
 religion of Protestants." Without pretending 
 to judge respecting others, let us cling to the 
 plain truth of God. Let the spirituality of the 
 Christian religion be ours. And if any give 
 themselves to vain janglings, and words which 
 profit not, and confident assertions ; let them 
 alone : but walk ye in the hght which God has 
 given you.. Firmly pursue the path of holiness. 
 Remember that the kingdom of God is not 
 meat and drink but righteousness and peace and 
 joy in the Holy Ghost. Stand ye in the ways 
 sndggee, and ask for the old paths, where is the 
 
46 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find 
 rest for your souls. For the grace of God that 
 bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 
 teaching us that denying ungodliness and world- 
 ly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and 
 godly in this present world, looking for that 
 blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our 
 great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave 
 himself for us, that he might redeem us from 
 all iniquity and purify unto himself a peculiar 
 people, zealous of good works. These things 
 I would speak, and exhort. Not by works of 
 righteousness which we have done, but accord- 
 ing to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of 
 regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy 
 Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through 
 Jesus Christ our Saviour ; that, being justified 
 by his grace, we should be made heirs accord- 
 ing to the hope of eternal life. This is religion. 
 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avaii- 
 eth any thing, but a new creature. 
 
CLOSE COMMUNION. 47 
 
 DISCOURSE II. 
 
 CLOSE COMMUNION. 
 
 I. Cor. X. 16. 
 
 *' The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the commun' 
 ion of the blood of Christ? the bread vjhich we break ^ is 
 it not the communion of the body of Christ ?" 
 
 The communion of saints, which the scrip- 
 tures so often bring to view, is not confined to 
 the Lord's table. It is had in prayer, in singing, 
 and in preaching the word ; indeed, in all those 
 acts of the christian life whereby saints show- 
 that they love the Lord Jesus Christ, and feel 
 alike in regard to the great interests of his king- 
 dom. In all these things there is no objection 
 on the part of any to a full communion. It is 
 merely in the article of the Lord's Supper in 
 which the separation takes place — a most un- 
 fortunate spot upon which to take that stand, 
 since that is a bond of union, according to our 
 text, among the followers of Christ. If there is 
 any one spot in the whole pilgrimage here be- 
 low in which those who love the Lord Jesus 
 Christ in sincerity, should lay aside their differ- 
 ences, and come together in the spirit of love, 
 gratitude and obedience ; it is at the table which 
 is spread for the benefit of all, where the Lord 
 says to his people. This is my blood of the New- 
 Testament, which is shed for many for the re- 
 
48 CLOSE COMMUNION. 
 
 mission of sins. Drink ye all of it. This do in 
 remembrance of me. But though this ought to 
 be the case, the fact is, that it is not. 
 
 Those who hold to close communion, do not 
 say that those who are out of their enclosure 
 are not christians. Nor do they deny to such 
 the highest attainments in piety. They are hap- 
 pily inconsistent here, as all good men are when 
 they adopt erroneous or mischievous principles. 
 The evil of the principle is in part counteracted 
 by the inconsistency of those who hold it. The 
 tendency of the principle itself, however, is 
 wholly evil ; and that evil cannot be concealed 
 or winked out of sight. However excellent 
 the persons who hold it may be, and however 
 self-contradictory the principle, it does its work 
 in the alienation of many hearts from each other 
 which ought to be united ; and in wounding the 
 Lord Jesus in the house of his friends. 
 
 I propose in the following discourse to bring 
 the principle of close communion to the test of 
 scripture and common sense. Let it be under- 
 stood then, that close communion does not set 
 up its exclusive pretensions on the ground of 
 exclusive piety ; but on the ground of exclusive 
 baptism. There is no dispute that those who 
 are rejected by churches acting upon this prin- 
 ciple, are received by the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 Baptism is said to be immersion in water, and 
 then all those who have not passed through that 
 ceremony are affirmed to be disqualified for the 
 Lord's Supper, pious though they be, and bap- 
 tized in their own conscientious belief, though 
 they be. 
 
CLOSE COMMUNION. 49 
 
 Now this I expect to show cannot be main- 
 tained even on the principles which tlie advo- 
 cates of it profess to hold ; that it is revolting 
 to the unadulterated feelings of the christian ; 
 is contrary to the simplicity of the gospel ; is 
 productive of self-righteousness and a sectarian 
 spirit; is inconsistent with other things allowed 
 by those who advocate it ; and is contrary to 
 the plain teachings of the Bible. 
 
 But before I proceed to these main points of 
 discourse it is proper to correct certain misrep- 
 resentations, or perhaps mistakes which are 
 sometimes made. 
 
 It is affirmed that we are close communion- 
 istsin practice as much as those who are called 
 such. Were it not that an attempt is made to 
 support this declaration by an argument, I 
 should think it was made in sport. The argu- 
 ment is, that we do not commune with young 
 converts before they unite with the church. 
 Hence we shut ourselves up from those whom 
 we admit to be christians. They do no more 
 than this in refusing to commune with us. 
 This argument I think will not bear examina- 
 tion, for 
 
 In the first place, both parties acknowledge 
 that these young converts are not members in 
 full of any particular church. These young 
 converts neither claim nor expect communion. 
 The proof of their christian character is not 
 finished till they come forward and name the 
 name of Christ. 
 
50 CLOSE C0MMUN10?r. 
 
 In the next place, the argument goes on the 
 supposition that we are not members of the 
 christian church any more than those who nev- 
 er professed to be. It is no more nor less than 
 saying that we do not sustain a church relation, 
 but are only brought together by some civil con- 
 tract, or in some way which does not constitute 
 us a church of Christ. And yet nothing is more 
 common than for the same persons to pray for 
 us as a church, to call upon God to bless the 
 pastor, and to designate him as one set over the 
 people in the Lord. Thus they acknowledge 
 to God that we are a church, and then argue 
 with men as though we were not. If they with- 
 hold communion from us on the principle that 
 we are in the situation of young converts before 
 they join the church ; it is distinctly declaring 
 that we are not a church of Christ ; and yet 
 they pray for us as a church and talk of us as 
 fellow christians. Charity requires us to be- 
 lieve that they are sincere when they address 
 themselves to God. The necessary inference 
 then is, that their argument is either insincere, 
 or unsound without their perceiving it. 
 
 The same sentiment is sometimes stated in 
 another form. It is affirmed that they commune 
 with all that are baptized ; but we do not with 
 our children who, in our opinion, are baptized. 
 In reply to this I say that we never deny the 
 communion to any of our baptized children when 
 they request it, and their moral character does 
 not forbid our complying with their request ; 
 and they do precisely the same with respect to 
 
; CLOSE COMMUNION. 51 
 
 their baptized persons. If their moral charac- 
 ter forbids, their baptism does not entitle them 
 to the communion. So that this article must be 
 struck out of the account on their own princi- 
 ples. But when we take into view the different 
 relation which baptized children sustain to the 
 church, according to our principles, from be- 
 lievers, the case is quite different. In all fair- 
 ness this case has nothing to do with the sub- 
 ject. It is merely putting the constitution of an 
 Anabaptist church in the place of that of a Pe- 
 dobaptist church. It is therefore a mere eva- 
 sion, and not an argument. But let us see how 
 the principle operates in fact. This is the way 
 to test it. Is it true that our principles of com- 
 munion exclude any who love the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and conscientiously believe that they are 
 baptized ; and is it true that theirs do exclude 
 such? This is the question. It is notorious 
 that we have occasional communion at the 
 Lord's table with other denominations besides 
 our own ; and it is equally notorious that they 
 do not. This is the fact in the case, whatever 
 may be the theory. The claim they set up then 
 of being no more close communionists than we, 
 is nothing but sound. It consists in words but 
 not in deeds. No candid man therefore can ad- 
 mit it, however plausible the argument might 
 seem. It will not bear the test of facts. Noth- 
 ing can be more unfair then, than the represen- 
 tation we have now examined. If close com- 
 munion is to be maintained it should be main- 
 tained on its own merits, not by fixing it upon 
 
52 CLOSE COMMUNION. 
 
 others who disclaim it both in principle and in 
 practice. 
 
 There is still another form in which this ar- 
 gument is stated. It is said that as we believe 
 baptism to be a prerequisite to the communion 
 we stand on the same ground that they do. On 
 this point I would ask — what mode of baptism 
 do we require? Do we insist upon sprinkling 
 as essential to baptism ? The two cases are not 
 alike unless this can be made out. 
 
 It appears then that there is something in our 
 practice which does, in some sense, restrict 
 communion. That is, there is something which, 
 if bottomed on their principles and carried out 
 on their principles, would amount to close 
 communion. But the difference is, that baptism 
 in our estimation is not so exclusive as in theirs ; 
 and therefore, the communion which is con- 
 nected with it is not so exclusive. It amounts in 
 fact to no exclusiveness at all. Our principles 
 and not theirs should be applied to the subject. 
 It is unfair to confound this obvious distinction 
 — to take our principles to start with, and then 
 reason upon theirs. If our brethren can point 
 out an inconsistency in our principles let them 
 do it, but let the fact be acknowledged. The 
 system of close communion is something tan- 
 gible. It is a matter of fact, not a mere specula- 
 tion. The fact then is, that the actual operation 
 of their principles in regard to baptism does 
 exclude all but their own denomination from 
 the table of the Lord ; whereas that of ours 
 excludes no one of any evangelical denomina- 
 
CLOSE COMMUNION. 53 
 
 Uon. Nor are their members free to commune 
 among christians wherever they happen to be : 
 whereas ours are left to their own judgment on 
 this subject without the danger of censure. If, 
 then, we restrict communion we restrict it with- 
 in such wide bounds as to make no practical dif- 
 ficulty. Their restriction cuts off thousands of 
 acknowledged christians from their embrace. 
 Beyond all dispute, therefore, we are not close 
 comraunionists in any proper sense of the term. 
 It is said again, that our communing together 
 in this world has nothing to do with our com- 
 muning in heaven, because in heaven there are 
 no ordinances. If this remark has any force it 
 must be because the Lord's Supper is a mere 
 external ordinance, having no effect upon the 
 heart. But surely this is a very inadequate 
 conception of its nature. I do not suppose that 
 any of the brethren who advocate close com- 
 munion, really entertain it. The remark which 
 I now notice is undoubtedly made, without per- 
 ceiving its full bearing, for the purpose of an- 
 swering that popular argument, " If we cannot 
 commune here, how can we in heaven ?" If it 
 can be substantiated it will indeed answer the 
 argument. But it will be done at too dear a 
 price. It will sweep away the whole spirituali- 
 ty of the Lord's Supper along with if; for if 
 communing together here does not refer to 
 communing in heaven, the beauties of commun- 
 ion are sadly defaced. Does not the commun- 
 ion of saints enjoyed by way of eminence at 
 the Lord's table, reach in its influence beyond 
 5* 
 
54 CLOSE COMMUNION. 
 
 the external signs ? Does it not lead the soul to 
 that great consummation of communion when 
 we shall all sit down together at the marriage 
 supper of the Lamb? And does a separa- 
 tion of the followers of Christ here have no 
 influence in producing a spirit ill fitted for that 
 blessed communion above ? When one of our 
 number departs this life does he carry nothing 
 with him to heaven of the spirit of earthly 
 communion at the Lord's table? Does he not 
 look back upon it, think you, with some portion 
 of the spirit of heaven ? If communion on 
 earth when the Lord Jesus is specially present 
 with his saints, and smiles upon them as one 
 body, does not take hold of heaven ; I confess I 
 do not understand the matter. I have not so 
 learned Christ. If a separation here is consis- 
 tent with union there, then the Lord's Supper is 
 levelled down to something far short of the 
 consequence which the scriptures give to it. 
 And if union can be maintained at all among 
 Christians that cannot celebrate the death of 
 their common Lord together ; then it is with 
 the rejection of the very point of union itself. 
 Then indeed the cup of blessing which we 
 bless is not the communion of the blood of 
 Christ, but the signal of non-communion — the 
 signal 6f disunion and separation. 
 
 I will detain you no longer on these prelimin- 
 ary remarks ; but proceed now to the main sub- 
 ject in hand. 
 
 In the first place. Close communion cannot 
 he maintained even on the principles which its 
 advocates profess to hold. 
 
CLOSE CQMMUNION. 55 
 
 We saw in our last discourse that baptism by 
 immersion cannot be made out from scripture. 
 But suppose it were made out. What is the 
 evidence that it is necessary as a qualification 
 for communion ? On the principles of our op- 
 ponents, great stress is laid on positive precepts 
 in the New Testament. They reject the whole 
 doctrine of infant baptism because it is not said 
 in so many words that infants must be baptized. 
 Is there any such declaration that baptism must 
 be had before communion ? Is there any thing 
 more than inference and analogy on this sub- 
 ject, unless you go to the Old Testament? In 
 that part of the scriptures, you find that circum- 
 cision was necessary as a qualification for par- 
 taking of the Passover. Now since circumcis- 
 ion was the initiatory rite under that dispensa- 
 tion, and indicative of the internal purification 
 of the heart, and baptism has the same signifi- 
 cation under the christian dispensation ; and 
 since the Passover stood in relation to that dis- 
 pensation as the Lord's Supper does to this ; it is 
 easy to see the propriety of baptism previous to 
 the communion. But our opponents can have 
 nothing to do with this argument because they 
 reject the whole authority of the ancient dispen- 
 sation. They must rely then on positive pre- 
 cept in the New Testament. And where do 
 they find it ? It cannot be said that the exam- 
 ples of baptism in the New Testament are equiv- 
 alent to a positive precept, because these exam- 
 ples do not hold forth the connexion between 
 the two ordinances. They are examples of bap- 
 
56 CLOSE COMMUNION. 
 
 tism indeed, but not of the necessity of baptism 
 as a qualification for communion. Tliere is not 
 so much as a single hint on this subject in the 
 New Testament. It is all argued out by way 
 of inference and analogy. But what have in- 
 ference and analogy to do with those who claim 
 that positive precept is the only authority for a 
 gospel institution, and that too in the New Tes- 
 tament ? Whatever connexion there is between 
 the two ordinances is argued entirely from the 
 identity of circumcision and baptism and from 
 that of the Passover and the Lord's Supper. If 
 you argue from one to the other you can show 
 the propriety of baptism as an external qualifi- 
 cation for the Lord's Supper ; but then you take 
 the ground of infant baptism — a ground which 
 our opponents carefully avoid. 
 
 Nor can the point of close communion be 
 maintained by affirming that baptism is the or- 
 dinance of introduction into the christian church, 
 and therefore must precede the Lord's Supper; 
 for this is only an inference from the examples 
 recorded. And since circumcision was such an 
 introduction to the church under the ancient dis- 
 pensation, and not required in the New Testa- 
 ment, this argument proves that baptism occu- 
 pies the place of circumcision ; or else there is 
 no initiatory rite for Christianity. But this proves 
 too much for our opponents. It cuts up other 
 principles by the roots. 
 
 In order then to prove that baptism is necces- 
 sary as a qualification for communion at the 
 Lord's table, the principles upon which antipe- 
 
CLOSE COMMUNION. 57 
 
 dobaptism is founded must be renounced. What- 
 ever proof we can produce as to that point, our 
 brethren of the close communion can produce 
 none. How then can the mode of a ceremony- 
 be a qualification for the Lord's Supper when 
 that mode cannot be made out from the Holy- 
 Scriptures ; and when if it could, there is no 
 evidence that it is necessary on the principles of 
 those who plead for it? 
 
 If I am asked here whether I would admit a 
 person to the Lord's table who in my opinion 
 was not baptized, I freely answer, yes, if the 
 person himself is satisfied. It is his right and 
 not mine to decide upon his baptism ; and if he 
 has done wrong in regard to. one ordinance, 1 
 can see no reason why I should compel hirii to 
 do wrong in regard to the other. I go further 
 and declare that I should have no hesitation in 
 admitting one who acknowledged that he had 
 not been baptized, and did not think he ought 
 to be, if I could not convince him of his error. 
 In this case I should admit him on the ground 
 that his own conscience and not mine must an- 
 swer to God for neglect in regard to baptism. 
 If he could give me evidence that the Lord Je- 
 sus Christ had received him, I should not dare 
 to reject him.* 
 
 * I speak here of occasional communion, not of mem- 
 bership in a particular church. The latter is not plead- 
 ed for. No Pedobaptist desires membership in a Bap- 
 tist church. His conscience would forbid it. Neither 
 would any who denied the propriety of baptism wish to 
 
05 CLOSE COMMUNION. 
 
 Further, if baptism by immersion is necessa- 
 ry as a qualification for communion at the Lord's 
 table among those who hold to close commun- 
 ion ; and if it is wrong for them to sit down 
 with us because we have not been immersed ; 
 then it is equally wrong for us to hold commun- 
 ion among ourselves, for the same reason. The 
 fair inference is, that all open communionists 
 profane the Lord's table every time they sit 
 down at it together. Will our brethren abide 
 by this unavoidable conclusion from their doc- 
 trine ? Will they pronounce the greater part of 
 the church of Christ profane intermeddlers in 
 sacred things ? Will they say that their solemn 
 seasons of communion are offensive in the eyes 
 of the Lord ? According to their principles they 
 must be ; and they therefore arrive at a virtual 
 excommunication of the great body of the faith- 
 ful. Surely if any thing proves too much, this 
 does. 
 
