£5 CL .^ «T IE 3 ' * ■ ^.^ IE £Z *-> Q. W S> * o a 5 » 8 a> c c* O bfl ^r .25 Eh < 3 fc E *5 «» M 03 42 •£ « CO s« 2 i 1 ^ s ^ ^, -a c 8 £ a) CO CD <*fl qI > ^ ^ scTr Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/christianbaptismOOwibe <~hrUi;m Bai RKV. ANDREAS WIBERG CHRISTIAN BAPTISM: BET FORTH IN THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE. ANDREAS WIBERG, A.M., FORMERLY A LUTHERAN MINISTER OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH OF SWEDEN. WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURES ?"— Romani ir. S. yjpirtiiflti AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 530 ARCH STREET, This interesting book is affectionately dedicated, by the Publication Society, to Charles T. Goodwin, Esq., New York City, by whose liberality it has been stereo- typed, and thus perpetuated. ■* CONTENTS PART I. THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES CONCERNING CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Section I.— Baptism before the Resurrection of Christ 7 II. — The Commission of Christ concerning Baptism 33 III.— Baptism at the Feast of Pentecost 70 IV. — Philip Baptizing at Samaria 76 V. — The Baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch 79 VI. — The Baptism of the Apostle Paul 85 VII.— The Baptism of Cornelius and his Friends 89 VIII.— The Baptism of Lydia and her Household 91 IX.— The Baptism of the Philippian Jailer 94 X.— Paul Baptizing at Corinth 98 XL— Reflections on the Baptism of Households 101 XII.— The Baptism of Twelve Disciples at Ephesus 106 XIII. — Passages in the Epistles -which expressly allude to the Form and the Import of Baptism 109 XIV. — Passages in the New Testament where the word baptizo occurs in a figurative sense 115 XV. — Passages where baptizo occurs in its proper signification, without any reference to Christian Baptism 115 XVI. — Passages where Baptism is occasionally mentioned 131 XVII. — Passages erroneously interpreted in favor of Infant Bap- tism 142 XVIII. — Passages whose Reference to Baptism is doubtful 171 XIX. — Summary of Testimonies on the Doctrine of the Xew Tes- tament concerning Baptism 174 XX.— Circumcision 178 (3) CONTENTS. PART II. TESTIMONIES FROM THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Section I. — Introduction 209 II.— Baptism in the First Century 212 III.— Baptism in the Second Century 215 IV.— Baptism in the Third Century 232 V.— Baptism in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries 252 VI. — Testimony of Church History with especial reference to the Mode of Baptism 263 PART III. 60ME OF THE MOST COMMON OBJECTIONS BOTH WITH RESPECT TO THB MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM ANSWERED. Section I. — Objections concerning the Mode of Baptism 275 II.— Objections concerning the Subjects of Baptism 279 APPENDIX. Christian Baptism as a Prerequisite to Membership in the Church and Communion at the Lord's Table INTRODUCTION. We take peculiar pleasure in introducing the follow- ing treatise to the attention of the Christian public ; and this for several reasons. The first is found in the position and character of its Author. It has been found by experience for the last two hundred years, that the most interesting and the most effective works on the Baptismal Controversy are those which are put forth by men whose own personal convictions have been the fruit, not of custom and education, but of fresh, earnest, and original examina- tion ; especially of those who have been led by the force of truth to change their opinions, and to make serious sacrifices for the truth's sake. The names of Tombes, Booth, M'Lean, Carson, Noel, Pengilly, Baldwin, Judson, Chapin, Remington, and others, will readily occur to the reader's mind as examples. And it seems perfectly natural that it should be so. We all feel a special interest in a book, in which a man professes to give us the reasons of a great practical change of convictions on any subject, particularly if it appear to be a matter of conscience with him. His example of obedience to conscience carries with it the (Hi) INTRODUCTION. force of an argument of the strongest kind; for we presume him to be convinced of the importance of the point at issue to a degree which no advocate of heredi- tary opinions can be supposed to feel ; to be better ac- quainted with the evidence and the arguments on both sides of the question, and if himself a good man, to have weighed them more deliberately and exactly in the sight of God. We are more easily persuaded of his independence of mind, from the fact that he has risen above the natural prejudices of his education, connec- tions, and position in life ; and if it appears that this independence of human authority is intimately asso- ciated with a strong and filial dependence upon Divine teaching, such as is promised in the Scriptures to the earnest inquiry and meek simplicity of faith, we can- not but profoundly reverence such a spirit, and believe that God has really guided him in his new and better judgment. It is no longer the mere attraction of high learning, linked logic, or brilliant rhetoric, that draws us on in the perusal of his book ; but it is the vital fel- lowship of the heart in the holiness of truth, in the sanctity of conscience, in the love of Christ and his commandments. Now all this is eminently true in the case of the author before us. Those who have enjoyed the oppor- tunity of acquaintance with him in his native land, or in this country, will need no other proof. Those who have never had tbat advantage, will soon be satisfied of its truth in perusing the book itself. INTRODUCTION. Mr. TYiberg was Lorn in Sweden, and brought np a strict Lutheran. He was educated at the University of Upsala, ordained to the ministry, and settled as a Lutheran pastor of the Established Church. Here he quietly pursued his studies and labors for several years ; but one day, after the Confirmation of over thirty young persons, he was disturbed by the reflection that only two of the whole number about to be admitted to the Lord's table gave evidence of conversion. Op- pressed with the sense of his responsibility, he re- signed his position as a pastor, repaired to Stockholm, and there engaged as Editor of an evangelical journal, and translated several works of Luther and Arndt from the German into Swedish. The subject of baptism ex- citing some attention, in consequence of the conversion of Rev. F. 0. Nilsson to Baptist views, and the banish- ment of himself and flock, Mr. Wiberg thought it his duty to defend Pedobaptism ; and did so in his journal at Stockholm, and also personally against Mr. Oncken and Koebner at Hamburg, when on a visit to that city. Once embarked in the investigation, however, after his return to Stockholm, he conscientiously sought to ascertain the will of God from his word. The result of tbis study took him by surprise. Not without much sorrow and inward struggle was he brought to feel con- vinced of the unsoundness of his early views and prac- tice on baptism, and to confront the serious conse- quences of a change. Sweden, of all countries in Europe, is, perhaps, the most exclusive and intolerant VI INTRODUCTION. in its attachment to Lutheranisni. Any form of dissent or opposition to the Church Establishment is, to this day, visited by heavy legal penalties, fines, imprison- ment, or banishment. He knew what Mr. Nilsson had suffered before him, and what he might expect if he was baptized ; but casting himself on Christ for life and death, Mr. Wiberg resolved to give up all for his sake. A sea-voyage being recommended for his health, and there being no Baptist minister in Sweden to adminis- ter that ordinance, he set sail for the United States. On his way he was baptized by the banished Nilsson at Copenhagen. He arrived in this country late in 1852, a total stran- ger, and scarcely able to speak the English language, though he could read and write it. He found friends among his Baptist brethren, who were charmed with his deep piety and simplicity of manners. He was employ- ed by the American Baptist Publication Society, first as a Colporteur, and then as a Translator. Here he composed also the following treatise on Baptism and Communion, in which he gives the result of his patient and prayerful examination, the grounds of his self- denying change of conviction. The Society at length appointed him Superintendent of Colportage in Sweden, to which country he returned soon after his book was published in the Swedish language. He left behind him the MS. in English, which is now offered to the public. Though not free from foreign idioms, it is thought best to publish it as he left it. INTRODUCTION'. Vll If we are not mistaken, this is the first book giving to the public the reasons for a change of conviction from the Lutheran to a Baptist point of view. It has therefore a peculiar value for circulation among the large and increasing Lutheran population in this country. Another source of pleasure in commending this treatise to the American public, is the great success which has already attended its circulation in Sweden within the last four years. Thousands of copies in the Swedish language have been demanded there. It has excited the attention of men of all classes, peasants, burghers, nobles, clergymen, statesmen, representa- tives in the Swedish Diet, and editors of the public journals, both secular and religious. It has encoun- tered great, and sometimes bitter opposition. Within two weeks of his landing at Stockholm, the author was challenged to defend it in public debate, and one of the largest churches in the capital was opened for the oc- casion. He met the challenge in Christian meekness, and as the discussion went on day after day, the most powerful champions of Pedobaptism were found unable to resist the wisdom and spirit with which he spoke. When the discussion was closed, they regretted that it was ever begun, as the daily reports of the public prints had spread the principles of the Baptists through the kingdom. Persecution has since been resorted to again and again to suppress them, but in vain. The book is still in demand, the character of its author is respected more and more, the power of its scriptural Vlll INTRODUCTION. principles is still spreading, and Baptist churhes are springing up in every part of Sweden. Already they number ninety-four, with over five thousand communi- cants. A history of this work of grace is just issued by our Society. Our last reason for rejoicing in the appearance of this book in our own language and country, is found in the character of the book itself. Its spirit is ex cellent. Its method is the true inductive method, by which modern science has made the profoundest truths of nature its own. Its compass is sufficient to compre- hend the entire subject of inquiry, to exhaust the evi- dence on both sides, and to conduct the reader to a sat- isfactory conclusion by patting him in possession of the whole argument. Its style is simple, lucid, and vigorous ; remarkably so, we think, considering the author's re- cent acquaintance with our language. Its learning is ample, thorough, and exact. It adduces new testimonies from Pedobaptist concessions not yet generally known in this country. Mr. Wiberg slights no objection, for his own reason and conscience had not lightly come to Bap- tist conclusions. He reasons cautiously and clearly, to reach the solid ground of truth, and to manifest it to the conviction of his readers in the sight of God. We especially invite to the book the attention of our Evangelical Lutheran brethren. It is worthy of circula- tion and success everywhere, for it is full of the truth and spirit of Christ. j. n. b. PART I. THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE CONCERNING CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. SECTION I. BAPTISM BEFORE THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. The Divine Mission of John the Baptist. — The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Mark i. 1. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. John i. 6. As it is written in the prophets ; Behold, I send my messen- ger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee. Mark i. 2. And this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his path straight. Matt. iii. 3. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias, to make ready a peo- ple prepared for the Lord. Luke i. 16, 17. Now, the word of God came unto John, the son of Zacharias, (7) 8 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. in the wilderness. Luke iii. 2. That he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore I am come bap- tizing with [in]* water. He that sent me to bap- tize with [in] water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and re- maining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw and bare record, that this is the Son of God. John i. 31-34. The Preaching of John the Baptist. — In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wil- derness of Judea. And saying, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Matt. iii. 1, 2. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preach- ing the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Luke iii. 3. John preached the baptism of repentance to the people of Israel. Acts xiii. 24. Saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him who should come after hini, that is, on Christ Jesus. Acts xix. 4. When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for repentance. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abra- ham to our Father : for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abra- ham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root * Words thus placed within brackets are corrections made in accordance with the original. Before the resurrection' of christ. 9 of the trees : therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with [in] water, unto repentance : but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with [in] the Holy Ghost and fire. Whose fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge his floor and gather his wheat into the garner : but he will burn up the chaff in unquenchable fire. Matt. iii. 7-12. Compare Mark i. 4-8 ; Luke iii. 3-18 ; and John i. 25-28. John's Baptism. — And there went out unto him all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, con- fessing their sins. Mark i. 5. Compare Matt. iii. 5, 6. John truly baptized you with [in] water ; but ye shall be baptized with [in] the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Acts i. 5. Wherefore, of these men which have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, be- ginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrec- tion. Acts i. 22. That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached. Acts x. 37. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that He said, John indeed baptized with 10 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. [in] water ; but ye shall be baptized with [in] the Holy Ghost. Acts xi. 16. He (Apollos) spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, know- ing only the baptism of John. Acts xviii. 25. The Baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ. — Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized of him. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me ? And Jesus answering, said unto him, Suffer it to be so now : for thus it becom- eth us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered Him. And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water : and lo, the heavens were opened unto Him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon Him : And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matt. iii. 13-11 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him. And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Mark i. 9-11. Compare Luke iii. 21, 22; John i. 28-34. Christ baptizing, by his Disciples, in Judea, and BEFORE TIIE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 11 John baptizing, at the same time, in JEnon. — After these things came Jesus and bis disciples into the laud of Judea ; and lie tarried with them and bap- tized. And John also was baptizing in JEnon, near to Salim, because there was much water there ; and they came and were baptized. Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews, about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, be- hold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. John iii. 22-26. When, therefore, the Lord knew how the Phari- sees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John — though Jesus himself baptized not, but His disciples — He left Judea, and departed again into Galilee. John iv. 1, 2. And (He) went away again beyond Jordan, into the place where John at first baptized. And many believed on him there. John x. 40, 42. References of Jesus Christ to John — His Bap- tism and Success. — And when the messengers of John were departed, He began to speak unto the people concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness for to see ? A prophet ? Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my mes- senger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Luke vii. 24-2T. Verily, I say 12 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. unto you, among them that are bora of women, there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist : notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. And from the days of John the Baptist, until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. Matt. xi. 11, 12. The law and the prophets were until John : since that time the kingdom of God is announced by the Gospel,* and every man presseth into it. Luke xvi. 16. And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will ask you one question. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men ? Answer me. Mark xi. 29, 30. Compare Matt. xxi. 24-27 ; Luke xx. 3-8. And all the people that heard him, and the pub- licans, justified God, being baptized with the bap- tism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers re- jected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. Luke vii. 29, 30. REMARKS. John's baptism was either under the law or under the gospel dispensation. If under the former, we should expect that the law required it. But w T here can such a requirement be found in the law ? That John's baptism did not belong to the Old * Thus according to tho original. BEFORE THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 13 Testament, but to the New, we understand from the following reasons : 1. Our Saviour himself teaches that the New Testament Dispensation began with John, saying-, u The law and the prophets were until John ; since that time the kingdom of God is announced by the gospel, and every man presseth into it." "From the days of John the Baptist, until now, the king- dom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." By "the kingdom of God*' and "the kingdom of heaven," we have here to understand the kingdom of Christ, or the Xew Testament dispensation. This kingdom began just where the law and the prophets ended. " The law and the prophets were until John;" but with him began ''the kingdom of heaven," which, from that point of time, was an- nounced, not through dark prophecies, but "through the gospel." And in this new state of things "the kingdom of heaven suffered violence ;" that is, the gospel, preached by John, our Saviour and his dis- ciples, was received by the people with an unprece- dented eagerness, and with a faith that forced them, for Christ's sake, to forsake all things, and com- mence an entirely new life. Had the ministry of John not been within the Xew Testament dispensa- tion, or "the kingdom of heaven,'' how could this kingdom be said to have suffered violence "from his day f 2. John's baptism was sanctioned by our Saviour 2 \ 1-i CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. as a New Testament ordinance, being himself bap- tized by John. It is evident that our Saviour, by submitting himself to the baptism of John, would honor and sanction both baptism in general, and especially the baptism of John, as an important divine institution belonging to the New Testament dispensation. Some believe that the baptism of Jesus himself had nothing to do with the Christian ordinance, supposing that he was baptized as a priest. But this is an error. Christ could not be baptized as a Jewish priest, for he did not belong to the tribe consecrated to the priesthood. In Heb. vii. 14, Paul says, "It is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood." And again, in Heb. viii. 4, "If He were on earth, he should not be a priest"' — he could not be a Jewish priest. Of course, no statute of the Mosaic law touched the priesthood of Christ, who " pertained to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance to the altar." Heb. viii. 13. Christ's baptism, therefore, could not be a Jewish ordinance. Indeed, we must have a far stronger evidence that Christ's baptism did not belong to the New Dispensation, before we part with the consoling conviction that we are baptized with the same baptism as our Lord and Saviour himself. 3. John's baptism was identified with that bap- tism which Christ, through his disciples, himself gave. For John still continued to baptize after lie BEFORE THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 1, had boon informed that Jesus baptized ; which the Scriptures relate in an approving- way : John iii. 22-26 ; iv. 1. But this would have been to preach two different baptisms as binding during the same time, if John's baptism had not been the same as that of Jesus. And in what an awkward dilemma would that have placed the scrupulous Jews, who, in a sense of their sins, desired to be baptized ? Could we charge the God of infinite wisdom with being the author of such a confusion ? 4. John's baptism icas the same with that of the Apostles, even in regard to the doctrine and faith whereunto he baptized. For it reads, Mark i. 4, that John " preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" — the same terms which are used to describe the baptism of the Apostles, Acts ii. 38, "Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins." John said to the people that they should believe on Jesus Christ, and ex- claimed, " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world :" the same was in sub- stance the preaching of the Apostles. This doctrine is not at variance with that utter- ance of John, " I have baptized you with [in] water ; but He shall baptize you with [in] the Holy Ghost." For in those words John does not com pare his water baptism with water baptism when given by Christ, who never baptized any one iii water. John iv. 2. Neither does he compare his own* baptism with that of the Apostles : but he 16 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, compares his own person and ministry with the person and office of Christ. He could only perform the external act of baptizing in water, but could not give the Spirit, whom He alone could give who should come after him. In the same way Paul also speaks, saying, " I have planted, Apollos watered : but God gave the increase. So, then, neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth ; but God that giveth the increase." 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7. Xor is this doctrine at variance with these words of Christ : " He that is least in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than he." For this phrase does not imply that John was entirely excluded from that kingdom. " The kingdom of heaven" was at his time already present; for at this very time, it "suffered violence, and the violent took it by force." But it was also a future kingdom, inasmuch as it had not yet been manifested in its more mature state. As such it came " in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" at the day of Pentecost, when the Apostles w r ere reminded of all those things which Christ had taught them, which they had not then fully comprehended, but which now were re- vealed unto them in their spiritual sense. Before that time Peter could not agree to the doctrine of the sufferings and death of Christ in the stead of sinners ; but on this occasion he preached, enlight- ened by the Holy Spirit, the glorious doctrine of the atonement of Christ in all its clearness. In BEFORE THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 17 the same way John, though ''greater than all the prophets" as to the dignity of his ministry, yet was less than the least of the followers of Christ after the day of Pentecost, in the degree of his spiritual knowledge of Divine truth. John's knowledge of " the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven," as well as his preaching and baptism, were in a state of childhood ; but thence it does not follow, that he, with all his work, did not belong to the Xew Testa- ment. It does not disagree with this doctrine, that the baptism which John performed is usually mentioned under some special epithet, as "John's baptism," or "the baptism of repentance." For the true reason why this baptism is called "John's baptism," is that it was the baptism which John, on the im- mediate command of God (Luke iii. 2 ; John i. 33), first introduced. It was a new rite ; and that a new institution should be designated by certain de- scriptive epithets, is perfectly natural. Again, the reason why it was called "the baptism of repent- ance," is that he required repentance of every can- didate for baptism. But lie was not only a preacher of repentance ; he preached also, like the Apostles, forgiveness of sin through faith on Christ. Mark i. 4 ; Acts xix. 4. Some object, not only against the baptism of John, but also against that administered under the ministry of Christ himself, through his disciples, that it cannot be valid Christian baptism, since it 18 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. was instituted before the resurrection of Christ, and, consequently, previous to the introduction of the New Testament dispensation. To this we answer : If the New Testament dispensation did not begin until after the resurrection of Christ, and baptism administered before this point of time was not valid as a Christian baptism, then the Lord's Sup- per cannot be valid as a Christian ordinance, as that also was instituted previous to the death and resurrection of Christ. Thence it follows, either that Christian baptism was instituted already before the resurrection of Christ, or that the Lord's Supper must have been instituted after the resurrection of Christ, in order that the two ordinances might have equal validity as Christian institutions. Finally, it may be observed that the commission of Christ concerning baptism, recorded in Matt. xxviii. 