W , F\ Burd er

319 b

The Right qf Infants. to* Baptism.

R M O^)

A
S E
4 DELIVERED AT
^aber&aefcfrs' $aH, Staining lanr,
DEC. 9th, 1819,
AT A-
MONTHLY ASSOCIATIONOF
MINISTERS AND CHURCMESg
BY
HENRY FORSTER BURDER, M..A*.
« * « ' .\ -' "* *

PUBLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE MINISTERS.
, "{\]jimt++*s *++*+¦+*¦** **¦**+<***¦*•**•*¦ r-r***sw

LONDON:
SOLD BY BLACK, KINGSBURY, AND CO. LEADENHALI^STREET;
HAMILTON, PATERNOSTER-ROW ; - WESLEY, STATIONERS'-COURT ;
AND HOLDSWORTH, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH-YARD.
Printed by T. Butt and Son, Sliacktactll.
1819-
[PRICE ONE SHILLING AND SIXPENCE. 1

A SERMON, &c

John i. 25.
WHY BAPTIZEST THOU ?
A. HIS interrogation ' was addressed to John
the Baptist; and were a question of equal lati
tude to be now proposed, it might be requisite
in reply to exhibit, the perpetual obligation
to the observance of Christian Baptism, the
mode in which it should be dispensed, and
the subjects entitled to its administration. Of
these distinct points, however, the last only
is proposed as the subject for our present discus
sion : it is — The Right qf Infants to Baptism.
The controversy on this subject has, I am well
aware, called forth in the character of opponents
to each other, some of the ablest and the best of
men ; and too often has there been displayed by
the disputants an uncandid, an unhallowed, an
acrimonious spirit. If this spirit were insepara
ble from the agitation of the controversy between
a2

Peedobaptists and Anti-paedobaptists, severe in
deed would be the conflict in our minds between
the desire of eliciting truth and the fear of en
kindling discord. Sincerely, however, and ar
dently do I hope, that the advocates of Infant
Baptism will be more than ever anxious to blend
christian candour with strength of reasoning, and
completely to exonerate themselves from the im
putation of a venerable opponent, who has recently
declared himself "tempted to think, that the cause
of Infant Baptism will hardly admit an alliance
with candour."*
Relying, my respected friends, on your candid
and patient attention, I proceed to adduce the
arguments, by which I conceive the Right of In
fants to Baptism may be scripturally maintained.
The arguments which appear to me most direct
and convincing may be arranged under three
heads. The Ist is derived from the Nature of the
Covenant which God established with Abraham :
The Ilnd from the Practice of the Apostles as
recorded in the New Testaments
The Hid from the Testimony of Christian
Writers of the early ages.
In entering on the first of these arguments
* Dr. Ryland, in his Candid Statement, &c.

I anticipate an objection, which I will state in the
very words of a revered advocate of the opinions
we impugn ; who, instead of attempting to refute
the argument itself, deemed it more expedient to.
object to the source from which it is derived.
" We cannot understand the propriety of looking
into the book of Genesis for directions as to a New
Testament ordinance. Nor can we feel the force
of arguments drawn from the Abrahamic cove
nant, and the rite of circumcision." * But is not
that which is proved from any one part of the
Bible as effectually established, as if it had been
proved from any other part ? On the supposition,
that any doctrine, or any practice could be esta
blished by the book of Genesis, would it not be as
completely and satisfactorily established, as if the
proof had been derived from the Acts of the Apostles
or the Epistle to the Romans ? It is not, however,
from the Old Testament as detached from the
New, that we would derive our argument, but
from the Old Testament as connected and com
pared with the New ; and who will dispute the
assertion, that the writers of the New Testament,
in numerous instances, suppose on the part of
their readers a knowledge of preceding dispen
sations, and a knowledge which frequently super-
is?
* See Dr. Ryland's Candid Statement, p. 24, &c.
A 3

6
seded the necessity of a more full and complete
explanation ?
With regard to the Abrahamic Covenant, I
have to remark,
1st, That the Covenant which God made with
Abraham was the Covenant qf Grace, and there
fore the same in substance with that under which
we now live.
That it was the Covenant of Grace, is evident
from its leading promise, which had direct re
ference to the Messiah. We are assured by the
Apostle Paul, that the gospel was preached unto
Abraham, when it was said,/' In thee shall all na
tions be blessed" * — that the seed concerning
which the promises were made was Christ — that
the covenant with Abraham was confirmed of God
in Christ, and therefore that it could not be dis
annulled by the law, which was four hundred and
thirty years after .-j- This marked distinction be
tween the Covenant with Abraham and the law
of Moses, it is of no small importance distinctly
to bear in mind, in pursuing the argument on
which we now enter.
That the" Covenant with Abraham was the
Covenant of Grace, is evident from the manner
in which Abraham obtained an interest in its

* Gal. iii. 8. f Gal. iii. 17.

blessings. For what saith the scripture ? Abra
ham believed God, and it was counted to him
for righteousness ; * but no covenant between God
and man could possibly admit of justification by
faith without the works of the law, except the
covenant of grace.
That it was the Covenant of Grace is evident
from the great and glorious extent of the promise
to Abraham and his children. I will establish my
covenant between me and thee and thy seed after
thee, for an everlasting covenant; to be a God
unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.-f- Does not
this promise embrace all that man can desire, all
that Jehovah can impart ? Is it not in the same
terms that the promise of the New Covenant is
expressed by the prophet Jeremiah, \ and applied
to the blessings of the christian dispensation in
the Epistle to the Hebrews § — I will be to them a
God, and they shall be to me a people?
That it was the Covenant of Grace — the Co
venant of Redemption — the everlasting Covenant
— the Covenant under which we live, is evident
from the connection exhibited between Abraham
and all believers in Christ, without distinction
of age or nation. It is expressly asserted by the
Apostle PauLthat they who are of faith, the same
are the children of Abraham. || As many of you
* Rom. iv. 3. f Gen. xvii. 7. t Jer. xxxi. 33.
§ Heb. viii. 10. H Gal. iii. 7.
A4