 Once more.^ — They admit that the Lord com- 
 munes with us notwithstanding our want of 
 baptism. Is it right then for christians to be 
 more strict in their communion than the Lord ? 
 Does the Lord himself, the great Master of the 
 feast, come to our table and sit down with us 
 
 become a member of a church which acknowledged it. 
 Nor is it probable that a case would ever occur of a 
 man's desiring communion at all who denied the pro- 
 priety of baptism. The only reason that this extreme 
 case is noticed here is, that it is sometimes put in argu> 
 ments on this subject. 
 
CLOSE COMMUNION. 59 
 
 with his heavenly benediction and his appro- 
 ving countenance, and will they refuse to follow 
 him ? If the Lord holds communion with all 
 our people who are of a sincere heart, shall a 
 christian, a disciple of the Lord, set up for a 
 purer and more correct standard, and say, he 
 cannot do it? It he better than the Lord Jesus 
 Christ ? And does he understand the qualifica- 
 tions for communion more perfectly than he ? 
 The admission that the Lord communes with 
 us which those of the straitest sect of close 
 communion will always make, is virtually giv- 
 ing up the whole ground. It is at once ac- 
 knowledging that their own principles will not 
 bear them out. If, my brethren, we have the 
 Lord Jesus Christ at our table, we need not 
 concern ourselves about any one else. It must 
 be right for all the disciples to be as their Lord. 
 He judges our qualifications to be sufficient. 
 We may safely confide in Him whose we are 
 and whom we serve, and go on as we have al- 
 ways done. Indeed, I am not solicitous to be 
 admitted to the table of those who are disposed 
 to shut me out. I probably shall never have 
 occasion to ask any such favor ; nor will you. 
 We dwell among our own people, and keep 
 the ordinances as Christ delivered them to the 
 church. And we shall always have opportunity 
 to celebrate the dying love of Jesus till we 
 unite in the general assembly and church of 
 the first born in remembering the same blood 
 which hath redeemed us to God. And so long 
 as the Lord Jesus Christ himself is with us, 
 
60 CLOSE COMMUNION. 
 
 and raises up over us the banner of his love, I 
 shall never be disturbed. And no man shall 
 take from me my liberty which is in Christ. It 
 is only for the honor of religion that I bring 
 this subject forward. It is to warn all whom I 
 can, against becoming entangled in such a yoke 
 of bondage. 
 
 Under this head I have argued on the princi- 
 ples of the close communionists, and shown that 
 the whole subject is inconsistent with itself. I 
 proceed now to speak of general principles. I 
 observe then 
 
 In the second place, The subject of close 
 communion is revolting to the unadulterated 
 feelings of the christian. 
 
 When a young convert first puts himself on the 
 Lord's side, he comes, as I may say, fresh from 
 under the hand of the Holy Spirit. I have had 
 occasion to observe many of this description ; 
 and in every case where the subject is brought 
 to his mind, he feels its inconsistency with the 
 love which burns in his bosom towards all the 
 friends of Christ. His first feelings towards 
 christians, whether he agrees with them or not 
 in regard to some of the doctrines and ordinan- 
 ces of the gospel, are those of love ; and he 
 would not shut them out from his heart or shut 
 out his heart from them. Is not this right ? Is 
 it not christian? Is it not the proper fruit of 
 the Spirit ? Nay is it not so certainly a fruit of 
 the Spirit, that the contrary feeling at that ten- 
 der period, is usually regarded among intelligent 
 christians, as proof that a man is not really con- 
 
CLOSE COMMUNION. 61 
 
 verted ? Feeling thus kindly and affectionately 
 towards the people of God, and disposed to 
 regard them as brethren ; does he not feel too 
 that shutting them out from communion is not 
 an expression of love, but the contrary ? 
 
 Now mark his progress. His objections to 
 close communion are argued down by those who 
 have lost that acute sense of its unseemly fea- 
 tures which he has ; and he begins to hesitate. 
 Habit to them has rendered it familiar ; and 
 they have persuaded themselves that it is not 
 only right, but consistent with all the love they 
 are bound to render to others. He at length 
 yields to authority or expediency ; and from 
 that moment the glow of christian affection be- 
 gins to subside. By and by he regards those 
 who are not in his own communion with jeal- 
 ousy, distrust or aversion. It is impossible to 
 contemplate your fellow christians as unqualifi- 
 ed for communion at the most interesting of all 
 services, and yet retain for them the same affec- 
 tion as you did when this contemplation was 
 not had. Hence the fine glow of christian be- 
 nevolence which a little while since animated 
 this young convert's heart, is now degenerated 
 into the feelings of a sect. If I have not ob- 
 served mankind in vain, this is the history of 
 many a young convert who is seduced into the 
 principles of close communion. Is such a pro- 
 gress right ? Is it not mixing up the dehghtful 
 feelings of the christian with many adultera- 
 tions ? 
 
 6 
 
63 CLOSE COMMUNION. 
 
 Some there are in most close communion 
 churches who would fain shake off, if they 
 could, the heavy weight, and welcome to the 
 table of the Lord, all who give evidence of pie- 
 ty. In moments of familiar christian inter- 
 course, when heart meets heart, and when the 
 communion of feeling towards the great centre 
 of attraction, the Lord Jesus Christ, is felt ; 
 it is the spontaneous dictate of love to give up 
 exclusive pretensions. When surrounded by a 
 heathen population as our missionaries are, and 
 the feelings of brotherly love break over every 
 barrier, then the christian heart shews itself; 
 and in these circumstances many a mission- 
 ary who went from home in the belief of close 
 communion principles, has thrown them off 
 as a yoke too heavy to be borne. This was 
 the case with Mr. Hough of the American Bap- 
 tist Mission in Burmah, with the late Mr. Ward 
 of the Baptist Mission in Bengal, and with Mr. 
 Chater ojf the Baptist Mission in Ceylon. If 
 there is not something revolting to the unadul- 
 terated feelings of the christian in close com- 
 munion, how can you account for these facts ? 
 How too can you account for it that the young 
 convert always without exception, when acting 
 in the warmth of his first love, strongly objects 
 to this restriction upon his liberty ? 
 
 So also when the mind contemplates the 
 blessed Redeemer, and we become animated 
 with his love, and are filled with the joys of his 
 presence, and look forward to the spread of his 
 kingdom : — is this the moment to insist upon 
 
CLOSE COMMUNION. 63 
 
 exclusive pretensions and to shut out from that 
 table where Jesus bids his followers to assem- 
 ble, any of that chosen number 1 Or is it not 
 rather when the mind fastens upon something 
 confessedly unessential to salvation, such as the 
 mode of baptism ? Does Christian character 
 shine brighter in close communion churches 
 than in those of the opposite sentiment ? Are 
 the former more active than the latter in pro- 
 moting the conversion of sinners, in sending 
 abroad the gospel to the heathen, in shedding a 
 benign influence over the state of society at 
 home ? The contrary, as a general thing, is no- 
 toriously the fact. Are we not led to conclude 
 then that the principle does not arise from the 
 christian heart, but from something of a foreign 
 nature, something superinduced, which Chris- 
 tianity does not dictate ? 
 
 What is communion at the Lord's table ? It 
 surely does not imply that we view all subjects 
 alike ; nor even all the doctrines of religion. 
 No church on earth can be found in which such 
 a fact exists. Nor does it imply that we view 
 all important principles alike. It is only in the 
 body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, that 
 we commune at the Lord's table. It is the 
 adoption of the sentiment of our text, " The 
 €up of blessing which we bless, is it not the 
 communion of the blood of Christ ? the bread 
 which we break is it not the communion of the 
 body of Christ?" Why then should we bring 
 forward a particular ordinance any more than 
 Other things in the article of communion ? Is 
 
b4 CLOSE COMMUNION. 
 
 this distinction the dictate of the christian heart? 
 Or is it not rather the effect of system-making, 
 altogether foreign to the spirit of the gospel ? 
 If my brother is wrong on the subject of bap- 
 tism, why should I make that more important 
 than his being wrong in other things ? Do we 
 commune together on the principle of perfec- 
 tion ? And is there such a necessary con- 
 nexion between baptism and the Lord's Supper 
 that no irregularity in the former can be tol- 
 erated, while many imperfections in the latter 
 can be ? I am sure the unadulterated feelings 
 of the sanctified heart do not answer this ques-- 
 tion in the affirmative. 
 
 There is a case on record in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures which, I cannot but think, forever settles 
 the question that any irregularity or imperfec- 
 tion in baptism cannot exclude from the Lord's 
 Supper those who sincerely set their hearts to 
 serve God. It is recorded in 2 Chron. 30th 
 chapter. It is there said that king Hezekiah 
 celebrated the Passover, and sent out to the 
 people of Israel to come to the feast. Great 
 multitudes came with a sincere purpose of ser- 
 ving the Lord ; but many of Ephraim and 
 Manasseh and Isachar and Zebulun had not 
 cleansed themselves; "but eat the passover 
 otherwise than it was written ;" and that too, 
 it must be remembered, under the Old Testa- 
 ment dispensation, when external purification 
 was of far greater importance than under the 
 spiritual dispensation of the gospel. Now what, 
 in these circumstances, did good king Hezekiah 
 
CLOSE COMMUNION. 65 
 
 do ? Did he say he would not eat the Passover 
 with such men ? Did he say that whatever 
 might be the internal purification, whatever 
 might be the piety of the men, he would insist 
 upon conformity to external rites ? Far from 
 it. " Hezekiah prayed for them," says the re- 
 cord, " saying. The good Lord pardon every 
 one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the 
 Lord God of his fathers, though he be not 
 cleansed according to the purification of the 
 sanctuary. And the Lord hearkened to Heze- 
 kiah, and healed the people." Nay the sacred 
 historian adds, "There was great joy in Jerusa- 
 lem ; for since the time of Solomon the son of 
 David king of Israel, there was not the like in 
 Jerusalem" — and the prayer that was made on 
 the occasion, " came up to his holy dwelling 
 place, even unto heaven." 
 
 Now if all this could be done under the an- 
 cient dispensation, where such great stress was 
 laid upon external ceremonies ; if the good 
 Lord could listen to the king, and accept such 
 an irregular celebration because there was sin- 
 cerity of heart in it ; shall christians under the 
 glorious light of the gospel, insist upon a punc- 
 tillious conformity to every thing external ? 
 Does not the christian heart unadulterated by 
 foreign mixtures, spontaneously approve the 
 course adopted by Hezekiah ? And is it not 
 diametrically opposite to that pursued by our 
 brethren of the close communion ? Surely we 
 ought not to expect perfect uniformity in the 
 church of Christ as to external ordinances. It 
 6* 
 
66 CLOSE COMMUNION. 
 
 never did exist, and it probably never will. 
 With all the plain proofs exhibited in the last 
 discourse, that baptism is riglitly performed 
 without immersion, it is hardly possible that 
 christians will generally abandon those argu- 
 ments, and conform to those who insist upon 
 immersion ; especially when they solemnly be- 
 lieve that they cannot renounce their baptism 
 without sinning against God. Shall this point 
 then separate them ? Christian feeling says, 
 No ; but system-making and sectarianism graft- 
 ed upon it, muffle it up, and stifle its spontane- 
 ous effusions, so as to produce the sound, Yes. 
 Such a principle cannot prevail. The Millen- 
 nium is too near. The soldiers of the cross 
 are marshalling too fast under the banner of 
 their great Captain ; and the light of truth and 
 of love is breaking in too rapidly upon the 
 church. 
 
 III. Close communion is contrary to the sim-^ 
 plicity of the gospel. 
 
 The simplicity of the gospel is its artlessness 
 and its singleness of aim. It comes forward 
 with its bold demands and insists upon them 
 with perfect openness and fairness. " My son 
 give me thine heart :" is the sum and substance 
 of all. To have the testimony of a good con- 
 science that in simplicity and godly sincerity, 
 not of fleshly wisdom but by the grace of God, 
 we have our conversation in the world, is the 
 definition of an humble christian, whose record 
 is on high, whom God looks upon with pleas- 
 ure, and who most certainly will arrive at hea- 
 
CLOSE COMMUNION. 67 
 
 ven. To produce this result is the whole object 
 of the gospel. It has then but one object in 
 view, and that is to convert men to God ; to 
 make men better that they may be prepared 
 for heaven. Or in the words of the scripture, 
 *' to translate them from darkness to light, and 
 from the power of Satan unto God, that they 
 may obtain remission of sins and inheritance 
 ■among all them that are sanctified, through 
 faith that is in Christ Jesus." When the wo- 
 man of Samaria proposed a controversy to our 
 ;Saviour respecting the proper place of worship — 
 a matter which had reference merely to exter- 
 nal propriety, he silenced the whole inquiry 
 by that significant reply, " God is a Spirit ; and 
 Ihey that worship him must worship him in 
 spirit and in truth ; for the Father seeketh such 
 to worship him." As much as to say, ' The reli- 
 gion of the gospel is a spiritual religion. It is 
 not dependent on mere circumstances of time 
 and place. It concerns itself mainly with the 
 disposition of heart which its votaries possess. 
 Ye must be born again. Ye must repent and 
 believe the gospel. Ye must glorify God in 
 your body and your spirit which are his by a 
 cheerful obedience to his holy will. Hence no 
 external ordinance is of any importance except 
 so far as it affects the heart. If the heart is 
 right with God, the main point is gained, all is 
 gained. God accepts your services though ac- 
 companied with many unallowed imperfections ; 
 and under the gracious system which he has 
 established, appoints a glorious reward.' This 
 
68 CLOSE COMMUNION. 
 
 is the gospel. This is the simplicity of its aim^ 
 and the simplicity of its proceedings. 
 
 These things, every spiritual worshipper 
 of God must allow, are the grand features 
 of the gospel. The ordinances of baptism 
 and the Lord's Supper are indicative, the for- 
 mer of regeneration, and the latter of union 
 with Christ, or progressive sanctification. In 
 whatever way they are celebrated the same 
 things are held forth, and they deeply affect 
 the heart. But to exalt one external ordinance 
 so much — an ordinance too which is had but 
 once in a man's life : — to exalt that so much as 
 to debar from another which is of frequent oc- 
 currence, and which takes hold more of the 
 affections of the heart than any thing else, 
 preaching alone excepted, is surely departing 
 from the simplicity of the gospel. To say that 
 the Lord's Supper, which in its effect upon the 
 heart constitutes the very soul of Christianity, 
 shall be confined to those who have once in 
 their lives submitted to one form rather than 
 another, of external washing, is to bring in 
 something else besides conversion to God and 
 continued sanctification, as the object of the 
 gospel. It is to become mere Judaizing teach- 
 ers, exalting the ceremonies above the sub- 
 stance. It is turning the glorious liberty of 
 the gospel into the bondage of the law. It is 
 lowering down that sublime declaration of our 
 Saviour, " God is a Spirit, and they that wor- 
 ship him must worship him in spirit and in 
 truth." 
 
CLOSE COMPrlUNION. 69 
 
 To say that God commands immersion is 
 taking for granted the thing to be proved. It 
 surely is a presumption against such an inter- 
 pretation of the command to baptize, that it leads 
 to such results as have been mentioned. And 
 it is no less a presumption against that inter- 
 pretation that almost all intelligent and holy 
 readers of the scriptures do not understand it 
 so ; and amongst the rest, the very translators 
 themselves of our Bible ; for they, you know, 
 practised sprinkling for baptism. Should there 
 be a mistake here, and to say the least it is pos- 
 sible there is, those who exclude such as Christ 
 receives, from the Lord's table, are guilty of a 
 gross breach of his commands — a violation of 
 the law of love at the very spot where love is 
 specially to be shown, besides departing from 
 "the simplicity of the gospel. 
 
 IV. Close communion is productive of self- 
 righteousness and a sectarian spirit. 
 
 I do not say that all who act under that sen- 
 timent partake of the spirit now mentioned. I 
 bring no accusations. I only say that such is 
 its tendency. And when we act upon a princi- 
 ple whose tendency is in a particular direction, 
 we are in special danger of being so affected 
 by it. In so far as real piety is absent or defi- 
 cient, that tendency must take effect. Who 
 does not know that mankind have always had 
 an inclination to rely on external things rather 
 than on the spirituality of religion 1 In Eng- 
 land whole communities have gone over to this 
 destructive principle ; so that, as a late writer 
 
70 CLOSE COMMUNION. 
 
 observes, the religion of the church of England 
 is little else than a system of civilized decen- 
 cies. The faithful preacher of the gospel is 
 obliged to guard against an undue reliance upon 
 external things at every step of his progress. 
 How then can he make that caution felt when 
 the very head and front of his own doctrine is, 
 that except ye are washed with a particular 
 quantity of water, ye cannot partake of the body 
 and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, according 
 to his appointment ? Is it possible for men in 
 ordinary circumstances, without more counter- 
 acting things than you can rationally expect to 
 find, to avoid a degree of self-righteousness 
 which mars their christian character? And 
 how can a sectarian spirit be avoided without 
 more grace than is ordinarily possessed ? The 
 consistent close communionist must wage a war 
 of extermination against christians of every 
 name, but his own. If all others are unbapti- 
 zed and actually profaning the ordinances of 
 God ; must it not be a virtue in his estimation 
 to diminish the numbers and exhaust the resour- 
 ces of other denominations as much as he can ? 
 Can he entertain any thing but war in his bo- 
 som towards others ? At least can he feel oth- 
 erwise than called upon to fight them with the 
 same spirit that he would the world ? I do not 
 say that the brethren of close communion prin- 
 ciples always do act thus. Thanks to God, 
 there is a glorious inconsistency and a happy 
 contradiction in all good men when they adopt 
 erroneous principles. But though all this may 
 
CLOSE COMMUNION. 71 
 
 not be universal, is not th'e tendency of the prin- 
 ciple such that it may always be expected, ex- 
 cept in special circumstances of devoted piety ? 
 