19, 20, did not annul the baptism of John and the disciples of Christ previous to Pentecost. For the fact that Jesus, previous to his resurrec- tion, commanded his disciples to baptize (John iii. 22, 26 ; iv. 1, 2), shows that the commission which he afterward, at his Ascension, gave to his Apostles, was only a repetition and enlargement of his former commandment. The baptism of John, and of Christ himself, by his disciples, was to be restricted to "the house of Israel" (Matt. x. 5, 6) ; but the commission extends it to "all nations." The ex- press commandment to baptize "into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," BEFORE THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 19 cannot invalidate the baptism of John and the dis- ciples of Christ. For suppose that neither John nor the disciples of Christ did baptize into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, yet they, undoubtedly, baptized into the faith of the Sacred Trinity. See, concerning John, Matt. iii. 11, 16, 17 ; Mark i. 7, 8; Luke iii. 22 ; John i. 32-34 — from which passages it is evident that John himself both knew and witnessed to his hearers of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Indeed, we have in the Xew Testament no single instance recorded where this ivhole name was re- peated at baptism. On the other hand, we meet with the simple expressions, "to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," "to be baptized into Christ," etc. See Acts viii. 16, ii. 38, xix. 5; Rom. vi. 3 ; Gal. iii. 27. Xow, if the baptism of John is not a Christian baptism, because he is not recorded to have baptized into the name of the Trinity, then no baptism which the Xew Testa- ment records is a Christian baptism. Xow, when it is proved that both John's baptism and the previous baptism administered by the dis- ciples of Christ, were in substance the same with that baptism administered after the resurrection of Christ, it follows that these previous baptisms, in regard to the character of the subjects, and also in regard to the mode, are an example to all believers, binding upon them in all times. We may still say 20 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. with our Lord, " Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." The persons whom John baptized are designated by the Holy Spirit in few words : " They came from all the land of Judea, and were all baptized by him, confessing their sins." As this is all that •is said of them, and it-is said of them all; and as John at the same time rejected impenitent Pharisees and Sadducees froi» his baptism, and exhorted them to bring forth fruits meet for repentance, it follows that he baptized none but those whom he considered as true penitents. Further, as the baptism of John was a baptism of repentance, that is, a baptism which required re- pentance, aud likewise a baptism wherein the candi- dates confessed their sins, he could in no wise have baptized infants, because they neither are able to repent nor to confess their sins. John not only required a confession of repent- ance, and a state of mind which testified the genu- ineness of repentance in the candidates, but added further, as though with an express design to remove from their minds all idea of the ordinance of bap- tism being connected with hereditary qualifications, "Begin not to say within yourselves, "We have Abraham to our Father : for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." John means to teach us, by this declaration, that, as circumcision belonged to the whole carnal Israel, so baptism belongs only to BEFORE THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 21 spiritual Israelites, who " walk in the steps of the faith of Abraham," and not to J.lie whole of so- called Christendom. If it be objected, " Those to whom John spoke were adults," we answer, let it be so. Yet the words of John show, at all events, that the nature of the Christian church is not the same with that of the congregation of Israel in the Old Testament. The Pharisees icere members of the congregation of the Old Testament by mere virtue of carnal de- scent from Abraham ; but they could not become members of the church of Christ without repentance and faith. Therefore, it appears, from the nature of the church of Christ compared with that of the Jewish congregation of the Old Testament, that the law regarding admission to that church is not the same with that lawVhich prescribed that all the male descendants of Abraham should be received among the covenant people of the Old Testament by means of circumcision. It is to be observed that Christ did not make disciples by baptizing. To make disciples, and to baptize, are plainly represented as different actions : for "Jesus made more disciples than John" though he baptized not any of them with his own hands. It deserves also special attention, that the process of making disciples was first in order, and then baptism: for Jesus "made and baptized dis- ciples." See John iv. 1, 2. As this is all the Evangelists have recorded respecting the baptism 22 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. of Christ during all Lis life, this is, consequently, all in which the practice of Christ is given for the guidance of his people. Therefore, whatsoever may be said in favor of infant baptism, it is evident that it has no authority from our Saviour's own ex- ample. The fact that our Saviour, as did John, first made disciples, and then baptized them, entirely overthrows the position often taken by Pedobap- tists, that there was no necessity for Christ to give his Apostles any special command to baptize in- fants, because, as Jews, they had always been ac- customed to see children received into the Jewish community both by circumcision and by the Jewish proselyte baptism. For it is clear that as they had, as Jews, been accustomed to see both adults and children received into the Jewish community by means of circumcision, so now they were, in the new state of things which commenced by the preach- ing and baptism of John the Baptist, accustomed to see only such received into the visible kingdom of Christ, by means of baptism, as repented and believed in Christ, and had thus previously been made disciples. And as to the Jewish proselyte baptism, from that nothing can be inferred in re- gard to Christian baptism. There is no evidence that the Jewish proselyte baptism existed in the time of Christ, Some be- lieve that this baptism among the Jews did not originate until the seventh century after Christ; BEFORE THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 23 at any rate, all learned and candid Pedobaptists in our time acknowledge that the existence of a prose- lyte baptism in the time of Christ cannot be proved. We need only quote the testimony of the world- renowned Church historian, Dr. A. Xeander. He says : " Since the elaborate work of Schneckenberger* has appeared, no one will pretend that he can prove the existence of proselyte baptism in the time of Christ, "f That which has been called proselyte baptism was essentially different from Christian baptism. It was nothing more than one of the many self-immer- sions and ablutions commanded in the law, and magnified by superstition into a distinct rite. The Jewish proselytes immersed themselves. And though both adults and children performed it, where parents were admitted into the Jewish com- munity, yet none of the descendants of such parents afterwards used it. In all these respects it was un- like Christian baptism, and therefore could not be the pattern of it J * "Ueber das Alter der Jiidisb.cn Proselytentaufe." f In Xeander's Lectures. J To tbis we add tbe following remarks from a Baptist au- thor : " 1. He who gave the commission, Go ye, therefore, make all nations disciples, baptizing them, etc., was a Jew, who had been himself circumcised in infancy, but baptized in manhood, and who therefore did not regard circumcision and baptism as sig- nifying the same thing. 24 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. It is said, that " all the people," and especially ''the Publicans," who heard John, "justified God," that is, gave their cordial assent to the method of God in his ministry and baptism, and, to testify it, "were baptized with the baptism of John ;" while they who had a higher renown of piety, viz., " the Pharisees and the lawyers, rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. 11 "2. Those who received the commission were Jews, who had themselves been in like manner circumcised in infancy, but baptized in manhood, on their own personal profession of re- pentance and faith in the approaching Messiah; and who had for a long time been actually employed by that Messiah himself in making and baptizing disciples among Jews who had been already circumcised, John iv. 1, 2. The work assigned them in this commission was precisely the same as they had been em- ployed in, except that it was now extended to all nations, em- braced new facts and discoveries concerning the way of salva- tion, and had the promise of superior aids and qualifications from on high. How was it possible, then, for them to think of the law of circumcision, or the custom of proselyte lajitism (supposing it then existed), as suggesting the proper interpreta- tion of the law of Christian baptism ? The supposition is to the last degree improbable. Their past practice was the natural, and the only natural, mode of understanding their present com- mission. In their own nation they had already, under the eye and authority of the Lord, made disciples and baptized them ; they were now to do the same among all nations ; teaching them also, to observe all things ichatsoever their Lord had commanded them. . . . The baptism of infants, so far from being im- plied in the circumstances of Christ and his Apostles when this commission was given, appears to be more decisively excluded by those very circumstances." — "Baptismal Balance.'' By J. Newton Brown. Philadelphia, 1S53; pp. 30, 31. BEFORE THE RESURRECTION OP CHRIST Our Saviour here clearly intimates, that baptism is a part of "the counsel of God," and that, so far as men neglect baptism, so far do they contemn and reject the ivill and counsel of God concerning them- selces. If John, who was only a man, was to be esteemed so highly, and his baptism be received so uncondi- tionally as "the counsel of God," that our Saviour expressed His great displeasure with them who neglected it ; how much more do they incur the dis- pleasure of God, who neglect this holy ordinance in the still more solemn form in which we soon shall find it prescribed by Him whose name is written " KIXG of Kings and LORD of Lords !" Rev. xix. 16. Surely we may say: "If they escaped not who refused Him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from Him that speaketh from heaven ?" Heb. xii. 25. Respecting the mode in which baptism was adminis- tered by John the Baptist and the disciples of Christ, it is to be observed : 1. The ordinary meaning of the Greek word bap- tizo, which expresses this mode, always is immerse or dip. Consequently, this word in all the most renowned versions, both ancient and modern, where it has been translated * has been rendered by an * In several version?, as the English, French, Spanish, &c, the word baptizo has only heen transferred from the Greek. Thus, for example, it has been changed in the English to bap- tize, in the French to bcqitizer, . ll*tt« SECTION IX. THE BAPTISM OF THE PHILIPPIAN JAILER. "And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, sup- posing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm, for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down be- fore Paul and Silas. And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved ? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was bap- tized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat be- fore them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." Acts xvi. 2T-34. REMARKS. The jailer conducts Paul and Silas out from the inner prison, and asks, trembling, "Sirs, what (94) THE PHILIPPIAX JAILER. 95 must I do to be saved ?" To this lie receives a direct answer, " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt he saved, and thy house." By this answer it cannot be meant that the household of the jailer should be saved only through his own faith ; but, if they also believed, they should be en- titled to the same spiritual and everlasting blessings with himself; which Paul might the rather add, as it is probable that many of them at the great earth- quake (see Acts xvi. 26) might have attended the master of the family into the dungeon. The text most clearly represents the household of the jailer as a believing house, by first saying that Paul and Silas " spoke the word of the Lord unto him, and to all that were in his house;" and further that the jailer "rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." If, therefore, children were to be found in this house, the text certainly speaks only of such children as could hear, perceive, and believe the preaching of the Gospel. None can reasonably say that new-born children were among those that heard "the word of the Lord" and "be- lieved in God." Xow, all who had heard and be- lieved the word of the Lord were baptized, but no others. For as, in the first place, it reads, "They spake the word of the Lord unto all that were in his house," so it reads, in the second place, " lie was baptized, he and all his." The one expression extends just as far as the other. In our text nothing is specified in regard to the 96 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM mode. But the very word baptizo, signifying the act of baptism, teaches us that even here, as every- where, immersion was practiced. To this no ob- stacle was to be found in the circumstances. For in the first place, the river Strymon ran close by, and nothing militates against the supposition that the jailer might have been baptized in this river. For on a closer consideration of the text, all ap- pears to have taken place in the following order. First, the jailer brought Paul and Silas out of the " inner prison," and said, " Sirs, what must I do to be saved ?" v. 30. Then he brought them into his house ; for it is added that "they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house." v. 32. Next "he took them," or as it may read, according to the original, " took them aside," and " washed their stripes." But whither did he take them aside, in order to wash their stripes ? Probably to a near water. There he also might, "straightway the same hour of the night," have been baptized, and all his. v. 33.* Finally, he again brought them home, or rather wpf to his * On this verse the Lutheran Superintendent, Dr. IT. A. "W. Meyer, makes the following remark : " Paralabon autous — eleusen ; he took them aside and washed. A graphic representa- tion. He probably brought them to a near water, where the baptism of the jailer and his household was then immediately performed." — Commentary on the New Testament. f "The office-house of the jailer is to be thought of as built above the prisons." — Meyer. THE PHILIPPIAX JAILER. 97 house, and entertained them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house, v. 34. If the baptism of the jailer and his household had been performed by pouring a little water, or sprinkling, it would have been better to remain within the house in the dead hour of the night, than to go out. Thus every circumstance goes to prove that baptism was administered either in the river Strymon, or some pool, or other reservoir of water. There could not be any want of conveniences for immersion, as it is known that, at this time and place, every public building was provided with water reservoirs. Therefore, it is also the opinion of the celebrated Grotius, that the baptism in question was performed in the bath connected with the prison-house, over which the jailer had superinten- dence. The circumstances, therefore, on that occa- sion, are so far from rendering baptism by immersion improbable, that, on the contrary, they impera- tively demand it. Finally, even here, we learn how intimately bap- tism was connected with faith in Christ, that it must take place straightway, the same hour of the night, and could not be deferred to a more convenient time; whence also hospitality mast be postponed in behalf of this holy act. This should teach every believer, who is convinced of his not being yet rightly baptized, not to put off this important and necessarv dutv. SECTION X. PAUL BAPTIZING AT CORINTH. M Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, be- lieved on the Lord with all his house ; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were bap- tized/' Acts xviii. 8. "Is Christ divided ? was Paul crucified for you ? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul ? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gains. Lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas : besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." 1 Cor. i. 13-17. "Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." xvi. 15. REMARKS. The assurance of Paul that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel, exposes in the strongest light the fatal error of those who speak of discipling by baptism. For while our opponents insist, that Christ ordered his eleven Apostles to disciple all nations bv baptizing them ; he who (98) PAUL BAPTIZING AT C0K1STH. 99 labored more abundantly than they all tells us, that he was not sent, comparatively speaking, to baptize even those that believed. Consequently, he was not sent to make disciples in that way for which our opposers plead, butb j preaching five gospel. Nay, so far from thinking it would have been his happi- ness to have made a multitude of the Corinthians disciples by baptizing them, he thanks God he had baptized but very few ; and this he does while claiming the honor of having been the favored in- strument of converting a great part of those that were saints in the city of Corinth. See 1 Cor. iv. 15. It seems, therefore, as if Paul had not learned that easy and expeditious way of making disciples, for which our brethren contend. Although only Crispus is here said to have been baptized, and nothing is mentioned concerning the baptism of his household, yet the conclusion is necessary that his household also was baptized ; for it is said that " Crispus believed on the Lord, with all his house." This passage reflects a clear light on the house of Lydia, which is related to have been baptized, without any express mention of their faith. For if any one, from the fact that the house of Lydia is not expressly said to have been believ- ing, would infer that the baptism of her household was a necessary consequence of her faith, without their own, one may say, on the same principle, that Crispus only was baptized ; because it is, indeed, stated that he ''believed on the Lord with all his 100 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. house," and nothing is said of the baptism of the household, but only of that of Crispus. But that the household also was baptized, is certain, because the Lord has commanded to baptize believers. In the same way you may also infer that, when the house of Lydia is said to have been baptized, bub nothing is expressly mentioned concerning the faith of the baptized persons, they, however, must have believed, because the Commission authorizes the baptism of none but believers. Finally, as to the house of Stephanas (the last one who is said, in Scripture, to have beeu bap- tized), even this is evidently represented as believ- ing. For it is said, that this house was "the first fruits" of the' word in Achaia, and that " they" (the members of the same house) " have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." They were the first household that had been converted to Christ in this district, and the whole family exerted themselves in acts of zeal and charity in reference to their fellow Christians, especially the poorer or more afflicted, so that there was not a member of the whole house that did not partake in it. Nor can any reply that possibly they were baptized in infancy, but had now grown to man- hood ; for only five years had elapsed from Paul's first entrance into Achaia, of which Corinth was the capital. Hence it appears, the baptized house- hold here also was a believing household. SECTION XL REFLECTION ON THE BAPTISM OF HOUSEHOLDS. GENERAL REMARKS. Now we have examined all the places in the New Testament where whole households are said to have been baptized, and as we have nowhere previously found any instance of infant baptism, so neither in the accounts of the baptism of the house- holds now under consideration. Had it been the constant practice of the Apostles to baptize infants together with their parents, we should have reason to expect, and, no doubt, should have found, in various places of Scripture, baptisms of children mentioned, as well as of adults, because we else- where in Scripture very often fiud children specially mentioned with the adults, as has before been shown.* Yea, we infer that this must have been a fact in many instances, because we find in the New Testament many thousands of adults believing and being baptized. See Acts ii. 41 ; iv. 4; v. 14. &c. While Pedobaptists must concede that from the baptized households mentioned in the New Testa- ment no conclusive argument can be drawn in favor * ice p. 78. 9* (101) 102 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. of infant baptism, they allege in self-defence that we are bound to show that no children in those house- holds were baptized, before we are authorized to reject infant baptism : and the more so, as, in the instances of baptized households, children are not expressly excluded from baptism. To this we answer in the first place : On us no such duty is incumbent ; for we have already shown, from the Commission, xcho are to be baptized, and so far as we are concerned it is sufficient to prove that the baptism of households is not opposed to our explanation of the Commission, on which we chiefly rest our argument. If we were bound to prove, by special examples, the falsehood of all errors, it would lead to the grossest absurdities. Thus, for instance, it would be our duty by special examples to prove that the Apostles did not give the Lord's supper to new-born children, a custom still observed by a great many Pedobaptists. On the contrary, as it is conceded by all, that be- lievers' baptism is instituted by the Lord ; and, as a ground for another baptism, viz., infant baptism, is sought by Pedobaptists, it is their imperative duty to exhibit some divine commandment to baptize new-born children ; for such can by no means be included in the Commission. But if they are not able to do this — as they certainly never will be — and, in default of positive command, are anxious to find, in any example of Scripture, a support for their practice, that example, at least, must be dis- THE BAPTISM OF HOUSEHOLDS. 103 tinct, so that every one may say : Behold, here we have now a clear proof that the Apostles also were accustomed to baptise new-born children. If they cannot do this, and are compelled to concede that it is uncertain whether infants were baptized by the Apostles or not, then their house is built on the sand — they rest only on vain human imaginations. To the objection before stated that, as the chil- dren are not ejyressly excepted, it is thence to be inferred that they also were baptized, we answer in the second place : The narrative needs not ex- pressly to except them, as none but believers are included in the Commission, according to which, every baptism in all times ought to be administered. If the Commission does not include new-born chil- dren, are they not in the baptism of households al- ways necessarily to be excluded ? Xo truth can be more evident than that the baptism of the house- holds, so often mentioned, contains no evidence for infant baptism. When Pedobaptists object to us that we, accord- ing to our views, scarcely would be able, with Paul, to baptize whole households, we answer : We now find that as often as whole households believe among us, whole households are baptized ; and it is by no means uncommon for Baptist missionaries and preachers actually to baptize whole households — as may be abundantly seen in the Journals of the denomination. 104 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. TESTIMONIES. Dr. A. Xeander : " The practice of infant bap- tism was remote from this (Apostolical) age. From the examples of household baptism, infant baptism can by no means be inferred ; for the passage, 1 Cor. xvi. 15, shows the incorrectness of such a con- clusion. It is there made evident that the whole family of Stephanas baptized by Paul, consisted purely of adults. Not only the late appearance of any express mention of infant baptism, but the long continued opposition to it leads to the conclusion that it was not of Apostolical origin."* Dr. H. A. W. Meyer : " Appeal is made to these passages, Acts xvi. 15, 33 ; xviii. 