8
as have been baptized into Christ have put
on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free, there is neither
male nor female ; for ye are all one in Christ
Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye
Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the pro
mise.* I am aware that it is contended by some of
our opponents, that the promises to Abraham
referred principally to the temporal blessings to
be enjoyed by his natural descendants, but if the
considerations now adduced be duly regarded,
there is, I am persuaded, abundant evidence, that
the promises of temporal blessings to his natural
offspring, however great and valuable, were only
the minor and temporary appendages to the
Covenant of Grace, the substantial and incalcu
lable benefits of which have an extension un
bounded by country, or nation, or age.
Let this concise view of the evidence of Scrip
ture suffice, in support of the first position with
regard to the Abrahamic Covenant — that it was
the covenant of grace, and the same, in substance,
with that under which we now live.-f- With this
connect a * Gal. iii. 27—29.
t The view here given of the Abrahamic Covenant corres
ponds with the following; remarks of President Edwards in
his History of Redemption. " There accompanied this a
more particular and full revelation and confirmation of the

2nd Proposition — That the ordinance of Cir
cumcision which belonged to the Covenant with
Abraham, was designed to exhibit the very same
blessings which are denoted by the ordinance
qf Baptism.
We are informed by the Apostle Paul, that
Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a
seal of the righteousness of the faith which he
had yet being uncircumcised.* A sign is that
which represents and exhibits ; a seal is that
which confirms and pledges. Circumcision then
was a sign — a sign, according to the Apos
tle, of the putting off the body of the sins of the
Covenant of Grace than ever before. There had been be
fore this, two particular and solemn editions or confirmations
of this covenant ; one to our first parents, soon after the
fall ; the other to Noah and his family, soon after the flood.
And now there is a third.-— In this renewal of the covenant of
grace with Abraham, several particulars concerning it were
revealed more fully than before ; not only that Christ was to
be of Abraham's seed, but also the calling of the Gentiles, that
all nations should be brought into the church. — Thus you see
how much more fully the covenant of grace was revealed and
confirmed in Abraham's time than ever it had been before ; by
means of which Abraham seems to have had a clear view of
Christ the great Redeemer, and the future things that were
to be accomplished by him. And therefore Christ informs us
that Abraham rejoiced to see his day, and he saw it and was
glad, John viii. 56. So great an advance did it please God
now to make in this building which he had been carrying on
from the beginning of the World." Hist, of Bed. Part 3.
* Rom. iv. 11.

10
flesh.* The external sign indicated the removal
of moral defilement, and the necessity of that in
ternal sanctity, which is denominated the cir
cumcision of the heart. It denoted consecration
to God; it represented the removal of sin, both
in its guilt and in its pollution. As a seal, —
Circumcision was designed to be a confirmation
of the faithfulness of God in his promises, and a
pledge of the justification of those who should
be imitators of the faith of Abraham. It was to
be to his spiritual seed as well as to himself — "a
seal of the righteousness of faith."
Now Baptism is a sign and a seal, exhibiting
the same blessings, and confirming the same pro
mises of which circumcision was previously the
emblem and the pledge. By the cleansing pro
perty of water, baptism denotes purification from
the guilt and the pollution of sin, by the virtue
of the blood of Jesus and the regenerating and
sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit : there
fore said Ananias to Saul, Arise, and be baptized,
and wash away thy sins ; "f and in allusion to this
emblematic rite it is asserted by the Apostle, that
we are saved by the washing of regeneration and
renewing of the Holy Ghost. %
* Col. ii. 11. f Acts xxii. 16. J Tit. iii. 5.
The coincidence in import and design- between the Jewish
and the Christian ordinance is, I think, directly asserted by the
Apostle, in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians,
where, as it appears clearly to my mmd, Baptism is denominated

11
We have then endeavoured to establish by
scriptural arguments two propositions in relation
the circumcision of Christ, or the Christian circumcision. "Ye
are complete in him, who is the head of all principality and
power; in whom also ye are circumcised, with the circum
cision made without hands, in putting off the body of the
sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; buried
with him in baptism, &c." * The Judaizing teacher urged the
necessity of circumcision, and the deficiency, the incomplete
ness of the christian in the neglect of that rite. The Apostle
intimates, that in this respect there is no defect in the christian
economy. Under the former dispensation, the external rite
was a sign of internal purity, and denoted the circumcision
made without hands, that is, the putting off the body of
the sins of the flesh. In this respect we are complete in
Christ; we have an ordinance which equally denotes the
putting off the body of the sins of the flesh ; it is the cir
cumcision of Christ ; it is the christian circumcision— " We
are buried with him in baptism"- — that is, in baptism we have
communion with him in his death, and in his resurrection.
Baptism is a sign and a seal of our participation in the
blessings which flow from his death and from his resurrection.
What, let me be allowed to ask, except baptism, — the christian
circumcision, can the Apostle intend by the circumcision of
Christ1? Not the circumcision which Jesus underwent in
infancy. This no one will assert. Not the spiritual circum
cision, for that is intended by the preceding expression :
to suppose this to be the meaning would be to understand
the Apostle to say, Ye are circumcised with the circumcision
made without hands, by the circumcision made without
hands ; ye are circumcised with the spiritual circumcision by
the spiritual circumcision. If this be inadmissible, must it
not follow that by the circumcision of Christ is meant the
ordinance which occupies that place in the church of Christ
which circumcision occupied under the preceding economy ?
* Col. ii. 10—12.

12
to the Abrahamic Covenant. The first is, that
the Covenant with Abraham was the Covenant
of Grace, referring chiefly to spiritual blessings
through the Messiah, ahd the same in substance
with that under which we live. The second is,
that the rite of circumcision, the sign of the Co
venant with Abraham, signified precisely the same
blessings which are denoted by baptism. With
these propositions connect two facts which are
undisputed — Circumcision is abolished, Baptism
is established. What then are the plain, the di
rect, the legitimate inferences ? Circumcision is
superceded by Baptism — Baptism is under the
New Testament what Circumcision was under
the Old — Baptism comei in the place of Circum
cision: this is the first inference. The second is,
that Baptism is to be administered to Infants.
The argument may be divested of all complexity.
The Covenant with Abraham is the same in sub
stance with that under which we live. The same
blessings of that Covenant are denoted both by
Circumcision and by Baptism^ The Covenant then
being the same, and the ordinance being in im
port the same, the subjects entitled to its admi
nistration are also the same. But infants were
intitled to circumcision, on the ground of their
connection witb their Parents; therefore Infants,
on the ground of their connection with their Pa
rents, are intitled to Baptism.