 Accordingly, it is so common that it has ceas- 
 ed to excite surprise, that men of this descrip- 
 tion openly accuse us of insincerity because we 
 do not conform to them. They tell us that we 
 do not believe that our mode of baptism is right, 
 and that we do not believe that our practice of 
 administering it to infants is' right. If we do 
 hot, then are we hypocrites indeed ; and hypo- 
 crites of the basest kind. If there is any thing 
 sacred in all my religious convictions, and which 
 I think is founded on the word of God, it is these 
 points, baptism by sprinkling and the baptism 
 of infants. If men will give me no credit for 
 my declarations, I cannot help it. God is my 
 judge. 
 
 Now is not this uncharitableness and sectari- 
 anism, almost wholly confined to close com- 
 munionism, or at least to exclusive pretentions 
 like it? How then can we avoid looking to 
 that as in part the cause ? Would a liberal con- 
 struction of the christian ordinances lead to such 
 a result? Can men in their senses dispute the 
 sincerity of whole classes of men, when all hands 
 agree, that those classes show as much of the 
 spirit of Christianity as any others ? When those 
 classes are distinguished for going forward in all 
 the benevolent plans of the day ; and when God 
 pours out his Spirit upon them in copious effu- 
 sions : shall a sober man say that they are con- 
 stantly in the habit of doing what they know to 
 
72 CLOSE COMMUNION. 
 
 be wrong ? No man under the dominion of that 
 christian love which hopeth all things, endureth 
 all things, believeth all things, rejoiceth not in 
 inquity, but rejoiceth in the truth, can say so. 
 
 V. Close communion is inconsistent with 
 other things allowed by its advocates. 
 
 On this point I shall be brief, having already 
 partially brought it to view in another part of 
 my discourse. They allow me and my breth- 
 ren to be ministers of Christ. Not unfrequent- 
 ly do they pray for us in the public assembly 
 as such. They allow that our churches are 
 churches of Christ. They invite us to preach 
 the gospel in their pulpits. They ppay to God 
 that he would bless our preaching, and bless 
 the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made 
 us overseers. They admit that we are going 
 to heaven as truly as they. And then in the 
 face of all this and as it were with the very 
 same breath, refuse us a seat at the table of the 
 Lord. What ! ministers of Christ not commu- 
 nicants ! ministers of Christ not members of 
 the church ! And can they commune with us 
 in all the acts of the christian life and of the 
 ministry too, and yet the moment the table of 
 our common faith and common sympathies is 
 spread, cry out, Depart from us ? There must 
 be somethino^ wroncr where such absurdities 
 and inconsistencies are involved. 
 
 VI. The last particular in regard to close 
 communion which I shall now mention is, that 
 it is eminently contrary to the plain teachings 
 of the Bible. 
 
CLOSE COMMUNION. 73 
 
 There were differences of opinion in the 
 church of Christ while the apostles were alive. 
 And such was the force of prejudice that even 
 they could not settle the questions to the satis- 
 faction of all. These differences were not about 
 things on which the apostles had formed no 
 opinions. They were upon subjects on which 
 the apostles were decided. There were those 
 who taught that christians should be circumcis- 
 ed and keep the law of Moses ; and there were 
 those who declared that eating meats offered to 
 idols was sinful ; and others who denied both 
 these propositions — of which latter party were 
 the apostles themselves. What directions then, 
 in these circumstances, did the apostles give ? 
 Did they say, hold different communions ? Cer- 
 tainly not. " Wherefore receive ye one anoth- 
 er as Christ also received us to the glory of 
 God." " Him that is weak in the faith," that 
 is, him who does not see things exactly as 
 you do, " receive ye, but not to doubtful dispu- 
 tations." 
 
 Nothing is more clear from the Bible than 
 that the church of God is one body. Shall 
 this body be divided more than differences of 
 opinion necessarily imply? Shall one say, I 
 am of Paul, another, I am of Apollos, and an- 
 other, I am of Cephas, and set up different 
 communion tables, and debar each other from 
 them ? If then our Churches belong to Christ 
 as parts of his body, other churches have no 
 right to forbid them the nourishment which be- 
 longs to the whole. 
 
74 CLOSE COMMUNION. 
 
 The scripture, moreover, divides men into 
 two classes the saint and the sinner. All the 
 privileges of the church are conferred on the 
 saint. Who then can deprive him of them and 
 be guiltless ? 
 
 But the whole subject is clearly decided in 
 the fourteenth chapter of the Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans. In that chapter Paul insists upon chris- 
 tians receiving one another, but not to doubtful 
 disputations. The principle laid down is, that 
 diflerences of opinion and of practice in regard 
 to that which is not fundamental to christian 
 character, should not interrupt communion. 
 The particular example is the eating of meats. 
 One part of the church at Rome was strong in 
 the opinion that this was a matter of indifference; 
 the other, that it was a matter of consequence. 
 The former were disposed to make light of the 
 conscientious scruples of the latter ; and the lat- 
 ter thought the former were profane in their no- 
 tions. But the apostle decides that whatever 
 opinion or practice is had on these points, they 
 must receive one another. And surely this re- 
 ceiving must comprehend communion at the 
 Lord's table ; for it is a notion wholly unknown 
 to the ancient church that christians can receive 
 one another as christians, and yet reject one 
 another at the very point where that distinguis- 
 ing characteristic is specially recognized, to 
 wit, the commemoration of the death of Christ, 
 and the communion of saints there had. 
 
 Now we know that the scriptures teach by 
 way of laying down principles ; and all cases 
 
CLOSE COMMUNION. 75 
 
 that are comprehended under those principles, 
 whether explicitly mentioned or not, are inclu- 
 ded in the instructions which they give. 
 
 Take the case then before us, and see if it be 
 not clearly decided by the principles which the 
 apostle lays down. We are conscientious in 
 our belief that the baptism we have received, 
 whether in infancy or in adult years, is valid — 
 is agreeable to the mind of Christ. If we are 
 disobedient, as our brethren allege, we are not 
 wilfully so. According to the best of our knowl- 
 edge we are fully persuaded in our own minds. 
 They likewise are conscientious. They are 
 fully persuaded in their minds. What shall be 
 done ? Shall we receive one another as fellow 
 christians, and for a little while bury our differ- 
 ences in our love to a common Lord at his table ? 
 
 One part of the church at Rome were con- 
 scientious in their belief that there was a dis- 
 tinction between meats, and held it wrong to 
 eat such as were offered to idols. The other 
 part were conscientious in their belief that no 
 such distinction existed, and that it was right to 
 eat all sorts of meat as convenience should dic- 
 tate. If the class that ate were disobedient, as 
 their brethren alleged, they were not wilfully 
 so. According to the best of their knowledge 
 they were fully persuaded in their own minds. 
 The class that ate not, were likewise conscien- 
 tious. They were fully persuaded in their own 
 minds. What shall be done ? Shall they re- 
 ceive one another as fellow christians and for a 
 little while bury their differences in their love 
 
76 CLOSE COMMUNION. 
 
 to a common Lord I The apostle says Yes, 
 and insists upon it. 
 
 Here then you have before you the case as it 
 exists at the present day, and as it existed in 
 Paul's day. What is the difference ? By what 
 principle can you justify the apostle in his de- 
 cision of the case in the shape in which it came 
 before him, and yet insist upon a different de- 
 cision as the case now stands ? If those whom 
 you acknowledge to be christians conscientious- 
 ly differ from you on some point of external 
 order ; will you reject them, and treat them as 
 heathen men or mere men of the world 1 Will 
 you tell them, * We cannot receive you because 
 there is one point in relation to an external rite in 
 which your practice is different from ours ?' For 
 the same reason exactly could one part of the 
 church at Rome reject the other whose practice 
 in regard to an external matter was different 
 from theirs. If in the one case it is right to re- 
 ject a believer in Christ, it is right in the other. 
 But the apostle has expressly decided that it is 
 wrong in the case which existed in the church 
 at Rome. How then can it be right in the case 
 which exists in the modern church of God ? 
 Does not the apostle then absolutely forbid the 
 practice of close communion in the church of 
 Christ ? " Him that is weak in the faith, receive 
 ye, but not to doubtful disputations." 
 
 It is remarkable what little importance is at- 
 tached in the scriptures to the mode of any ex- 
 ternal ordinance. We are commanded to pray ; 
 but we are not told whether we shall kneel or 
 
CLOSE COMMUNION. 77 
 
 stand, or fall prostrate. We are commanded to 
 preach ; but we are not told whether we shall 
 sit down when we preach, as the Saviour and 
 the apostles did, or whether we shall stand as 
 the modern practice is. We are commanded 
 to celebrate the Lord's Supper ; but we are not 
 told whether we shall recline on beds as the 
 Saviour and his apostles did, or whether we 
 shall kneel as the church of England does, or 
 whether we shall sit around a table as some 
 Presbyterians do, or whether we shall sit in our 
 places as we do. All these things are totally 
 unessential. Now if baptism be so explicitly 
 described as to its mode as the advocates of 
 close communion declare, it is the only external 
 ordinance that is. It is an anomaly in the 
 christian institutions. It is clear I think that, 
 like all the other external ordinances, it is not 
 the mode which is commanded, but only the 
 thing. 
 
 To be received then, by those who practice 
 close communion a man who has been baptized 
 by sprinkling or affusion, must not only come 
 to an entire conformity of opinion with them, 
 but he must actually renounce what he consci- 
 entiously believes to be his baptism agreeably 
 to the command of Christ. Is not this a much 
 stronger case than the one under the apostle's 
 eye at Rome? Is not this requiring much 
 more than the advocates of a promiscuous eat- 
 ing of meats would have required, had they 
 demanded of the others conformity in opinion 
 and in practice ? Surely then the principle of 
 7* 
 
78 CLOSE COMMUNION. 
 
 close communion is not only wrong in itself as 
 tending to divide the body of Christ, but it is 
 absolutely forbidden by the Bible. 
 
 From all that has been said I cannot avoid 
 the conclusion, that Congregationalism bears 
 the marks of scriptural excellence,* 
 
 The more I examine and act upon the prin- 
 ciples of Congregationalism, the more I love 
 them, not as Congregationalism, but as Chris- 
 tianity — as pure, unadulterated Christianity. It 
 is more like the simple Christianity of the New 
 Testament than any other system to be found. 
 It has no watch-word, nothing to rally the spirit 
 of a party. It matters not whether you pro- 
 nounce Shibboleth or Sibboleth, you are alike 
 welcome to its embrace. Other systems have 
 something peculiar which occupies the time of 
 its advocates to defend, and which is so promi- 
 nent as to throw into the shade the great doc- 
 trines of reconciliation to God. In Episcopacy, 
 for example, there is the divine right of bishops, 
 and "the excellent liturgy," around which its 
 friends rally as something distinctive, and which 
 some of them carry so far as to unchurch ev- 
 ery one who does not come to their standard. 
 Methodism has its " sainted Wesley," and its 
 Book of Discipline, and its system of attack 
 upon us. The Baptist scheme has its immer- 
 
 * The same argument can be advanced with the 
 same force by a Presbyterian, except by one of the high 
 church party ; for as Presbyterianism is generally re- 
 ceived, it does not diflfer in this respect from Congrega- 
 tionalism. 
 
CLOSE COMMUNION. 79 
 
 sion, and consequent close communion, and an- 
 tipedobaptism, to hold up as its distinguishing 
 features, and the rallying point of its friends. 
 But Congregationalism — what has that ? It has 
 nothing but Christ crucified, the great points of 
 Christianity by which it is distinguished. So 
 notorious is this fact that our people are fre- 
 quently seduced from their principles before 
 they know them. Some one point on which 
 these different sects are generally harping, is 
 brought forward with an appearance of truth, 
 and the inexperienced and unwary have seldom, 
 if ever, heard it discussed in public. We are 
 occupied with other things : whereas, these 
 sects, since the points of differences from us 
 are all by which they stand, are constantly 
 holding them up and giving their views. And 
 they sometimes represent that our preaching 
 so seldom upon the same points arises from our 
 inability to defend ourselves. By such means 
 some are deceived. 
 
 Congregationalism, on the other hand, is the 
 anti-sectarian sect. It is occupied in leading 
 men to Christ ; and when we step aside from 
 this main point, it is not for attack upon others, 
 but for the purpose of showing our people how 
 much truth they really have, and of keeping 
 them in the simple way, unincumbered by for- 
 eign mixtures, which the Bible holds forth. We 
 set up no Shibboleth — we invite to no party- 
 feeling — we rally around no standard but that 
 of Christ ; and we come forth in the liberty of 
 the gospel to a full and free pouring out of our 
 
80 CLOSE COMMUNION. 
 
 souls on the broad ground of the common Chris- 
 tianity, with a hope and a joy which nothing 
 can take from us. 
 
 In the true spirit of Congregationalism, as 
 the spirit of the noble, the enlarged, the liberal 
 Christianity of the New Testament, I call on 
 all who read this, to seek the Lord God of their 
 fathers this day. He is the God whom we 
 serve-:-the God who set up our churches and 
 who watches over them with a fatherly care. 
 Our doctrine is, Believe on the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and ye shall be saved. Give us evi- 
 dence that this is the fact ; and we welcome 
 you to the communion of saints, and to the 
 comforts and peace which we enjoy. Let Christ 
 be formed in you the hope of glory. If you 
 now see that you are sinful creatures, and need 
 the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, make no 
 delay. To day if ye will hear his voice, harden 
 not your hearts. Wait not for more conviction 
 — wait not for more fitness — come now to the 
 Lord Jesus, and be happy. If thou confess 
 with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in 
 thine heart that God hath raised him from the 
 dead, thou shall be saved. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 81 
 
 DISCOURSE III, 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 1 Cor. vii. 14. 
 
 " For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, 
 and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband : 
 else were your children unclean ; but now are they 
 
 We are told by the opposers of Infant Bap- 
 tism that the doctrine is not taught in the Bible. 
 The ground they assume is, that there is no 
 express precept for it in the New Testament ; 
 and they insist that that must be had for a posi- 
 tive institution. But they leave this ground in 
 the twinkling of an eye when they come to 
 other institutions of a positive kind. There is 
 no express precept for baptism as a prerequisite 
 to the communion; yet they claim that it is 
 taught in scripture. There is no express pre- 
 cept for females to celebrate the Lord's Supper; 
 yet they claim that^they should on the authority 
 of scripture. There is no express precept for 
 the Christian Sabbath ; yet they hold to its ob- 
 ligation. There is no express precept for fami- 
 ly prayer; yet they acknowledge the duty as 
 taught in the Bible. There is no express pre- 
 cept for the public worship- of God ; yet they 
 believe that it is taught in the Bible. Why 
 then should all these thintrs be received as 
 
82 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 taught in scripture without an express precept, 
 and yet Infant Baptism be rejected as not taught 
 in scripture when it stands on the same ground, 
 and has no more deficiency of evidence than all 
 these things ? Reasoning surely is good for 
 nothing, if it be not consistent with itself. A 
 principle which cuts off one doctrine will cut 
 off all others which come under it. And to say 
 that we will receive such doctrines as we please 
 without an express precept, and then reject 
 others because they are alike without an ex- 
 press precept, is too manifestly absurd to main- 
 tain for a moment. It is to receive, for the 
 same reason that we reject ; to believe, for the 
 same reason that we disbelieve. And yet this 
 is precisely the ground upon which opposition 
 to Infant Baptism is maintained. It furnishes 
 another proof of the inconsistency into which 
 good men always fall when they adopt errone- 
 ous principles. If the doctrine of Infant Bap- 
 tism is revealed in the scriptures, it does not 
 become us to say how it shall be revealed, wheth- 
 er by express precept, or in some other way. 
 We ought to be content with the evidence that 
 God is pleased to give us, especially if it be of 
 the same kind as he gives us on other points of 
 acknowledged importance, which we hold to be 
 true. 
 
 The evidence for Infant Baptism is so abun- 
 dant from Ecclesiastical history, that not a soli- 
 tary ancient writer can be found who suggests 
 a doubt as to its universal 'prevalence in the 
 church from the time of the apostles to his own 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 83 
 
 time. Origin who was born before the close 
 of the second century, expressly says that the 
 church received an order from the apostles to 
 baptize little children, and he speaks also of 
 the usage of the church to baptize infants. 
 Cyprian who lived about the same time, men- 
 tions, that the question came up in an Ecclesi- 
 astical council whether baptism might be ad- 
 ministered to infants immediately after their 
 birth, or whether it should be delayed, in allu- 
 sion to circumcision, till they were eight days 
 old. Not a doubt, it appears, did any one en- 
 tertain as to the propriety of the practice. It 
 was only whether it should be exactly conform- 
 ed to circumcision in regard to the time. Au- 
 gustine, one of the most distinguished of the 
 ancient fathers, and who lived in the fourth cen- 
 tury declares, that " the whole church practises 
 Infant Baptism. It was not instituted by Coun- 
 cils, but was always in use." He declares also 
 that he never knew any one deny this. Pela- 
 gius who maintained a controversy with him on 
 some doctrines, and was reproached with invol- 
 ving the denial of Infant Baptism, in the argu- 
 ments he adduced, explicitly rejected the'charge, 
 and said, that " he never heard of any one, even 
 the most impious heretic, who asserted that in- 
 fants were not to be baptized." Pelagius was 
 born in Great Britain, and traveled through 
 France, Italy, and Africa, to Jerusalem. He 
 was moreover greatly skilled in the history of 
 the church, and being so near the time of the 
 apostles, must have had some opportunity to 
 
84 INFANT BAPTISM, 
 
 know, if the fact were contrary to his decla- 
 ration. 
 
