The subjects and mode of Christian Baptism.

November 28, 2019James Dodson

PART IV.

The subjects and mode of Christian Baptism.

CHAP. I.

IN the discussion of this topic, we must, in the first place, remember that the Saviour of the Church is the Sovereign of the Church. Such therefore as are his servants and stewards must conduct the affairs of his house according to his pleasure. In the second place, what is his pleasure must be learned from his own word.

There is no doubt but infinite wisdom, and perfect propriety mark all his arrangements. The modes of worship which he has prescribed, and modes of communicating his mind to his subjects, which he has adopted, do not form any exceptions. If the device of salvation, as a whole, could never have been conceived by any finite mind, it certainly ill becomes mortals to criticize upon its parts. The business of reason is, to draw fair conclusions from known and acknowledged facts. She is certainly, therefore, very much out of her place, when she says, another way would be better than that which revelation enjoins.

The scripture is not, formally, a confession of our faith, nor yet a specific directory of our worship: yet it will be granted by all humble and pious disciples of Jesus Christ that it contains the only proper elements of both. Men are addressed as reasonable creatures, and ought, therefore, to consider carefully what is revealed to them for a rule of faith and practice. Men are addressed as rational creatures in the scriptures. 1 Cor. x. 15. “I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.” 1 Cor. xi. 13, 14. “Judge in yourselves; is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not nature itself teach you”? Our great solicitude, therefore, in this matter and in all ordinances of worship should be to know and do the Master’s revealed will.

It will in this as in everything else be pleasant to know the reason of things, but still we must know that he is not bound to give us an account of his high doings and holy ways. Where reason, therefore, cannot clearly see, let her humbly adore. In her own province, i.e. where there is no specific direction given, and when the matter is cognizable by her powers, let reason preside. “Let everything be done decently and in order.” The Apostle directed the Christians at Philippi to employ the principles of right reason, and taste to religious order. Phil. iv. 8. “Finally brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” Attention to these principles of scripture, is necessary to keep us clear of extremes. On one side stands the Scylla of formality; on the other the Charybdis of fanaticism: Against the danger of splitting on either of these rocks we must look out, if we would steer clear, and arrive safe in the harbor of Truth.

With regard to the character of adults who should be baptised, there will be little controversy between Reformers and Regular Baptists. We always opposed the practice of indiscriminate administration of ordinances, and the practice of the halfway covenant, now very justly, and very generally exploded. It is necessary that adult applicants for baptism should be examined with regard to their knowledge of the system of grace and salvation generally. Those who are obviously yet in the kingdom of darkness, cannot, with propriety, be admitted into the kingdom of Christ by the badge of a religious profession. In allusion to this principle the baptism of adults used to be called by the Greeks, photismos, illumination; and Paul, from whose eyes the scales of ignorance fell, before his baptism, calls baptised persons, “once enlightened.” Heb. vi. 4. They must give evidence, that they cordially believe those truths which they intelligently know. Philip first instructs the eunuch, and then he says, “If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest.” Acts viii. 36. It is very desirable to see those, who apply for baptism, moved with humble penitence, and holy contrition: “When they heard this, they were pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the Apostles, “Men and brethren what shall we do.” If they have been enormously and notoriously sinners, they ought to give evidence that they are disposed to break off their sins, by bringing forth fruits becoming repentance. Speaking with divers tongues, or in languages never learned, and other miraculous manifestations of the presence of the Spirit of God, are not now ordinarily to be expected. It would, however, be very desirable to see evidence of his sanctifying influence in their heart, upon their life and conversation. It is unreasonable to expect that these evidences should be so distinct in new converts, as they ought to be in old and experienced Christians. Converts have their stages of progress and growth in grace and holiness. There is grace in the blade, in the ear, and in the full grown, and mature grain in the ear. The evidence of grace in its earliest stage ought to be considered enough to recommend its subject and possessor to the enjoyment of the privilege of baptism. “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputation.” Roma. xiv. 1. It is very evident from this, that a person may be a proper subject of Christian baptism, and yet not be prepared for the participation of the Lord’s supper. Every member of the family must have food, but it should be food appropriate and suited to his years and strength. The new born babe will desire, and ought to have, the sincere milk of the word for nourishment and satisfaction ; the more advanced in years will be occasionally admitted to feast at the table with the seniors of the family, yea with the Lord of the house.