13
This strong, and as we think, conclusive argu
ment founded on the Abrahamic Covenant, our
opponents endeavour to invalidate, by giving a
representation of the nature of that Covenant
which, we think, degrades its character, impairs
the beauty and the harmony of the divine dis
pensations, and is at variance with the reasonings
and conclusions of the apostle Paul. The asser
tion has been made that our argument fails " by
reason of the essential difference between the
Jewish and Christian religions." What a revo
lution must be effected in our views of the Co
venant of Grace; what a new system of inter
pretation must we apply to the apostolic epistles,
before we can conceive of the Jewish and the
Christian dispensations as two different religions,
separated from each other by a difference no less
than essential ! If, indeed, in order to evade the
force of our argument, it be necessary to resort
to such a sentiment, or even to identify or con
found together, the Covenant with Abraham
and the law of Moses, we may infer from the
very character of the arguments employed by
our opponents the strength and solidity of our
own. The point of primary importance in the pre
sent argument is — the connection established un
der the former economy between parents and
their infant-offspring. By virtue of that con-

14
nection, infants were circumcised; and if that
connection has never been, by divine appoint
ment, dissolved or diminished, then by virtue of
that connection, infants should be baptized. But
where in the whole compass of the New Testa
ment do we find the slightest intimation that the
connection is terminated? From what part of
scripture can it be proved, that such a change has
been introduced into the constitution of the cove
nant of grace ? When were infants excluded, and
by what law ? On the contrary, do not the ad
dresses of the Apostles proceed, in many in
stances, on the supposition, that in this important
respect the state of things in the church of God
remains unaltered ? Observe the manner in
which they adduce, on some occasions, the promi
ses made to Abraham in reference to his offspring,
and correspondent promises recorded by the pro
phets. On the day of Pentecost, Peter said to
the inquiring and agitated multitude, Repent
and be baptized every one of you in the name
of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins ;
for the promise is unto you and to your chil
dren.* On a subsequent occasion, he said, Ye
are the children of the prophets and of the co
venant which God made with our fathers, saying
unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kin
dreds of the earth be blessed.-f- Now the ques-
* Acts ii. 38, 39. f Acts iii. 25.

15
tion is, in what sense such an application of the
ancient promises would be naturally understood
by the Jewish people who were thus addressed.
The promise quoted was the promise made to
Abraham. That promise, as appears from the
seventeenth chapter of Genesis, was given in
immediate connection with the appointment of
Infant-Circumcision, and now the Apostle Peter
adduces the ancient promise in immediate con
nection with baptism. " Repent, and be bapti
zed every one of you, for the promise is unto you
and to your children; then they that gladly receiv
ed his word were baptized." It is not expressly
said that their children were baptized with them ;
but if the preceding considerations be correct
with regard to the principle, the inference will
not be difficult with regard to the fact.
On the supposition (which our opponents must
adopt) that the connection previously subsisting
between parents and children was set aside by the
Christian economy, does it not appear altogether
inexplicable and unaccountable, that such a disrup
tion should have taken place, hostile as it must
have been to the strongest and the tenderest feel
ings of the Jewish people, without the semblance
of opposition on the part of those who were so
warmly attached to their former privileges, and
even without any explanation, on the part of the
Apostles, of the principle which rendered neces-

16
sary so great an alteration of practice? The Ju-
daizing teachers required Gentile converts to sub
mit to the rite of circumcision, and beyond a
doubt required also the circumcision of their
children. The Apostles resisted that subjugation
of Gentile converts to the Jewish rite, but no
intimation did they give that it was erroneous
to regard the connection between parents and
children as continuing in full force under the
Christian economy ; and yet if this supposition
was incorrect, it was an error too serious to be
allowed to pass unnoticed.
It is now necessary that we proceed —
Ilndly, To maintain the Right of Infants to
Baptism, by adducing the Practice of the Apostles,
as recorded in the New Testament.
The point to be ascertained is, whether the
connection between parents and children, which
appeared with so much prominence under the for
mer economy, was recognized by the Apostles in
the administration of baptism. If a decided alte
ration in this respect was introduced by Christia
nity, then we should naturally expect and require
that change to be very fully and explicitly noticed
by the inspired writers of the New Testament,
either in terms of direct prohibition, or, at least,
in the record qf apostolic practice. If, on the
other hand, no such change was introduced, it

17
would be unreasonable to expect, and it must have
been deemed unnecessary to insert, a minute des
cription of a practice arising out of the prescribed
usages of the ancient church.
In examining the concise notices given in the
New Testament of Apostolic practice in reference
to baptism, I confess myself no advocate of that
minute criticism to which some writers on both
sides the question have descended. I think that
the fair and obvious inferences, and such as would
naturally suggest themselves to an ordinary rea
der, if divested of prejudice, are chiefly deserving
of regard. I read that Lydia was baptized and
her household — her family;* that the Jailor at
Philippi was baptized, he and all his straight
way ;f that" the Apostle Paul baptized also the
household — the family of Stephanas. J I find in
these instances a phraseology employed which
seems perfectly consistent with the ancient usages
of the church of God in reference to children,
which appears to recognize the established con
nection between parents and their offspring. A
distinct declaration that infants composed a part
of these families, was not to be expected, since the
former habits and prevailing sentiments of the
Jewish people superseded its necessity. In this
view of the argument, to borrow the words of my
valued friend, Dr. Wardlaw, " I do not feel my-
* Acts xvi. 15. t Acts xvi. 33. t 1 Cor. i. 16.
B

18
self at all concerned about proving, to a certainty,
that there were infant children in any of the fa
milies referred to. It is the continuation of the
same general strain of expression, that constitutes,
in my mind, the force of the argument ; shewing
the continuance of the same state of things that
had existed before."*
It has been, however, the attempt of our Bap
tist brethren to derive from these passages sup
port for their own opinions. They have endea
voured to shew that there were no children in
these families. There were no children, they
argue, in the family of Lydia, because the mem
bers of her family were the brethren to whom, it
is said in the last verse of the chapter, Paul im
parted consolation in the house of Lydia. Their
argument then is this. Paul on release from pri
son entered into the house of Lydia, and com
forted the brethren whom he saw there ; therefore
these brethren were a part of Lydia's household,
and " probably her men-servants." Is it not far
more probable that other converts, not distinctly
* See Three Lectures on Rom., iv. 9 — 25. designed to
illustrate the nature of the Abrahamic Covenant, and its con
nection with Infant Baptism ; with an Appendix on the Mode
of Baptism. To the opportunity of hearing these lectures
when delivered many years ago, and of .reading them on their
appearing in print, the author of this discourse gratefully
acknowledges himself to have been not a little indebted in
some of his first attempts to form clear and scriptural views-
of the nature of the Abrahamic Covenant.