 These testimonies in regard to a matter of 
 fact are certainly of some importance. I am 
 persuaded that our opponents, could they ad- 
 duce them on their side of the question, would 
 make much of them. Especially as they dwell 
 much on what Tertullian says, who advised the 
 delay of baptism, but never questioned the uni- 
 versal usage of the church, nor the divine au- 
 thority of that usage. The very advice he gives 
 is bottomed professedly on his own individual 
 opinion, and on the fact that infants were uni- 
 versally, and always had been, baptized. So 
 that it amounts to a confirmation of the other 
 testimony. Tertullian did not confine his ad- 
 vice to the delay of baptism in the case of in- 
 fants, but extended it also to unmarried per- 
 sons. And it is just as good in one case as in 
 the other. In both cases it is opposed, by 
 his own showing, to the universal usage of the 
 church. 
 
 It was the conviction of the whole church in 
 its purest and best times, that infants are bapti- 
 zed according to the appointment of Christ. 
 And this conviction did not cease to be universal 
 till eleven centuries had elapsed. 
 
 It is not my object, however, to dwell upon 
 the testimony of Eclesiastical history to the di- 
 vine authority of Infant Baptism, copious and 
 overwhelming as it is. I intend to reason with 
 you out of the scriptures ; and to inquire wheth- 
 er, according to all rational principles of inter- 
 
INFANT BAPTIS-M. 8& 
 
 pretation, it does not appear from the Bible that 
 the baptism of believers' children on the parents' 
 account is agreeable to the mind of Christ. 
 
 Many are prevented from a candid examina- 
 tion of this subject by meeting at the thresh- 
 old with what they deem a scriptural argument 
 against it — I mean the requisition of faith as 
 something previous to baptism. " He that be- 
 iieveth and is baptized shall be saved" — " If 
 thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest 
 ifce." It is necessary therefore to examine this 
 point at the outset, that we may be prepared to 
 enter upon the subject with candor, and look at 
 it with the eyes of those who understand the 
 language of the scriptures. 
 
 Of whom then do the scriptures require faith 
 as a prerequisite to baptism ? Surely you 
 will say, of such as are capable of exercising 
 it, that is, of adults. The argument then is, 
 that adults only are fit subjects for baptism. 
 But this is stepping too fast because it will 
 prove that adults only were fit subjects for 
 circumcision ; — contrary to the known fact. 
 If any proselytes came over to the true reli- 
 gion, under the ancient dispensation they 
 were required to believe in the God of Abra- 
 ham ; and this belief being ascertained, they re- 
 ceived the seal of the righteousness of faith 
 which was circumcision. But does this prove 
 that infants were excluded ? No adult could be 
 circumcised without professing faith in God ; 
 and yet infants were circumcised without faith. 
 The faith then which was required, was re- 
 8 
 
86 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 quired only of adults, while at the same tirii6' 
 infants were not excluded from that rite to which 
 faith was a prerequisite. Does it look like good 
 reasoning then to say, that because faith is re- 
 quired of adults as a qualification for baptism, 
 therefore infants have no right to that ordi- 
 nance? What have infants to do with com- 
 mands which respect adults only? It appears 
 then, that under both dispensations, the old and 
 the new, faith is required of adults as a qualifi- 
 cation for receiving ihe initiatory rite; and it is 
 certain that under the old, infants who are inca- 
 pable of faith, were admitted to that rite. How 
 then does the requisition of faith in the case of 
 the new dispensation, prove that infants are to 
 be excluded from its initiatory rite any more 
 than in the old ? Must we not look somewhere 
 else for this point, rather than to this naked fact? 
 And then too, is believing represented as any 
 more necessary for baptism than it is for salva- 
 tion ? Nay, is it not expressly said, " He that 
 believeth not shall be damned?" According to 
 the method of interpretation which makes faith 
 necessary for baptism in all cases, faith is ne- 
 cessary for salvation in all cases. Hence in- 
 fants who are incapable of faith are lost forever — 
 all of them. Faith is necessary for baptism and 
 it is necessary for salvation. If no one can be 
 baptized without faith, then no one can be sa- 
 ved without faith. If the incapability of faith 
 proves the incapability of baptism, it proves al- 
 so the incapability of salvation. The argument 
 then proves too much ; for it proves the dam- 
 
INFANT RAPTI.sM. 87 
 
 iialioii of all who die in infancy- Will onr Bap- 
 list brethren abide by this ? If they will not, 
 then they must abandon the reasoning which 
 unavoidably leads to it. 
 
 Much more indeed is this argument opposed 
 to infant salvation than it is to infant baptism, 
 because the text we are examining expressly 
 says, " He that believeth not shall be damned ;" 
 whereas it does not say, he that believeth not 
 shall not be baptized. It merely says, " He that 
 believeth and is baptized shall be saved" — two 
 things believing and baptizing as matters of fact, 
 without declaring in what order they shall take 
 place. As if I should say of myself. If I be- 
 lieve and am baptized I shall be saved. The 
 question then is, do I believe, and am I bapti- 
 zed ? I answer both these questions in the af- 
 firmative and am satisfied. It is then merely a 
 declaration of a fact as to a man's being a bapti- 
 zed person, not a proposal for that fact to take 
 place at a future period. 
 
 You see then, my brethren? that we have no 
 authority from this passage to say that faith is 
 required in all cases in the subjects of baptism, 
 because then on the same principle, we must 
 say that faith was required in all cases in the 
 subjects of circumcision,— which would be con- 
 trary to fact as admitted by all ; and because 
 faith is no more required for baptism than it is 
 for salvation. And as it is acknowledged that 
 it does not concern infants in the latter case, so 
 it cannot in the former. And moreover the 
 text declares the state of a fact rather than the 
 
88 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 time when the fact shall take place. Wheth- 
 er infants are proper subjects of baptism must 
 be settled by other considerations, not by this 
 text. 
 
 So also when faith was required of the Ethi- 
 opian eunuch, "If thou believest with all thine 
 heart thou mayest ;" for he was an adult, pros- 
 elyted to Christianity, and of course, according 
 to immemorial usage, ought to receive the sign 
 or initiatory rite. Evidence of his being truly 
 proselyted must be demanded also, and that ev- 
 idence is his faith. Infants have nothing to do 
 with this point unless the Bible says that they 
 have. The requisition of faith then in the case 
 of adults — those who are capable of exercising 
 it, does not prove that infants, — those who are in- 
 capable of exercising it, must be excluded from 
 the rite, any more than it proves that they must 
 be excluded from salvation for the same incapa- 
 bility. There surely is nothing in the rite itself 
 which forbids the admission of infanrts to it, any 
 more than there was in circumcision. And since 
 circumcision was applied to infants who had no 
 faith although adults w^ere required to believe ; 
 instead of finding an argument here against in- 
 fant baptism, there is a presumption in its fa- 
 vour. It does not appear then that any of the 
 requisitions of faith as a prerequisite of baptism 
 can touch the case of infants at all. They re- 
 late to adults only who have not been the sub- 
 jects of the initiatory ordinance of Christianity. 
 The case of infants then lies open to inquiry 
 from other parts of scripture. 
 
INFx\XT BAPTISM. 89 
 
 If any man will maintain that because believ- 
 ing must be before baptizing in adults who have 
 not been baptized, therefore infants are exclu- 
 ded from baptism ; I cannot think that he does 
 ti conscientiously, unless he can show that these 
 plain considerations which I have now adduced, 
 are not sound. The flippancy of remark by 
 which a man can set aside the clearest argu- 
 ments by a firm and confident assertion, does 
 not become a conscientious inquirer after truth. 
 Passion and prejudice should have nothing to 
 do with this subject. The question is. What is 
 the will of our Divine Master ? What are his 
 institutions? What, according to the plain dic- 
 tates of common sense, is the meaning of his 
 declarations? 
 
 Having thus cleared the way by removing an 
 objection plausible at first sight, but vanishing 
 upon examination; let us now proceed to some 
 considerations which satisfy me that Infant Bap- 
 tism is an institution of Christ, and therefore 
 ought to be maintained in the church. 
 
 We do not need a direct command in the 
 New Testament. All that we ought to ask for 
 is such a treatment of the subject as shows that 
 it was recognised by the apostles as a part of the 
 divine institutions. We read that certain men 
 taught the brethren that they must be circum- 
 cised and keep the law of Moses ; but it is not 
 said that they taught directly that children 
 should be circumcised. Such teaching was not 
 necessary, because the circumcision of children 
 was an essential part of the institution. So al- 
 8* 
 
90 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 SO, if the feelings and conduct of the church had 
 always been in favor of dedicating infants to 
 God by an external sign, which is granted on all 
 hands ; all that is necessary for proof that such 
 dedication must be continued, is that the lan- 
 guage of the ^ew Testament should accord to 
 this better than to a discontinuance of that prac- 
 tice. Since the practice of marking infants with 
 the external sign of the church, the initiatory 
 rite, had always obtained, a direct prohibition of 
 it is necessary to authorize us to discontinue it. 
 If then instead of a prohibition w^e shall find 
 that the whole language of the New Testament 
 seems to imply that it was recognized and con- 
 tinued by inspired men, the proof will be suffi- 
 cient. This is the only method we can pursue 
 in proving that the first day of the week is the 
 Sabbath ; that females should celebrate the 
 Lord's Supper ; that family prayer should be 
 observed ; and that the assemblies of the saints 
 should be maintained on the sabbath for the pub- 
 lic worship of God. These most important and 
 fundamental things are taught in this manner 
 in the New Testament. And why should we 
 not be satisfied by such teaching in? regard to 
 Infant Baptism ? 
 
 On this principle then v/e will look at th.e 
 conduct and declarations of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ ; at the commission which he gave to his 
 apostles ; and at their conduct and declarations 
 under that commission. 
 
 In the first place — Let us see what our Lord 
 said and did with reference to little children. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 91 
 
 One action of his life is thus recorded by Mat- 
 thew: "Then were brought to Jesus little 
 children, that he should put his hands on them 
 and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But 
 Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them 
 not to come unto me ; for of such is the king- 
 dom of heaven. And he laid his hands on 
 them." The same thing is recorded substan- 
 tially in the same manner by Mark and Luke, 
 INow it is true that no baptism took place on 
 this occasion ; and it would have been mani- 
 festly improper because the gospel dispensation 
 was not yet set up, and christian baptism that 
 is, baptism into the name of the Father and of 
 the Son and of the Holy Ghost, was not yet in- 
 stituted. The argument for infant baptism 
 which I derive from this passage is, the treat- 
 ment which Christ gave to these children in 
 such circumstances, and the declaration he 
 made, or the doctrine he laid down. It seems 
 to have been the dictate of parental tenderness 
 which brought these little children to Christ, 
 and in conformity to the usage of the Jews of 
 considering the children as connected with the 
 parents in religious observances. Now if Christ 
 had intended to change this usage, and in his 
 church which he was about to set up, no longer 
 to recognize little children, was not this a very 
 singular way of doing it ? In such circumstan- 
 ces he contributed to strengthen the attachment 
 of the Jews to bringing their children forward 
 in religious ordinances. If there had been no 
 such custom among the people of God, the case 
 
92 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 would be different; but since there was, our 
 Lord seems directly to sanction it. The disci- 
 ples, it seems, forbade the bringing of these lit- 
 tle children to Christ ; but he says, " Suffer them 
 to come and forbid them not." It must be re- 
 marked that they did not come themselves — 
 they were brought ; and Luke calls them infants. 
 Our Lord then directly encouraged such chil- 
 dren to be brought to him for his blessing. 
 Would not this in a Jewish community tend to 
 sanction the commonly received notion that chil- 
 dren should be recognized with their parents in 
 religion, and be dedicated to God by a religious 
 rite ? If he had intended to abolish that custom, 
 and declare that his kingdom was not to be like 
 the old, recognizing infants as entitled to its 
 privileges ; would not this have been a favora- 
 ble time ta give the hint at least, certainly not 
 to encourage the old practice ? So far howev- 
 er from such a hint he expressly says that no 
 change in this respect is to take place. " Of 
 such is the kingdom of heaven." This you will 
 observe he gives as a reason why these little 
 children should be brought to him. The argu- 
 ment therefore which our opponents allege that 
 he spake only of the disposition of little chil- 
 dren, or such as were like little children as be- 
 longing to the kingdom of heaven, has no force; 
 because it would be a poor reason for suffering 
 these little children to come to him, that such as 
 resembled them, but not they themselves are of 
 the kingdom of heaven. 
 
INFANT Baptism. 9*3 
 
 The phrase the Mngdom of heaven, or as 
 the other evang-elists have it, the kingdom of 
 God, all admit means in such connexions, the 
 gospel church in distinction from the ancient 
 dispensation under Moses. As for example, 
 Christ preached, " Repent ye for the kingdom 
 of heaven is at hand." That is, the gospel 
 church is about to be set up. And so also, the 
 kingdom of heaven is likened to a grain of mus- 
 tard-seed which grew to a great tree ; to a little 
 leaven which was cast into three measures of 
 meal, and leavened the whole, and such like 
 comparisons which are abundant — all showing 
 the increase of the gospel church. Now such 
 being the settled sense of the phrase admitted 
 on all hands, these little children that were 
 brought to Christ and others like them, are de- 
 clared to belong to the gospel church. — " Of 
 such is the kingdom of heaven." As much as 
 to say, ' The church of God is to remain the 
 same in this respect as heretofore. Children 
 are to be recognized as they always have been 
 as belonging to that community. Why then 
 do you forbid them coming to me who am the 
 Head of that community?' Nothing, it seems 
 to me, can be plainer than that our Lord meant 
 here fully to recognize the ancient principle 
 that the church consists of parents and their 
 children. It is not a new institution. It is a 
 mere recognition of the old ; and a declaration 
 of its perpetuity. " Of such is the kingdom of 
 heaven." That is, such are the members of 
 my church, or to such the church belongs. In 
 
94- INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 other words, such are entitled to its privileges. 
 If then they belong to the kingdom of heaven, 
 or the gospel church, surely they are entitled 
 to the distinguishing mark of that church which 
 is baptism. They are entitled to be recognized 
 with their parents as set apart for God, and 
 therefore to be instructed in all the blessedness 
 which that consecration implies. 
 
 Another action of Christ is thus recorded by 
 Mark : " And he took a child and set him in the 
 midst of them, and when he had taken him in 
 his arms, he said unto them, Whosoever shall 
 receive one of such little children in my name, 
 receiveth me ; and whosoever shall receive me, 
 receiveth not me, but him that sent me." (ch. 
 ix. 36, 37.) This was said by our Lord to re- 
 buke the ambition of his disciples, and while 
 it had reference to the disposition which they 
 ought to have, it evidently brought forward the 
 little child itself as of such consequence in his 
 estimation that it could be received in his name, 
 and so receiving it was to receive him. To re- 
 ceive a person in the name of Christ, is by his 
 own definition to receive him, because he be- 
 longs to Christ. Thus : " Whosoever shall 
 give you a cup of cold water to drink in my 
 name, because ye belong to Christ." Does not 
 then such a recognition of a little child as be- 
 longing to him, and requiring us to receive it in 
 his name, plainly imply that he does not intend 
 to set aside the ancient usage of acknowledging 
 such little children in the initiatory ordinance 
 of his church? Would our Saviour speak of 
 
INFANT EAPTISrrf. 95 
 
 receiving little children, (viz. such as he took 
 in his arms,) in his name, as belonging to him, 
 if he had no more right in them than in all his 
 creatures ? And if he had meant to set aside 
 the membership of infants in the church, which 
 was then universally acknowledged, would he 
 have spoken so loosely as to leave the idea on 
 the minds of his hearers, that the recognition 
 of infants as specially belonging to him was an 
 unchangeable principle in his church ? 
 
 Now our Baptist brethren admit that infants 
 were acknowledged as members of the church 
 under the ancient dispensation by the authority 
 of God. I ask then, when did that membership 
 cease / The only way they have to answer 
 this question is, to say that the church itself 
 ceased of which they were members ; and that 
 the gospel church has no connexion with it. If 
 this be so, why have we no notice of it in the 
 Bible ? Why did the Saviour worship with the 
 Jews continually and recognize their institu- 
 tions? And why did the apostles the same till 
 they were driven off by persecution, and obli- 
 ged to set up a separate worship ? The Baptist 
 brethren have no way to support their proposi- 
 tion here but to fall upon the Old Testament 
 church with the hand of violence, and degrade 
 it to a mere political institution. They select 
 certain things that were peculiar to that church, 
 and necessarily abolished at the coming of the 
 Messiah, and represent them as the main things. 
 If their arguments proved any thing they would 
 prove that God never had a spiritual church in 
 
96 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 the world till about eighteen hundred years 
 ago ; and consequently, all those ancient saints, 
 David, Hezekiah, Daniel, Isaiah, and even Abra- 
 ham, if they belonged to any church, belonged 
 to one that did not require the service of the 
 heart. And all this in direct contradiction of 
 the apostle who says that Moses esteemed the 
 reproach of Christ greater riches than the trea- 
 sures of Egypt," and who says also, that the 
 Ephesian christians were " no more strangers 
 and foreigners, but fellow citizens of the saints, 
 and of the household of God," and then imme- 
 diately adds, " And are built upon the founda- 
 tion of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ 
 himself being the chief corner stone." Can 
 that church in which " the reproach of Christ" 
 was had be essentially different from the Chris- 
 tian church ? And do not the prophets come 
 in as well as the apostles in Paul's estimate of 
 the church of Christ ? 
 