8 ; and to 1 Cor. i. 16, in order to prove the custom of infant baptism in the Apostolic age, or at least, to show its probability, but without reason. For that the baptism of children was not in use at that time appears evidently from 1 Cor. vii. 14, where Paul could not have written, ' Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy, 1 if the children had been ecclesiastically holy by virtue of their baptism, and not only of their relation to the Chris- tian parents. Hence, if there were children in the families mentioned in the Acts, and in 1 Cor. i. 16, who were incapable of attaining to a perception of faith by means of instruction, we must decide that * Meander's Apottolic Ago, vol. i., p. 140. THE BAPTISM OF HOUSEHOLDS. 105 they were excluded from the baptism which the other members of the household received. The readers understood that exclusion as a matter of course, since they knew the custom was not to bap- tize little children. 91 * * Commentary on the New Testament, on Acts xvi. 15. hltM SECTION XII. BAPTISM OF TWELVE DISCIPLES AT EPHESUS. " And it came to pass, that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus ; and finding certain disci- ples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? And they said unto him, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily bap- tized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, That they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them ; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve." — Acts xix. 1. REMARKS. That the twelve disciples here mentioned were rebaptized by Paul is evident from the original, and is conceded by most commentators in our time. That these disciples were not previously baptized by John the Baptist, or with his true baptism, may (106) THE DISCIPLES AT BPHKSUS. 107 be concluded from the following reasons : 1. The question of Paul, " Have ye received the Holy Ghost" — that is, the extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit, which, in the Apostolic age, was imparted in connection with baptism — "since ye believed?" obviously implies that, in his apprehension, their conversion was of recent date, at least subsequent to the effusion of the Holy Spirit at the season of Pentecost. 2. The remarks of Paul in v. 4, re- specting what John taught " the people," are most naturally understood as addressed to such as had never enjoyed John's personal instruction. 3. The ignorance of those men respecting the Holy Spirit, does not accord with the supposition that they had been instructed and baptized by John, in whose preaching the Holy Spirit held a prominent place. Comp. Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 8; John i. 33. These disciples lived about nine hundred miles from the district where John baptized, and it was more than twenty years since the ministry of John had ceased. 5. The Scriptures nowhere teach that any of John's disciples, as such, had a right to baptize, especially after the ministry of John had ceased, and the Lord had commanded His Apostles to bap- tize in the name of the Holy Trinity. The text does not say that the twelve disciples were baptized with, but " unto 7 '' the baptism of John, that is, unto the observance of what this baptism required. These disciples were, consequently, rebaptized, not because the baptism of John was not valid as Christian baptism, but because they had not received 108 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. the true baptism of John, and were deficient In their knowledge of the doctrine of salvation. That, however, these men believed on Christ, and after farther instruction, were proper subjects of true baptism, is evident, partly because they are called " disciples," that is, disciples of Christ, v. 1 ; partly because Paul considered them as Christians who believed, v. 2 ; and partly because, as soon as they had received true baptism, they also received the extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit, so that they spoke with tongues and prophesied, v. 6. By what authority the Baptists are branded with the name of "Anabaptists," or rebaptizers, we may learn from this passage. Paul did not here perform an actual rebaptism, inasmuch as the irregular bap- tism which the twelve disciples previously had re- ceived, could not be accounted as a real baptism. And still less do the Baptists perform a rebaptism, in baptizing those who in their infancy have been sprinkled or poured. For if Paul rightly consid- ered the irregular baptism of the twelve disciples as a nullity, still more reason do we have so to con- sider the baptism of infants. The former had, in- deed, some knowledge of the doctrine of salvation ; these have none at all. The former are, indeed, said to have been " disciples," and to have "believed;" of the latter the Scriptures are in this respect entirely silent. The former must also have received the true form of baptism, by immersion of the whole body ; but the latter, in most instances, have never received the ordinance in this form. SECTION XIII. PASSAOES IN THE EPISTLES WHICH CONTAIN AN EX- PRESS ALLUSION TO THE MODE AND THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. "Know yo not, that so many of us as were bap- tized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into H13 death ? Therefore we are buried with Him by bap- tism into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Rom. vi. 3,4. " Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the Dead." Col. ii. 12. REMARKS. Baptism is here by the Apostle compared with a burial. In the oue passage the Christians are said to be buried with Christ by baptism, and in the other, "buried with Him in baptism." As Christ was laid in the grave, and a stoue was placed at its entrance, so that the body of Christ was covered and hidden from the eyes of men ; so the candidate 10 (109) 110 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. as a believer in fellowship with Christ, is laid in the water and covered by it. And again, as Christ was raised up from the grave by the glory of the Father ; so the baptized believer is raised from the watery grave, to walk in newness of life. Baptism, administered by immersion, is, consequently, a sig- nificant emblem of our fellowship of spirit with Christ both in his death and resurrection. No other mode of baptism would have been a proper emblem of this burial and resurrection. If, for in- stance, baptism had consisted in washing, pouring or sprinkling, Paul never could have spoken of burial by or in baptism, as there would have b( en no resemblance between such an application of water and a burial, and, consequently, it would not have been proper to hold forth baptism as an em- blem of burial. But between immersion in water and a burial is an obvious resemblance ; whence also the Holy Spirit has used the act of baptism as a beautiful and proper emblem of our burial and resurrection with Christ. Against those who suppose that the burial here mentioned has no reference to baptism, but is a mere spiritual act in the soul, it may be observed that the Apostle expressly says, that we are buried " by baptism" and "in baptism," not only by fai h. The supposition that here is meant only a spiritual burial is, therefore, directly opposed to the clear meaning of the word of God, which teaches that the baptized is buried by and in the act of baptism. PASSAGES IX THE EPISTLES. Ill The Apostle had previously spoken of the internal change of man by faith in Christ, as a death to sin (v. 2) ; here he speaks of the profession of Christ and of His death by the external act of baptism, as the visible exponent of our vital faith. Here, consequently, we have an important ex- planation of the true import of the word baptize [immerse], as well as of the necessity and design of " going down into," and "coming up out of the water" — of baptizing in the Jordan, and where "there was much wafer" — phrases which we find in connection with baptism. We here find God's own explanation of His own Commission concerning baptism, and herein we have to admire His wisdom and good- ness. The mass of readers do not understand the original of the Bible ; and the controversies of the learned concerning its true meaning often hide the light of truth from their eyes. But the light from these passages cannot be hid — it is obvious to every simple and unprejudiced mind ; and the words " buried with Christ by baptism," may continue to make, as a Pedobaptist writer says they have here- tofore made, " more Baptists than any other passage in the Bible." Through this commentary of the the Apostle, the Spirit of God enables every one to judge for himself in this matter. While the learned are contending about the meaning of the word ba r p- tizo } etc., let the unlearned turn to these Scriptural allusions to the ordinance, and he will be enabled 112 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. clearly and distinctly to see what meaning the Holy Spirit Himself has attached to the act of baptism. TESTIMONIES. Dr. A. Thoixck : " For the explanation of the figurative description of the baptismal rite, it is necessary to call the attention to the well-known circumstance, that, in the early days of the church, persons, when baptized, were first plunged below, and then raised above the water, to which practice, according to the direction of the Apostle, the early Christians gave a symbolic import In the same sense Chrysostom, on the third chapter of John, observes : For when we sink our heads in the water, as if it were in a tomb, the old man is buried, and going down is hidden entire and at once."* Dr. Matthies : " Paul, in speaking of Rom. vi. 3, &c, as we have seen, has in his mind only the rite of immersing and emerging, and in the Apos- tolic church, in order that a communion with the death of Christ might be signified, the whole body of the person to be baptized was immersed in the water or river ; and then, in order that a connec- tion with the resurrection of Christ might be indi- cated, the body again emerged, or was raised out of the water. That this rite has been changed is indeed to be lamented, for it placed before the * "Exposition of St. Paul's Epistle to the llouians." Philadel- phia, 1844, PASSAGES IN THE EPISTLES. 113 tyeSt most ap>tly, the symbolical meaning of bap- Rosexmuller : " Immersion in the ivater of baptism and coming forth out of it, was a symbol of a person's renouncing the old life, and, on the contrary, beginning a new one. The learned have rightly reminded us that on account of this emble- matical meaning of baptism, the rite of immersion ought to have been retained in the Christian church."f Ch. Starke : " The Apostle has reference to the then prevailing custom, according to which the candidate was entirely immersed in water, and after he had been left under it a little while, was again taken up out of it. Baptism, consequently, does not only contain the image and power of the death of Christ, but of his burial ; so that, as the Lord by his burial has done away with the curse that lay upon him, we also might be partakers of his burial, when ice are laid down under the water, as in a grave, and covered with iV\ Dr. Whitby : u It being so expressly declared here, Rom. vi. 4, and Col. ii. 12, that we are buried with Christ in baptism, by being buried under water ; and the argument to oblige us to a conformity to His death by dying to sin, being taken hence ; and this immersion being religiously * Expositio Baptismi Bibl. Hist. &, Dogm., p. 116. f Scbolia in Novum Testam., vol. 3, p. 454, on Rom. vi. 4. j Commentary on Rom. vi. 4. 10* 114 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. observed by all Christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our Church (the English Episco- pal), and the change of it into sprinkling, even without any allowance from the Author of this in- stitution, or any license from any Council of the Church, being that which the Romanist still urges to justify his refusal of the cup to the laity ; it were to be wished that this custom might be again of general use.'** Richard Baxter : " It is commonly confessed by us to Baptists (as our Commentators declare) that in the Apostles' time the baptized were dipped over head in water; and that this signified their profession both of believing the burial and resur- rection of Christ, and of their own present renounc- ing the world and flesh, or dying to sin and living to Christ, or rising again to newness of life, or be- ing buried and risen again with Christ, as the Apostle expoundeth baptism in Col. ii. 12, and Rom. vi. 4."f John Wesley: "Buried with Him— alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immer- sion."X * Commentary on the New Test., on Rom. vi. 4. f Paraph, on New Test. Dissert. J Commentary on the N. Test., on Rom. vi. 4. SECTION XIV. PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WHERE THE WORD BAPTIZO OCCURS IN A FIGURATIVE SENSE. A. — Christ represents His sufferings under the Figure of a Baptism. "But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ? They say unto Him, "We are able. And He said unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ; but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father." Matt. xx. 22, 23. " But I have a baptism to be baptized with ; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished. n Luke xii. 50. REMARKS. To enter into great sorrows and afflictions is often expressed in Scripture under the figure of immer- sion in water. Thus the Prophetic word repre- (116) 116 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. sents Christ as immersed in deep waters. Ps. lxix. 2, 3. Likewise the sufferings of the church are re- presented under the same figure. Ps. cxxiv. 4, 5. Now we ask, Which image does more perfectly correspond to the severity of the sufferings of Christ, the sprinkling of a few drops of water on the face, three handsful poured on the head, or immersion into deep water? Whosoever knows the history of the sufferings of Christ, will concede that he was entirely immersed into his deep dis- tress and severe sufferings as a man that sinks "into deep waters, where the floods overflow" him. Ps. lxix. 2. TESTIMONIES. Dr. Doddridge : " Are you able to drink of the bitter cup of which I am now about to drink so deep, and to be baptized with the baptism, and plunged into that sea of sufferings with which I am shortly to be baptized, and, as it were, over- whelmed for a time ?" " Yerily I must be baptized with the most terrible baptism, and know that I soon shall be, as it were, bathed in blood and plunged into the most overwhelming distress."* Otto Ton Gerlach: " The cup signifies a great assigned measure of sufferings, and alludes, perhaps, especially to the severe sufferings of Christ previous to the crucifixion ; baptism is still more : a com- * " Family Expositor," on the paseage3 above. FIGURATIVE SENSE OF BAPTIZO. 117 plele immersion therein, His sanguinary death." Ps. xlii. 8; lxix. 2; cxxiv. 4, 5.* B. — Baptism in the Holy Spirit. We quote, according to Dr. George Campbell's renowned translation of the Xew Testament, some of the passages where baptism in the Holy Spirit is mentioned. "I, indeed, baptize you in water, that ye may reform ; but he who cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize youi?i the Holy Spirit and fire." Matt, iii. 11. "I, indeed, have baptized you in water ; but He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit." Mark i. 8. " I, indeed, baptize in water ; but one mightier than I cometh, whose shoe-latchet I am not worthy to untie, He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire." Luke iii. 16. "For my part, I should not have known Him, had not He who sent me to baptize in water told me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining, the same is he who bap- tizeth in the Holy Ghost." John i. 33. REMARKS. It has, certainly, not escaped the attention of our readers, that in all these passages, according to the translation of Dr. Campbell, mention is made of a * Exposition of the Xew Test., on Matt. xx. 22. 118 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. baptism " in the Holy Spirit," and not " with the Holy Spirit," as we read in our common translation. This translation of Dr. Campbell is also, without contradiction, the only true one. This fact — that in the original, constantly and uniformly, mention is made of a baptism " in," and not u with" the Holy Spirit — is strongly opposed to the supposition of those who, from the so-called "Spirit-baptism," seek an occasion to defend pour- ing instead of immersion at baptism. For this mode of speech indicates that the Apostles and the primitive Christians had not merely a very little measure of the Holy Spirit poured upon them, but that they were immersed in a flood of the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit, just as we immerse an empty vessel in the water, so that it is completely filled. This, and nothing else, is signified by the phrases to be baptized in the Holy Spirit and filled with the Spirit. To this the objection is usually made, that, when the Holy Spirit in Scripture is often said to be poured out, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, in such a powerful and extraordinary manner, took place on the day of Pentecost, and generally during the Apostolic age, this outpouring of the Holy Spirit must be the same as baptism in the Holy Spirit. And as this Spirit-baptism took place by means of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the consequence must be that the word boptizo is used to signify pour. FIGURATIVE SENSE OF BAPTIZO. 119 To this objection it may be briefly answered — That the Scriptures often speak of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, is indeed true. But theDce it does in nowise follow that the outpouring of the Spirit and baptism in the Spirit are one and the same thing. The Scriptures nowhere teach it ; whence we also have no right to interchange and cun- found these two distinct ideas. The outpouring of the Spirit is one act, and baptism in the already outpoured Spirit is another. Thus, at the out- pouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost the whole house, where the Apostles were sitting, was filled with a sound of a rushing mighty wind — an emblem of the Holy Spirit, John iii. 8 — and this sound was accompanied with cloven tongues like as of fire. But this emblematic outpouring of the Spirit, which could both be seen and heard (Acts ii. 33), was yet only a preparation for baptism in the Holy Spirit. For first after this preparation baptism in the Holy Spirit followed, which is sig- nified by these words: ;< And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit." The Apostles were now immersed in the light and power of the Holy Spirit. TESTIMONIES. Br. II. A. W. Meyer: "The Holy Spirit, so far as He, as real Spirit, filled those assemlkd Apostles, must be discerned from the symbol. . . . After these outviard appearances followed the simul- taneous inward filling (they were all filled) of all 120 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. the company with the Holy Spirit, whence the im- mediate consequence was, They began to speak with other tongues."* Dr. A. Xeander : "After him (John) should He come who would be so highly elevated above him, that he not so much as felt worthy to show him the meanest slave-service. He was the same that would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire, that is, as they that were baptized by him were totally im- mersed in the icater, so would Messiah totally im- merse the souls of those that entered into fellowship with Him, in the Divine Spirit of life that he would impart unto them, so that they would be totally penetrated therewith."f Bishop Hopkins : " They who are baptized with the Holy Spirit are, as it were, plunged into the heavenly flame, whose penetrating power devours all their dross and filthiness from below. "J Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem§ (a. d. 386) : "As he who plunges into the waters and is baptized, is encompassed on all sides by the waters, so were the Apostles also baptized completely by the Holy Spirit.". . . . " It filled the house ichere they were sitting; for the house became the vessel of the spir- itual water ; as the disciples sat within, the whole *• Commentary on the N. Test., on Acts ii. 3, 4. T The Life of Christ. % Works, p. 519. # Chrysostomi Horn. xi. in Cor., et Cyrilli Catechesis xvii. § 14. Pari?, 1720. FIGURATIVE SENSE OF BAPTIZO. 121 house was filled. Thus they were entirely bap- tized — invested soul and body with a divine and saving garment. v * C. — Baptism prefigured by the wanderings of the Children of Israel in the Bed Sea and under the Cloud. " Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. REMARKS. He who does not know the important fact to which the Apostle here alludes, would do well to peruse Exod. xiv., where it is narrated. From this chapter we see that the Israelites descended into the midst of the Red Sea ; that the water divided, opening a passage for them, raising itself on both sides as a wall, so that they could walk on dry ground through the sea. Likewise we see that the cloud which followed the Israelites concealed them entirely from their enemies ; that it was bright, and gave light to the former while it was darkness to- ward the latter. It does not appear that any water actually touched the Israelites in any sense what- ever ; and hence the word "baptized" must be used * Chrysostouii Hem. xi. in Cor., et Cyrilli Catechesis xvii. g 14. Paris, 1720. 11 122 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. by the Apostle in a figurative sense. Then the only question that arises is, whether the situation of the Israelites "in the cloud and in the sea" better agrees to sprinkling or pouring with some little water, or a total immersion and burial in it. The following renowned Pedobaptists will answer. TESTIMONIES. Whitstus : " How are the Israelites baptized in the cloud and in the sea, seeing they were neither immersed in the sea nor wetted by the cloud ? It is to be considered that the Apostle here uses the term 1 baptism' in a figurative sense, yet there is some agreement to the external sign. The sea is water, and a cloud differs but little from water. The cloud hung over their head, and the sea surrounded them on each side ; and so does the water in regard to those that are baptized."* Gataker : "As in the Christian rite the candi- dates are covered with water, and, as it were, are buried therein ; and again, when they come out, rise as it were out of a grave, so it might seem as if the Israelites, when they went through the water of the sea, which was higher than their heads, were covered with it and as buried therein ; and again, as if they emerged and arose when they ascended on the opposite shore, "f * (Econ. Feed., 1. 4, c. 10, g 11. ■f Adversar. Miscel.. cap. iv. SECTION XV. PASSAGES WnERE THE WORD BAPTIZO OCCURS IX A LITERAL IMPORT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO CHRIS- TIAN BAPTISM. " Then came together nnto Him the Pharisees and certain of the Scribes who came from Jerusa- lem. And when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say, with unwashen) hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of cups and pots," &c. Mark vii. 1, 4, 8. " And as He spake, a certain Pharisee besought Him to dine with him ; and He went in and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that He had not first washed before dinner. " Luke xi. 37, 38. "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and (123) 124 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the lime of reformation." Heb. ix. 10. REMARKS. The defenders of sprinkling or pouring at — or rather, instead of — baptism, have urged these pas- sages to prove that the Lord in his Commission has not commanded immersion, but left it unde- cided in what manner the water might be applied in baptism. They have supposed that the words baptizo and bajjtismos, which here occur, do not signify immersion, but only icashing with water. These passages, however, duly considered accord- ing to the original, are so far from being in oppo- sition to our doctrine concerning the only right mode, that they, on the contrary, strongly confirm it. For if, in the first place, we examine Mark vii. 1-4, according to the context, we find, v. 3, that the Pharisees usually did not eat unless they had washed their hands. This washing of the hands is in the Greek signified by the word nipto, which means to wash. But then it is mentioned in v. 4, as something especial and singular that, when they had come from the market — where they might have touched things that were defiling according to the law — they also did not eat, unless they had per- formed something else that in the Greek is signified by the word baptisontai, and in our version is ren- dered "they wash," but ought rightly to have been LITERAL IMPORT OF BAPTIZO. 125 rendered " they liave been immersed. n Here, con- sequently, we find a difference of circumstances that occasioned two different acts, which in the original are denoted by two different words, viz., nipto and baptize. Now we ask, what necessity constrains us here to discard the true meaning of baplizo, which is to immerse, and in its stead use the same word wash for the two different Greek words descriptive of two different ceremonies ? On this question we observe : 1. It has always been a general custom in the East for men to bathe themselves before eating, when they have been out on their business and affairs. 2. It was expressly commanded in the law that the children of Israel should bathe in water, so often as they had become unclean in the sense of the law. See Lev. xv. and Numb. xix. 3. The text tells us that the Pharisees did more than the law required, so that they even when they had been at home would not eat, unless they had washed their hands ; but when they had been out to market, where they might have become polluted, they did not eat, unless they had bathed, or been immersed in water (bapti- sontai). 