It would be cruel to allow any to participate in this ordinance, who have not a perception of its mysteries. Even the children of God may partake unworthily of the supper, and instead of nourishing the spiritual life, may eat and drink judgment even to the extinction of the natural life. 1 Cor. xi. 30. Not so in regard of the former, when we see evidence of the presence and power of the Holy Ghost, we may say with Peter, Acts x. 47. “Can any forbid water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” This text clearly confutes the idle cavils of those who argue against water baptism, as they in derision call it. How contradictory is this reasoning to that of the Apostle? They say it is no matter about water baptism, if we have the baptism of the Spirit. The Quaker reasons too, that there can be no water baptism, if we admit a baptism of the Spirit, because there is but one baptism. His mistake arises out of his ignorance of the nature of a sacrament which, though one, has two parts, the external and symbolical, and the internal, spiritual and real. Now it is true, that men can be saved by the latter, without the former, and not by the former without the latter. The penitent thief was admitted with the Saviour into Paradise, without the participation of any sacrament. Judas eat the last passover with our Lord, and yet was the son of perdition, and went to his own place. Simon was baptised with Apostolic hands, and yet was in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity. On the other hand it is very plain, that no intelligent Christian will despise the institutions of divine grace, which are so admirably adapted to our case and character—so well calculated to represent, seal, and apply, by the blessing of God’s Spirit, the benefits of Christ’s purchase to his heritage and people.

To say that ordinances save, is to idolize them; to say they may be neglected with innocence or impunity, is to despise the wisdom and goodness of God, and to proclaim our own ignorance, arrogance and impiety.

Of this, however, we must say no more at present, but proceed to consider, Whether infants are proper subjects of Christian baptism? When we enquire if infants are proper subjects of baptism, we do not mean any infants. We agree with Anti-Pedobaptists thus far, that the children of Heathens and scandalous or ungodly professors are to be excluded until they profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him; but we also say that the infants of such, as are members of the visible Church, are to be baptized.

The first principle upon which we plead the right of infants to membership in the Church, is their ancient and unrepealed charter. They were, as we have already seen in treating of the covenant with Abraham, and the law, publicly recognized. If they must not be so now, we want to know the reason of this rejection. Has their right to membership been recalled? If it has been recalled, where is that transaction recorded? where is the repeal? I his would require to be very explicit on many accounts. First. Because it is a common usage among nations that the son be considered a member of the same commonwealth or kingdom, of which his father is a member. In taking the census or list of inhabitants and citizens in any corporation the children are not excluded. This practice is not an innovation of modern times. It is a practice as ancient as the history of social man. God himself sanctions the use of it in regard to the city of Nineveh? Jonah 4, 1 1. “And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand.” Here you see we have, is round numbers, a list of the young population of this great ancient city. These unconscious babes too, were the citizens for whose sake God pleads with the peevish prophet that the city should be spared. Why then, the man of reading and reflection will ask, Why are children not included among the members of the commonwealth of the Church? Why are they not considered citizens of the New Testament, as well as of the Old Testament Sion? Why are they not according to uniform custom considered members of the kingdom of heaven as well as their parents? Is there any case in which children are not accounted legitimate heirs of such social privileges as belonged to their parents? Why was Paul as Roman citizen? He never purchased that freedom; he never swore an oath of allegiance to that government to obtain that franchise; “Ay, but he was free born.” Well, and are we prepared to say that the Roman empire was more generous and kind to its infant population than the Redeemer’s empire is? Shall the fourth beast of Daniel’s vision, which was “exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron and his nails of brass, which devoured and brake in pieces, and stamp the residue with his feet,” Dan. vii. 19—Shall this beast of prey be more kind to his children born in Tarsus, than the Lamb, on mount Sion to the children born in his city Jerusalem?

We know men otherwise very respectable, will go far in maintaining a cause which they have once taken up. But let that, for a moment, be forgotten, and see if every candid, generous and pious mind would net revolt at the thought of such an impeachment. What the sensible soul would exclaim, shall we make the ancient of days, the Judge of all the earth more cruel than the ostrich? Shall we suppose that he who is about to set up a righteous and an everlasting kingdom, that he will exclude infants from it–that he who was himself the child born and the Son given will, from that corporation, of which, in an eminent degree he carries the keys, lock out the children of his people? All this, however, that system most evidently does, which denies the children of believing and pious parents the right of membership in the Church. Is there any man, untrammeled by system and sophism, who does hot see the inconsistency of this?