 What then shall we say of our Lord's conduct 
 which we have now reviewed ? Does it look 
 like causing the membership of infants to cease 
 in the church ? Compare it with modern times 
 where circumstances somewhat similar are 
 found. The admission of infants to the sign 
 of the christian economy baptism, as in some 
 sense members of the church, is now practised 
 by the whole church except the Baptist depart- 
 ment which must be acknowledged in compari- 
 son with the rest to be but small. Do those 
 then who would oppose that admission treat 
 the subject as Christ did ? Do they talk of re- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 97 
 
 ceiving a little child in Christ's name as belong- 
 ing to him ? Do they insist upon little children's 
 being brought to the Saviour because of such 
 is the kingdom of God ? Would this be the 
 way in which they could make an impression 
 on mankind favorable to their peculiar views ? 
 They find this church relation of little children 
 generally acknowledged just as the Saviour 
 did. Do they like him make no opposition to 
 it, but rather sanction it? Do they not rather 
 oppose it with all their might as contrary to the 
 will of Christ ? And in doing this are they not 
 obliged to resort to forced constructions of the 
 principles adverted to which are laid down by 
 our Lord ? Answer these questions, my breth- 
 ren, and then you cannot but see the force of 
 the argument derived from our Saviour's con- 
 xiuct and declarations. 
 
 II. We pass now to consider the commission 
 which Christ gave to his apostles. 
 
 It is recorded in these words : ^' Go ye, there- 
 fore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son and of 
 the Holy Ghost." Or as it might be rendered, 
 *' Make disciples of, or proselyte all nations 
 baptizing them," &c. This command is cer- 
 tainly very indefinite in regard to the particular 
 subjects of baptism whether adults or infants, 
 or both. The meaning then must be gathered 
 from the circumstances in which the speaker 
 and the hearers were placed. This is a fair 
 rule of interpretation necessarily adopted in 
 regard to all written documents. 
 9 
 
98 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 We find then that both the speaker and the 
 hearers were Jews, accustomed to the connex- 
 ion of parents and children in the church, and 
 to the application of a religious rite to the latter 
 in token of that connexion. A. new rite was 
 now adopted, or if you please, an old one put 
 to this particular use, namely, of marking the 
 proselytes to the christian faith. So far as 
 it marked proselytes to the faith, it must be 
 admitted by all to stand in the place of cir- 
 cumcision. The Jews had long been accus- 
 tomed to make proselytes of the Pagan nations 
 and to mark them with the sign of circumcision 
 in token of their renouncing their old religion 
 and rece'iving the true. This mark was put 
 both upon the parents and the children. Now 
 when the very same subject is introduced to 
 their minds, the subject of proselyting, and the 
 appHcation of a religious rite to the proselytes, 
 without, separating the parents from the chil- 
 dren ; is it not the only way that they would 
 understand it, to suppose that the same appli- 
 cation was to be had as that to which they had 
 been accustomed ? It must be remembered that 
 the inquiry is not how this commission would 
 be understood independently of all previous 
 usage, but how the apostles would understand 
 it in their circumstances. If baptism was now 
 appointed as the mark to be put upon the pros- 
 elytes which they should make in all nations, 
 would they not naturally understand it as equal- 
 ly extensive with the former rite, in its applica- 
 tion? If infants were to be excluded from the 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 99 
 
 mark whiclp. proselytes were to receive, when 
 they never had been, this is the place for that ex- 
 clusion to be specified. Since it was not, how can 
 we suppose the apostles to have done violence to 
 all their previous ideas of proselyting, so as to 
 understand that adults only were to receive the 
 mark? Especially, when they were so slow to un- 
 derstand that they could dispense with the Jew- 
 ish ceremonies even enough to eat with men 
 of another nation ? To persuade them of this, 
 even after the glorious day of Pentecost, it was 
 necessary that a special communication should 
 be made to Peter. How unlikely then that 
 they should give up the ancient membership of 
 infants in the church without a special direction 
 from the Saviour ! How unlikely that they 
 should exclude infants from baptism when no 
 hint had been given to that effect by their Mas- 
 ter ! Proselytes having been always introdu- 
 ced among the saints or the professed people of 
 God by the application of the sign of prosely- 
 tism to both parents and children ; how is it 
 possible that they should have invented the new 
 notion that proselytes could be made to Christ, 
 and yet the sign of proselytism be applied only 
 to adults, when their commission says nothing 
 about such a thing? As Jews then I think 
 they must have understood, when Christ told 
 them to baptize all nations as a mark of their 
 being proselyted to his cause, that children 
 were included, unless they had been expressly 
 excepted. But it is clear that no such excep- 
 tion was made. I cannot therefore avoid the 
 
100 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 conclusion that the Lord Jesus Christ intended 
 by this commission to make baptism as exten- 
 sive as circumcision ; to apply it as circumcis- 
 ion was applied, to those who believe and to 
 their children. I know it is said that the Old 
 Testament church is so different from the New 
 that we cannot argue from one to the other ; 
 but it is said without evidence. Where is the 
 text that authorizes such a declaration ? Or 
 where is the general impression produced by 
 the current language of scripture ? On the 
 contrary, the promises in the Old Testament 
 which are made to Zion reach forward to gos- 
 pel times, and call it the same Zion. Christ is 
 said in the New Testament to have come to 
 his own when he came to the Old Testament 
 church. Christ declares too that the kingdom 
 of God shall be taken from the Jews and given 
 to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, 
 Christ and his apostles constantly appealed to 
 the Old Testament to show that they introdu- 
 ced no new religion. The apostles received 
 the Gentiles into the same church with the 
 Jews ; and Paul represents the church as an 
 olive tree from which the great body of the 
 Jews were broken off on account of their un- 
 belief, and the Gentiles grafted in, and that the 
 Jews would finally be grafted into the same 
 olive tree again. It makes no material differ- 
 ence with this argument if we admit that the 
 olive tree means Christ ; for whatever it was, 
 it was the same thing from which the Jews 
 were broken off, into which the Gentiles were 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 101 
 
 grafted, and into which the Jews will be grafted 
 again when they believe. If the Jews were 
 broken off from Christ, what sort of connection 
 did they have with him inferior to a church 
 state ? And if they will be grafted in again 
 when they believe, what church will they be- 
 long to ? 
 
 If the Old Testament church were a totally 
 different thing from the New, how could any 
 of the early christians have expected that the 
 meats and drinks of the former were to be con- 
 tinued in the latter ? The things to be abolish- 
 ed were carefully marked ; that is, those things 
 which pointed to a future Messiah, but not a 
 hint is given that the church does not remain 
 the same. The Sabbath and the dedication of 
 infants to God by a religious rite being founded 
 in the wants and relations of men and the im- 
 mutable principles of God's government over 
 them, remain as before, some external circum- 
 stances only being changed. The whole rep- 
 resentation of the New Testament is such as to 
 lead us to see that Christianity is no new reli- 
 gion, but a mere continuation and enlargement 
 of the old. If certain things belonging exclu- 
 sively to the Mosaic dispensation or the cove- 
 nant of Sinai are abolished, it does not follow 
 that infant dedication to God by a religious rite 
 and the Sabbath are abolished — things which 
 existed before that dispensation. Or in the 
 words of the apostle, " the covenant which was 
 confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, 
 that is, the Mosaic dispensation, which was 
 9* 
 
102 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 four hundred and thirty years after, cannot dis- 
 annul, that it should make the promise of none 
 effect." Gal. iii. 17. But we shall see the ev- 
 idence of our subject further confirmed when 
 we look 
 
 In the third place at the conduct and decla- 
 rations of the apostles in regard to it. 
 
 Under this head I "notice first the baptism of 
 households recorded among" the acts of the 
 apostles. Now if the apostles understood their 
 commission as Jews naturally would ; the bap- 
 tism of households perfectly accords with their 
 views. A man was proselyted, and then he 
 was baptized, and his household precisely as 
 the ancient custom was among the same sort of 
 people in regard to the other religious rite 
 which was introductory to the church. There 
 are three households recorded as baptized by 
 the apostles, that of Lydia, that of the Jailor, 
 and that of Stephanus ; quite as many as could 
 be expected to be recorded considering the very 
 brief history given us. It cannot be proved 
 that the persons composing these households 
 were all believers. The presumption is the 
 other way ; for imimediately in the connection 
 of Lydia's baptism with her household it is ad- 
 ded, " she besought us oaying, If ye have judg- 
 ed me to be faithful to the Lord come into my 
 'house and abide there." If the whole of her 
 household had been believers it did not look 
 very modest in her to single herself out and 
 speak of her own faithfulness without alluding 
 to theirs. The language on that supposition 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 103 
 
 seems to be unnatural. The declaration in the 
 last verse of the chapter, that the apostles went 
 from the prison to the house of Lydia and 
 found brethren there, does not oppose this idea, 
 but confirms it; for Luke was undoubtedly 
 there, he being one of the party at first who 
 accepted the hospitality of Lydia,* and the 
 same reason, at such a time of alarm, must 
 have gathered others there too. So that the 
 supposition that the household of Lydia were 
 baptized because they were believers, w^hen Ly- 
 dia spoke of herself only as faithful, is alto- 
 gether improbable. 
 
 If any part of the Jailor's household were 
 baptized on account of their believing, there is 
 nothing said of it in the record, but the pre- 
 sumption is the other way, because he alone is 
 spoken of as believing. " He rejoiced with all 
 his house, he believing in God," is the precise 
 shape of the Greek. The phrase " with all his 
 house" is the translation of a single adverb, 
 and not of several words. It signifies in, with, 
 or over all his house. The account then stands 
 that nobody is mentioned as believing but the 
 Jailor himself, and yet it is added, " he was 
 baptized, he and all his straightway." 
 
 * He gives an account of the transaction in the first 
 person — " heard us," — "she besought us," — "she con- 
 strained us," — "we went to prayer," — "followed Paul 
 and us." And then the person is immediately changed 
 to the third when the imprisonment is mentioned. Luke 
 and the other brethren probably remained at the house 
 of Lydia, praying. 
 
 In this same company it is probable that Timothy 
 also was found. See Acts xvi. 1—14. 
 
104 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 It is said by our opponents that the decla- 
 ration " they spake unto him the word of the 
 Lord, and to all that were in his house," implies 
 that no infants were there because infants were 
 incapable of understanding the word. Just see 
 now what a false principle of interpretation 
 this is, by trying it on some other passages. 
 The Psalmist says that the Israelites went 
 through the red sea " on foot." Infants were 
 incapable of going on foot. Therefore there 
 were no infants among them. Luke says, " All 
 that dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him and 
 turned to the Lord." Infants were incapable 
 of turning to the Lord. Therefore there were 
 no infants in that community. " David dwelt 
 with Achish at Gath, he and his men every man 
 with his household." Does this imply that 
 there were no infants among them ? 
 
 The other household, that of Stephanas, Paul 
 mentions in an argument on another subject as 
 all that he baptized in Corinth except Crispus 
 and Gaius. Afterwards he alludes to them as 
 being the first fruits of Achaia, and having ad- 
 dicted themselves to the ministry, that is, the 
 service of the saints. If this means that they 
 were believers at the time he wrote his epistle, 
 it surely does not say that they were such at 
 the time they were baptized. 
 
 All these things being so, how can we under- 
 stand the apostles' declarations but by resorting 
 to their habits of thinking and acting? The 
 question then is. What would Jews, who had 
 always seen parents and children connected in 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 105 
 
 the concerns of religion, be likely to mean by 
 saying of Lydia " when she was baptized and 
 her household ;" of the Jailor he " was bap- 
 tized he and all his ;" and of Stephanas that 
 his household were baptized, without any ex- 
 planatory circumstances ? Would they mean a 
 different thing from what all their previous hab- 
 its would lead them to mean ? Or would they 
 convey the idea that they acted in regard to the 
 initiatory rite of Christianity just as they had 
 been accustomed to act in regard to the initia- 
 tory rite of the ancient dispensation? They 
 speak of what they did familiarly as something 
 customary. Not a hint is given that the house- 
 holds were believers ; but the simple declara- 
 tion is made that such a one believed and she 
 was baptized with her household, such a one 
 believed and was baptized he and all his, and 
 such a man's household were baptized. Now 
 we know that the apostles were familiar with 
 the Old Testament language, and that they ac- 
 tually transferred it to the New Testament ; 
 that they had been in the habit of associating 
 parents and children in the concerns of the 
 church, particularly in the initiatory rite. And 
 we do not know that they changed their phrase- 
 ology and imbibed an entire new set of notions 
 in regard to the connection of parents and 
 children in religious observances. In these cir- 
 cumstances they tell us that they baptized house- 
 holds or families when the head of them believ- 
 ed, without any restriction upon the words. 
 They do not say that they baptized these indi- 
 
106 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 viduals and all such of their households as 
 believed ; but indefinitely, and without guarding 
 against taking their declarations in the common 
 acceptation, that thej^ baptized Lydia and her 
 household, the Jailor and all his, and the house- 
 hold of Stephanas. Now which of the plans 
 of baptism does this best accord to, the Bap- 
 tist's or ours ? According to the Baptist plan, 
 households as such have nothing to do with re- 
 ligion, especially with Baptism. They tell us 
 such and such persons believed and were bapti- 
 zed," not that such a man believed and he and 
 all his were baptized. And their great concern 
 is to explain away these scriptural accounts so 
 as to accord with their scheme. If a missionary 
 should send home accounts of family baptisms 
 as unrestricted as these, should we not believe 
 that he practised Infant Baptism ? And would 
 not such an account be altogether unprecedent- 
 ed and calculated to convey a wrong impression 
 in a Baptist missionary ? Was ever such an 
 account given ? The argument then is this : 
 that though these family baptisms mentioned 
 by the apostles do not of themselves alone 
 prove our views of the subjects of baptism ; 
 yet taken in connecion with the known prac- 
 tice of the apostles as well as of other Jews in 
 regard to circumcision, and since these state- 
 ments are made without the least explanation 
 to guard against understanding them according 
 to the uniform usa^e of their nation ; the most 
 natural conclusion is, that they mean what they 
 say, according to the obvious interpretation of 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 107 
 
 language, viz. that these believers brought their 
 famiHes to be baptized on the ground of their 
 own faith, and thus recognized with them among 
 the people of God. 
 
 2. I am confirmed in this view of the subject 
 by our text, " The unbelieving husband is sanc- 
 tified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is 
 sanctified by the husband : else were your chil- 
 dren unclean ; but now are they holy." Here 
 is a plain recognition of Infant Baptism ; or else 
 there can be no tolerable meaning deciphered 
 to the passage. The children of a believer are 
 here said to be holy, and by implication, those 
 of an unbeliever to be unclean. What does 
 this mean ? It surely cannot be moral holiness 
 such as regeneration implies; for facts are abun- 
 dant to show that the children of believers are 
 no more holy in this sense than others. Nor 
 can the children of an unbeliever be morally 
 unclean, any more than others, for we are all 
 by nature children of wrath, whether belonging 
 to the families of believers or not. Is there any 
 way to ascertain the meaning of such words but 
 by a resort to the accustomed phraseology of 
 the Jews as recorded in the Old Testament ? 
 Paul who wrote this passage was a Jew, and he 
 transfers the Hebrew sense to Greek words 
 abundantly. Any one critically familiar with 
 his writings must know that he constantly uses 
 Greek words in the Hebrew sense, and that the 
 corresponding Hebrew is the only key to his 
 meaning. What then is the Hebrew usage in 
 regard to these words ? Any other principle of 
 
108 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 interpretation will lead us about in the dark per- 
 petually. 
 
 Before I show from the scriptures what I es- 
 teem the true view of this passage, it is proper 
 to give you the Baptist view of it. Dr. Gill 
 who is their greatest commentator and withal 
 a man of considerable learning and talents, has 
 given us an interpretation which all his breth- 
 ren that I have seen, approve. From their 
 manner of treating this text, I judge that it is 
 one of the hardest they have to grapple with. 
 Dr. Gill gives the following as his sense of the 
 passage and would like to have it so transla- 
 ted : " For the unbelieving husband is married 
 to the wife, and the unbelieving wife is married 
 to the husband ; else were your children bas- 
 tards, but now are they legitimate." I have 
 lately read Dr. Gill with much attention, and 
 find that he does not attempt to show the pro- 
 priety of his translation and view of the pass- 
 age by the scriptural usage of the words, — the 
 only proper way to show it. That usage is con- 
 fessedly against him. He resorts to certain 
 Jewish rabbies ; but the examples he gives are 
 not conclusive even if their authority were ad- 
 mitted ; for the idea of sanctification considered 
 in the ceremonial sense, is equally appropriate 
 to them with that of marriage. In support of 
 the meaning he assigns to the words unclean 
 and holy, it is remarkable that he does not at- 
 tempt to bring one example, even from Jewish 
 rabbies — much less from the scriptures. This 
 it appears to me, is enough to show the unsound- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 109 
 
 ness of his argument, and the falsity of the no- 
 tion maintained by it. 
 
 But let us see for a moment what absurdities 
 accompany it, 1. The apostle is made to say that 
 the unbelieving husband is married to the wife 
 and the unbelieving wife is married to the hus- 
 band — the very thing which produced the diffi- 
 culty, which being known by all, was the very 
 point which they wished to have cleared up as 
 to its lawfulness. They all knew that they were 
 married; and the question was, whether the 
 marriage should be dissolved. And besides, 
 the very idea of a husband is that he is marri- 
 ed. Our Baptist brethren then introduce the 
 apostle before us as saying that a husband is a 
 married man, and a wife is a married woman ! 
 a very tame proposition truly, and one that does 
 not make much advance in the argument. As 
 much as to say, marriage is marriage — a mere 
 identical proposition. Does the great apostle 
 of the Gentiles in a solemn argument with the 
 church of God, speak such nonsense ? 
 