4. It is also said, that the Pharisees did this thing to keep "the tradition of the elders." If we, therefore, know what "the tradition of tho elders" required, we have a plain exposition of our passage. Of this we are informed by Maimonides, a highly celebrated Jewish Rabbi of the 12th cen- tury, who very carefully compiled the written stai- 126 CHRISTIAN' BAPTISM. utes of the Jews. He says, " Generally, whenever in the law washing of the flesh or of the clothes is mentioned, it means nothing else than the dipping of the whole body in a laver ; for if any man dips himself all over, except the tip of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness." .... " If the Pha- risees touched but the garments of the common people they were defiled, all one as if they had touched a profluvious person, and needed immer- sion ; and were obliged to it; hence, when they walked the street they walked on the side of the way, that they might not be defiled by touching the common people." .... "In a laver, which holds forty seahs of water, every defiled man dips him- self."* — A testimony confirmed both by the Tal- mud — a book containing the doctrines and laws of the Jews — and by the hereditary custom of the Jews, which is still observed. Thus all things most clearly support the position that the word baptizo here, as everywhere, does not mean wash, but immerse. What is said concerning the true meaning of baptizo in this passage, holds good also with refer- ence to the same word in Luke xi. 33. Even there has baptizo been incorrectly translated by wash, and ought to be rendered by immerse. The Lord * Maimonides in Misn. Chagign, c. 2, £ 7. Hilchoth Mikva, c. 1, \ 2. Hilch. Mikvaot, c. 9, \ 5. Ililch. Abot Tiemaot, c. 13, I 8. Comp. Dr. Lishrfoot'? H<>nr>. ITv'br. £ Talmud, on Matt. LLi. 6. LITERAL IMPORT OF BAPTIZO. 127 Jesus — as the former part of the chapter shows — had just been among the multitude; whence the Pharisees marvelled that He did not, according to their custom, first immerse himself (ebaptisthe), before He went to eat. Just as we have no reason to translate baptizo by wash, so we have none to render its derivative bap- tiimos — occurring in Mark vii. 4, 8, and Heb. ix. 10 — by "washing" as is done in our Bible. For, 1, the law of Moses, Lev. xi. 32, required that all kinds of unclean vessels should be put into water, &c. 2. The above named Maimonides says, touch- ing the custom of the Pharisees, " They dip all un- clean vessels." .... "All such vessels must be dipped before they were used." "He that buys a vessel for the use of a feast, of Gentiles, whether molten vessels or glass, they dip them in the waters of the laver, and after that may eat and drink in them."* With which testimony again both the Talmud and the present custom of the Jews correspond. Many have thought it unlikely, that " tables" mentioned Mark vii. 4, could have been immersed. But this is just as plain as the other. Baptizo, as we have seen, means immerse. If it meant spi^in- kle or pour, it might sometimes be applied to things not capable of immersion. This, however, is never the case ; and in the instance before us * Hilch. Mikvaot, c. 9. Hilch. Maacolot As. c. 17. 123 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. here there is not the least difficulty in assigning the word its real meaning. The tables here mentioned were very different from our tables. John, in his Christian Archaeology, ch. ix., describes them thus: '• The table in the East, is a piece of round leather, spread upon the floor, upon which is placed a sort of stool. This supports nothing but a platter. The seat was the floor, spread with a mattress, carpet or cushion, upon which those who ate sat with legs bent and crossed. They sat in a circle round the piece of leather, with the right side toward the table, so that one might be said to lean upon the bosom of another."* These tables, together with the mattresses or cushions, might easily be defiled in the sense of the law, and needed, therefore, as often as this hap- pened, according to the traditions of the Pharisees, to undergo a ceremonial cleansing by means of im- mersion. With regard to such a cleansing, Mai- monides writes again: "Abed that is wholly de- filed, if he dip it part by part, it is pure. What shall he do with a pillow or a bolster of skin? He must dip them and lift thern up by their fringes. "f If, however, any suppose the tables here men- tioned to be of wood, the traditionary law is equally express. "Every vessel of wood," says Maimo- * On the quality of these tables, see further Dr. Lightfoot'3 Harmony of the Four Evangelists, on John ii. Also H. A. "W. Meyer's Commentary, on Mark vii. 4. f Hilehoth Cailim, c. 1, $ 1 i. LITERAL IMPORT OF BAPT1ZO. 129 nides, "which is made for the use of man, as a table, or a bed, receives defilement. . . And these were washed by covering them in water."* TESTIMONIES. Dr. II. A. W. Meyer (on Mark vii. 4) : " There- by baptisontai is not to be understood of washing the hands, but of immersion, which the word, both in the elassicf Greek and in the New Testament, always signifies, that is, here according to the con- text, take a bath. Likewise also in Luke xi. 38. Returned from market, where they among the throng might have had defiling contacts, they eat not, unless they first have bathed. The representa- tion is climacteric. Before eating they always observe the washing of the hands, but the bathing when they come from market, and wish to eat. n (On Luke xi. 38) " Jesus had just come from the crowd, yea, He had just cast out a devil, i*. 14. Therefore they expected that He before breakfast would first cleanse himself by immersion, that is, by a bath." (On the word bap- tismous in Mark vii. 4, 8) " Baptismous is likewise to be understood of rinsing by immersion. ."J Where our version in Heb. ix. 10, has "divers * Hilcb. Cailim. c. 4. Mism. Mikvaot, o. 9. f That is, the Greek as it is found in distinguished profane authors among the old Greeks. J Meyer's Cuuimentary on the passages above. 130 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. washings," Luther has correctly translated the same words of the original by "manifold immersions" (mancherley taufen), which were the manifold im- mersions of persons, clothes, and utensils, required by the law. That baptizo in the passages above signifies im- merse, and baptismos, immersion, is furthermore testified by a great number of Pedobaptist critics, of whom may be quoted : Beza, Grotius, Buxtorf, Lightfoot, Scaliger, Rosen ni filler, Kuinoel, Jahn, Tatablus, Schleusner, Scapula, Stockius, Olshauseu, G. Campbell, McKnight, Spencer, Hammond, Wet- stein, Heumann, Altingius, Maldonatus, Lange '? SECTION XVI. PASSAGES WHERE BAPTISM IS OCCASIONALLY MENTIONED. "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as haye been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." — Gal. iii. 26, 27. REMARKS. From the context, it is plain that the Apostle means to say that the Christians of Galatia were no longer minors under the schoolmaster (see v. 24, and eh. iv. 1-3). but had now by faith on Christ become free sons of full age ; and this he proves by the fact that they had in their baptism openly put on Christ. Because Christ is the Son of God, and they had put on Him by faith and baptism ; they also must have become what He is — God's free sons of full age. Here it may be asked, What is it to put on Christ in baptism ? We believe that this question cannot be more clearly answered, than by pointing to the analogy of a public and solemn marriage. There may be an inward union of heart between a 132 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. man and a woman before the marriage : they may believe on each other, love each other, and consider each other as united in heart ; but they are not con- sidered as fully united until they, through a public marriage, have solemnly declared before God and the world, that they wish to belong to each other for life, and thus, as it were, publicly put on each other. Such, too, is the relation of man to Christ. He may believe on Christ, love Him, and consider himself as united with Him ; but until he has by baptism, before God and the world, publicly and solemnly professed himself willing in life and death to belong to Him, and thus publicly entered into covenant with Him, he cannot be said to have fully, and after God's own appointment, become united with Christ. The true Christian baptism may thus be properly considered as forming a marriage rela- tion between Christ and His people. In it we receive from Christ a direct assurance and pledge of His eter- nal fellowship with ourselves ; and in return we con- fess solemnly our faith on Him, our union with Him, our firm purpose entirely to devote ourselves to Him and His cause, and faithfully to follow Him until death. Thus it is that we rightly put on Christ by baptism, and may thenceforth fully adopt this joy- ful hymn of the Prophet : "I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God ; for He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, OCCASIONAL PASSAGES. 133 and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels." Isa. Ixi. 10. On the contrary, though we by no means wish to deny the salvation of anbaptized be- lievers, yet it is evident, that he who is living in the neglect of baptism is living in the neglect of the duty publicly to put on Christ, in the appointed way, and is thereby depriving himself of the blessing awarded to those who faithfully keep the command- ments of God. Ps. xix. 11. From this passage we find who were baptized in the churches of Galatia : they were only such as could understand, that when they had been ''bap- tized into Christ/' they had " put on Christ." The words of the Apostle imply that among all the baptized in all the churches of Galatia, there was not one that could not understand that he had put on Christ by baptism. For he appeals to the personal experience of every one, and says: "Ye are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.'** Here all are deemed able to infer that they had put on Christ by bap- tism, and had thus become one with Him. It is * In Rom. vi. 3, the baptized ore likewise presupposed to be able to understand that when they had been "baptized into Jesus Christ." they "were baptized into His death." "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death." How could new-born children know and understand such things? and bow could they be ranged among the " us" and "tee" of whom the Apostle speaks in this and the following verses ? 134: CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. evident that, if new-born children had been bap- tized in the churches of Galatia, Paul could not have used this language. Indeed, who could rightly apply this language to any Pedobaptist church in our time ? Were it true that new-born children are born again through baptism, yet one could not address them as such as could understand that they had put on Christ by baptism. It could only, at most, be said of them, that they were invested in Christ by baptism. But this is not what Christ requires from us. He requires our own personal and conscious act ; He wishes that we ourselves put Him on by baptism. The question is : Has Christ commanded you personally to be baptized, and yourselves publicly to put Him on by baptism ? Why have you not done it ? Has your mother, or father, or have some sponsors done it for you ? Can that be valid before God as your act ? My friend, neglect no longer to obey our Lord's holy requirement of you — yourself. Are you a minister of the Gospel ? Honor our Lord's command, and He will honor you ! TESTIMONIES. Calvin : " He uses the similitude of a robe when he says that the Galatians had put on Christ ; but he means that they were so grafted into Christ that before God they bore the name and person of Christ, and were more reckoned in Him than in themselves."* * Gonimentary on Gal. iii. 2T. OCCASIONAL PASSAGES. 135 Locke : " God now looking on them, there ap- pears nothing but Christ. They are, as it were, covered all over with Ilim, as a man is with the clothes that he has put on ; and hence in the next verse it is said, they are alt one in Christ Jesus, as if there were but that one person.''* Scott: "Indeed, the connection of the 27th verse with that which precedes, shows that the faith in Christ which icas publicly professed in baptism, and not the mere outward administration — whether the baptized person had faith or not — was specially intended. r f " One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism." — Eph. iv. 5. REMARKS. The Apostle asserts that there are not two or more Christian Baptisms, but one only. Under the Old Testament there were "divers immersions" of persons, clothes, and utensils, as we have seen ;| but in the New Dispensation there is but one authorized Christian Baptism, viz., the immersion in water of a professed believer into tile name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And deviation from this Baptism, either with respect to the subject, design, or mode, reduces it to a nullity. Now let us ask, Is this one Christian Baptism con- * Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul, on QaL iii. 27. f Commentay. t'» loc. ~ See page 12.>. 136 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. sistent with Infant Baptism ? In the one case bap- tism is conscientiously sought by the candidate as the appointed symbol of his fellowship with his Saviour — in the other case, the subject neither knows nor cares any thing about it ; in the one the subject makes a solemn renunciation of sin and an avowal of faith in Christ — in the other he neither avows nor disavows any thing ; in the one the subject is active, " going down into the water' 1 — in the other passive, carried to the font or the bowl ; in the one the believer comes "up out of the water," and " goes on his way rejoicing" — in the other the child is borne away, utterly unconscious of what has been done ? Are these different rites one and the same ? Can both be practiced under the same law ? Are they properly called one Faith, one Bap- tism ?* Let it be remembered that all our Pedo- baptist friends admit immersion on a credible pro- fession of faith to be Christian Baptism. Can any man, contemplating this point with candor, bring himself to believe that sprinkling or pouring water on an unconscious babe is one and the same bap- tism with the former. "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, bond or free." 1 Cor. xii. 13. * Those who have received the onostles. "Paul expressly affirms that the children are un- clean, with the exception of the holiness which they ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATIONS. 165 possess in common with unbelieving adults. This holiness entitles unbelieving adults to familiar in- tercourse, but not to church-membership or Chris- tian ordinances; and it can do no more for the children. Hence, the children are so far holy, as to be fit for familiar intercourse ; but beyond this they are unclean, and therefore unfit for church- membership or baptism. This is true, let it be re- membered, not only of those children who were the offspring of mixed marriages, but of all the children of Christian parents at Corinth. " The point may be exhibited in another light. The church at Corinth was a Pedobaptist church, or it was not. If it was a Pedobaptist church, the argument of Paul was invalid, because it was based on the false assumption, that the children sealed with the seal of God's covenant, dedicated to Him in the holy rite of baptism, and admitted within the pale of the church, were in like circumstances with unbelieving and unbaptized adults, who were out of the covenant, and out of the church. But Paul did not use an invalid argument, therefore this church was not Pedobaptist ; and the same must be true of all the churches planted by the Apostles, since they were, doubtless, all similarly organized. "The phrase 'your children'' included the off- spring, not only of the gentile members of the church, but also of the Judaizers who had produced disquietude by their attachment to Ceremonial dis- tinctions and usages. These men gloried in the covenant of circumcision ; and contemplated their off- 166 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. spriug with pleasure, as the children of the covenant, circumcised on the eighth day, or entitled to receive the seal of the covenant in any form which might be divinely authorized. If the Christian church was established on the covenant of circumcision, no children on earth had a better right to its privileges, than these lineal descendants of Abraham, who were, at the same time, the immediate offspring of Christian parents. Yet to these parents the Apos- tle declares the unwelcome truth, that, with refer- ence to the Christian church, their children, and the uncircumcised and unbelieving gentile, were on the same level. Nothing could demonstrate more conclusively that the Christian church was not established on the covenant of circumcision. The text, therefore, is the authoritative decision of Paul against the doctrine which infant baptism claims for its foundation. "Our inference has been sustained. It has been proved that infant baptism was unknown in the churches planted by the Apostles ;* and further, • With the author of this treatise the first doubts about the divine origin of infant baptism -were aroused in contemplating this test. He had previously been of the opinion that, though there could not be found any distinct example in the New Tes- tament as an evidence in favor of infant baptism, yet it might be that it had an apostolic origin, as no distinct example could be found against such a supposition. But from this passage he saw, that if infant baptism had been introduced by the Apostle into the Corinthian church, he could not, under any circum- stances, have questioned whether the children might not have been " unclean," because baptism would have made them ''holy." ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATIONS. 167 that its fundamental doctrine is not apostolical. In such a controversy, to prove the negative by direct argument, could scarcely have been expected; yet this has been accomplished, by means of a text on which Pedobaptists have relied with much confi- dence.'** TESTIMONIES. Dressler: "The idea of a Christian nobility is foreign to the Bible. By birth, man is only man. According to Paul, a holy pedigree is nothing in religion. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing, but keeping the commands of God. The passage 1 Cor. vii. 14, does not sup- port any such views. Paul had said that if one would avoid all contact with pagans, he must leave the world. He now says, if the Corinthians would flee from every unbeliever, regarding him as unclean, they must flee from their own children, and hold them as unclean ; for they were among the unbe- lievers — 'otherwise your children would be un- clean' — for they are not Christians by birth merely. 'But now are they holy,' i. e., you are not to con- sider yourselves as polluted by them."f Dr. II. A. W. Meyer : " Sanctified is she in the brother\ (who is her companion), so that in him * " History of Baptism," by I. T. Hinton, Philadelphia, pp. 1-44—146 ; and "A Decisive Argument against Infant Baptism," by J. L. Dagg, Charleston, pp. 49-52. f " Doctrine of the Sacrament of Baptism," p. 137. X According to another reading in the original, instead of " the husband." 168 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. her holiness consists, or has its mediate cause. Else are, &c: because — if this sanctification (hegi- aslai) does not take place — your children are un- clean, that is, profane. That the children of Chris- tians are not profane, but holy, is the thing conceded; by which Paul proves that the unchristian com- panion is sanctified through his Christian mate ; for just as with the children, nothing; but the special connection with Christians (their parents), is the sanctifying means, so also must the same connec- tion in the mixed marriage have an influence. Had infant baptism at that time already existed, Paul could not have drawn such a conclusion, be- cause the holiness of the children of Christians icould then have had another ground." 1 * Dr. de Wette : " Epei estin — for else your chil- dren are unclean, but now they are holy, viz., through connection with you. The latter the Apostle can- not announce as an uncontested supposition of the children of mixed marriages, as it was yet a matter of doubt (which he here wishes to remove), whether in a mixed marriage a holy connection could exist, and he, consequently, would have been seeking to prove the contested tiling by something that was contested.''^ Dr. Olshausen : "It is evident that Paul would not have chosen this way of arguing, if infant bap- tism already at that time had been in use. ''J * Commentary on 1 Cor. vii. ] 4. f Commentary on the passage. J Eiblical Commentary on the passage. ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATIONS. 169 D. — The Washing of Regeneration. "But when the kindness and love toward man of our Saviour, God, appeared, not by the works in righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us by the bath of regenera- tion and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Tit. iii. 4-7. — (Verbally after the original.) REMARKS. This passage, as well as John iii. 5, has been ex- plained by the learned in different ways. They have especially disagreed in interpreting the word "bath," or "washing," one part having seen in it the bath of baptism ; others, again, having under- stood it to be a figurative expression, signifying the cleansing efficacy of the Holy Spirit in regener- ation. As the Apostle does not here make any express mention of baptism, the word "bath" may justly be taken in a figurative sense. This, too, is favored by the 6th verse, where God is said to have poured out the Holy Spirit richly. In regenera- tion, or the renewing of the Holy Spirit, man is, as it were, immersed in the richly-effused, cleansing, quickening, and saving power of the Holy Spirit : and in this respect regeneration may, indeed, here be said, in a figurative sense, to involve a bathing of the soul. 15 170 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. If we, however, take for granted that the word " bath" here refers to baptism, then again the ques- tion arises : In what relation is baptism here placed to regeneration ? "We have already, in the exposi- tion of John iii. 5, shown that baptism is not the efficient cause but merely the accompaniment of re- generation, which great change is effected by the Holy Spirit only through the word. If, therefore, the expression, " the bath of regeneration," signifies the bath of baptism, this expression must be inter- preted in the same way as the expression "born of water and Spirit." The Holy Spirit works "the renewing," and baptism is its sign. The Spirit im- parts a new life ; baptism manifests it. In this sense baptism maybe called a "bath of regener- ation." It is evident that this passage has no reference to new-born children, but only to adult persons : to these alone the Apostle is writing ; of these alone does he speak. Xew-born children cannot be born again through faith in the Gospel and the word of truth, and much less through baptism alone. Fur- ther it is to be observed, that all those who are in- cluded in this passage are represented as saved, regenerated, richly filled with the Holy Spirit, justi- fied, and heirs according to the hope of eternal life : expressions which by no means will apply to new-born children, of whose regeneration, justifi- cation by faith, hope, etc., the Scriptures nowhere speak. SECTION XYIII. PASSAGES WHOSE REFERENCE TO BAPTISM IS POUETEUE. 11 That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." — Eph. v. 2G. If the expression, "the washing of water,'' here signifies baptism — which is a subject of dispute among the learned — this passage also is to be in- terpreted in accordance with the preceding. As in 1 Pet. iii. 21, the water of baptism is not saving, but the "covenant of a good conscience with God," so here neither is the "washing of water" that which cleanses the soul, but the Word. " That He might cleanse it by the word.' 7 In accordance herewith we also read in John xv. 3, " Xow ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you ;" and Acts xv. 9, " God purified their hearts by faith." " The washing of water" is, consequently, here only the emblem of that which is effected by the word and faith. Believers are cleansed " in baptism" emblematically : the reality that corresponds to the emblem they have experienced in believing the (171) ' 172 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. word. Now new-born children cannot be cleansed by believing the word ; wherefore, if "the washing of water" signifies baptism, new-born children have nothing to do with that washing, which is appointed for such only as have by faith received the word to their spiritual cleansing. "Ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justi- fied in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the {Spirit of our God." — 1 Cor. vi. 11. If the expression " washed" here has reference to baptism, this passage also has nothing to do with infant baptism. For new-born children cannot be said to be washed, sanctified and justified by the name of the Lord Jesus — a phraseology that clearly presupposes faith in the Gospel of Christ. " Let us draw near with a true heart, in full as- surance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."