19
specified in this concise narrative, were the seals
of the Apostle's ministry at Philippi, and that at
the house of Lydia, the Apostle, on his departure,
took leave of the brethren ?
Again it is argued, that there could be no
young children in the family of .the Jailor, be
cause it is said, that the Apostle " spake unto him
the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his
house," consequently all that were in his house
were of sufficient age to understand his address.
But is this conclusive reasoning? If a minister of
the gospel were to say that he had visited and ad
dressed a particular family, would you infer from
that general expression, that there was not an in
fant in that family, — that there was not a child
among them of too early an age to understand
his instructions ? Is it not perfectly natural and
customary to employ general expressions in refe
rence to families, which would not be applicable
to their infant members, without feeling the ne
cessity of stating the exception ? The same re
mark will apply to the family of Stephanas. It
is stated by the Apostle at the close of his first
epistle to the Corinthians, * that the family of
Stephanas " addicted themselves to the ministry
of the Saints." Does this prove that there was
no infant in the family ? Could you not say of a
family, that they devoted themselves to the cause
* 1 Cor. xvi. 15.
b2

20
of benevolence or to the service of the poor,.
without deeming it necessary to specify an excep
tion in the case of one or two of the youngest
children ?
These remarks, as was before intimated, are
not offered with an attempt to prove that there
actually and certainly were infants in the families
specified ; such a proof is not necessary to the
present argument. It is sufficient that every
thingin these concise narratives exhibits a continu
ance of that connection between parent and child
which had existed from the days of Abraham.
With these views I deem it unnecessary, on
the present occasion, to enter on the consideration
of the argument recently adduced by the learned.
and ingenious Editor of Calmet's Dictionary,
in reference to the distinction between the two
Greek words, which are indiscriminately rendered
by our translators, house and household.* His.
disquisitions on that point evince no ordinary
degree of research and erudition. His " Facts
and Evidences" constitute a valuable addition to
the means of arriving at satisfactory conclusions
on various points of the Baptist controversy, and
especially on those which regard the mode of
baptism. His publication cannot fail to ex
cite a lively interest in the mind of the reader,.
* Oikoq, OiKta.

21
and will obtain, I doubt not, an extensive cir
culation. That the connection established between pa
rent and child remains unaltered under the
Christian economy, may, I think, be clearly infer
red from the decision of the Apostle Paul in the
seventh chapter of the First Epistle to the Corin
thians. "If any brother hath a wife that believeth
not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him
not put her away. And the woman who hath a
husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased
to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the
unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and
the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband;
else were your children unclean ; but now are they
holy." There are, I think, but three acceptations
of the term holy in this passage, which can claim
attention. Either it imports purity in the highest
sense — that which gives a fitness for the church
above ; or purity in a lower sense — that which
gives a fitness for some external privilege of the
church on earth ; or purity in the lowest sense —
that which is opposed to illegitimacy of birth. In
the first of these senses, neither we nor our oppo
nents can understand it. In the last of these
senses it has usually been understood by our Bap
tist brethren ; but is this exposition tenable ?
Can we suppose either the reality or the pro
fession of the Christian faith essential to the va-
b3

22
lidity of the marriage contract, or the legiti
macy of the offspring? Would the Apostle
have pronounced illegitimate the offspring of pa
rents, both of whom were heathens or unbe
lievers ? And yet if the faith of one of the pa
rents were requisite to the legitimacy of the chil
dren, it must follow that, if neither of the parents
believed, the children must be illegitimate, and
consequently the marriage contract invalid. As
this cannot be maintained, the second acceptation
of the term holy remains for our adoption, ac
cording to which it denotes a fitness for some ex
ternal privilege of the church. The Jews consi
dered those children as unholy, and not entitled
to circumcision, whose parents were in a state of
heathenism; and they considered those as holy
and entitled to circumcision who were born of
Jews or Proselytes. In this sense it seems rea
sonable to suppose that the words of the Apostle
would be understood by those to whom they were
addressed. His decision, then, proceeds upon the
principle of the continuance of the ancient con
nection between parent and child in the church
of God. His decision is, that if either of the
parents be a believer, the children are entitled to
the same external privilege as if both the parents
were believers. But there is only one external
privilege of the Christian economy to which this
decision can apply, and that privilege is Infant

23
Baptism. In this sense the passage appears to
have been understood by Tertullian and the
greater number of the early Fathers.*
But the demand is made and reiterated by our
opponents. Where is your positive precept for
the Baptism of Infants ? Where is your clear and
express example of the administration of the ordi
nance to Infants during the ministry of the Apos
tles ? We reply without hesitation — The evidence
you require is by no means requisite to the esta
blishment of our principles, or the vindication of
onr practice. The evidence you require is of a
description, which, from the circumstances of
the case, it is unreasonable to expect. In what
light must the subject have appeared to believing
Israelites and Proselytes in the days of the
Apostles ? Accustomed to regard the dedication
of their infant offspring to Jehovah in the ordi
nance of circumcision as a peculiar privilege,
connecting with it the early promise, " I will be
a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee," instruc
ted to consider baptism as a sign and seal of the
same covenant which was established with Abra
ham, they would naturally regard that ordinance
of the Christian economy as extending to their
infant offspring. Had it not been the design of
our Lord and Master that it should be so under-
* See Dr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism. Part I.
Ch. 4, and Ch. 15.
b4

24
stood, an explicit and positive restriction of the pri
vilege, an absolute prohibition of Infant Baptism
would have been indispensably necessary; but a
positive precept to enforce its administration to the
children of believers was altogether unnecessary.
These considerations acquire a great accession
of weight from the evidence we have of the bap >
tism of Proselytes with their children on their
admission into the Jewish church. " Of the anti
quity of Baptism under the law," says Dr. Light-
foot,* "we have this testimony in Maimonides, the
great register of the Jews' customs and antiquities.
' When a heathen will* enter into the covenant,
and be gathered and joined under the wings
of the Divine Majesty, and take upon him the'
yoke of the law, circumcision and baptism and a
free-will offering, is required. A stranger that is
circumcised and not baptized, or that is baptized
and not circumcised, is not a Proselyte till he be
both circumcised and baptized.' " After adducing
the authority of the Talmud in proof that the in
fant offspring of Proselytes were baptized as well
as circumcised, Dr.Lightfoot asserts, as the result
of his researches into Jewish antiquities, that the
baptizing of infants was a thing as well known in
the church of the Jews, as ever it has been in the
christian church.
* Dr. Lightfoot's Harmony of the Four Evangelists, on
John i. 25.