 2. There is another absurdity to the view we 
 are examining. If the unbelieving partner's be- 
 ing sanctified or married to one that is believing 
 makes the children legitimate, both partners be- 
 ing unbelieving would make the children ille- 
 gitimate. " Else were your children unclean" 
 says the apostle; that is, if this relation be- 
 tween a believer and an unbeliever did not con- 
 stitute some sort of sanctification in the unbe- 
 liever, then your children would be unclean, 
 but now are they holy. Is it a scripture doc- 
 10 
 
110 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 trine then that the children of unbelievers are 
 bastards ? that the parents are not married ? 
 Our brethren will not pretend this. And yet 
 their interpretation of this passage necessarily 
 involves it. 
 
 3. Dr. Gill's representation of the apostle's 
 meaning does not meet the case. The case is, 
 whether those christians who were united to 
 heathen partners should separate as the Jews 
 did in the time of Ezra. But those Jews were 
 truly married ; and yet the fact in their case 
 was, that the marriage was dissolved. If the 
 heathen in Paul's time were not as truly marri- 
 ed to their christian partners as those in Ezra's 
 time were to theirs, there could have been no 
 similarity in the two cases upon which to ground 
 the difficulty, because no one could doubt that 
 unlawful connexions between the sexes should 
 be dissolved. 
 
 For these reasons then the Baptist interpre- 
 tation of this text is to be rejected : viz. It has 
 no authority in the usage of scripture, their 
 great champion himself being judge. It is ne- 
 cessarily involved in the absurdity of putting an 
 identical proposition into the mouth of the apos- 
 tle, that is, that a husband is married to a wife ; 
 it makes the children of parents who are both 
 unbelievers, bastards, contrary to common sense 
 and not sanctioned in scripture ; and it does not 
 meet the case, for the heathen in Ezra's time 
 were married to their believing partners as truly 
 as those in Paul's time, and yet the former were 
 actually put away. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. Ill 
 
 Let US come then to the only view of the pas- 
 sage in question which scripture sanctions ; and 
 which, as it appears to me, common sense, un- 
 warped by a system which it is committed to 
 support, does likewise sanction. 
 
 In Hebrew language, that is, the language of 
 the Old Testament, there were clean beasts and 
 unclean beasts. The clean were such as could 
 be eaten, or offered to God in sacrifice ; the un- 
 clean were such as could not be eaten or offer- 
 ed to God in sacrifice. So also men were said 
 in certain circumstances to be clean, and in oth- 
 ers to be unclean. The leper for example was 
 unclean, and not permitted to enter into the con- 
 gregation of the Lord. All the Gentile world, 
 except such as were proselyted and circumci- 
 sed, were called unclean ; and the Jews were 
 called the holy seed — clean. Peter acting on 
 this principle spoke of things common or un- 
 clean which had never entered into his mouth ; 
 and inferred thence that he ought not to eat 
 with men of another nation ; but he was inform- 
 ed that the distinction no longer held in regard 
 to the Jews and Gentiles as such — believers of 
 whatever nation they were, were clean. And 
 what is perhaps more decisive still for this use 
 of the word, Paul when arguing against being 
 unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor. vi. 
 17.) says, "Wherefore, come out from among 
 them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and 
 touch not the unclean thing;" viz. the unbe» 
 liever. 
 
112 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 It is clear then from this exhibition of scrip- 
 tural phraseology that the words unclean and 
 holy as used in our text, are equivalent to un- 
 clean and clean. The former were unfit to be 
 offered to God : the latter were fit. Now on 
 this plain principle look at the apostle's decla- 
 ration in our text. The case which led him to 
 make it was this : Several men were found in 
 the church having wives that believed not ; and 
 several women having husbands that believed 
 not. When a similar case was found on the re- 
 turn of the Jews from the Bapylonish captivity 
 in the time of Ezra ; (ix. 10.) the holy seed was 
 said to have mingled themselves with the peo- 
 ple of the lands ; and Ezra by divine authority 
 required the Jews to put away their heathen 
 partners and also the children that had been 
 born in that connexion. Their children were 
 considered as unfit to be circumcised on their 
 parents' account because they were Gentiles — 
 unclean. The question then which came up to 
 the apostle was, shall this rule hold now ? Shall 
 each one separate from his unbelieving part- 
 ner? He decides the question in the negative 
 and assigns our text as the reason, derived part- 
 ly from the relation into which the unbelieving 
 partner was brought to the other, and partly 
 from the relation in which the children of those 
 marriages stood to the church. " For the un- 
 believing husband is sanctified by the wife and 
 the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the hus- 
 band ; else were your children unclean, but now 
 are they holy." By the connexion which the 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 113 
 
 unbelieving partner holdt; with the believing, 
 he is in some sense sanctified; that is, set apart 
 from unbelievers, and does not rank among the 
 heathen as completely as if this connexion did 
 not exist. If this were not the case, that is, if 
 this sanctification were not true, then your chil- 
 dren would be unclean, but now are they holy. 
 The children of such marriages under the an- 
 cient dispensation were unclean, not reckoned 
 of the holy seed — unfit to be circumcised, or of- 
 fered to God ; but now they are not so. They 
 are holy, that is, reckoned of the holy seed, and 
 therefore fit to be ofiered to God. As much as 
 to say, If this sanctification of the unbelieving 
 partner had not been, we should not have treat- 
 ed your children as belonging to the holy seed. 
 We should have considered them as unclean 
 just as they did in similar cases in the time of 
 Ezra. But since we have uniformly treated 
 them as clean on account of their connexion 
 with one clean parent, we have shown by our 
 practice that we esteem them clean ; and there- 
 fore that the unbelieving partner is sanctified in 
 such a sense as to make the dwelling together 
 of both parties consistent and perfectly proper. 
 This interpretation of the passage is in per- 
 fect keeping with the rest of scripture ; and it 
 goes upon the admitted principle that the chil- 
 dren of believers are to be baptized, because 
 they are clean, because they belong to the holy 
 seed. No interpretation can be given which is 
 in conformity to scriptural phraseology, with- 
 out going upon the ground that the children of 
 10* 
 
114 * INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 believers and even of one believer, are holy in 
 the sense explained, that is, clean — fit to be of- 
 fered to God — belonging to the holy seed. 
 
 It is objected to this view that the partner is 
 said to be sanctified, and therefore the text 
 speaks for the partner as a fit subject for bap- 
 tism as much as the children. To this it is ob- 
 vious to answer, that the objection holds more 
 completely against the view of our opponents 
 than against ours. For if the text means to as- 
 sert the legitimacy of the children and the law- 
 ful marriage of the parents, the word is equally 
 varied to accommodate the subject to which it 
 is applied. If the word sanctified signifies mar- 
 ried, and the word holy signifies legitimate, 
 these significations are surely not the same. 
 The latter is only a consequence of the form- 
 er. So also in our interpretation the latter is a 
 consequence of the former, with this additional 
 circumstance, which goes entirely for us, that 
 both words are made to relate to the same thing; 
 varied only according to the change of subject. 
 The unbelieving partner is sanctified to the oth- 
 er so far as fo render the seed, that is, the chil- 
 dren holy, or sanctified in the ceremonial sense 
 of the word, that is, fit to be offered to God. If 
 this sanctification were not, then the children 
 would be unclean, but now are they clean. If 
 then infant baptism was not practised by the 
 apostles, this text is totally inexplicable, and 
 stands an unmeaning declaration in the sacred 
 records. If it was practised, then this text is 
 plain and perfectly consistent with the other 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 115 
 
 things in their conduct already brought before 
 you in this discourse. 
 
 Thus it appears, that the scriptures teach the 
 doctrine of Infant Baptism, not by way of ex- 
 press precept in the New Testament, but by 
 way of sanctioning and taking for granted what 
 was already in use, just as they teach the doc- 
 trine of the christian sabbath, and much more 
 plainly than they teach the doctrine of fami- 
 ly prayera nd of female communion.* It has 
 been shown from the conduct and declara- 
 tions of our Saviour ; from the commission he 
 gave to his apostles ; and from their conduct 
 and declarations under that commission. If 
 these things carefully and candidly considered, 
 are not satisfactory that Infant Baptism is an 
 institution of God, and pleasing in his sight ; 
 then there is no proof that the first day of the 
 week is to be kept holy as the christian sabbath; 
 that females should commune at the Lord's ta- 
 ble ; and that the assemblies of the saints should 
 be held for divine worship on the sabbath. 
 
 The subject is extensive ; and I could easily 
 occupy your time in producing proof upon 
 proof. In the next discourse I shall advert to 
 a few of these additional thoughts. Indeed, 
 the more a man gives his attention to this sub- 
 
 * The subject of female communion has not indeed 
 been particularly discussed. It is sufficient here to say 
 that no express precept is to be found for it; and no cer- 
 tain example except by way of inference. So also of the 
 christian sabbath and family prayer. 
 
116 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 ject in its various relations to the truth of God, 
 and the general principles of divine revelation ■ 
 and of the divine institutions, the more firm 
 will be his belief in the things which I have 
 stated. • This has been the progress of my own 
 mind ; and the same testimony is given by all 
 others with whom I have conversed. That In- 
 fant Baptism is the appointment of God I feel 
 as completely satisfied as I do that the Bible 
 itself is from him. There have unquestionably 
 been great abuses of this ordinance ; and that 
 perhaps is the reason why there should be any 
 who .love the Lord Jesus Christ that deny it. 
 For myself I believe that Providence has suf- 
 fered such a class of men to arise among his 
 real people for the purpose of ultimately bring- 
 ing" the whole to a correct use of the ordinance. 
 And lest this class should become the predomi- 
 nant part of his church and so defeat the object 
 by this holy ordinance going into disuse, he has 
 suffered them to entertain a principle which 
 contains at once their only life and yet the seeds 
 of their dissolution — I mean close communion. 
 If they keep this principle the great body of 
 the faithful who cannot but see it at a glance, 
 though the subject we have been discussing 
 might require more examination, will refuse 
 to join them : if they give it up, they lose 
 their distinctive character and soon become 
 merged in our denomination. The only rea- 
 son that opposition is kept up to this ordinance 
 is, that good men with mistaken views have be- 
 come organized into a party against it. When 
 
INFANT BAPTISIVI. 117 
 
 this ceases the opposition will cease of course. 
 When they mingle freely with others, and ha- 
 bitually see the ordinance in its various practi- 
 cal effects, they will feel less opposition and 
 perhaps gradually adopt it. 
 
 I say these things with great kindness as my 
 individual opinion, not intending to reproach 
 others who differ from me, or to diminish aught 
 of my christian affection for them. We must 
 not quarrel. We must occupy separate socie- 
 ties, and for the most part worship separately 
 till close communion is abandoned. And while 
 we of liberal principles on this subject and of 
 Pedobaptist views on the other, remain firm to 
 the doctrines and usages we have received of 
 Christ; while we bless the world with the light 
 of the gospel and gain sinners over to the ser- 
 vice of our great Master ; we must rejoice in 
 all the good that our brethren may do. If they 
 can reach some with the obligations of the gos- 
 pel whom we cannot, let them do it ; and let us 
 rejoice that it can be done. If any reproach 
 us, and say evil of us, let us not return railing 
 for railing, but contrariwise blessing. So shall 
 our peace be as a river, and our righteousness 
 as the waves of the sea. 
 
118 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 DISCOURSE IV. 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Rom. iv. 11. 
 
 " And he received the sign of circumcision^ a seal of the 
 righteousness of the faith which he had yet being un- 
 circumcised." 
 
 Gal. iii. 17. 
 
 " And this I iay, thoA the covenant that was confirmed he- 
 fore of God in Christ, the law, v:hich was four hun- 
 dred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it 
 should make the promise of none effect.''^ 
 
 In the first of these passages we have cir- 
 cumcision mentioned as a seal of the righteous- 
 ness of the faith which Abraham had before he 
 was circumcised ; for the purpose of showing 
 the Jews that the blessedness of justification 
 could come upon the uncircumcised. But it is 
 distinctly stated that circumcision was appoint- 
 ed as a seal of the righteousness of faith. The 
 apostle then goes on to argue that the promise 
 made to Abraham of which circumcision was 
 the seal, was not merely a promise respecting 
 the land of Canaan for his literal posterity, but 
 that it pertained to all believers whether Jews 
 or Gentiles. It appears then that Abraham had 
 circumcision as a seal of a justification which 
 was personal to him, and wihich respected him 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 119 
 
 as standing in a peculiar relation to all believers 
 in every age, of whatever nation tbey might be. 
 
 In the second passage the apostle speaks of 
 the same subject more definitely, and argues at 
 length to show that the covenant of Abraham 
 is a gracious covenant, and belongs to the chris- 
 tian church. He declares that when it was said 
 to Abraham, " In thee shall all nations be bless- 
 ed," the gospel was preached to him ; and in- 
 fers that " they which be of faith are blessed 
 with faithful Abraham." This blessedness is 
 not according to the works of the law, but by 
 faith. " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse 
 ofthelaw,... that the blessing of Abraham might 
 come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ ; 
 that we might receive the promise of the Spirit 
 through faith. Brethren, I speak after the 
 manner of men ; Though it be but a man's co- 
 venant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disan- 
 nuleth or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham 
 and his seed were the promises made. He 
 saith not. And to seeds, as of many, but as of 
 one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. And 
 this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed 
 before of God in Christ, the law which was four 
 hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, 
 that it should make the promise of none effect. 
 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no 
 more of promise : but God gave it to Abraham 
 by promise." 
 
 Now it appears to me that nothing can be 
 plainer than this. The covenant here mention- 
 ed is not the law, the Mosaic dispensation, or 
 
120 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 covenant of Sinai ; for it was four hundred and 
 thirty years older. It was not disannulled by 
 that covenant, but still kept in force. It be- 
 longs to believers under the christian dispensa- 
 tion, because it was of perpetual obligation, and 
 was no more connected with the Mosaic dis- 
 pensation than with the christian. And then 
 the concluding verse of the chapter sums up 
 the whole, thus : " And if ye be Christ's then 
 are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to 
 the promise." Heirs of what? Plainly of the 
 things promised to Abraham and his seed. We 
 have then the authority of the Apostle Paul 
 that the covenant made with Abraham was not 
 merely a temporal covenant, having respect to 
 the land of Canaan only, but that it was a spir- 
 itual covenant, having respect to spiritual things 
 to be given to the seed of Abraham by faith. 
 Ail who are justified by faith are justified as 
 Abraham was ; and to Abraham was given the 
 sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteous- 
 ness of his faith. This sign was not confined 
 in its application to him, butwas extended to 
 infants. It was an essential part of the sign 
 that it should be so extended. 
 
 It appears, moreover, from the facts in the 
 case, that the covenant did not signify that all 
 his literal seed should be saved, nor that they 
 should inherit the land of Canaan, for neither 
 of these things took place. It had respect then 
 to a gracious economy under w'hich God would 
 place all true believers, as the children of Abra- 
 ham. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 121 
 
 These passages of scripture then -which I 
 have chosen for our text, do, with their connec- 
 tion, plainly recognize the covenant made with 
 Abraham, as a gracious covenant, and therefore 
 as continuing in force under the christian dis- 
 pensation, no intervention of the Mosaic dis- 
 pensation being sufficient to disannul it. What- 
 ever ingenuity may be employed to explain 
 avv'ay these things, they stand after all in the 
 sacred record. 
 
 Now the covenant of Abraham still being in 
 force, has it lost its seal without any substitute ? 
 And if there is a substitute, what can it be but 
 baptism ? And is it to be applied as it was, to 
 infants and to such adults as being born out of 
 the covenant, consent to come into it by believ- 
 ing ? or is it to be confined to adults 1 Here is 
 a charter to the church from her great King, 
 containing a covenant or arrangement by which 
 certain things are signified, and that covenant 
 has an external token which is applied to adults 
 and infants. Various modifications of this 
 charter have been made, but never has it been 
 specified that the application of the seal- of the 
 covenant to infants should be discontinued. 
 The question then is, Has God's gracious cove- 
 nant with the father of the faithful, been nar- 
 rovved down by the gospel ? Are infants cut 
 oflffrom it ? Unless an explicit warrant, a plain, 
 positive enactment can be produced to this ef- 
 fect, we take too much upon ourselves, — more 
 than God approves, when we venture to refuse 
 11 
 
122 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 the seal of the covenant to infants for whom it 
 was appointed by Him who gave it. 
 
 It may be proper here to explain the word 
 covenant as used in scripture. It does not sig- 
 nify as in common conversation at the present 
 day, an agreement between two parties ; but an 
 arrangement, plan of proceeding, whatever is 
 appointed and made sure, implying a promise. 
 Thus we are told of God's covenant with man 
 and beast that he would no more destroy the 
 world bya deluge. To this was appointed a seal, 
 or token, viz. the rainbow. So also we are told 
 of God's covenant with day and night. It is 
 God's covenant or plan of proceeding to trans- 
 mit religion from generation to generation, by 
 means of the connection between parents and 
 children, and therefore to recognize them both 
 in religious ordinances. This plan of proceed- 
 ing has an appropriate mark, seal or token. 
 When we make a covenant with God, we enter 
 into the divine arranfrement and a^ree to abide 
 by it. We place the token of it upon our children, 
 and thus keep it in lively remembrance. In due 
 time it becomes a memento to them also under 
 what a gracious economy they are placed, and 
 what obligations they are under to love and 
 obey the Lord God of their fathers. 
 