— Heb. x. 22. Even this passage has been differently interpreted by the learned ; some having referred it to bap- tism, others, on the contrary, having here seen only a figurative mode of speaking. To us the latter interpretation seems to be the right one. The phrase, " Our hearts sprinkled from an evil con- science," is evidently figurative, having reference to DOUBTFUL REFERENCES. it; the purifications by the sprinkling of blood of the Old Testament. See Ex. xxix. 11; Lev. viii. 30. It seems, therefore, most natural also to understand figuratively the words, "Our bodies washed," etc. The phraseology refers to the washing of the priests in the Old Testament. See Ex. xxix. 4 ; xxx. IS— 21. The pure, or purifying water is. con- sequently, a spiritual water. Ex. xxxvi. 25, 26. SECTION XIX. SUMMARY OP TESTIMONIES ON THE NEW TESTA- MENT DOCTRINE CONCERNING BAPTISM. We have now examined all the passages of the New Testament that either expressly mention bap- tism, or have been considered as containing any allu- sion to it, and we ask our readers this question : Las sprinkling or pouring water upon new-born chil- dren in any place been commanded, mentioned, or in any way alluded to ? We doubt not that every one who has, with us, attentively and impartially considered the doctrine of Christ and His Apostles on this subject, will feel constrained to assent to the following testimonies of distinguished divines among the Pedobaptists themselves : Professor Langs : " All attempts to make out infant baptism from the New Testament fail. It is totally opposed to the spirit of the apostolic age, and the fundamental principles of the New Testa- ment."* Starck : " There is not a single example to be found in the New Testament where infants were * On Infant B;ipti.^m, p. 101. (174) PEDOBAPTIST TESTIMONIES. 17 baptized. In household baptisms there was always reference to the Gospel, as having been received. The New Testament presents just as good grounds for infant communion."'* Moris : " But we do not do it" [baptize infants] u according to any express command, as no such is to be found in the writings of the Xew Testament, nor according to any distinct example there occur- ring, nor as in consequence of a conclusion from any passage of Scripture."^ Bretschxeider : " Rheinard, ATorus, and Doder- lein, say — Infant baptism is not to be found in the Bible."! Sciileiermacher : "All traces of infant baptism which one will find in the Xew Testament, must first be put inlo #."§ Neander : " It is certain that Christ did not ordain infant baptism." .... " We cannot prove that the Apostles ordained infant baptism. "|| Dr. Hagexbach : " The passages from Scrip- ture which are thought to intimate that infant bap- tism had come into use in the primitive church, are doubtful and prove nothing."*" Klein : " New-born infants are incapable of * History of Baptism, p. 11, t " Christian Theology," Lineoping (Sweden), 1799, p. 329. i Theology. voL 2, p. 7o*. I Christian Theology, p. :: c ". : History of Christian Religion, vol. 1, p. 360. « •' History of the Doctrine?," Edinburgh, 1S46. vol. 1, p. 193. 15* 176 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. faith, and the New Testament mentions the baptism of adults only."* Limborch : " No instance can be produced from which it may be indisputably inferred that any child was baptized by the Apostles, "f Dr. Goodwin : "Read all the Acts of the Apos- tles, still it is said — They believed and were bap- tized."J Bishop Burnet : " There is no express precept or rule given in the New Testament, for the bap- tism of infants. "§ Dr. Woods : " It is a plain case that there is no express precept respecting infant baptism in our sacred writings. There is no mention made in the Xew Testament of any definite instructions of Christ to the Apostles, or of the Apostles to Chris- tians, in regard to the baptism of little children. J, || Professor Stuart : " Commands, or plain and certain examples in the New Testament relative to it" [infant baptism], "I do not find."^[ Winer: "In the apostolic age, baptism was by immersion, as its symbolical explanation shows."** Neander : "Baptism was originally administered * In Huiterus Redivivus, p. 344. f Comp. Sys. Div. Lib. 5, c. 22. + Works, vol. 1, part 1, p. 200. I "Expos, of the 39 Articles," art. 27. || "Lectures on Infant Baptism," pp. 17, 40. ■jf " Biblical Repository," 1833, p. 3S5. ** "Manuscript Lect. on Christ. Antiquities." PEDOBAPTIST TESTIMONIES. 177 by immersion, and man}' of the comparisons of St. Paul allude to this form of its administration.' 1 * Bretschneider : " The apostolic church bap- tized only by immersion. ''f Guerike : " Baptism was originally administered by immersion. v \ Hahn : "According to the apostolic instruction and example, baptism was performed by immersing the whole man. v § * Church History, vol. 1, p. 361. f Theology, vol. 1, p. 634. | Handbuch der Kircbengeschichte, 6 Auft., 1 b., \ 173. Theology, p. 556. SECTION XX. CIRCUMCISION. We might now let the whole question of the origin and propriety of infant baptism depend upon what we have already learned from the New Testament. For to go back of the New Testament to the Old, in order to find an evidence either for or against infant baptism, must strike every unprejudiced mind as a preposterous proceeding. Baptism is evidently an institution belonging to the New Testament alone, and from it alone it must derive its laws. Yet, most Pedobaptists go back from the constitu- tion of the New Testament — the holy Commission of Christ in Matt, xxviii. 19, 20, and Mark xvi. 15, 16 — to the abrogated rites of the Old Testament, in order there to find a ground for infant baptism. Thither we, consequently, must accompany them, and there meet them on their own ground with the decided protest of the Gospel against any imag- inary transfer of the ceremonies of the Old Testa- ment to the New Testament dispensation. The argument which Pedobaptists build on the Old Testament, rests on the three following grounds: The covenant which God made with Abraham (178) CIRCUMCISION. 179 and his seed, was the covenant of grace — the same in its nature as that under which we live. Circumcision was the seal of this covenant of grace, confirming all its blessings to Abraham, and to his posterity. Baptism has in the Xew Testament come in the place of circumcision, and is now, as circumcision was in the Old Testament, the seal of the covenant of grace. We will take up and briefly examine each of these grounds, 1. As to the first ground, it may be remarked : The only covenant under which we, as Christians, live, is that which God from eternity has purposed in Christ, Eph. iii. 11, and in the fullness of time established by His atoning death. This everlast- ing covenant became a covenant of promise at the fall of Adam, thus reading : " The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head." Gen. iii. 15. This covenant of promise was then narrowed down to the seed of Abraham in Gen. xii. 1-3, and xxii. 15, 16, where it is contained in one of the two promises given to Abraham, viz., in the promise that " in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed." Then it was narrowed down to Isaac's line. Gen. xvii. 19, 21 ; xxi. 10, 12. Then to Ja- cob's line. Gen. xxviii. 14. Then to the tribe of Judah. Gen. xlix. 10. Then to the seed of David. Ps. lxxxix.; Isa. xi.; Ez. xxxiv. andxxxvii.; Hoe. iii. And, at last, to our Lord and Saviour, who, 180 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. holding the goblet in His hand, said : " This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins." Matt, xxvi. 28 ; Luke xxii. 30 ; 1 Cor. xi. 25. And since "the God of peace had brought again our Lord Jesus from the dead, through the blood of the Everlasting Covenant" (Heb. xiii. 20), and this "Mediator of the New Covenant"* (Heb. ix. 15) had sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on^high to make intercession for believers (Heb. i. 3 ; Rom. viii. 34) — " the Covenant of Circum- cision" (Acts vii. 8), " the First or Old Covenant" (Heb. viii. T, 13), with its shadows and ceremo- nies, has ended, and a new order of things — " the New Covenant" (Heb. viii. 8) — has been intro- duced. This is the Covenant of Grace. It was, as we have seen, a " Covenant of Promise" (Eph. ii. 12) to the Fathers, but has been reduced to a covenant of fact by Christ. It was revealed to the Fathers through the promise of Messiah, but was not actu- ally established until the death of Christ. It was a covenant whose head was not Abraham, but Christ, Enoch, Noah, Lot, and Melchisedek, though they were not circumcised, were as well partakers of the benefits of this covenant, as the circumcised Abra- ham and his believing posterity ; and Abraham himself was as well a partaker of them before his * According to the original. CIRCUMCISION. 181 circumcision, as after it. See Gen. xv. and Rom. iv. It was not established with Abraham and his carnal progenity, but with the seed of Abraham, which was Christ. See Gal. iii. 16, It. The promise mentioned in Gen. xii. 1-3* ought to be well distinguished from the Covenant of Cir- * That no proper covenant was here established, is evident from the fact, that no federal transaction here occurs. A cove- nant between God and man implies a mutual engagement, con- taining mercies on God's part made over to man, and conditions on man's part required of God. But here it is not said what God had done, nor what He now was doing, but only what He would do : "I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee." Nor was any condition required of Abraham. Compare Gen. xvii. Yet the word covenant is also used in an improper sense to signify the sovereign decree or absolute promise of God, respecting what He will do. See Gen. ix. 10, 11; Jer. xxxi. 31- 35,- xxxiii. 20, 25 ; Isa. lix. 21 ; Hos. ii. 13. It is in this latter signification and in the language of prophecy, that the promises occurring here and Gen. xxii. 18, are sometimes, in the Scriptures, called covenants. It is to be observed, that the Scriptures speak only of two real covenants relating to the salvation of man (see Gal. iv. 24), viz., the First or Old Covenant, and the Second or New Covenant — the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. The for- mer began at the circumcision of Abraham (or if you choose, at the creation of man), was renewed at the giving of the law through Moses, and ended at the advent of our Saviour into the world. The latter was decreed from eternity, promised through- out the Old Testament, established by the death of Christ, and shall remain in all eternity. " The Covenant of Promise'' could not properly be called a covenant, until it was publicly estab- lished by the death of Christ, and sealed by His blood. Hence, in relation to the Mosaic, it is properly called the "New Cove- nant." 16 182 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. cuincision, which is mentioned in Gen. xvii. This promise — which was renewed after the offering of Isaac, and confirmed by an oath (Gen. xxii. 18) — Abraham received twenty-four years previous to the establishment of the Covenant of Circumcision. It is, consequently, distinguished from the latter as to the time ; but likewise, also, as to its nature. Here occurs a free promise concerning Messiah, without any mention of circumcision or any other condition on the part of Abraham. It was, therefore, of an entirely evangelical nature. On the other hand, in the institution of the Covenant of Circumcision there is no promise concerning Messiah, but exter- nal conditions and severe threatenings, from which it is evident that it was a legal covenant. This difference is also intimated in the New Tes- tament. Paul alludes to the former, when he says, Gal. iii. 8, "The Scripture preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." Further, he distinguishes it by calling it " the Covenant of Promise" — a name distinctly signifying its evangelical nature. But, on the contrary, he decidedly affirms that circum- cision was a part of the law. See Rom. ii. 25 ; Gal. v. 2, 3. And Peter, likewise, mentions circumcision, as an intolerable yoke (Acts xv. 10), etc. The promise, therefore, by which Abraham has been made " the Father" of believers and the " heir of the world,*' and bv which all believers in the CIRCUMCISION. 1S3 whole world should be blessed as the spiritual chil- dren of Abraham and his co-heirs, has nothing to do with the Covenant of Circumcision. Rom. it. 9-13. They are as far distant from each other, as the Law is distant from the Gospel. As to the Covenant of Circumcision especially, which was renewed at Sinai with all Israel,* it may be remarked, that this covenant contained only the natural offspring of Abraham and those politically incorporated with them. The Lord in- tended, through this covenant and the Mosaic insti- tution of the law, partly to separate the whole Israelitish people as a nation from all other nations in the world, and for this purpose, to give them a separate country where they could preserve their nationality ; partly to instruct them with His writ- ten revelation, and to keep up through them' an unbroken genealogy from Abraham to the promised seed, our ever blessed Saviour, etc. But all this was destined to end in Christ. Of this fact Jeremiah, among others, prophesies thus, eh. xxxi. 31-34: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant * That the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham, •was identical with the Mosaic Covenant, and that the latter was only a continuation and further development of the former, we may learn from the words of our Saviour in John vii. 22, 23, where He declares that the law of circumcision was a part of the law of Moses, and that circumcision had originally been given to Abraham, and had come down from him to Moses. 184: CHKISTIAN BAPTISM. with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah : Not according to the covenant that 1 made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt ; which my covenant they brake. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Is- rael : After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their imvard jiarts and write it in their hearts ; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, say- ing, Know the Lord, for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord." Hence it appears, that the New Covenant could not be a part of the Covenant of Circumcision, or identical with it. For how could it be said that the Lord would "make a new covenant with the house of Israel, not according to the covenant that He made with their fathers," if, according to the doctrine of the Pedobaptists, it had already been established with Abraham and all his posterity, and sealed with the seal of circumcision ? If the New Covenant had already existed before Christ, how could " a place have been sought for the second ?" Heb. viii. 7. Again, it is evident that the Covenant of Circum- cision was abolished in the establishing of the New. In Heb. viii. 6-13, where the prophecy of Jeremiah mentioned above, is quoted and explained, this is CIRCUMCISION. 185 expressly taught : " If that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. In that He saith, A new covenant, He hath made the first old. Xow that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away." The same we may learn from Heb. vii. 12, where it is said that "the law" and "the priesthood" were changed. Further, in ch. xii. 27, the entire old dispensation is represented as shaken in its founda- tions and removed: "And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain." The things that cannot be shaken and removed, are the blessings of the kingdom of Christ and the New Covenant : " Wherefore we, receiving a king- dom which cannot be moved," etc., v. 28. From all this, and from many other passages of Scripture,* we may conclude, that the old Patri- * See, for example, Eph. ii. 15, where it is said that Christ has abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to make in himself of twain (that is. of Jews and heathen) one new man. On this, H. A. W. Meyer writes: "The Mosaic institution of the law, an such, and not only from a certain side, has ended in Christ; the shadow has receded for the body." Col. ii. 17. . . .'* This one [man] is now neither Jew nor Greek — what they both (out of whom the one has been made) previously were — but both the parts have laid aside their former religious and moral constitution, and without any further difference, received the entirely u>-ro being on the ground of Christian faith." — Com- mentary on the passage. See also Col. ii. S-12; Acts sv. 1-30 (passages to which we 16* 186 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. archal and Mosaic dispensation is abolished, and that nothing that belonged to that dispensation is obligatory under the new dispensation of grace, unless re-established and sanctioned by the New Testament. Whence it follows, that in looking for members of the church of Christ, we are not to seek them amongst the Patriarchs and Jews, but to in- quire of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. But who are included in the Xew Covenant and entitled to enjoy its peculiar privileges, we clearly learn from the above passages. Jer. xxxi. 31-34, and Heb. viii. 10, 11. Here we see, that while the Lord in the Old Testament kept covenant also with the ungodly, yet from the time of our Saviour He keeps covenant only with the regenerate, and says of the unregenerate children of believers, as He said in olden time of the carnal progeny of "faithful Abraham :" " Cast out the bondwoman and her son." Gen. xxi. 10; Gal. iv. 22-31. For of those who are included in the New Covenant, it is said, that they have the law of God written in their heart, and that they all, from the least unto the greatest, know the Lord, so that no one need to teach them, saying, Know the Lord. Can this be said of new-born children ? Do they know the Lord, so that no one need to teach them, as soon as they will further refer or return); and the Epistle to the Galatians. It is a matter of astonishment, that any man can read this latter Epistle, and yet seriously affirm that the covenant of circuruei- eion is still in force, and is the covenant of grace. CIRCUMCISION'. 1ST arc capable of instruction, to know the Lord ? If not, there are no new-born children included in this covenant.* The doctrine that the Lord in the New Testament, as well as in the Old, keeps covenant with the unconscious infants of believers, is, there- fore, directly opposed to the clear word of the Lord. Infants of Gentile believers are neither of Abraham's natural seed, nor of his spiritual seed ; for it is only " believers" who are recognized as his spiritual seed. The children of believers must themselves become be- lievers — possess the same faith with their parents, and * On the relation of infants to the New Covenant, Dr. A. Car- son writes: "Infants are not saved by the New Covenant, and therefore they cannot be connected with it, in any view that represents them as interested in it. It is a vulgar mistake of theologians to consider, that they must be saved by the Xew Covenant. There is no such doctrine exhibited in any part of the book of God. Infants must be saved as sinners, and saved through the blood of Christ; but there was no necessity to give a covenant to man to ratify this. Whether all infants dying in infancy are saved, or only some infants, they are saved just as adults, as to the price of redemption, and as to the sanctification of their nature. But they are not saved as adults. Inj the truth believed. That sacrifice which is the ground of the Xew Cove- nant, is the salvation of saved infants: but there is no part of the word of God that intimates that it is through faith in that sacrifice. God, who applies that sacrifice to adults only through faith, can apply it to dying infants without faith — for faith is no merit more than works. . . . Who is he that will undertake to put a name (another's name) into God's covenant? What anti- christ will dare to take the throne of Jesus, and put a name into the Gospel grant ?"— " Baptism in its Mode and Subject:" Phila- delphia, IS 53, p. 2 J 5. 188 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. be Christ's genuine disciples, in order to be included in the New Covenant. " Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye, therefore, that they which are of faith, the same (and no others) are the children of Abra- ham. So then they which are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." Gal. iii. 6-9. Against the doctrine that the Covenant of Cir- cumcision is now abolished, it does not militate that it is called "an everlasting covenant." Gen. xvii. 7. For the word " everlasting" here does not signify the endless duration of this covenant, but only its perpetual and unalterable force, until the coming of the Messiah. See Deut. xviii. 15 ; comp. Acts iii. 22 ; vii. 37. In this sense the word occurs also in Ex. xl. 15, where it is said of Aarou and his sons, that their " anointing should be an ever- lasting priesthood throughout their generations." That is, this should be the perpetual and unalter- able order, so long as the Aaronic priesthood should continue. But no one doubts that this priesthood has now been wholly superceded by that of Christ. As to the second ground — viz., that "circum- cision was the seal of the covenant of grace," etc. — it may be remarked : The only passage in Scripture where circumcision is called a seal, is Rom. iv. 11, where it is said that Abraham " received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised." But this does not prove CIRCUMCISION. 189 that circumcision was a seal of the blessings of the covenant of grace to all his jwsterity. It is, in- deed, said that circumcision was a token of the cove- nant between God and the seed of Abraham, Gen. xvii. 11. But a seal and a token are two different things. A seal ratifies a thing which was not be- fore valid ; a token is only a visible proof that some other thing already exists. Circumcision, there- fore, was no seal that ratified and gave a full valid- ity to the covenant between God and the posterity of Abraham ; but only a token that such a covenant existed. Again, that circumcision was not the seal of the covenant of grace, is evident from the fact that, such were circumcised as had no part in the promises given to Abraham, and such were left uncircum- cised as had a part therein. It cannot be supposed that all the descendants of Abraham were partakers of the promises given to Abraham, either spiritual or temporal. Ishmael and the children of Keturah were included in this compact : " This is my cove- nant, which ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy seed after thee ; every man-child among you shall be circumcised." Gen. xvii. 10. Yet, Ishmael was first cast out from the participation of the pro- mises of this covenant. And then the children of Abraham by Keturah, whom " he sent away from Isaac his son (while he yet lived) unto the east country." Gen. xxv. 6. Now if circumcision had been the seal of participation in the Abrahamic 190 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM covenant and all its blessings, Gcd would either have excepted these from the command to Abraham and his seed to circumcise " every man-child," or else He must have given the seal, but withdrawn the reality sealed by it. Nor can it be supposed, that all slaves " born in the house, or bought with money," who, during the lapse of time, belonged to the people of Israel, had the faith of Abraham, and thus, as the spiritual seed of Abraham, were partakers of his blessing. Yet they were, according to Divine direction, to be cir- cumcised even against their will. Gen. xvii. 12, 13. Circumcision could not be, to ail these, a seal of the participation iu the blessings of the covenant of grace. But, on the other hand, it cannot be doubted that many women in Israel had the faith of Abraham. Yet no woman was circumcised. Now, if circumcision had been the seal of partici- pation in the blessings of the covenant of grace, would the Lord have withdrawn this seal from be- lieving women in Israel ? Nothing proves more decidedly that circumcision could not be the seal of participation in the blessing of the covenant of grace, than that the whole female sex — that is to say, one-half of "the seed of Abraham" — were not subject to circumcision. The whole argument from the Abrahamic cove- nant, in support of infant baptism, rests properly on the third and last ground — that " baptism has come in the room of circumcision,'' etc. We might, CIRCUMCISION. 191 therefore, have left the two preceding grounds aside, had we not deemed it necessary to try every means to dispel the mist that has gathered around the Abrahamic Covenant in the minds of most Pedo- baptists, and rendered them unable to see its true nut ure. Now, finally, with respect to the last ground, it may be remarked, that no position can be more gratuitous and false than this. For first it is decid- edly opposed to the lav: of circumcision. This law was a positive law, in distinction from the moral law. The distinction between positive and moral la.ws, it is of the highest moment to know and observe in regard to our present question. We wish, therefore, in the first place, to make some re- marks concerning this distinction. u Moral precepts,*' says Bishop Butler, "are precepts the reason of which we see ; positive pre- cepts are precepts the reason of which we do not see. Moral duties arise out of the nature of the case itself, prior to external command ; but posi- tive duties do not arise out of the nature of the case, but from external command ; nor would they be duties at all were it not for such command, received from Him whose creatures and subjects we are."* The following examples may serve to spread light on the nature of positive laws. * "Analogy," part 2, ch. 1. 