25
Attempts have been made by Dr. Gill and others
to impair the force of these testimonies, on the
ground of their being subsequent in point of
time to the institution of Christian Baptism; and
one of our respected opponents has ventured to
express himself in these words. "I cannot but
consider this as an unworthy origin of a New
Testament rite ; and should expect that a regard
for the honour of Christ would lead Christians to
think it far more likely that the Jews took up
their proselyte baptism in imitation of the Chris
tians, than that John and his beloved Master
adopted a mere human invention."* Whether
Proselyte Baptism was a mere human invention,
or one of the " divers baptisms" sanctioned by
divine authority, it concerns us not, in the present
argument, to inquire, because we by no means
adduce the custom of Proselyte Baptism to esta
blish the authority of the, ordinance of Christian
Baptism. But we refer to Proselyte Baptism as
a prevailing usage of the Jewish Church, in or
der to shew what must have been the conceptions
and expectations of the frst converts to Christi
anity, with regard to the extent of the adminis
tration of baptism, and in order to shew that a
positive precept to baptize infants must have been
altogether unnecessary, since in the absence of a
* Dr. Ryland in his " Candid Statement," page 5.

26
direct prohibition, the right of infants to this
ordinance must have been regarded as unques
tionable. That Baptism was not introduced into the
church of God for the first time by the ministry
of John the Baptist, Dr. Lightfoot and others
have argued, and I think justly, from the style of
the interrogation with which John was accosted
by the priests and Levites. They said unto him,
" Why baptizest .thou then, if thou be not that
Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?" They
expressed no surprise at the nature of the rite
itself, as if it was now administered for the first
time, and was an innovation altogether unprece
dented in the usages of the church. Their de
mand regarded simply his authority ; for their
question itself implied that if he could exhibit
credentials attesting that he was either the Mes
siah, or Elias, or that prophet, they should cease
to regard with surprise his administration of the
rite of baptism. From this mode of interroga
tion, then, we should infer the probability, at least,
of the previous introduction of some baptismal
usage. That the custom of Proselyte Baptism
can have been adopted by the Jews, at a period
subsequent to the institution of Christian Bap
tism, and in actual imitation of that Christian
ordinance is an idea, according to. every view
which I can form, exceeding the utmost verge of

27
the remotest probability. That the practice of
the Christians might have appeared to the un
believing Jews a reason for the abandonment
of Proselyte Baptism is, in my opinion, much
more easy to suppose, than that it should have
been regarded under any circumstances as the
model for their imitation. In the view of Dr.
Lightfoot, the testimony of the Jewish writers on
this point was a testimony of additional weight,
and is termed by him a double testimony, because
it was evidence adduced by an enemy. The mass
of authority on this point to be collected from
Jewish writers, affirms a writer in a respectable
journal, is such as ought to put an end to all
doubts on the subject.*
And here let me he permitted to observe, that
the demand for a positive precept, or an indubi
table precedent, as authority for Infant Baptism,
comes with a peculiarly ill -grace from our op
ponents in this controversy. We might on our
part demand by what precept or precedent they
are guided in the administration of baptism to
those who constitute the principal class of persons
to whom they administer this ordinance. That
they have scriptural precedents for the baptism
of Adults, we do not dispute, and we in common
* Christian Observer, Sept. 1819 — Review of the Rev. C.
Jerram's Conversations on Infant Baptism. — a work distin
guished by sound reasoning and judicious observations.

28
with them baptize Adults on a profession of their
faith, if they have not been baptized in infan
cy; but the instances of adult baptism recorded
in the New Testament belong to the class of
converts from among the Jews or the Heathen,
who from the nature of the case could not have
been baptized in infancy. Not one example have
we on record of baptism being administered to
any Adult whose parents had been christians at
the time of his birth. The New Testament his
tory extends to thirty years from the institution
of Christian Baptism ; and yet in the whole of
that space there is not recorded a single instance
of Adult Baptism, to favour the supposition
that Baptism had been omitted in the family of
believing parents, and not administered till the
child was of adult age; consequently there is no
instance which corresponds with the class qf per
sons ordinarily baptized by our Baptist brethren.
This consideration may, at least, suffice to evince
the unreasonableness and inconsistency of de
manding from Paedobaptists a precept or a pre
cedent, characterized by a minuteness of specifi
cation to which Baptists themselves can adduce
on their part no parallel.*
An objection against Infant Baptism is de-
* Dr. John Taylor of Norwich makes the following
remarks : — " Perhaps it will be said, it is sufficient that
we have no precept or precedent in Scripture for giving bap-

29
duced from the terms of the apostolic commission.
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."
Infants, say our opponents, cannot believe; there
fore Infants are not to be baptized. Let them
remember what is added by our Saviour, and let
them consider what may be deduced by the very
same mode of reasoning : — the words which follow
are these, " but he that believeth not shall be
damned ;" and on the same principle might it be
argued, Infants cannot believe, therefore Infants
(dying in Infancy) cannot be saved. But the
truth is, that from the general proposition — " He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," no
inference whatever can be derived, bearing upon
the point in dispute ; because in the terms of this
proposition the case of Infants is not immediately
contemplated, but rather the case of those to
whom the Apostles would, in the first instance,
address themselves in the execution of that divine

tism to any but adults, upon their profession of faith and
repentance. But to what adults 1 the adult children of be
lieving christian parents'? No. But adult converts from
among the Jews and Pagans. But for the baptizing of adult
persons, born of Christian patents, upon their profession of
faith and repentance, there is neither precept nor precedent
in Scripture. Nor, which is still worse, is there any principle
in Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, which in the least
degree favours or encourages it. So that had we less Scrip
ture authority for infant baptism than we have, we should
have more than others have for their adult baptism ; for they
have none at all.' Taylor on the Covenant of Grace.

30
commission, " Go ye into all the world, and preach
the gospel to every creature." If it be further
objected, that it is unreasonable to. administer an
ordinance, denoting spiritual blessings, to those
who are not qualified to comprehend its import,
we answer by an appeal to the ancient rite. We
have seen that the ancient ordinance of initiation
was connected with the promise of spiritual bless
ings, and yet it was administered to those who,
at the time, were utterly incapable of understand
ing its import. To the children of the people
of God now, as to the children of the people of
God in former ages, the import of the sign and
seal of the covenant of grace must be the matter
of subsequent information, and, in the mean
time, it will be felt by the christian parent to be
an encouragement to prayer, and an incentive to
embrace the earliest opportunities of religious
instruction. Having endeavoured to exhibit the argument
in support of Infant Baptism arising from the
Abrahamic Covenant, and also the argument
arising from Apostolic practice, in connection
with some points of collateral evidence, it re
mains for us to consider
Illdly, The Historic Argument, arising from
the general practice of Christian churches in the
early ages of Christianity.