 II. Infant Baptism is rationally inferred 
 from the exhortation of the apostles on the day 
 of Pentecost, " Repent and be baptized every 
 one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the 
 remission of sins, and ye shall receive the 
 gift of the Holy Ghost, For the promise is 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 123 
 
 Tinto you, and to your children, and to all that 
 are afar of, even as many as the Lord our God 
 shall calV 
 
 The apostles being Jews, and the multitude 
 being either Jews or proselytes from the Gen- 
 tiles to the Jewish faith, they must have been 
 acquainted with the connection of parents and 
 children in the ordinances of religion. The 
 covenant of Abraham on which circumcision is 
 founded, runs thus: " I will be a God to thee 
 and to thy seed ;" and this, as we have seen 
 from apostolical authority, belongs to believers 
 under the gospel. The reason which Peter 
 gives for repentance and baptism runs in similar 
 language, *' For the promise is to you and to 
 your children." The former stands connected 
 with circumcision : the latter with baptism. 
 Since it is admitted that parents and children 
 were included in the first, what reason can be 
 assigned why they are not included in the se- 
 cond, when precisely the same phraseology is 
 used? The hearers had been accustomed to 
 the fact that parents and children were received 
 into the church for many centuries on the 
 ground that the promise was to Abraham and 
 his seed. In these circumstances, Peter tells 
 them that the promise is to them and their 
 children. If he did not mean to recognize the 
 connection of parents and children in the ordi- 
 nance of baptism, what was the force of adding 
 the word children ? And especially, what was 
 its force when addressed to Jews who would be 
 likely to understand it in reference to the usual 
 
124' INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 practice of receiving children into the church? 
 If the promise was to parents only, or rather to 
 them as individuals without reference to the pa- 
 rental relation, why sa^ntis to you and to your 
 children ? Is this the argument that those use 
 who practice adult baptism only ? Do they 
 not take a very different course, and talk about 
 the example of Christ, as an inducement — a 
 thing never once mentioned in such a connec- 
 tion by an inspired writer ? What sort of an 
 argument would it be in the mouth of a Baptist 
 to persuade a multitude to be baptized, that the 
 promise is to them and their children ? It would 
 not touch the case. It would be foreign to the 
 subject. Accordingly it is never used. But 
 Peter, taking a larger view of the subject, and 
 bottoming his declaration upon things already 
 understood, says, " The promise is to you and 
 to your children, and to all that are afar off, 
 even as many as the Lord our God shall call." 
 If then the promise is to you and to your chil- 
 dren, it must be equally extensive to those that 
 are absent, viz. to all that are afar off, even to 
 as many as the Lord our God shall call. That 
 is, The promise is to you and your children, 
 and to all that are afar off and their children, 
 even to as many as the Lord our God shall call 
 and their children. 
 
 Here then we see that baptism is connected 
 with a promise. If you ask then v/ho are to 
 be baptized ? The answer is, those to whom 
 the promise is made. But the promise is made 
 to parents and children. Therefore parents 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 125 
 
 and children are to be baptized. This seems 
 to me to be a clear case ; and just as clear as 
 circumstances and language can make it. I ask 
 then, Does this language of the apostle in the 
 presence of Jews, himself too a Jew, accus- 
 tomed to the connection of parents and chil- 
 dren in the initiatory ordinance of the church, 
 look like giving up that connection, and hence- 
 forth retaining none but the parents ? If the 
 children were required to be believers in order 
 to being qualified for baptism, why should he 
 mention them at all, when by so doing he would 
 certainly be likely to mislead such an assembly 
 as the one he addressed ? 
 
 III. There is no account of any adults bap- 
 tized who loere brought up as children of be- 
 lieving parents. Timothy was such an one, 
 and doubtless there were many others. Every 
 adult baptism that does not come under this rule 
 is nothing to the purpose against Infant Bap- 
 tism, because it accords as well with our views 
 as with those of our opponents. 
 
 IV. The saraeness of circumcision and bap- 
 tism in their design, shows that they should be 
 administered to the same subjects, unless there 
 be an express direction to the contrary. 
 
 In regard to the sexes, that is, that circum- 
 cision was administered to males only : we have 
 an express warrant for embracing females in 
 baptism. The record says, " They were bap- 
 tized both men and women." Besides then the 
 propriety and practicability of the thing, we 
 have the sanction of scripture to the change so 
 11* 
 
126 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 far as this is concerned. If such a sanation 
 can be produced for refusing baptism to infants, 
 then our opponents hare the truth on their side. 
 Inasmuch then as it is expressly stated that the 
 initiatory ordinance of the church which was 
 formerly confined to males, is to be extended 
 to females when adults ; the same reason au- 
 thorises the same extension in the case of in- 
 fants. 
 
 Now let us see what the scripture says. Cir- 
 cumcision was the seal of the covenant with 
 Abraham, " This is my covenant which ye 
 shall keep between me and you, and thy seed 
 after thee ; every man child among you shall 
 be circumcised." The covenant remains, as 
 has been shown, on the authority of Paul. 
 Where then is its seal, if baptism is not ? I 
 have shov/n that the seal of the covenant is no 
 longer to be confined to males, because God 
 has changed it. Is there any change in regard 
 to infants ? Can you produce such authority 
 on this point as I have produced on the other ? 
 If you cannot, then it follows that the seal must 
 be applied to them as well as to adults. 
 
 Look now at the general representation of 
 scripture in regard to these two rites. Cir- 
 cumcision was the initiatory rite under the 
 Old Testament church. Not only the children 
 of Abraham by natural descent, but proselytes 
 from the Gentiles were circumcised as intro- 
 ductory to the church. This is admitted on all 
 hands. Baptism is the initiatory rite under the 
 New Testament church. .All proselytes to 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 127 
 
 Christianity were baptized by tlie apostles as 
 introductory to the church. This too is admit- 
 ted on all hands. Circumcision was the seal or 
 token of the righteousness of the faith which 
 Abraham had : Baptism is a token of the faith 
 which a believer has now. This is not denied. 
 Circumcision pointed to the purification of the 
 heart, as for example, " The Lord thy God 
 will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of 
 thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all 
 thine heart, and with all thy soul :" Deut. xxx. 
 ij. Baptism points to the purification of the 
 heart ; as where Peter says, it is " not the put- 
 ting away of the filth of the fiesh, but the an- 
 swer of a good conscience toward God." Cir- 
 cumcision marked the necessity of regenera- 
 tion : Baptism does the same. 
 
 Now all these things are important, and it is 
 proper that they should be signified by some 
 external rite. In the Old Testament church 
 such a rite was had, viz. circumcision. In the 
 New Testament church we have all these things 
 signified by baptism, and circumcision is no 
 longer in use. Is there any way then of esca- 
 ping \he conclusion that baptism has, so far as 
 these things are concerned, come in the place 
 of circumcision ? Even a Baptist I think will 
 not attempt to deny this. Where then is the 
 authority for saying that baptism does not come 
 in the place of circumcision in regard to the 
 subjects to which it is to be applied ? If both 
 these religious rites signify precisely the same 
 thing, and one of them is clearly appointed for 
 
128 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 infants as well as adults, why is not the other? 
 If one of then^i has taken the place of the other 
 in every religious respect except the subjects, 
 as is admitted, where is the authority for this 
 exception ? Produce your warrant. If you 
 cannot, then the conclusion is irresistible that 
 the whole place is occupied ; that not only the 
 same general designs are answered by both, but 
 the same subjects are to be had, with the addi- 
 tion of females in the case of Baptism, accord- 
 ing to the express warrant from the Bible. If 
 baptism answers the same general purposes that 
 circumcision did, and circumcision is confess- 
 edly abolished, why should it not be adminis- 
 tered to the same subjects ? Nothing but the 
 authority of God can make it otherwise. 
 
 V. The passage of the church of God from 
 the Patriarchal to the Mosaic dispensation 
 made no change in its memhers. 
 
 From Abraham to Moses the church consisted 
 of parents and children ; and from Moses to 
 Christ the same members were had. In this 
 passage of the church from one dispensation to 
 another, many external changes took place. 
 Under the patriarchs there were no constituted 
 priesthood, no tithes, no national form. Under 
 Moses all these things existed ; and yet the ad- 
 mission of infants to the initiatory rite was not 
 affected. They Vv^ere admitted to this before 
 Moses, and so they were after him. So far 
 then, it appears that whatever changes took 
 place in regard to the church, no change in re- 
 gard to its members, or its fundamental princi- 
 ples is to be found. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 139 
 
 We come then to that dispensation of the 
 church in which the priesthood is changed, the 
 tithes and national form abolished. Is there 
 any change now in regard to members ? If 
 there is, point out the passage where it is de- 
 clared. It will not do to talk of believers' bap- 
 tism, and then infer that no other baptism was 
 had. If you claim such an essential alteration, 
 you must produce your authority — your Thus 
 saith the Lord. Since we have already the 
 certain example of the church passing from one 
 dispensation to another, without a change of 
 members ; who has a right to say that it did not 
 pass to the third dispensation without that 
 change, when God has not told us of such a 
 change ? 
 
 The whole question then comes to this : 
 Where is your proof that the dedication of in- 
 fants to God by a religious rite, is abolished ? 
 It is not, where is the command to baptize in- 
 fants ; but where is the prohibition? If infants 
 were dedicated to God by the very rite which 
 marked proselytes to the faith ; and another 
 rite now marks proseh/tes to the faith ; who 
 has said that the ancient application of the mark 
 of proselytism shall be abandoned? No au- 
 thority can repeal a lavv^ but that which enacts it. 
 If then infant dedication to God by a religious 
 rite is not repealed by the express authority of 
 God, it stands in full force. 
 
 If you say you can dedicate your infants to 
 God without baptizing them, you say it without 
 authority. You do not then dedicate them by 
 
130 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 a religious rite. Just as much can you dedicate 
 yourself to God without baptism, or without 
 naming the name of Christ. But is this the 
 dedication which God seeks ? Is it such as 
 he demands ? Is it not setting up your own 
 wisdom above his ? You have no right to dis- 
 pense with an ordinance of God's appointment. 
 You disobey the command of Christ if you do. 
 If then you refuse to dedicate your little ones 
 to the God whose you are and whom you serve, 
 and thus acknowledge his property in them, 
 and the covenant he has established with all the 
 faithful ; you disobey the express command of 
 God. It is in vain to say it is not commanded 
 in the New Testament, so long as we have seen 
 it was commanded in the Old, and never revo- 
 ked ; and especially, so long as the whole tenor 
 of the New Testament goes upon the principle 
 of sanctioning it, as taken for granted. I re- 
 peat it then, the question is not. Where is the 
 command in the New Testament to baptize in- 
 fants ; but where is the prohibition? Until an 
 express prohibition can be made out, Infant 
 Baptism will stand as an ordinance of God, and 
 will be practised in the church to the edification 
 of believers, and to the unspeakable beauty and 
 consistency of the Bible. 
 
 INFERENCE. 
 
 Our subject shows us that that argument 
 which is addressed to ignorance and doubt, 
 that if you are immersed you will be on the 
 safe side, is unsound. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 131 
 
 They tell you that since you acknowledge 
 that immersion is baptism, and they do not ac- 
 knowledge that sprinkling is ; you will be on 
 the safe side at least, if you go over to them. 
 Now besides the sin of renouncing the baptism 
 by which you have been set apart to God, it ap- 
 pears from our subject, that the doubts are not 
 removed by such a summary process. You 
 would violate one of the solemn institutions of 
 God. You would refuse to follow Christ in his 
 institution of Infant Baptism. So that on the 
 supposition of your obeying one command, you 
 would violate another. Thus your safety would 
 not be secured on the principle of doubt. 
 
 The fact is, that such an argument is of no 
 worth, because it may be used with as much 
 force against the Baptists as against any others. 
 The man who holds to the exclusive divine 
 right of Episcopacy can say to them, ' You 
 acknowledge that our ordination is valid, but 
 we do not that yours is. Come over to us, and 
 you will be on the safe side.' The Roman 
 Catholic can say to this latter pretender to ex- 
 clusiveness, 'You acknowledge that our or- 
 dination is A^alid but we do not that yours is. 
 Come over to us and you will be on the safe 
 side.' But there are other things besides ordi- 
 nation to which objections are made. So in the 
 case before us, there are other things besides 
 the mode of baptism which are to be settled. 
 A more important question is, Who are to be 
 baptized ? If Christ requires that ordinance to 
 be administered to believers and their house- 
 
132 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 hold, as I trust has been shown, then even 
 though we should be on the safe side in regard 
 to the mode of baptism, we should not be in 
 regard to the subjects. 
 
 This method of arguing from ignorance and 
 doubt is not authorized either by common sense 
 or by scripture. The question ;s, What is truth ? 
 And that we should settle to the best of our 
 ability, in humble dependence on Him who is 
 the great author and patron of truth. The safe 
 side undoubtedly is, that which God has sanc- 
 tioned. We say to the divine right Episcopal- 
 ian, Show us from the scriptures that ordination 
 in the way you practice is the only valid one, 
 and then we will adopt it. So also we say to the 
 Baptist, Show us from the scriptures that bap- 
 tism in the way you practice is the only valid 
 one ; and that infants are excluded from that 
 rite, and then we will go over to you. But this, 
 as we have seen in these discourses, cannot be 
 done. Therefore, we are on the safe side to 
 continue as we are. 
 
UTILITY AND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE, &C. 133 
 
 DISCOURSE V. 
 
 UTILITY AND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE OF 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Ephes. vi. 1. 
 
 " Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is 
 right:' 
 
 This epistle which is addressed to the church 
 at Ephesus, recognizes children as belonging to 
 the flock and under the care of the church. 
 That these are not adults, but such as are yet in 
 their pupilage, appears from the context, where 
 their parents are directed to " bring them up in 
 the nurture and admonition of the Lord." I 
 consider the exhortation of our text as a passing 
 recognition of the doctrine that has been pro- 
 ved ; for it is not addressed to heathen children, 
 but to the children of the saints ; not to those 
 that are unclean, but to those that are holy, or 
 clean. 
 
 It is often asked by those who have never 
 turned their attention to this subject, Of what 
 use is baptism to infants ? I answer in general, 
 just as much as it is to adults. The question 
 would be as proper in the one case as in the 
 other. In neither case is the usefulness of it 
 confined to the moment in which it is adminis- 
 tered; but it is a standing ordinance signifying 
 to all who behold it, some of the most impor- 
 13 
 
134 UTILITY AND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE 
 
 tant and practical things which the Bible con- 
 tains. 
 
 In the first place. It is a token of the gra- 
 cious economy under which, we are placed. 
 
 The child is an immortal being. He is 
 brought into existence" by God, and placed in 
 the circumstances where he is. If the child of 
 religious parents he is henceforth to be subjected 
 to religious influence. It is to be expected that 
 his moral character will be formed according to 
 the principles of the gospel. He is brought in- 
 to circumstances by his birth which secure to 
 him the prayers and affections of pious parents 
 and other christians. He is entered as a schol- 
 ar under Christ's tuition. He is brought into 
 peculiarly auspicious circumstances to affect his 
 immortal well being. The administration of a 
 rehgious rite to him, signifies that this is his 
 situation ; and it surely signifies the truth. 
 
 The gracious economy under which God pla- 
 ces us is, as we saw in the last discourse, a sys- 
 tem by which he vouchsafes to be a God to us 
 and to our children. He establishes the plan 
 of perpetuating the church from generation to 
 generation by means of the connection of pa- 
 rents and children. By circumcision he signi- 
 fied to all the faithful of old that he regarded 
 their little ones as well as themselves. It is 
 acknowledged by all to be the part of wisdom 
 to look well to the rising generation. On them 
 depend the future prosperity and enlargement 
 of the church. If they are neglected, desola- 
 tion will ensue. If they are properly attended 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 135 
 
 to, the happiest results will follow. God, by 
 the institution of circumcision under the ancient 
 economy and of baptism under the new, pro- 
 claims in language which cannot be mistaken, 
 that the children of the church are her hope and 
 her crown of rejoicing ; and that they must be 
 sacredly regarded. It is therefore placing the 
 divine seal on religious education. It is saying 
 to all parents, Train up your children not for 
 this world, but for eternity. Hence it becomes 
 proper to place upon them an external sign 
 which shall hold up this great practical doctrine 
 to the church in all ages of its existence. 
 
 It is in vain to say here that all this can be 
 had without the ordinance ; for it is the design 
 of this ordinance to fix these things in the mind. 
 It is agreeable to all we know of human nature 
 and of the divine institutions, that external signs 
 should be had for the teaching of important 
 practical principles. Public rites have always 
 been observed both in civil and in religious con- 
 cerns. It is on this principle that the Lord's 
 Supper is instituted, and that the Passover was 
 instituted. It would be just as forcible to allege 
 that the memory of Christ could be preserved 
 in the church as fully and practically without 
 the Lord's Supper, or that the memory of the 
 deliverance from Egyptian bondage could have 
 been preserved as fully and practically without 
 the Passover, as to allege that the memory of 
 these important things could be preserved and 
 practically felt without Infant Baptism. The 
 fact is, if it is important to keep and act upon 
 
136 UTILITY AND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE 
 
 the principle that our children are placed under 
 a gracious economy, and being immortal crea- 
 tures, are to be trained up under the influence 
 of that rehgion which leads to heaven ; it is im- 
 portant that some external rite should be had, 
 to remind us of these things and to fix them in 
 our minds. 
 