192 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Adam and Eve were, from their creation, nnder moral obligation to love and serve God; but they were not under positive law till God said, " Of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." Gen. iii. 3. Adam and Eve violated this positive law, and brought by that means the curse, and death over all their posterity. The sprinkling of the blood of the Paschal Lamb on the door posts was an act in itself indifferent. But the positive command of God clothed it with an importance on which not only life or death depended, but in the performance or neglect of which was implied personal innocence or guilt. God had decreed that the sons of Kohath, who were Levites, should bear the Ark of the Covenant on their shoulders whenever it was moved, and that they should not touch it, lest they died. Here was a positive statute, both mandatory and prohibitory. But when David removed the Ark from Gibeah to the house of Obed-edom, the positive command was violated by placing it on "a new cart." And Uz- zah, who drove the cart, "put forth his hand to the Ark of God" to steady it. But " the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and God smote him there for his error ; and there he died by the Ark of God." 2 Sam. vi. Removing the Ark on a cart, and putting forth a hand to steady it, were palpable violations of the CIRCUMCISION. 193 lavr ; and God vindicated His authority in a sum- mary manner. Hence, we may clearly perceive the nature of a positive law. It rests entirely on the distinctly and decidedly expressed will of God, and requires a punctual obedience, without assigning any reason or motive for obedience. Now, such a law was the law of circumcision. Circumcision was a duty which could not be inferred from a general moral lav: — it was a duty which could be known only from a distinct and especial prescription. It was no duty before it was ex- pressly commanded, nor to those on whom it was not expressly enjoined. But since a positive law for it was given to the Hebrews, this law must be obeyed according to its letter, so long as it was valid. The law did not leave the least liberty to "add" or to "take away;" and on the punctual obedience to it depended, whether those subjected to it should be "cut off from the people," or not. Gen. xvii. 14. The position that baptism has taken the place of circumcision — so that "baptism in the Xew Tes- tament is what circumcision was in the Old," and that the Covenant of Circumcision still is in force, but that its seal has been altered — is, consequently, in direct opposition to the law of Circumcision. This law forbids explicitly the observance of any other rite than circumcision, as its token, while it remains. " Thou shalt keep my covenant there- 194 CHRISTIAN BAFTI3M". fore — this is my covenant, which ye shall keep ■ — every man-child among you shall be circum- cised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncir- cumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people ; he hath broken my covenant." Gen. xvii. 9-14. How in the face of this express law can any man affirm that the seal of the Covenant of Circumcision is altered, but that the covenant itself remains ? Is not circumcision declared to be as everlastingly binding, as the covenant itself? And is it not ex- pressly said that the man-child whose foreskin is not circumcised, has broken the covenant, and is there- fore to be cut off from the people ? Therefore, there is here no possibility of a substitute under the covenant. The law of circumcision is either to be kept literally and punctiliously, or it must have been totally abolished, without having any thing in- troduced in its place to be observed on the same principles. But let us now observe what liberties the Pedo- baptists have taken with this covenant and law of circumcision, while they claim that it is still in force — that they are living under it, and enjoying its privileges. They have greatly extended it. The covenant, by its very terms, is limited to Abraham and hi3 CIRCUMCISION. 195 natural seed, and to such persons from other na- tions as should be incorporated into the family or nation by purchase, etc. But they have extended it to Christians among all nations and their natural seed ; and they have made this extension not only without any thing like a Divine warrant for it, but in direct opposition to the decision of the Apostles and the Holy Ghost. Acts. xv. 18. They have changed its appointed rite from cir- cumcision to baptism, or more generally, to sprink- ling or pouring a little water iu the face of the subject. They have changed the subjects of the rite. The covenant limits the rite to males — they have ex- tended their substitute to females. The covenant requires that its rite shall be administered to chil- dren at eight days old ; they administer their sub- stitute to children from the natal hour up to any ac;e within the limits of minoritv. Such changes the Pedobaptists have made with the positive law of circumcision, in order, as they suppose, to secure to their infants a part in the blessings of the Covenant. But we ask: Do not Pedobaptists by this conduct condemn themselves ? For if that Covenant be now binding, why should they comply with the law of circumcision more in one respect than in another? Where has God released them from the obligation to keep the whole law of circumcision ? Or did ever the God of Abra- ham approve of a mutilated obedience ? 196 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. In the second place, the position that baptism has been substituted for circumcision, has no foun- dation in the New Testament. The only passage Pedobaptists have been able, with any plausibility, to quote in support of this position, is Col. ii. 11, 12. But this passage, so far from containing any evidence in favor of the Pedobaptist view, on the other hand, proves the very contrary. Let us hear the passage speak for itself. "In whom also ye are circumcised with the cir- cumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh : by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism ; wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead." Col. ii. 11. These verses, taken in connection with the pre- ceding and following, prove, in the first place, that Christians have nothing at all to do with the Cove- nant of Circumcision. " Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world,* and not after Christ. And ye are complete in Him, * "This expression in itself comprises the ritual observances of Judaism and heathenism." — II. A. W. Meyer's Commentary on the passage. "What is meant by the phrase — elements of the world? There can be no doubt that it means ceremonies. For he imme- diately afterward adduces one instance by way of example — circumcision." — Calvin's Commentary on the passage. CIRCUMCISION". 197 in whom also ye are circumcised And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcisiun of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him — blotting out the handwriting* of ordinances that was against us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross." Here we find that Faul had to contend with false teachers, who taught that circumcision, together with many other "rudiments of the world," or Jewish ceremonies, were necessary to be observed by Christians. In order to meet these, he first teaches that Christians had no need to observe the rudiments of the world, or the Jewish ceremonies, etc., thereby to be filled with divine wisdom and grace. "For in Christ," he says, "dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." " And ye are," he adds, "complete in Him," as united with Him ; so that ye need not now first be made complete by means of worshiping the angels (u. 18), and observ- ing the gorgeous ceremonies of Judaism. And, especially, ye need not observe the Jewish circum- cision ; for "ye are" already "circumcised" with a circumcision far better than the Jewish, viz., with "the circumcision of Christ." This circumcision, he further adds, is " not made with hands" (Rom. * "Handwriting. Thus the Mosaic law is characterized. . . . The law is to be understood as an all-comprehending whole, and limitations to the ceremonial law, or the moral law, are en- tirely opposed to the context and the doctrine of Paul.*' — H. A. W. Meyer's Commentary oa the passage. 19 198 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. ii. 29), as the Jewish, but is an invisible, spiritual circumcision of the heart (Deut. xxx. 6), effected without interposition of man. It is not only an outward separation of a little part of your flesh, but a putting off the whole " body of the sins of the flesh, the body of sin." Rom. vi. 6. But ye have not only, by this spiritual circumcision, put off the body of sin, as one puts off his natural body in death ; but as burial naturally is consequent upon death, so this body of sin has also been buried by your being " buried with Christ in baptism." But still more — ye are also " risen with Him, through the faith of the operation of God." Thus ye have already in Christ all that is needful and desirable. "Wherefore, if ye," in this way, "be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world," and live a new life — as in a new world — " with Christ in God;" "why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances" (u. 20), which are now blotted out, taken out of the way, and nailed to the cross of Christ ? That the Apostle, by this reasoning, declares that Christians are not "subject" to the law of circum- cision, is evident. But if this reasoning be conclu- sive in showing that the rite of circumcision is unnecessary, it is conclusive, also, against the sup- position, that any other rite has come in the room of circumcision, and is administered on the same grounds, or that circumcision in substance continues CIRCUMCISION. 199 in the Christian church, having only been changed in form. In order to prove that baptism has come in the room of circumcision, Pedobaptists assert that the Apostle in this passage represents the circumcision of the Xew Testament as effected in and by means of baptism. But our text does not furnish any ground either for their assertion or their argument. For, in the first place, the Apostle does not say that the Colossians were circumcised " with the cir- cumcision of Christ," in that they were buried with Him by baptism, as some falsely explain the pas- sage ; but according to the original and the English version, he expresses himself thus : " In whom also ye are circumcised, etc., buried with Him in bap- tism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through faith," etc. The Apostle here reminds the Colos- sians, as in Rom. vi. 3-11 the Romans, of three important facts which had taken place with them. They had been (1) dead ("in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh"' — "baptized into His death," Rom. vi. 3.); (2) buried ("buried with Him in baptism" — "buried with Him by baptism," Rom. vi. 4) ; (3) ruen from the dead (" wherein also ye are risen with Him" — "that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, so we also should walk in newness of life" — "likewise reckon ye also your- selves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God." Rom. vi. 4, 11.) The burial and resurrec- tion in and from baptism, are not here represented 200 .CHRISTIAN BArTISM as the means by which the circumcision of Christ had been effected, but as consequences from this circumcision, which consisted "in putting off the body of the flesh" (''circumcised — in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh"). The Colossians were circumcised without hands — in the circumcision of Christ — in the circumcision of the heart, in the spirit (Rom. ii. 29) — in the putting off of the body of sin through faith ; and the remains of this cir- cumcision they had committed to the watery grave, from which they had risen again to walk in newness of life. If the Apostle had meant to say, that the Colos- sians had been circumcised with the circumcision of Christ, effected by a burial with Christ in bap- tism, he would have taught that this circumcision had been made by an outward act, since baptism cannot take place without hands. But immediately before, he declares that this circumcision had not taken place by means of an outward act : "Ye are circum- cised with the circumcision made without hands." Can we charge the Apostle with such a self-contra- diction ? The contrast indicated in our passage, is evidently not between two external rites, one of which may be disregarded since the other has been introduced in its stead, but between the outward circumcision and "the circumcision of heart, in the spirit." That which is made with hands, the Jewish circum- cision, is not required, because that which is made CIRCUMCISION. 201 without hands, the circumcision of Christ, has been experienced. Comp. Eph. ii. 11 ; Phil. iii. 3. But, in the second place, if it could be proved that the Colossiana had experienced the circum- cision of Christ in and by means of baptism, that would not be an}' evidence that baptism had come in the room of circumcision. It would only prove, that Christians are delivered from circumcision as a yoke of bondage (Acts xv. 10), because they had received baptism as a far more significant evangelical ordinance. But it could not be any evidence that baptism is to be performed on the same principles as circumcision. We make no objection to the sen- timent that there is in some respects a similarity between baptism and circumcision.* But this does as little prove that baptism has come in the room of circumcision, as the fact that there was a simi- larity between the ark of Noah and baptism (1 Pet. iii. 21) proves that the latter has come in the place of the former. With all the circumstantial simi- larity that may exist between the two ordinances, they differ as essentially as the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Circumcision. Instead of proving that circumcision in the New Testament continues to be valid under the form of baptism, the passage, as well as the similar one in * For example, as circumcision, in the Old Testament, be- longed to the natural seed of Abraham, by virtue of fleshly birth, so, in the New Testament, baptism belongs to his spiritual eeed, by virtue of regeneration through faith. 19* 202 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Rom. vi. 3-11, clearly intimates that infant baptism did not exist in the apostolic churches. For all baptized in Colosse and Rome are represented as risen with Christ from the grave of baptism " through faith," in order immediately after baptism to "walk in newness of life." And as this cannot apply to infants, no such were baptized in these churches, and, consequently, none in the other apostolic churches. See further, concerning Horn vi. 3, the note, p. 133. If baptism were a substitute for circumcision, something clear and unambiguous must have been said about it in the Xew Testament. The circum- stances of the church, as they are represented in the Acts and Epistles, were such as to render silence in regard to such a fact as this, ou the part of the Apostles, absolutely impossible. There was a schism among the Christians on this very question — whether Gentile Christians were bound to observe circum- cision, or not — a schism which would have been healed by just insisting that baptism had taken the place of circumcision. If this were so, Paul could not have failed to mention it in the Epistle to the Galatians, among whom circumcision was strongly urged as necessary to salvation, just as many Pedobaptists in our time urge infant baptism as necessary to salvation. Xow, if baptism held the place of circumcision, as the "seal" of the covenant, the covenant itself remain- ing in full force, the controversy would easily have CIRCUMCISION. 203 been settled by the simple remark, on the part of the Apostle, that Gentile Christians had no need of being circumcised, since they had received bap- tism, which in the New Testament had taken the place of circumcision. For who could, in that case, have contended that those who had been baptized must also be circumcised? Who would have thought of two " seals," at the same time, of the same covenant ? But there is not a word intimating any such thing, while every thing in this Epistle makes against it. If it were so, moreover, something would neces- sarily have been mentioned about it in the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem. Acts xv. We find there, that when some zealously urged that baptized Gen- tile Christians could not be saved unless they were circumcised, a council was held at Jerusalem by the Apostles and the church, "to consider of this mat- ter." Xow, if it had been the known appointment of Christ that baptism had taken the place of cir- cumcision, and, consequently, the Gentile Christians already had received baptism instead of circum- cision, would it not have been the imperative duty of the Apostles to inform Christians of such a fact, especially as " much debate had arisen'' at the Council concerning "this matter." But though Petrr, on the ground of his own experience of the fact that God had " purified" even the hearts of uncircumciaed Gentiles through faith, argues that they ought not to impose the yoke of the law and 204 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. circumcision on Gentile Christians ; yet he makes no mention of baptism having come in the place of circumcision, and thus rendered it superfluous. Xor does James, after hearing the experience of Peter related, make any mention of it, while he lays down this as his decided judgment, that they should not • "trouble them which from among the Gentiles have turned to God," with keeping the law and circum- cision. How needful would it not here have been to add the plain reason, that since baptism now was the appointed seal of the covenant instead of circum- cision, to impose circumcision upon them would be inconsistent and absurd. Likewise in the declara- tion given by the Apostles, the elders, and the whole church in common — together with "the Holy Ghost" — to the Christians at Antioch, there is not the least intimation that they considered baptism a3 a substitute for circumcision, though they expressly declared that they needed not observe circumcision. Thus we here see circumcision for Gentile Chris- tians expressly abolished, but nothing proposed in its room.* * That circumcision is of right abolished also for Jewish Christians, is clear from what we already have learned. 1 Cor. vii. 19. The "priesthood" and "law" are "changed," not for a part of Christ's church only, but for the whole (Heb. vii. 12 — see pp. 1S4-1S6); consequently, the law of circumcision which was a part of the Mosaic law, must also have been changed for the whole church. Christ has "abolished" the whole laic, and made of the two. Jews and Gentiles, not an old man, retaining each a peculiar church constitution, but a " neic man" (Eph. ii. 11— IS, CIBCUMCISION. 205 Against the assertion that baptism has taken the place of circumcision, we have, also, a decisive argu- ment in Acts xxi. 20, 21, 25. Here James and the elders at Jerusalem, say to Paul, M Thou seest, bro- ther, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the law. And they are informed of thee, that thou teaehest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no scjch thing." But we ask, did they not teach the Gen- tiles to observe baptism, which according to Pedo- see p. 135, tho note), -who was no more -'Jew or Greek," but "one in Christ Jesus," etc. Gal. iii. 26-29. The fact that the Jewish converts practiced circumcision in the apostolic age, does not affect this argument. There were many reasons why the Jewish converts did not at once forsake their old ritual. Under the circumstances this was hardly to be expected. The Apostles themselves were full of Jewish preju- dices when they began their work, and it was not without much instruction of the Holy Spirit, added to much study and obser- vation, that they were able to surmount them (see, for instance, Acts x.) ; could their converts, without those advantages, be ex- pected at once to rise above such prejudices? The Gospel day dawned with the ministry of John. And as the morning twi- light of the Gospel day began before tie death of Christ, so some shades of the Jewish night, or rather, morning clouds and mists, might be expected to remain some time after that, hovering about the solemn and splendid Temple at Jerusalem, affecting in a certain degree the minds, and obscuring the perceptions of the Jewish Christians while it stood. 206 CHRISTIAN B PTI3M". baptists, is substantially the same thing with cir- cumcision — a token and seal of the same covenant, its appointed substitute, to be applied to the same description of persons, founded on the same law, and occupying the same place in the Divine econ- omy ? And could they do that, and then say that thay had commanded the Gentiles that they observe NO such thing as circumcision ? The assertion that "baptism in the New Testa- ment is the seal of the Covenant of Grace," has, like all other arguments in favor of infant baptism, not a particle of foundation in Scripture. Baptism is an act of obedience, by which we put on and pub- licly confess Christ. But it is never in the Bible represented as a seal. The Christian has a more exalted seal than any outward ordinance, viz., the Holy Spirit, " whereby he is sealed unto the day of redemption." Eph. iv. 30. When sinners believe in Christ, they are sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is " the earnest of their inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession." Eph. i. 13. The seal, then, that comes in the room of circumcision, is the seal of the Spirit. Finally, it ought not be overlooked, that accord- ing to Acts xxi. 20, 21, " many thousands of Jew=;," with the consent of the Apostles, continued a long time to "circumcise their children." Would they be likely at the same time to baptize them ? CIRCUMCISION. 207 TE8TIM0NIEa Dr. A. Keandeb : " If we wish to ascertain from whom this institution (infant baptism) was origin- ated, we should say, certainly not immediately from Christ himself. Was it from the primitive church in Palestine, from an injunction given by the earlier Apostles ? But among the Jewish Christians, cir- cumcision was held as a seal of the covenant, and hence they had so much less occasion to make use of another dedication for their children. Could it then have been Paul who first, among Gentile Christians, introduced this alteration, by the use of baptism ? But this would agree least of all with the peculiar characteristics of this Apostle. He who says of himself, that " Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel ;'' he who always kept his eyes fixed on one thing — justification by faith — and so carefully avoided every thing which could give a handle or support to the notion of a justification by outward things, how could he have set up infant baptism against the circumcision that continued to be practiced by the Jewish Chris- tians V* Professor Stuart: "How unwary, too, are many excellent men, in contending for infant bap- tism on the ground of the Jewish analogy of cir- cumcision ! Are females not proper subjects of * "Planting and Training of the Christian Church," p. 102. 208 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. baptism ? And again, are a man's slaves to be all baptized because he is ? Are they church mem- bers ? — of course, when they are so baptized. Is there no difference between engrafting into a poli- tico-ecclesiastical community, and into one o f which it is said, that it is not of tniis worm : in short, numberless difficulties present themselves in our way, as soon as we begin to argue in such a manner as this."* * On Old Testament, g 22, p. 395. PART II. TESTIMONIES FROM THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. SECTION I. INTRODUCTION. We have now considered all the passages, both of the New and Old Testament, that either ex- pressly mention baptism, or, with and without ground, have been thought to allude to it; and we renew the question : Where is the passage in Holy Writ that furnishes any support for infant baptism ? In vain do we seek for it in the Gos- pels, in the Acts, in the Epistles, or in the Old Testament. And this is conceded even by the most distinguished theologians among the Pedo- baptists themselves. (See pp. 114— ITT.) But while Pedobaptists have not found any firm footing in the Scriptures, they direct us to the history of the Chris- tian Church, maintaining that according to it infant baptism must have its origin in the Apostolic 18* (209) 210 CHKISTIAX BAPTISM. time, and that sprinkling and pouring, instead of immersion, can be traced up at the same time. On this we remark : Were these assertions con- sistent with truth, they still would fail to shake our conviction of the only true law of Christian bap- tism, inasmuch as it is built on that firm rock — the Word of God — which shall endure even when heaven and earth have passed away. The word of the Lord, such as it is delivered to us in Holy Scripture, is the only firm and sure foundation ; but as soon as we step without its limits — the covers of the Bible — all is uncertain and unreliable. As nothing new happens under the sun, so error did not spring up first yesterday or to-day, but counts its descent as far back as from the Fall. It did not cease to flourish even when the light of truth, through the Apostles of the Lord, shone brightest in the world. Whosoever peruses atten- tively the writings of the Xew Testament, will, there, already recognize the germ of all the princi- pal doctrinal errors that in subsequent times have troubled the church of Christ. That doctrine of gross self-righteousness, that monkery, that prohi- bition of marriage, that denial of the true Christ, that false philosophy, etc., which afterward so gen- erally prevailed in Christendom, did they not early spread in the apostolic churches a great desola- tion, and awaken the utmost anxiety in the Apostles ? Whence Paul also testifies that " the mystery of iniquity," (2 Thess. ii. 7), which after- TESTIMONIES FBOII HISTORY. 