31
The question now to be decided is not a
question of right; that has been already dis
cussed ; but it is a matter of fact — a question
purely historical — a question to be solved by
researches into the ecclesiastical history of the
early ages. The inquiry on which we now enter
is, What was the prevailing practice of christian
churches during the times which immediately, or
after a short interval, succeeded the apostolic age,
with regard to the subjects of Baptism. If it can
be shewn by adequate testimony, that Infant Bap
tism was the prevailing usage, at a period when it
must have been easy^o ascertain what had been
the practice of the Apostles, and when it is not to
be supposed that apostolic practice, with regard to
this ordinance, could have been generally aban
doned, the conclusion appears unavoidable, that
Infant Baptism was the practice of the Apostles-
It is of great importance to understand clear
ly the nature and value of this species of
evidence. If any are disposed to question its
validity, let them be reminded, that the evidence
is precisely of the same character with that by
which the authenticity and genuineness of the
books of the New Testament have been proved,
with so much strength of convincing argument,
by Dr. Lardner, Dr. Paley, Dr. Chalmers, and
other able and successful advocates of the same
class. They have established the authenticity of the

32
books of the New Testament, by proving that they
have been quoted or alluded to by a continued se
ries of Christian writers, beginning with those who
were contemporary with the Apostles, or who im
mediately followed them: "This medium of proof,"
observes Dr. Paley, " is of all others the most
unquestionable, and is not diminished by the
lapse of ages.".* By this species of evidence has
been firmly established "the fact of the general
prevalence of Infant Baptism in the early ages,
and the fact that it was then regarded as a practice
derived from Apostolic authority. A full and
particular induction of the evidence on this point
is obviously incompatible with the narrow limits
of a single discourse. Nor is an extended state
ment on the present occasion requisite. The
sources whence it is to be derived are open to the
inquirer, and without the necessity of referring to
the voluminous writings of the Fathers, ample
satisfaction may be obtained by consulting the
collection exhibited by the learned and indefatiga
ble Dr. Wall, in his History of Infant Baptism.
A slight sketch of the mass of evidence is all that
I can with propriety attempt.
Passing by Irenaeus, (the disciple of Polycarp)
who appears to have alluded to Infant Baptism,
we begin with Origen, who was born in the latter
part of the second century. His father and his
* Paley's Evidences, part I. chap. ix. sect. 1.

33
grandfather were christians, and therefore may
be presumed to have been conversant with the
usages of christian churches, from the Apostolic
age. Origen bears an explicit testimony to the
practice of Infant Baptism, as a custom derived
from the Apostles.
Contemporary with Origen was Tertullian.
Tertullian recommended that baptism be de
ferred; beyond the age of infancy and childhood,
from some unscriptural and superstitious opi
nions which he had adopted with regard to
the ordinance; but he appeals to no antecedent
authority in support of his opinion ; he does
not assert the existence of a single church
which refused or deferred the baptism of In
fants; he does not attempt to call in question
the prevalence of Infant Baptism, or to de
ny its derivation from the Apostles : yet had
this been possible, we cannot doubt, from the
advice he gives, that such a course he would
have adopted. Silence on such a point, on the
part of an enemy to the practice, affords no
slight presumption in favour of its general ob
servance. In the third Century, Cyprian bears his testi
mony to the prevalence of Infant Baptism. A
council was held, consisting of sixty-six ministers,
at which Cyprian presided, in order to decide the
question — not, whether Infants were entitled to
c

34
Baptism, for on that point they were agreed?
but, whether it was proper to defer its admi
nistration till the eighth day after the birth of
the child.
In the beginning of the fifth Century, a con
troversy arose between Pelagius and Austin on
the subject of original sin. Austin urged the
practice of Infant Baptism as a proof of the
doctrine of original sin, alleging, that were it not
for the stain of original sin, an ordinance em
blematic of purification would have been needless.
In attempting to refute the argument of Austin,
Pelagius, so far from denying the right of Infants
to Baptism, or maintaining that such had not been
the ancient practice of the Christian church, com
plains that men slandered him as if he denied
baptism to infants. He asks, who could be so
ignorant of what is recorded in the gospel as to
hazard such an assertion, or even to form such
an opinion ?
This brief specimen of the Historic Argument
may suffice to impress the mind with a just
sense of the weight the argument must acquire,
from the accumulation of evidence afforded by
researches into ecclesiastical history. This ar
gument, taken in a detached and separate form,
has been regarded by many, and not without
reason, as a basis sufficiently solid to authorize
the advocate of Infant Baptism to rest upon it

35
his vindication of the practice.* When it is
viewed in connection with the argument from
the Abrahamic Covenant, and also the argument
from the Practice of the Apostles as recorded in
the New Testament, the combined strength of
the reasonings is, in my view, abundantly suffi-
For a distinct and ample exhibition of the historic argu
ment, I cannot refrain from making a reference to the publica
tion of a writer, from whose religious creed my own principles,
and those of my brethren with whom I am connected, are
directly at variance : I refer to Mr. Belsham's Plea for In
fant Baptism. After a careful induction of evidence arising
from the testimony of the early fathers, to which he devotes
60 pages of his able pamphlet, he thus commences his 5th
Letter. " I trust that upon the strong ground of historic evi
dence I may now consider you as fully convinced of two facts.
In the first plac*, that it is in the highest degree incredible that
the baptism of the descendants of baptized persons should
ever have become the universal practice of the Christian
Church in the primitive age, if it had not been instituted by
the Apostles. And, secondly, that if the Apostles had decided
that the adult descendants only of baptized christians should
be admitted to baptism, it would have been morally impos
sible that infant baptism should have become the universal, -
undisputed practice of the church in the short interval of a
hundred years, and that this great change should have taken
place quietly and silently, without exciting the least attention,
or creating the smallest discussion; from which important
premises the grand conclusion follows, by clear and irresist
ible necessity, that Infant Baptism is an apostolical institu
tion, perpetually and universally obligatory upon the Christian
Church. It was upwards of a thousand years after the apos
tolic age before any sect or body of christians arose, which
distinguished themselves from the great body of professing
christians, by denying baptism to infants."
c2

36

cient and more than sufficient to prove, that
Infant Baptism was the practice of the primitive
church, under the direction and by the example
of the Apostles, and consequently to establish that
which it has been the object of the present dis
cussion to prove — the right of Infants to Baptism.
But another question now arises of great prac
tical importance — a question on which it is par
ticularly requisite that the minister of the gospel
should entertain clear and scriptural views. Are
all infants indiscriminately entitled to Christian
Baptism ; and if not, on what principle is the dis
crimination to proceed ? If the reasoning which
has now been employed to prove the right of
Infants to Baptism be correct, it conducts us to
the principle which alone, as it appears to me,
can guide our discrimination. It is the identical
principle which pervades and unites the whole
of the argument now adduced — it is that Infants
are to be baptized solely on the ground qf con
nection with their parents ; and therefore the ques
tion respecting the right of Infants resolves itself
into an inquiry respecting the character of their
Parents. If this be denied, discrimination be
comes impossible, and no reason can be assigned
to shew why the child of an idolatrous Hindoo,
who continues in idolatry, is not equally entitled
to baptism with the child of a British christian.