 II. Infant Baptism is a standing memorial 
 of the necessity of regeneration by the Spirit 
 of God. 
 
 If it is a fact that we are all by nature the 
 children of wrath even as others ; it is necessa- 
 ry for little ones as well as adults to undergo a 
 change of heart. If adult baptism only were 
 the institution of God we should have no me- 
 morial of the universal necessity of this change. 
 The polluted character of our race would not 
 be held forth conspicuously to the view. But 
 when we find that God ordains baptism for lit- 
 tle children, we learn and feel that the necessi- 
 ty of regeneration is the same in all. We learn 
 that depravity is not an accidental thing, com- 
 ing upon us only after a long time spent in the 
 service of sin, but that it belongs to the race ; 
 that every one, as soon as he acts morally at 
 all, acts wrong. So that if the child has not 
 sinned as yet, he is certainly in such circum- 
 stances that he will sin as soon as he begins 
 the conduct of a moral agent. The necessity 
 of regeneration then is held forth by Infant Bap- 
 tism in the most striking manner that it can be 
 by any external observance. Were baptism 
 confined to adults we should not have this uni- 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 137 
 
 versal necessity so completely brought to view. 
 It would then signify either that they were ac- 
 tually regenerated, or that they must be. It 
 cannot signify that they are, because then in 
 many cases it would signify a lie. It is mani- 
 fest then that the necessity of it is signified. 
 This necessity then held forth in adults only, 
 would not meet the case as it is laid down in the 
 Bible. Hence the practical importance of In- 
 fant Baptism. Hence we are taught so that he 
 who runneth may read, that no individual of the 
 race of Adam can find acceptance with God 
 without the sanctifying influence of the Holy 
 Ghost, without being made meet for the inher- 
 itance of the saints in light by the renewing 
 grace of God. Is this doctrine then of no prac- 
 tical importance ? And since it is true, is it not 
 peculiarly proper that it should be impressed 
 upon our minds by the external ordinances of 
 the church? 
 
 III. It is a remembrancer to the parents of 
 their duty to train up their children for God. 
 
 If this seal of the covenant is applied to the 
 children of believers ; and if it signifies the gra- 
 cious economy under which they as sinners are 
 placed ; it certainly does remind parents in a 
 most solemn," interesting, and irresistible man- 
 ner, of the duties which that economy involves 
 on their part. " God established a testimony in 
 Jacob," says the Psalmist, " and appointed a 
 law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, 
 that they should make known unto their chil- 
 dren, that the generation to come might know 
 12* 
 
138 UTILITY AND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE 
 
 them, and the children that should be born, who 
 should arise and declare them unto their chil- 
 dren ; that they might set their hope in God and 
 not forget the works of the Lord, but keep his 
 commandments." The same principles hold 
 now, and the same duties are incumbent on pa- 
 rents. It is no less the duty of the christian 
 parent at this day to command his children and 
 his household after him to keep the way of the 
 Lord, to do justice and judgment, than it was 
 in the case of Abraham. And it is now as much 
 as ever the fact, that when we bring up our chil- 
 dren in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, 
 he pours out his Spirit upon our seed and his 
 blessing on our offspring, and that they spring 
 up as among the grass, as willows by the water 
 courses ; one saying I am the Lord's and anoth- 
 er calling himself by the name of Jacob, and 
 another subscribing with his hand unto the Lord, 
 and surnaming himself by the name of Israel. 
 As Abraham in obedience to the command of 
 God put upon his children the token of the cov- 
 enant or gracious dispensation under which they 
 were placed, and thus had a perpetual remem- 
 brancer before him that they were separated 
 from the world : so now the mark of the same 
 thing is put upon the children of the same cov- 
 enant. Thus the parent has before him a sol- 
 emn fact in the history of his children which 
 tells him to be faithful to their everlasting in- 
 terests, that they may obey the commandments 
 of Him into whose name they are baptized. If 
 infants are not baptized, then there is no pubHc 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 139 
 
 recognition of the most important duty that per- 
 tains to parents in regard to their children, viz. 
 their religious education. One of the most in- 
 teresting facts in the history of the church, the 
 propagation of a holy seed, a seed to serve the 
 Lord, has no ordinance to hold it up to view. 
 But since our little ones are baptized, and thus 
 recognized as under the care of holy men, and 
 entitled to the treatment which that care implies, 
 we have the wisdom of God displayed in a beau- 
 tiful manner. No man, with the devout feel- 
 ings of a christian can bring his children to 
 Christ to be called by his name and consecrated 
 to him, without finding his love of God stirred 
 up anew, and his sense of the responsibility of 
 his situation as a christian parent, greatly en- 
 larged. If these children are now dedicated to 
 the Lord in whom I believe, how plainly am I 
 under obligation to treat them accordingly ? 
 They must therefore be taught his statutes and 
 imbued as early as possible with his religion. 
 The Spirit of God must be supplicated in^heir 
 behalf daily ; and every means must be used to 
 lead them to act according to the high and bles- 
 sed relation which they sustain to the church of 
 God, the great community of the faithful. If 
 at any time I forget this important lesson, the 
 fact that they are sealed Vvith the seal of the cov- 
 enant will remind me of it, and stir me up to 
 new diligence in my duties towards them. Such 
 are the reflections of a christian parent in refer- 
 ence to this holy ordinance. And does it not 
 then remind him in a most powerful manner of 
 
140 UTILITY a::d practical importance 
 
 his obligation to train them up for God? Is it 
 not a constant remembrancer of this obligation ? 
 
 The ordinance then acts in its influence upon 
 the parent, and through him, upon the chil- 
 dren. They become therefore a privileged 
 race. They are far more likely to be made 
 heirs of the kingdom of God on high through 
 grace than they otherwise would be. This or- 
 dinance is God's public sanction put upon the 
 religious education of children ; and if it is fol- 
 lowed out by its appropriate results, on the part 
 of the parent, the children become followers of 
 Christ indeed and in truth. They assume the 
 obligations of their baptism themselves, and 
 walk in the way of the Lord, and at length sit 
 down with their father Abraham and all the 
 faithful in the joys of heaven. 
 
 If a man asks me now, of what use is baptism 
 to infants, I reply, it does all for them that can 
 possibly be done. It puts them under the care 
 of holy men, and engages those holy men to 
 teach them by precept and example, all things 
 that shall make them wise unto salvation. If 
 you say that all this can be done without bap- 
 tism ; you take the ground of him who says, 
 ' I can be a christian without partaking of the 
 Lord's Supper.' Doubtless he can in some spe- 
 cial and solitary case ; but not ordinarily. If 
 the wisdom of God is to be approved, that wis- 
 dom which has appointed external ordinances 
 to act upon the heart, and to keep men in the 
 way of their duty ; then a man is more likely 
 to be in that way in the use of those ordinances 
 
OF INFANT BAPTIS:,T. 141 
 
 than by the neglect of them. This principle, 
 while it applies to the use of the Lord's Supper, 
 equally applies to the use of Infant Baptism. I 
 do not say that those who from mistaken views, 
 conscientiously neglect this holy ordinance, 
 never perform the duty which it keeps in mind. 
 But this I say, that both they and w^e need all 
 the institutions of God to impress upon our 
 minds the whole duty of a christian ; and with 
 this institution, properly understood, a man is 
 more likely to train up his children for God than 
 without it. 
 
 It is a great privilege then to children to be 
 placed under the care of parents who are bound 
 not only by general considerations, but by the 
 solemn obligations of vows to God, to lead them 
 in the way to heaven. It is a great privilege to 
 have been consecrated by faith, under the sanc- 
 tion of the great Head of the church, to the God 
 of Abraham. Such children are not merely 
 given up to God by the prayers of the parent. 
 The prayers of the church have ascended in 
 their behalf, and the seal of God's gracious cov- 
 enant has been placed upon them. Is all this 
 of no use to the child? The mere application 
 of water to him can indeed do him no good. 
 Neither can the same do good to an adult. It 
 is the thing signified. It is the powerful im.- 
 pression which is made on the minds of those 
 who have the care of his education, and the sol- 
 emn consecration to the Lord God of his fathers 
 in the ordinance of his own appointment, which 
 does him good ; and w^hich God recognizes and 
 
143 UTILITY AND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE 
 
 blesses. Whether the child that dies in infancy- 
 is benefitted by baptism, I do not know. Nor 
 do I know that it is not. It is certainly gratify- 
 ing to the heart of a parent that the child has 
 been thus committed to God, and consecrated 
 to him ; that the parent has discharged his duty. 
 
 IV. The fact that our children are baptized, 
 affords facilities of impressing religious truth 
 on their minds. 
 
 Though they may not have been conscious at 
 the time of their baptism of what was done for 
 them; yet all the lesson which it teaches can 
 be enforced upon them, not only by oral in- 
 struction, but by the baptism of others which 
 they will witness. Consciousness of baptism 
 at the time of its performance, furnishes no les- 
 son to anyone. It is the reflection on the fact, 
 and the calm, collected observation of it upon 
 others from which the instruction is derived. 
 
 Behold then a christian parent who has dedi- 
 cated his children to God by baptism, in the act 
 of teaching them the statutes of the Lord. 
 * Consider my dear children, he may say, under 
 what obligations you are brought by your very 
 birth and privileges to serve God. Before you 
 knew your right hand from your left, I brought 
 you to Jesus Christ in whom I believe, and he 
 blessed you. The church received you in his 
 name because you belonged to him. And I 
 promised before God and the assembly of the 
 saints that I would do my part towards making 
 you in deed and in truth the seed of the blessed 
 of the Lord. You are the children of the 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 143 
 
 church which Christ hath purchased with his 
 own blood. The seal of the gracious economy 
 under which you are placed, has been put upon 
 you ; and your parents and other christians are 
 waiting to see you bring forth the fruits of the 
 solemn and interesting relation in which you 
 stand to Christ, by voluntarily devoting your- 
 selves to his service. Give your own hearts to 
 God, and thus prove that you are worthy " chil- 
 dren of the kingdom." And in due time take 
 upon yourselves the responsibility of your bap- 
 tism by naming the name of Christ and depart- 
 ing from all iniquity. Do not break away from 
 the assembly of the faithful by which you have 
 been recognized. You are a holy seed unto 
 God. See that you act accordingly. Know ye 
 the God of your father, and serve him with a 
 perfect heart and with a willing mind ; for the 
 Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all 
 the imaginations of the thoughts. If you seek 
 him, he will be found of you ; but if you for- 
 sake him, he will cast you off forever.' 
 
 Such is a specimen of the enforcement which 
 Infant Baptism can give to religious instruction 
 on the minds of our children. And is it of no 
 importance ? Is it of no benefit to them ? Does 
 not the parent himself, if he walks in the way 
 of the Lord, enjoy facilities by it, of leading his 
 children in the same way ? Without this ordi- 
 nance all this tender and appropriate instruction 
 must be lost. One of the greatest sanctions 
 which a parent can give to his solemn and af- 
 fectionate counsel, is wanting. 
 
144 UTILITY AND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE 
 
 V. The ordinan ce of Infant Baptism is grat' 
 ifying to a pious heart. 
 
 God has constituted the relation of parents 
 and children ; and it is one of the most endear- 
 ing kind. Every parent ought to love his chil- 
 dren ; and no matter how much he loves them, 
 provided be loves Christ better. Now if Christ 
 is dear to him, and if he is the object of su- 
 preme reverence and unshaken confidence and 
 dependence ; must it not be gratifying to bring 
 the objects of his tender care to Him, and im- 
 plore his blessing upon them? Must it not be 
 truly pleasant to mark those objects with the 
 seal of God's covenant, and to put upon them 
 the name of Christ himself? And can a man 
 v/ho feels the spirituality of his religion and of 
 course, the importance of his children's salva- 
 tion, fail of being thankful that Christ permits 
 him to incorporate those dear objects of affec- 
 tion along with himself in the company of the 
 faithful ? For one I confess I never feel my 
 relation as a parent more tenderly, and more 
 like a religious man than I do when I teach my 
 children the ways of God, and pray for them 
 as set apart from an unclean world by baptism. 
 Religion springs up in the contemplation of this 
 subject in fresh vigor ; and the wisdom of God 
 in appointing such an ordinance, fills me with 
 astonishment and delight. This is the way 
 that every enlightened christian parent, who 
 has not prejudiced his mind beforehand, feels 
 on this subject. It is his helper in the duties he 
 owes to his children. It is the sanctifier of 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 145 
 
 the parental relation. It connects this world 
 with heaven ; and opens the large contempla- 
 tions of God's extensive covenant to the mind. 
 Those who reject Infant Baptism, I cannot but 
 think, lose if they are parents, half the comfort 
 of their religion. The cold, dreary notion of 
 shutting out the children from the parents' 
 privileges, and sufiering them to stand in no 
 relation to the church, has something in it so 
 forbidding that a man shrinks from it with all 
 his heart. 
 
 VI. Infant Baptism is eminently agreeable 
 to the dictates of conscience. 
 
 A plain reader of the scriptures, uninfluenced 
 by system, cannot but see the connection every 
 where set forth betvv^een parents and children. 
 He cannot but see the sanctity which that rela- 
 tion holds. " Children obey your parents in 
 the Lord, for this is. right ;" — the language of our 
 text is apparent every where in the Bible. He 
 feels the relation to be sacred, and endearing. 
 He is called upon to give up himself and all 
 that he has to God, as one of the first duties of 
 the gospel. Shall his children be kept back ? 
 As they are rational and immortal beings like 
 himself, they cannot be given up to God as you 
 would give up property or other inanimate ob- 
 jects into his hands. They must be treated ac- 
 cording to the place they occupy in the scale o^ 
 existence. Something must take place in re- 
 gard to them which is calculated to impress 
 their minds and lead them to a sanction of their 
 parents' surrender of them by their own volun- 
 13 
 
146 UTILITY AND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE 
 
 tary act. What more completely can do this 
 than Baptism ? Are they God's ? Then let 
 them have his seal upon them. Are they im- 
 mortal creatures who need the renewing grace 
 of God ? Then let them receive the mark of 
 such a fact, and let us acknowledge it before 
 God and man. Are they to be educated for 
 heaven? Then let them be enrolled in the 
 school where alone such education is to be had. 
 Conscience then feels satisfied when we bring 
 our children to Christ according to his appoint- 
 ment. And it is urged onward by such an act 
 to those after acts which render the ordinance 
 so effectual, and to w^hich God adds his own 
 blessing, even life forevermore. 
 
 If then Infant Baptism is a token of the gra- 
 cious economy under which we and our children 
 are placed ; if it is a standing memorial of the 
 necessity of regeneration by the baptism of the 
 Holy Ghost ; if it is a remembrancer to parents 
 of their duty to train up their children for God ; 
 if it affords facilities for impressing religious 
 truth on their minds ; if it is gratifying to a pi- 
 ous heart ; and if it is eminently agreeable to the 
 dictates of conscience : and if all these things 
 operate on the children themselves by the ef- 
 forts which their parents make ; who shall say 
 that it is of no use, nay, who can deny that it 
 is of great practical importance ? 
 
 If any who have been baptized in their infan- 
 cy, but who have not yet given up their hearts 
 to the God of their fathers, should chance to 
 light upon these pages ; let them solemnly con- 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 147 
 
 sider the relation they sustain to the church of 
 God. You are marked with the sign of God's 
 gracious covenant. You are solemnly set apart 
 for God, in the way of his own appointment. 
 You are not heathen children, but christian 
 children ; not unclean, but clean. The great 
 fact that you must be born again is held out to 
 you by your baptism — the renewing of the Ho- 
 ly Ghost, by the washing of regeneration which 
 has been applied to you. How important then, 
 and how peculiarly appropriate in your case, is 
 fleeing to Christ immediately for salvation. As 
 yet you are not safe. As yet you are without 
 hope and without God in the world. The 
 great thing which your baptism calls to mind 
 has not yet taken place in regard to you. Come 
 then, and acknowledge the necessity of that 
 thing, and submit to the Lord Jesus Christ with 
 all the heart. Baptism alone will save no man, 
 whether he received it in infancy or in adult 
 years. The obligations which baptism holds 
 forth must be voluntarily assumed, and practis- 
 ed upon. What an aggravation will it be, when 
 they shall come from the east and the west and 
 the north and the south and sit down with 
 Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom 
 of heaven, if you who are the children of the 
 kingdom, should be thrust out ? 
 
 You need not trouble yourselves to consider 
 whether your parents had faith when they gave 
 you up to God. As in the case of an adult 
 who discovers after his baptism that he was not 
 a christian when he was baptized, but does not, 
 
148 UTILITY AND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE, &C. 
 
 when he really becomes one, submit to a repe- 
 tition of the ordinance : so in your case, your 
 baptism becomes valid, whether your parents 
 had faith at the time it was administered or not. 
 By naming the name of Christ you give your 
 own seal to the baptism you have received, just 
 as the adult does in the case supposed, when he 
 returns to his duty. You acknowledge its ob- 
 ligation as pertaining to yourself. You take it 
 as it were upon you ; and therefore your faith 
 is accepted, and your baptism, so far as you are 
 concerned, is right. To repeat it would be do- 
 ing that which God does not require, and which 
 goes to set aside the nature of the ordinance as 
 the initiatory rite of Christianity, once admin- 
 istered to a given subject. " He that believeth 
 and is baptized, shall be saved." Having been 
 baptized, if you now believe, you are compre- 
 hended in the grand charter of salvation which 
 the Church has received from her King. Be- 
 hold now is the accepted time. Behold now is 
 the day of salvation. To-day if ye will hear 
 his voice, harden not your hearts.