211 ward should be made manifest in a general apos- tacy throughout Christendom, was already working in his time. If, therefore, any trace of the exist- ence of infant baptism in the Apostles' time could be found, that would prove nothing else than that, among many other errors, even this leaven, not the least injurious, had begun to ferment and cor- rupt the church. We consider, therefore, the tes- timonies furnished by church history not as a neces- sary supplement to the testimonies of Scripture, as if these alone were not sufficient to establish the true doctrine of baptism ; but only as an occasional confirmation of an already established truth, and a further refutation of the weak objections against the true doctrine of baptism which Pedobaptists have tried to deduce from the history of the Chris- tian Church. After these preliminary remarks, we shall now adduce the principal records contained in church history concerning the origin and existence of in- fant baptism during the first ages of the Christian church, as well as the mode in which baptism has been administered during all times. SECTION II. BAPTISM IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE, OR THE FIRST CENTURY. As we seek in vain to find any allusion to infant baptism in the New Testament, we are also met with an entire and significant silence concerning it from the most ancient records of church history. Not one of the so-called " Apostolic Fathers," — Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, Hermas, Ignatius, or Polycarpus, — either expressly alludes to it, or says any thing that may be referred to infant bap- tism ; but, on the other hand, their writings con- tain many passages where the baptism of believers is mentioned. The unanimous silence of the Apos- tolic Fathers concerning infant baptism, while they often mention the baptism of believers, goes far to prove that they, as well as the New Testament, knew nothing of the baptism of infants. It is worthy of notice, that while many Pedo- baptists affirm that infant baptism may be traced in the writings of the Fathers up to the very times of the Apostles, they affirm it in opposition to the standard ecclesiastical historians and divines among the Pedobaptists themselves. "We have already (212) THE APOSTOLIC AGE. 213 adduced, (pp. 104, 207,) and will, further on, quote testimonies against the apostolical origin of infant baptism by Xeander, the most eminent ecclesiastical historian of our time, and it may well be added, of all times. To his testimony, which alone might be sufficient, we wish only to add the following : Dr. II. A. W. Meyer : (whose opinion of in- fant baptism we have also previously seen, p. 104) : "Baptism, without instruction and faith, never ap- pears in the Scripture, and is contrary to Matt, xxviii. 19. The early and continued opposition to infant baptism would have been inexplicable if it had been an undoubted apostolical institution."* Professor Hahn : " Neither in the Scriptures, nor during the first hundred and fifty years, is a sure example of infant baptism to be found, and we must concede that the numerous opposers of it cannot be contradicted on gospel ground. "f Batjmgarten Crusius: "Infant baptism is not supported either by a distinct apostolical tradition, \ or by the practice of the Apostles." * Commentary on Acts xvi. 15. f Theology, p. 556. j Even if it were, it would giro no certainty, much less Divine authority. How little tradition is to be relied on, appears from the fact that even the first disciples were deceived when they listened to its voice. On one occasion Christ said, in reference to John, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?'' Tradition immediately distorted the question into an assertion : u Then went that saying abroad among the brethren that that disciple should not die." (John xxi. 22, 23.) Here tradition uttered a falsehood, and taught, as usual, a lie. 214 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Matthies : " In the first two centuries there are no documents that clearly prove the existence of infant baptism at that time. Both "Wall and Bing- ham trace infant baptism back as far as to the apostolic time, by doing violence to historical evi- dence.'''* More such testimonies by Mosheim, Olshausen, Winer, Schleiermacher, Gi-eseler, Miinscher, De Wette, Curcellous, Salmasius, Suiarus, &c, might be mentioned, f * Hist, of Theology, p. 1203. f Expositio Baptismatis, p. 187. SECTION III. BAPTISM IN THE SECOND CENTURY. Among the Church Fathers of the second century, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, are the most renowned. As Pedo- baptists have sought to find in these Fathers evi- dence for the apostolic origin of infant baptism, we shall enter into a somewhat closer examination of the passages in their writings which have been supposed to refer to infant baptism. Justin Martyr, The passage in this Father, which has been quoted by some Pedobaptists in defense of infant baptism, is of the following effect : " Several persons among us of sixty and seventy years old, of both sexes, who were discipled to Christ from their childhood, do continue uncorrupted."* The supposition that this passage alludes to in- fant baptism, rests on the expressions " were dis- cipled," and "from their childhood." The former of those expressions corresponds to the Greek word " Ematketeuthesan," which is also ased in, * Wall. u Hist, of Infant Baptism," part i., ch. ii., sec. 6. (215) 216 CHRISTIAN" BAPTISM. the Commission, Matt, xxiii. 19. Now let us ask: How can this word, which always implies instruc- tion, have reference to new-born children that are not able to receive any instruction ? The latter expression, from "childhood," (ek jiaidoon), is used for the most part of the age between ten and fifteen years, while two other words, (brephos and paidion), are used to signify infancy. The mean- ing of this passage, consequently, is that many who in their childhood had received Christian instruc- tion and been converted, had persevered in an un- blamable Christian conduct to their old age. Any allusion to baptism is not here to be found ; but if they had been baptized in their childhood, they had previously been made disciples by means of instruction. That this is the true meaning of our passage is confirmed by Semisoh (Lutheran) : " Whenever Justin refers to baptism, adults appear as the objects to whom the sacred rite is administered. Of an infant bap- tism he knows nothing. The traces of it which some persons believe they have detected in his writings, are groundless fancies artificially pro- duced. In the words : ' Many men and women, sixty and seventy years old, who from children have been disciples of Christ, persevere in their conti- nence,' — nothing more is said than that many in- dividuals of both sexes became disciples of Christ in early life. The idea of matheteuesthai does THE SECOND CENTURY. 217 not necessarily include that of being baptized ; it merely brings before our minds a catechumen. And even admitting that the baptismal rite was included in maiheicuesthai, this by no means is de- cisive of a reference to infant baptism. Ek paidoon (from children) contrasted with ' sixty and seventy years old,' may well denote the entrance of the period of youth.'-* MATTHIES : " Though the formula matheteues- thai tini undeniably signifies to be a disciple of such a one, yet this signification by no means con- tains the idea that that disciple has been already baptized ; for one can be called a disciple, who, though he has not received baptism, is eagerly learning the doctrines of Christ, and is therefore taught the gospel. It is this which Justin seems to have had in mind. For he himself, in another place, giving an account of baptism, relates that only those icho believe the things they are taught, so as to be persuaded that they can live in a Chris- tian manner, are brought to baptism. It is thus evident that in Justin's opinion, baptism is to be given after believing in Christ. Xothing else, there- fore, is contained in that saying of Justin's, than that many instructed in the gospel from an early age remain continent."^ * Monograph on the Life and Works of Justin, vol. 2, pjj. 334, 335. | Expositio Baptismatis, p. 1S7. See the " Christian Review," Boston, vol. 3. p. 198. 19 213 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. With these testimonies agree Winer, Rheinwald, Munscher, Hahn, Lange, and nearly all the Ger- man writers. Far from rendering any support to infant baptism, Justin, on the other hand, affords in another passage a decisive testimony against it. This passage is to be found in his Second Apology to the emperor Antoninus Pius, and reads thus : u I will now relate the manner in which we, hav- ing been renewed by Christ, dedicate ourselves to God, lest, if I omit this, I shall seem to deal in some respect perversely in this account. As many as are persuaded and believe that the things taught by us are true, and promise to live according to them, are directed first to pray and ask of God, with fast- ing, the forgiveness of their former sins ; we pray- ing and fasting together with them. Afterward they are conducted by us to some place where there is water, and after the same way of regeneration whereby we were ourselves regenerated, they are regenerated. For they then take a bath in the water in the name of the Lord God, and Father of all, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. . . . And now, in reference to this thing (viz., baptism, including all the transactions described), we have learned from the Apostles this reason : because we, being ignorant of our first birth, was generated by necessity, . . . and have been brought up in its customs and conversation, that we should no longer remain children of neces- sity and ignorance, but of choice and knowledge, THE SECOND CENTURY. 219 and that we may obtain in the water remission of the sins in which we had before transgressed, — the name of the Lord God, and Father of all, is pro- nounced over him who chooses to be regenerated* and repents of his sins, etc." In how many ways does not " this account'' make against that baptism which in the latter ages was so generally received in Christendom ! Justin is giving the emperor a full statement of the adminis- tration of baptism in the entire Christian body. All the subjects of baptism, he says, are " persuaded and believe," " promise to live according to our doctrine," and seek "with fasting the forgiveness of their sins, we fasting and praying with them ;" and they are then "conducted to some place where there is water," to be baptized. In baptism they are not " children of necessity and ignorance, but of choice and knowledge." The candidate repents of his sins, and chooses to be baptized. * Justin evidently attached to the primitive baptism of peni- tent believers some ideas not warranted by the Scriptures, which never speak of baptism as regeneration, or of the remission of gins being received in the water. His incautious use of lan- guage in reference to this ordinance as originally administered to believers, led others to still wider departures from the sim- plicity and truth of the Scriptures. We are bound here to re- member the words of our Lord: "Call no man master upon earth, for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are breth- ren." Matt, xxiii. 9, 10. How much mischief has resulted from misinterpretation of Scripture by the early Fathers, it is not our business to decide. 220 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. How does this agree with infant baptism now in use ? Are unconscious children in baptism, chil- dren of choice and knowledge ? Arc they per- suaded ? Do they believe the doctrine of Christ, and engage to live according to it ? Do they fast and pray for the forgiveness of sins ? Do they repent of their sins ? Compare the language of Justin with the following from Augustine, written some two centuries and a half later, when infant baptism was well established. " Children," he says, " who can neither mill nor refuse either good or evil, are nevertheless compelled to be holy and righteous when, struggling and crying with tears against it, they are regenerated by holy baptism. For, doubtless, dying before the use of reason, they will be holy and righteous in the kingdom of God, through grace, to which they come not by their own ability, but by necessity. v * This language is perfectly consistent with infant baptism, but that of Justin is as decidedly opposed to it. It is to be observed that the number of children of Christians at the time of Justin must have been very great, and if they all were baptized, infant baptism must have been an important part of the rites of the Christians, whereof Justin here was giving an account. Now he professed to give such a complete and exact statement of the doctrines and rites of the Christians, that he might not, by # Emerson's Wigger's Augustinistn and Pelagiaiiism, p. 12. THE SECOND CENTURY. 221 "omitting 1 ' some important thing, be considered to "deal perversely in some part of his account." But if infant baptism at this time was prevailing in the Christian Church, this account would cer- tainly have been both unfair and untrue ; for it affirms of all, such things that would have been true with respect to one part only. Could any mission- ary among the Pedobaptists of our time, a hundred years after the introduction of Christianity in any country, give such an account as this to a heathen emperor ? Could he, with any appearance of sin- cerity, compose his account so as not to leave any room for infant baptism in it ? A more conclusive evidence against infant bap- tism from church history, than this, it is impossible to conceive of. Had Justin said in express terms : "Baptism is to be administered only to believers; infants may not be baptized," while his testimony against it would have been explicit, it would also have strongly implied that there were some in that day who thought that infants ought to be baptized, and hence, that the rite then was in existence. But by simply describing baptism, and the princi- ples on which it was administered, in such a way as totally to exclude the conception of infant baptism, it is a demonstration that it neither existed, nor was so much as thought of at that time. It is just such a testimony against infant baptism as would be desired. And this is the nature of the testimony against infant baptism, both in the New Testa- 19* 222 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. ment and the earliest Christian writers. It is not a contradiction of it in express terms ; this would prove its actual existence, but it is a most perfect negation of it : a clear evidence that any such thing as is called infant baptism did not exist in the primitive church. This testimony becomes still more important, if we consider that Justin, in the first place, declares that he and his cotemporaries had "learned" how they should act at baptism, "from the Apostles;'' 9 and that he, in the second place, lived very near to the apostolic time, yea, was, according to Dr. Wall (the famous defender of infant baptism), born in the Apostles' time, and wrote about forty years after it.* Finally, it is not to be overlooked that at the time of Justin, penitent and believing disciples were "conducted to some place where there was water," there to be baptized by immersion, while the Pedo- baptists of our time usually carry the water to the candidate. IRENvEUS. The passage which has been most relied on in support of infant baptism, is the following of Ire- * "History of Infant Baptism, Oxford, 1S44, vol. 4, p. 511." Dr. "Wall remarks: "A testimony of Justin's is more considerable than of five or six later ones. Any words of bis tbat should plainly and expressly determine either for or a~umqup.m se vel iinpium ;:iiquein beretieum audis^e qui hoc quod prnposuit <1<* parvulis dieeret"— Wall, p^rt 1, cb. 19. ? 30. 256 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Augustine was present, decreed : " Whoever denies that children just born are to be baptized, let him be anathema." Was this curse hurled at nobody? Augustine says: "Men are accustomed to ask of what benefit is baptism to infants ?" Chrysostom complained that most persons neglected to baptize their children ; Jerome speaks of those who refused to give baptism to their children, etc.* Under such circumstances, how is it possible that such an utter- ance as is ascribed to Pelagius can be of any weight as an evidence for infant baptism ? We now arrive at Augustine, the chief defender and promoter of infant baptism in his time. This man more than once declares infant baptism to be a rite descended from the Apostles. But how little this assertion is to be relied on, appears from the fact that such men as Wiggers and Xeander, who have closely investigated the whole history from the original sources concerning Augustine and his con- temporaries, do not hesitate to pronounce it an un- founded assumption ; and that Augustine also, with the apostolic tradition, seeks to prove the necessity of administering the Lord's Supper to infants. This may be seen in the following passage quoted by Dr. Wall : " The Christians of Africa do well call bap- tism itself, one's salvation, and the sacrament of Christ's body, one's life. From whence is this but, as I suppose, from that ancient and apostolical tra- * See on all this, Wall, part 2, ch. 5 ; "Wigger's Augustinism and Pelagianisni, pp. 65, 171; Chr. Review, vol. 3, p. 216. FOURTH AND FIFTH CENTURIES. 257 dition, by which the churches of Christ do naturally hold that without baptism and partaking of the Lord's table, no one can come either to the kingdom of God, or to salvation and eternal life ? If, then, neither salvation nor eternal life is to be hoped for by any without baptism and (he body and blood of our Lord, it is in vain promised to infants without them."* As a misunderstanding of those words of Christ, " Except a man be born of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,-' seems to have introduced infant baptism into the Christian church ; so from a like mistake of those other words of Christ, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you/' the participation of the Lord's Supper was sup- posed to be necessary to eternal life. On this latter passage Augustine says : "Let us hear the Lord, I say, who is not now speaking of the sacrament of the holy laver, but of the sacra- ment of His holy table, to which none may regu- larly approach before he is baptized; ' Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall have no life in you.' What would you have more ? What answer can any one make to this, unless he will per- tinaciously set himself to fight against the utmost evidence of truth ? Will any man dare to say this passage belongs not to infants, and that they may Wail, part 2, ch. 9, \ 15. 22* 258 CHRISTIAN BAPTISMS have life in themselves without the participation of Christ's body and blood."* In another place, Augustine endeavors to prove that infants cannot be saved without baptism, be- cause till they are baptized they cannot partake of the Lord's Supper ; and Christ says, None can have life in them, except they eat his flesh and drink his blood. For when he speaks of his opposers he thus expresses himself: "But if they have any deference for the apostolic seat, or rather, for the Lord and Master of the Apostles, who says, that none shall have life in themselves, unless they eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, which they cannot do without being baptized, they will one day confess that infants unbaptized can- not have life."t From hence we perceive that infant communion, at the time of Augustine, was considered as neces- sary, if not more indispensable to salvation than in- fant baptism. And undoubtedly they had just as good reason to give the Lord's Supper to infants as baptism. (See pp. 148, 149.) In the time of Augustine, care was taken that infant baptism, by synodal decrees, should be gener- ally received as a legitimate rite in the Catholic or established church. In the year 416, a Synod was held at Mileve of Africa, in which Agustine pre- * Aug. de Peceator. Meritis & Remiss. lib. 1, c. 20. f Aug. contra Pelagianos, Epist. 106. FOURTH AND FIFTH CEKTUBIES. 209 sided. At this synod the following decision was made with respect to infant baptism : " Also it is the pleasure of the bishops to order that whoever denieth that infants newly born of their mothers are to be baptized, or saith that baptism is administered for the remission of their own sins, but not on account of original sins derived from Adam, and to be expiated by the layer of regeneration, be ac- cursed."* Also in the year -US a Council was held at Car- thage, where the anathema was pronounced against the doctrine of the intermediate state (between con- demnation and salvation, which doctrine some de- fended) of unbaptized children deceased, because no such thing could be conceived of as a middle place between the kingdom of God and condemnation. 15nt "thereby," Neander remarks, " according to the decision of that Council, the denunciation of everlasting condemnation was pronounced on all unbaptized children — a consequence of the error shocking all human feeling. ''f After these Councils, and a third General Council at Ephesus, A.D. 431, where the positions of Angus- tine were established as the general doctrine of the Catholic church, we find within that church no Ter- tuiiians opposing infant baptism, or Naziai counseling delay. Since the Emperors Tbeodosius and Honorious had enacted a law — A. D. -113 — ' Robinson's History of Baptism, p. 21 j. Gescb der Christ!. Eel, u. Kirch*?, 2 h., 3 abch.. s. IZJo. 260 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. which forbade all anabaplism in the empire, under the penalty of death, we would hardly expect any Catholic churchman to be bold enough to impugn infant baptism. Similar sanguinary laws were in force wherever the Church of Rome had power in subsequent ages. Hence flowed the blood of my- riads of Christian martyrs ! Hence, too, the de- struction of their schools and books ! Hence, lastly, the odious calumnies heaped upon their names in all times ! But notwithstanding these sanguinary and deso- lating persecutions, there have been found in all ages, from that time to the Reformation, not only individual sincere disciples of Christ, but Christian churches that have been faithful to the truth, and have rejected the errors and abuses of the estab- lished church. Those have been known under various names, as Cathari or Xovatianists, Lucife- rians, Aerians, Vigilantians, Paulicians, Paterines, Gundulphians, Albigenses, Lollards, the early Wal- denses, etc., with whom we have found no trace of infant baptism, but much testimony on the contrary. At the time of the Reformation a sect stood up which often has been confounded with the Baptists, viz., the Munsterian Anabaptists. That the Bap- tists of our time stand in no connection with those Anabaptists, must, however, be conceded by every one who is acquainted with the history of the Bap- tists. This also has lately been acknowledged by Merle D'Aubigne, author of the celebrated work, FOURTH AND FIFTH CENTURIES. 2G1 " The History of the Reformation.'' In the preface of this work he says : " There is an error concerning the Baptists that has misled many. They have imagined that the Anabaptists in the time of the Reformation and the Baptists of our days are the same. But they are two sects, both as to their doctrine and history, and are as different as pos- sible." The Baptists of England descended from the old Lollards, who rejected infant baptism, and already in the year 1339, had spread so far in that country, that a great part of the English nation then was on their side. After the time of the Reformation, they were branded in England by the opprobrious appellation of "Anabaptists," and often cruelly and murderously persecuted. About the year 1630, the Baptists were trans- planted from England to America, where they have rapidly increased, and number at present, together with their families, about six millions of souls. In this land infant baptism more and more falls into desuetude, even among the most pious Pedobaptists of the different denominations, and many modern Chrysostoms make in vain a loud complaint that " most persons neglect to baptize their infants." This is a natural consequence of a more intimate and general acquaintance with the doctrines of the Bible. The history of the Church, too, furnishes the most incontestible evidence that as infant baptism 262 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. made a more prominent figure in proportion as the church grew more benighted and corrupted, so it has, on the other hand, since the time of the Reformation, in spite of every effort to maintain it, lost its hold and fallen into disuse in proportion as the pure doctrines of the Bible and true piety- have gained a footing among professors of Chris- tianity. This is the case especially where no privi- leged and oppressing State Church, with its hier- archy, allurements, and rewards, on the one hand, or threatenings and punishments on the other, have extended a blinding and corrupting influence over the minds of the people, but every one has been left entirely free and unbiased to follow his own convictions, grounded only on the Bible. SECTION VI. TESTIMONY OF CHURCH HISTORY WITH ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE MODE OF BAPTISM. We hope that every one who has attentively and without prejudice examined the testimony of the New Testament on the mode of baptism, has already found that all the baptisms mentioned in the New Testament, were administered by immer- sion. We have likewise found that several of the church Fathers, as Justin Martyr, (p. 219), Clem- ent of Alexandria, (p. 227), Tertullian, (p. 229), Jerome, (p. 41), and Cyril of Jerusalem, (p. 121), have left a unanimous and decisive testimony, that immersion was the generally received custom of the primitive church. It would be a superfluous, as well as an endless undertaking, to quote all the testimonies from the Fathers which testify the same, while no testimony can be adduced speaking of any other mode until the middle of the third cen- tury.