37
If this principle be admitted, then it seems clearly
to follow, that those Infants only are entitled to
baptism whose parents, or one of whose parents,
we should be authorised to baptize, in case bap
tism had not before been administered. Neither
the argument derived from the Abrahamic Co
venant, nor that arising from the Practice of the
Apostles, conducts us a single step beyond this
point — If the parents are entitled to baptism, so
also are the children by virtue of their relation to
their parents. In this position I am fully sup
ported by the excellent Matthew Henry, who, in
his treatise on Baptism, affirms, that " whatever
in the first disciplining of nations would have been
a bar to a man's own baptism, in the continuation
of Christianity, may justly be deemed a bar to
the baptism of his children, and nothing else."
The Apostles baptized children with their pa
rents, on the ground of the profession of faith in
Christ which the parent or parents made. It
does not appear from the New Testament that
they subjected applicants for baptism to a course
of probation till their character was fully ascer
tained ; neither can we suppose that in any in
stance they would have administered baptism on
a profession of faith, if that profession was at the
very time contradicted and rendered incredible by
general character and conduct. Should not a
similar course be adopted by us ? If the parent, on
c 3

38
requesting baptism for a child, verbally professes
a belief in the distinguishing doctrines of the
gospel ; if by his attendance on the means of
grace, he appears to honour and to value the
privileges of the gospel ; if he expresses a soli
citous desire to train up his family in the fear
of God ; and if the minister be in possession of
no evidence to counteract the tenour of his verbal
profession, is not the minister authorized, without
requiring delay, to administer baptism to his
child? It is the practice of some ministers, and the re
gulation of some churches, to refuse baptism to the
children of those who are not united with them
in church communion. Is this denial to be vin
dicated ? It must be confessed, that there is not
a full and complete profession of attachment to
Christ and to his people, on the part of those who
neglect the observance of the Lord's Supper, and
are not in communion with a christian church,
and it must also be confessed and lamented, that
there is no small inconsistency in neglecting one
divine ordinance, and at the same time discover
ing anxiety with regard to another : still, how
ever, I cannot hesitate to express the opinion,
that irrespective of all other considerations, a
credible profession of faith in Christ, on the part
of a parent, is a sufficient ground for the admi
nistration of baptism to the child.

39
The inquiry in which we have been engaged,
has regarded only one of the two points at issue
between us and our Antipaedobaptist brethren. It
has regarded only the proper Subjects of Baptism.
This is incomparably the most important part of
the controversy. But we differ in opinion also
with regard to the proper Mode of Baptism ; and
it is not a little singular, that they who deny the
right of Infants to Baptism, so generally deny
the validity of any mode of Baptism except by
immersion. Yet these two questions are com
pletely distinct, and each must be determined by
considerations independent of the other. The
latter inquiry is not included in the statement of
the subject appointed for our present discussion ;
nor would it have been practicable to embrace
both in one discourse, without a conciseness inju
rious to the argument, or an extension of the
sermon far beyond all due limits. Perhaps,
however, it may be expected that I should
not dismiss the subject without glancing at the
reasons we assign for the mode of baptism we
adopt. The position which our Baptist brethren ad
vance and which we dispute is, to use the very
words of a venerable opponent, "that Baptism
is immersion ; and that Christian Baptism is nei
ther more nor less than an immersion of the
whole body in water, solemnly performed in the
c4

40
name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit."* In support of this opinion, they lay great stress
on the import of the Greek words employed in
the New Testament to express the act of baptiz
ing. In reply, we endeavour to prove by a variety
of instances and examples, that these terms do
not necessarily and uniformly denote immersion,
and that they authorize no decision whatever with
regard to the manner in which water should be
applied in the administration of baptism, -f-
Again, our opponents appeal to the descriptions
given in the New Testament of the circumstances
* Dr. Ryland's Candid Statement.
f The following remarks are made by the author's res-"
pected and learned friend, the Rev. G. Ewing, in his valuable
Lexicon for the Septuagint and Greek Testament, under the
word B<nrr<£<i>. After specifying and illustrating eight differ
ent acceptations of the word, he thus expresses the result of
his researches. " To maintain, as some have done, that
j3airn^ii> (baptizo) ought always to be rendered plunge, dip,
immerse, or wash, betrays inattention to its real force and
import. Our Lord and his Apostles, when they said,
Baptize, used a term by no means limited to these actions.
The application of water, as a symbol of purification, in
whatever manner made, was what their command implied.
A Greek, or Hellenist Jew, would never have hesitated to ap
ply Pa-jTrileiv to either immersion or affusion, total or par
tial ablution, when used for ritual or ceremonial purification.
It ought, however, to be remembered on both sides, that
little stress is laid in scripture, on the Mode of observing
any New Covenant ordinance."

41
in which baptism was dispensed. In all the instan
ces which they adduce we can find no proof of
even one single case of actual immersion; we
can find no description of the performance of
the rite, even when a river is gpecified, which is
not explicable on the supposition of the person
to be baptized going down from the higher
ground to the edge of the water, (as the most
convenient method under existing circumstances)
and having water poured or sprinkled on his
head. That this was the ancient method of ad
ministering Baptism, the learned author of " Facts
and Evidences" already alluded to, has rendered
in a high degree probable, by adducing various
representations in sculpture and in painting of the
mode of baptizing, which lay claim to remote
antiquity. In support of the mode of administration we
adopt, we appeal to the analogy between baptism
with water, and baptism with the Holy Spirit,
whose influences are frequently represented by
expressions which denote pouring and sprinkling,
and also by allusions to the cleansing properties
of water, without reference to any particular
mode of its application. *
* That between baptism with water and baptism with the
Holy Spirit there are some points of obvious analogy we
should naturally infer, from the frequency with which they
are associated, and the similarity of the language employed.
" I indeed baptize you with water," said John, " but he

42
Finally we urge the characteristic spirit of the
Christian economy, and argue that in the absence
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." In
what manner was this fulfilled 1 On the day of Pentecost,
the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples, " and there ap
peared cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of
them." Acts ii. 3. In the account of Cornelius it is said that
" the Holy Ghost fell on all them who heard the word," and
that on the Gentiles the gift of the Holy- Ghost " was poured
out." Acts x. 44, 45. With this connect the current phrase
ology of Scripture in reference to the regenerating and
sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit. See Isaiah xliv. 3.
Tit. iii. 5, 6. Not only are there frequent allusions to pour
ing, which is sufficiently different from immersing, but also to
sprinkling. SeeEzek. xxxvi. 25. Isai. lii. 15. To this it may be
added,' that many of the " divers baptisms" under the ancient
ritual were by sprinkling the unclean. See Heb. ix. 10 — 14.
Our baptist brethren deduce an argument in favour of
immersion from the language of the Apostle Paul. (Rom. vi.
3 — 6.) We are buried with him by baptism into death, &c.
They regard immersion as emblematic of the death and burial
of Christ, and of our communion with him in his death and
burial ; and they suppose these words to refer to the admi
nistration of baptism by immersion. But can the words of
the Apostle require, or even justify, such an interpretation ?
To be baptized into Christ is to be baptized into the faith of
Christ. To be baptized into his death is to be baptized into
the faith of his death, and into the profession of faith in his
death, as an atoning sacrifice for sin. And being thus bapti
zed, and believing in him, we have communion with him in his
death ; we enjoy a participation of the glorious benefits
which result from his death and resurrection ; and we are made
conformable to the design of his death and of his resurrec
tion. Such appears to be the meaning of the Apostle, with
out involving any reference to the mode in which the ordinance
of baptism is to be administered.

43
of direct precept, and of clear and indubitable
examples of immersion, it is not to be supposed
that immersion can be essential to baptism. On
the contrary we maintain, that to attach so much
importance to the mode of Baptism is unconge
nial with the spirit of the christian dispensation;
and that the immersion of the whole person,
under the circumstances in which it is usually
practised, (to say nothing with regard to decorum)
seems scarcely compatible with the apostolic asser
tion, that the commandments of our Saviour are
not grievous. Such are the leading considera
tions which induce us to regard immersion as by
no means essential to Christian Baptism, and to
consider the administration of the ordinance by
pouring or sprinkling as equally valid, as deci
dedly preferable.
Allow me, my respected friends, in concluding
this discourse, to address a few words, first to
Parents who have dedicated their offspring to
God in Baptism, and then to Children who have
been baptized.
The act of presenting a child for baptism in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit, is itself to be regarded as a
solemn profession of the christian faith; and it
obviously supposes, on the part of the parents, a
prior dedication of themselves to a covenant God.

44
Permit me to urge the inquiry on the minds of
those who sustain the parental relation — have
you duly regarded the solemnity of that pro
fession — have you truly devoted yourselves, as
well as your offspring, to the God of grace, and
is it your habitual concern to live under a sense
of that dedication ?
Christian Parents, While you are solicitous, in
obedience to the command of Christ, to observe
this emblematic ordinance, are you also acting
in conformity to his will, by observing the other
emblematic ordinance he has appointed — the or
dinance commemorative of his dying love ; or are
you by a strange inconsistency, unknown in the
primitive Church, solicitous with regard to the
one, but negligent with regard to the other ?
How much encouragement may you derive from
the ordinance in which you have devoted your
children to God ! Its appointment manifests the
tender compassion of our heavenly Father, and
reminds us of the condescending kindness of our
blessed Redeemer who, when upon earth, took
up little children in his arms and blessed them,
and said, " Suffer the little children to come unto
me, and forbid them not, for of such is the
kingdom of God."* And while you yield your
delighted hearts to the encouragement which this
* Mark x. 13, &c.

45
ordinance affords, forget not the obligations it im
poses. What earnestness of importunity on be
half of your beloved children should you express
in your supplications and intercessions at the
throne of grace ! What diligence, what affection,
what perseverance, should characterize your efforts
to instil into their opening nrmds the principles
of the doctrine of Christ! What solicitude should
you feel to exhibit, in your deportment, an epistle
of Christ, which, at a very early age, they will be
able to read ; and in every relation of life to adorn
the doctrine of our God and Saviour !
Most of you, my young friends, it may be pre
sumed, have been dedicated to God in early life, by
the act of parental affection and piety. ''Remem
ber that Baptism is not Regeneration, and that
unless you be born of the Spirit, whose influences
are denoted by the water of Baptism, it isvimpos-
sible that you should enter the kingdom of God.
Remember that He whose blood cleanseth from
all sins has said, " If I wash thee not, thou hast no
part with me!" Think of the solemn dedication
of yourselves to God which his authority re
quires, and his love should render delightful to
your hearts. Say to him from this day, " My Fa
ther, be thou the guide of my youth, the God of
my life, and my portion for ever ! By right of
creation I am thine ; by the claims of gratitude I
am thine ; by the consecration of all I have and

46

all I am would I be thine ! O Father of mercies,
be thou my Father and my God ! O blessed Re
deemer, be thou my Saviour and my Friend ! O
adorable Spirit of truth and holiness, condescend
to be my Teacher, my^Monitor; my Sanctifier,
and my Comforter !"
And now to the triune Jehovah — in whose
name and by whose authority we baptize — To the
Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, be
glory for ever. Amen.

THE END.

Published by the same Author,
And sold by Black, Kingsbury, and Co. Leadenhall Street.

The Duty and the Means of ascertaining the genuine Sense
# of the Scriptures; a Sermon delivered at a Monthly
Association of Ministers and Churches, Feb. 8, 1816.
Price One Shilling and Six Pence.
Obligations to the Observance of the Lord's Supper;
a Sermon preached, at a Monthly Association of Ministers
and Churches, Jan. 7, 1819. Price One Shilling and
Six Pence.
The Reformation Commemorated; a .Discourse deli
vered at St. Thomas's Square, Hackney, Dec. 28, 1817.
Price One Shilling and Six Pence.
In a few Days will be published, at request,
A small and cheap Edition of the Sermon on the Obliga
tions to the Observance of the Lord's Supper;
with a view to facilitate its distribution among professors
of serious religion by whom that ordinance is neglected.
Price Six Pence. .

YALE UNIVERSITY L

3 9002 08954 9852