* And the instance of a different mode then occurring is of a nature that only serves to estab- lish the truth that immersion was the mode pre- ■ Wall, part 2, eh. ix. sec 2. (263) 264 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. scribed by our Lord. That instance is stated in a letter by the church historian, Eusebius, where it is related that Novatian was baptized on his bed, because he thought himself to be near to death. The narrative of this case reads thus : " Who re- ceived [baptism] being poured round (yerikytheis) on the bed on which he lay ; if, indeed, it is proper to say that such a one could receive [baptism]." It is worthy of notice that it is here questioned whether this could be called baptism, which doubt is only an echo of the prevailing sentiment of this time. For in the same letter it reads further : — " Since he had received baptism, he obtained the rank of the presbytery by the favor of the bishop, who by the imposition of hands initiated him as presbyter. Since he had been denied [the initia- tion] by the whole clergy and many of the laity — . because it was not lawful for any one that had been poured round (perikytheis) in his bed because of sickness, as he had been, to be admitted to any office of the clergy — the bishop asked for permis- sion to initiate this person only."* To this passage there is a note of Yalesius, editor of the Ancient Ecclesiastical Historians, on the word (perikytheis), reading thus: "Rufinus rightly translated this perfusum, (poured about). For those who were sick were baptized in bed, since they could not be immersed by the priest, * Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. vi. cap. 43. THE MODE — TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. 2G5 they were only poured about (jierfundebantur) with water. ' ; * Nothing can be more striking as evidence that immersion was deemed the only legitimate baptism except in cases of the greatest emergency, than the expression used by Eusebius — perikytheis — poured about — clearly an application of water to the body generally, and not to the face only. This mode was adopted in order to render the baptism in question as effectual and valid as possible, the body being, as in immersion, on all sides surrounded with water. All other exceptions occurring in ancient times are upon the principle of danger of death, or other absolute necessity, and do therefore but confirm the rule. When the belief was prevalent that man could not escape the fire of hell in any other way than by water baptism, it was quite natural that men should try in any possible way to apply the water to the body, at the same time reciting the formula of bap- tism. But the fact that in ancient times they were not contented with sprinkling in the face or pouring on the head, but poured water all over the body, goes far to prove the primitive and only true mode of baptism to have been immersion. Yet this 11 necessity-baptism"' of the Fathers, enforced from fear of hell-fire, has caused primitive baptism to be entirely abolished throughout the greatest part of Christendom. * Annot. in loco. 23 266 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Except in such an absolute necessity or imminent clanger of death, we have an unbroken chain of evidence showing that baptism for thirteen hundred years was performed by immersion, and by immer- sion only. Never and nowhere in Christendom was sprinkling or pouring allowed in ordinary cases, until the Council of Ravenna, assembled by the Pope in 1311 ; and not earlier than in the sixteenth century was pouring received as the general custom of the Roman church, which is clearly proved by the rituals of that church. At the same period, pouring and sprinkling also began to be received in the Lutheran and Reformed churches. Yet, even at the present time immersion con- tinues to prevail, as the only true mode, in the whole Greek church — containing about sixty mil- lions of Christians — and in many other denomina- tions over which the Papacy has not exerted its influence. With respect to the views of the Greek church concerning the necessity of immersion, P. Bicauf, Esq., observes: " Thrice dipping or plunging this church holds to be as necessary to the form of baptism as water to the matter.* In the East there are, besides, various religious communities, which in consequence of an early secession from the established church, are connected neither with the Greek or the Roman church, as the Nestorians, Armenians, Jacobites, * Ricaut's "Present State of the Grc.'k and Armenian Churche*/* p. lfi. THE MODE— TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. 26' Christians in Asia, Georgians, African Jacobites, Copts, and Abyssinians, who all yet observe inimer- fcion as the invariable and necessary custom. testimonies. Dr. Philip Schaff : " As to the outward mode of administering this ordinance, immersion, and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original normal form. This is shown by the very meaning of the Greek words baptizo, boptismo, baptismos, used to desiginate the rite. Then again, by the analogy of the baptism- of John, which was per- formed in the Jordan, (en, Matt. iii. 6, compare v. 16 ;) also, eis ton Jordanen, Mark i. 9. Further- more, by the New Testament comparisons of bap- tism with the passage through the Red Sea, (1 Cor. x. 12:) with the Flood, (I Fet. iii. 21:) with a bath, (Eph. v. 26 ; Tit. iii. 5 ;) with a burial and a resurrection, (Rom. vi. -1; Col. ii. 12). Finally, by the general usage of the ecclesiastical antio t uity, which was always immersion, (as it is to this day in the Oriental, and also the Grreco-Russian churches;) pouring and sprinkling being substi- tuted only in cases of urgent necessity, such as sick- ness and approaching death. Indeed, some would not even allow even this baptismus clinicorum, . of bedridden), as it was called, to be valid baptism ; and Cyprian himself, in the third ary, ventured to defend the aspersion only in case of necessUas cogens, (cogent necessity), and 268 CHEISTIAN BAPTISM. with reference to a special indulgentia Dei, (Divine indulgence.) . . . Not till the end of the thirteenth century did sprinkling become the rule, and immer- sion the exception ; partly from the gradual de- crease in the number of adult baptisms, partly from considerations of health and convenience, all chil- dren having now come to be treated as infirm."* Dr. Wall : " The Greek church in all its branches baptizes by immersion. And thus do all other Christians in the world except the Latins. All those nations of Christians that do now, or formerly did submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, do ordinarily baptize their infants by pouring or sprinkling. And though the English received not this custom till after the decay of popery, yet they have since received it from such neighbor nations as had begun it in the times of the pope's power. But all other Christians in the world, who never owned the pope's usurped power, do, and ever did, dip their infants in the ordinary way. . . . All the Christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about one-third part of Europe, are of the last sort, in which third part are comprehended the Christians of Graecia, Thracia, Servia, Bulgaria, Wallachia, Moldavia, Russia, etc., and even the Muscovites, who, if coldness of the country will * History of the Apostolic Church, by Phi!. Scbaff: New York, 1853, p. 5GS. TIIE MODE— TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. 209 excuse, might plead for a dispensation with the most reason of any."* Bishop Bossuet : "We are able to make it ap- pear, by the acts of Councils, and by the ancient, rituals, that for thirteen hundred years baptism was thus (by immersion) administered throughout the whole church as far as possible, "f Stackhouse : " Several authors have shown and proved that this immersion continued as much as possible to be used for thirteen hundred years after Christ.^ See also the testimony of Dr. Whitby, p. 114. • We think these historical testimonies on the mode sufficient for every one who will admit truth to his heart ; and we now wish only, in view of these, to propose the following inquiries : How came it to pass that the early Christian writers expressed the rite of baptism by such phrases as these : " Conducted to a bath, just as Christ was carried to the grave, and were thrice immersed" (p. 229 ;) " immerse in water," (p. 41, the note;) "plunge into (he waters and be bap- tized, and encompassed on all sides by the icaters," (p. 121 ;) "dip in Jordan, or dip in the Tiber," (p. 231)? How came it to pass that the Fathers should name, as suitable places for baptizing, "a sea, a * Hist, of Inf. Bapt. part 2, cb. ix. § 2. f In Stennct's Answer to Rupsom : London, 1704, p. 176. j HLstorv of the Bible, p.1234. 23* 270 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. pool, a river, a fountain, a lake, a channel, the Jordan, the Tiber," and that the baptism may be administered alike "in n any of them ? (See p. 231.) How came it to pass that the whole Christian world, however afterward divided, uniformly ob- served immersion, (except in cases of the greatest necessity), for thirteen hundred years after Christ ? How comes it to pass that the Christians in Greece, who ought best to understand their own vernacular tongue, in which the New Testament was originally written, from the first introduction of the gospel into that country to the present time, have exclusively baptized by immersion, and that they "hold immersion to be as necessary to the form of baptism, as water to the matter " ? (See pp. 267-269.) Does not all this contain the strongest confirma- tion of the doctrine of the New Testament in re- gard to the true mode of baptism ? And can any one, in view of the unanimous and unvaried testi- monies concerning this mode which we have found both in the New Testament and church history, yet deny that our Lord and Saviour commanded in his holy commission that baptism ahuaijs should be performed by immersion ? PART III SOME OF THE MOST COMMON OBJECTIONS, BOTH WITH RESPECT TO THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM, ANSWERED. Though we have endeavored, as clearly as pos- sible, to hold forth the true Scripture doctrine on Christian Baptism, and meet the most important objections generally made against it, yet perhaps some would say : " There are some difficulties still to be removed, before I can be convinced of the truth of your doctrine."' On this we would observe : There is no truth, however self-evident, about which difficulties cannot be raised. Men have made objections even to the reality of their own existence, in spite of the testi- mony of their consciousness. To every one who has attentively accompanied us in the exhibition of the Scripture doctrine on the true Christian Baptism, but still feels objections against it, we therefore wish to say:— Take care that unwill- ingness to believe it, is not the difficulty in your (271) 272 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. way. If men be governed by their prejudices and corrupt motives, the most evident things in the world are obscure, and an insincere mind may reason away, by a thousand cavils and objections, the obligation of even the clearest law. It is pos- sible we may have suffered rooted prejudices of education, natural affections, custom, pride, worldly advantage, sloth, the fear of man, etc., to prevent free, impartial inquiry, or to give a bias to our minds while we are seeking after truth. And these sinful propensities and corrupt motives may in our hearts prevail unperceived to a certain extent from want of self-knowledge and close self-examination, even while we may be truly considered as faithful professors of religion, and sincerely follow our con- victions. Let us, therefore, from our hearts pray to the Lord, that- he may divest our minds of all prejudice, and make our purpose faithfully to follow his known will, sincere and firm. Then we shall know the truth concerning Christian Baptism — a truth in itself so clear that a little child may un- derstand it. It ought to be remembered that the commission of Christ concerning baptism is a positive law, plainly expressed, and peculiar to the New Testa- ment dispensation. We may, in our daily walk, meet moral duties, concerning which we have often with great difficulty to draw conclusions from a general moral law. But when a positive law is delivered to us, we have nothing to do but faith- COMMON OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 273 fully to obey it, both in its letter and spirit. (See pp 191-193.) Positive laws have for one special object, to serve as touchstones for our obedience. How insignificant soever this positive law might appear to us, or to our first parents, " Of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die ;" yet it was the touchstone of their obedience, and the violation of it brought the curse of the law on themselves and on all their posterity. When Christ had finished his personal work on the earth, and was about to sit on his throne a " King of Kings," to reign till all enemies shall be put under his feet, (Ps. ex. i.) he said to his Apos- tles : "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and disciple all nations, teach them my sovereignty, and show them the criminality of their rebellion, and the way of recon- ciliation. Go and tell them that he that believeth — that will submit to my authority and grace confid- ingly, and will henceforth be my willing servant, and will prove the reality of his professed subjec- tion by wearing the badge of my kingdom — tell him to go down with me in the symbolic grave of baptism, and thus publicly put me on before the world: and in so doing, he shall be saved." From that hour till the last trumpet sounds, the positive law of baptism is the prescribed criterion and touchstone of the faith and obedience of man. It is the declaration or oath of allegiance to Christ 271 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. as Kings ; and is to those who rightly understand its nature as veritable a test of character before the world, as was the prohibition in the garden of Eden to our first parents. And hence we may infer the importance of strictly obeying our Lord's commission concerning baptism, both in regard to its subjects and mode, its spirit and design. The overlooking of the distinction between posi- tive and moral precepts, caused, to a great extent, the apostacy from Gospel truth, which from the ancient times to the present day has prevailed in the greatest part of Christendom, and changed it to a new heathenism. Instead of literally keeping to the express positive command of our Lord, false conclusions were drawn from misinterpreted pas- sages of Scripture, and applied to baptism. Thus, for instance, in the absence of any positive com- mand concerning baptism of infants, the ancient Fathers inferred, partly from the law of circum- cision, and partly from John iii. 5, and Mark x. 13- 16, the obligation of baptizing infants — the fallacy of which conclusion we have already seen. After these remarks we proceed to meet several of the most common objections made against the true doctrine of Baptism, both with respect to its Mode and Subjects. SECTION I. OBJECTIONS CONCERNING THE MODE OF BAPTISM. The objections made against the Mode of Bap- tism, as prescribed by our Lord and Saviour, are chiefly as follows : First objection. " Christ would not burden his disciples with inconvenient and burdensome rites ; but immersion would often be inconvenient, and sometimes impracticable." Answer. As to the inconveniences attending the scriptural Mode of Baptism, those who practice this mode smile at the mention of them, knowing they exist only in the imagination of those who have never tested the value of their objection by experiment. As to the allegation, that immersion in certain circumstances must be impracticable, a moment's reflection will satisfy a candid mind that little im- portance should be attached to it. As a matter of fact, immersion is practiced, at this day, in the coldest regions of llussia, and thousands of Baptists in other countries have often in severe winter cold- ness descended into the water of baptism, without suffering the least injury as to their health. And 2 75) 276 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. if, against the common experience, the administra- tion of baptism would endanger life, it must be postponed, or altogether omitted, as in the case of other duties. Whenever baptism is impracticable, as with the penitent thief on the cross, the positive command enjoining it ceases to be binding, and the privation of the privilege of being baptized must be referred to the providence of God, to which a spir- itual mind will devoutly submit itself. As to the feeble objection, that it must be trouble- some and repulsive to the feelings of many to be immersed in the waters of baptism, we ask, Can the trouble be too great, and the cross too heavy, to one who indeed is convinced that our Lord and Sa- viour has sanctioned that mode, not only by His command, but by His own example ? Who, as a Christian, if present on the banks of Jordan, when Christ was baptized, would refuse or object to be the next person to be baptized after Christ, and in the same way ? And if then, when the Holy Spirit was visibly descending, and the Fathers voice was heard, you would cheerfully have entered the stream of Jordan, is not the ordinance the same now — equally beautiful, equally binding, and as much under the eye and the blessing of Heaven ? Aud if it indeed were a cross, we ask, Did not our Xord and Saviour bear a far heavier cross for you ? Second objection. " The practice of the Bap- tists, with respect to the Lord's Supper, is incon- COMMON OBJECTIONS AX^VERED. sistent with their strict adherence to their primitive mode of baptism ; they do not observe the direc- tions of Christ, with regard to the time, or the place, or the posture, of celebrating the ordinance of the Supper, nor do they use the same kind of bread nor of wine." Answer. The command of our Lord, " T/u'.s do ye in remembrance of me," had no reference what- ever to the circumstances of celebrating the Lord's Supper ; it referred to the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine in commemoration of His death, without any allusion to time, place, or man- ner. So in relation to baptism. Christ commands His followers to be baptized (i. e. f immersed) with- out reference to time, place, or manner. In each case, we are bound to do just what He has com- manded. In the Lord's Supper we are commanded to partake of bread and wine, in grateful remem- brance of Christ ; in baptism we are commanded te be immersed on our own profession of faith in Him. This objection is founded on the erroneous as- sumption, that immersion is only a circumstance of baptism, while it has been already shown that it is a part of the very nature of baptism itself. (See pp. 66-69.) As a concluding answer to all the objections that may be raised against the true mode of baptism, we desire to record our deliberate and most serious conviction, that could all prepossessions and preju- 24 278 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. dices be laid aside, one would never for a moment doubt that immersion is prescribed by Christ, as essential to the nature of Gospel baptism; and even the most simple reader of the Bible could find his duty most clearly marked out in the example of our Lord, in the practice of the Apostles, and in the allusions to baptism so often occurring in the Epistles. SECTION II. OBJECTIONS CONCERNING THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. First objection. " Should a doctrine and a practice which for all ages — evidently as far as from the middle of the second century — have been con- sidered by the Christian church as holy and essen- tial, be rejected ? Can it be that the pious believing Fathers, the whole ancient church, the Reformers, and the churches grounded by them, together with all the churches and parties of recent time, consisting of sincere and pious Christians — can it be that all these have erred, and that the Baptists only have been orthodox ?" Answer. In the first place, this objection errs in matter of fact. Infant baptism, as we have seen, did not begin so early, nor spread so universally, for hundreds of years. And even then it was spread through the influence of the false doctrine of infant damnation and through a series of the most severe persecutions, kept up age after age, and staining the garments of the worldly church with the blood of martyred saints, and this too, even since the time of the Reformation. Even at this day infant baptism maintains its ground, not from the power of the truth, but chieflv from the corrupt union of the (279) 280 CHRISTIAN' BAPTISM. Church and the State. This is evident from the fact, that in the United States of America, where perfect religious liberty is enjoyed, infant baptism has been given up by a great part of the population, six millions, or one-fourth of the whole nation having already embraced Baptist principles, mainly within the last fifty years : and the progress of inquiry is multiplying this number by thousands every year. As for what remains, while we admit that the greatest part of professed Christians — including many men distinguished for piety and learning — are against us, we ask, Was a* majority never wrong ? Was not the same objection made against Luther and the Reformation commenced with him ? ' Do not the Roman Catholics say at this day : " See how many and unanimous we are, but ye Protest- ants, how few and divided ! How ancient are our doctrines and rites, but how recent are yours !" But what Protestant pays any attention to those objections of the Catholics ? And as to pious and learned men and great names, such have in all times been found on the side of error. But let our oppo- nents reckon them \ip by thousands, and place them all on the side of infant baptism ; we will place on the other side our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles, and then appeal to our readers, Who have the highest authority ? — though our number be but a little flock in comparison. Xow we must be allowed to insist upon it, that Christ and His Apostles arc with us, evidently COMMON OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 281 sanctioning the immersion of believing disciples ; but where is their sanction on the opposite side ? Baptism as a positive duty and an act of obedience to Christ, must have Christ's command.* The Im- mersion of Believers only has this. If infant bap- tism in any respect were a duty, it, of course, must be the duty of the parents. But while the New Testament is full of circumstantial directions with re- gard to their duties, it contains not a single direc- tion nor the least allusion to a duty of baptizing infants. Will any one yet say that he has an ex- press command of God to baptize new-born chil- dren ? If so be, in what book, or verse, or chapter of the Scripture can it be found ? When an infant is baptized the rite is performed ex- pressly " in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The administrator, there- fore, claims a Divine Authority for what he does? But that authority has never been given. Infant bap- tism, then, must, fall under the censure of that query : " Who hath required this at your hand V 1 To per- form it in the name of the Holy Trinity, and yet without any authority from God, is indeed a serious act. Were any man to transact business in your name, as if doing it in your behalf and by your au- thority, while you had never said a word to him about the matter, you would think he was doing you * ''Tin that be obedience -which has no command? Who knows what will please Gud but Himself ? And has He nottold us what He expects from us?" — Richard Baxter. 24* 282 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. a serious wrong. How much more serious does the wrong become when men do that in the name of the Lord for which the Lord has given them no authority I Let every administrator of religious or- dinances pause and inquire, "Am I doing what my Lord has commanded me ? Were Jesus present to speak His will audibly now to me, would He com- mand me to do what I am about to do ? Could I point Him to certain positive authority in His word which requires what I am about to perform ? n Second objection. " I trust, after all, the bap- tism which I have received in my infancy is valid, in- asmuch as the name of God — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost — has been mentioned over me in that baptism." Answer. What is baptism according to the dotrine of Scripture ? Is it the affusion or sprink- ling of a little water on a new-born, unconscious child, or is it the immersion in water of a believing disci- ple of Christ ? Between these two things there is, as we have seen, an essential difference — a differ- ence as great as between day and night, between true worship and will worship. That the name of God has been pronounced over an infant, can just as little make this affusion or sprinkling a true Christian Baptism, as if you would undertake to sprinkle a sleeping person during the recital of the words of the baptismal formula. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain ; for the Lord CuMMu.N OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 283 will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." Third objection. "Then I must admit that I have not received a right water baptism, yet I have, I h