Second. If the ancient right of membership in the Church has been recalled, the repeal of that important clause in the charter would need to be particularly explicit, to satisfy the believing Jew. He had been well acquainted with the application of this representative principle, not only in the state, but also in the Church, in the ancient administration. He was feelingly alive to any alteration from his old customs. This principle he carried even to servile bigotry and attachment to onerous rites of the typical service. The Redeemer of Israel bestowed pains to emancipate the minds of his ancient people from such bondage. He shews them that he has now, forever, by one sacrifice perfected all them that are sanctified. If there had been a change made in this particular, i.e. If infants, that used to be members of the Church in the wilderness, according to the tenor of that covenant which was confirmed of God in Christ with Abraham, were now excluded when the Seed appeared, is it possible, on the supposition of such a change being made, that the Jew would make no enquiry, and that the King of the Jews and Prophet of Israel would, neither by himself, nor by his Apostles, give any solution of such a difficult problem? Parents are generally tender of their infants and scrupulous of maintaining their rights. Had, therefore, the administrators of the gospel in the early establishment of Christianity, told the Jewish proselytes that their children could, by no rite, be received into the Church, you may rely upon it we would have heard something about it. We hear nothing, however; we therefore fairly conclude that no such thing was done—that the charter of ancient privilege to their children was ratified; that they received the initiatory seal of covenant privilege in the Church along with their parents. The silence of the Jew on this subject is a known and acknowledged fact, if there be any other possible, or even plausible, way of accounting for it, we want our opponent to adduce it; if there be not, he must acquiesce in this fair inference, that the question was never agitated by the Apostles and ministers of the primitive Church. But if this question was not agitated, doubtless infants were accounted members of the Church and received the initiatory seal, or badge of membership. If they who joined from the Jewish race, received the privilege of baptism for their children, why should not the Gentiles? are not Jews and Gentiles all one in Christ Jesus? If Jews and Gentiles both received this privilege for their children in the early period of the Christian era, when was this privilege withdrawn Who had a right, since that period, to abridge the privileges of the members of Christ's mystical body the Church?

Third. This principle will gather strength in its application to the point in hand, if we consider this known fact, viz. that in general the administration of the covenant of grace, since the advent and suffering of Christ, has been more obviously liberal and gracious than before. Although as we have seen, there was grace in the legation of Moses, yet so far does the grace of this dispensation excel that that is eclipsed. “The law was given by Moses. Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” John 1. 17. The law, even when dealing out threats in its most legal, literal and killing form speaks of “visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shewing mercy unto thousands (generations) of them that love me and keep my commandments.” Did not this threat and this promise shine with weighty lustre from Sinai? and are children now to be altogether neglected and unknown? No. ii. Cor. iii. 9, 10. “For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious, had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.” Are females now known in society—are Gentiles of every tribe now called to enjoy the privileges of the Church? Are the rites of religion less onerous and expensive, yet more evangelical, clear and expressive? Is the administration of the gracious covenant of salvation in every respect more benign than ever before? How is it then that infants are excluded, now, seeing they were not before? Every considerate man before he can believe that infants are now excommunicated from the Church must have exceedingly clear evidence that their ancient rights have been revoked: the thing itself is so very unlikely, and improbable, so obviously incongruous with the other parts of this dispensation. What if this revocation has taken place it cannot be in mercy. It was in mercy that God said, “I will be the God of your seed.” It cannot, therefore, be in mercy and grace that he would say, I will not be the God of your seed any longer. Is it then in judgment? These are to be sure judgments inflicted on the great body of the Jews according to their own terrible imprecation. “His blood be on us and on our children.” But this blood is not on the head of those who believe. No! For them he prayed, “Father forgive them, they know not what they do.” Why then should not their children with their parents revert to their wonted immunities and privileges?

Thus it is evident the man of common sense, from the rational principles of his nature—the politician from ordinary principles of jurisprudence—the philosopher from observation on the ways of Providence—the Jew from what he had been taught in the past dispensations of mercy—the Christian, enlightened by the special radiancy and brightness of the gospel, all, all would expect that children should be recognized as members of the same corporation of the parents. They would expect that the infants of such as are members of the visible Church should be baptized. A. they then taught otherwise by the Saviour of the Gentile as well as of the Jew? If they are then, let every imagination be brought into subjection to the obedience of faith. Let treason knuckle to revelation ; but let revelation be reasonably examined. With this view let the candid reader consult the motto of our plea. Math. xix. 14. “Jesus said, suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” When we read any part of the scriptures we should have our ears open to hear what God speaks. Men’s thoughts may be very pretty and considerably impressive, but there is an unction and a profundity in all divine revelation which defies all successful imitation. This we may say is eminently the case when Jesus, who spake as never man, is the speaker. What then is this passage intended to teach? Were these children affected with diseases and maladies which their parents wished to have healed? Of bodily maladies the passage hints nothing. We can hardly suppose that the disciples would be so grossly inhumane or unbelieving as to have rebuked the parents for bringing them to him who had proved himself often in their sight to be, even for the body, the great Physician. The occult qualities and constitutional nature of infantile; the inveteracy and confirmed habit of senile disease, which frequently eludes the skill, and baffles the powers of human doctors, had often been demonstrated to be quite sanable [capable of being healed] by this Divine Healer. The reply then does not seem to intimate that this was the object, the parents wished to obtain, or the disciples to hinder. What, we again ask, is the passage designed to teach? If it mean nothing more than that children may be saved, this would imply that the disciples denied and wished to oppose the salvation of infants. This had indeed been a horrid sentiment, more cruel than was ever held by the wildest sect of men. The disciples would have shuddered at the suggestion, that the Saviour would not show his condescension in the salvation of infants. This then cannot be a reproof of their illiberality in that respect and to that degree. The true history of the case seems to have been somehow thus. The parents conceived a very high opinion of Jesus the Saviour; they wished the infants in their arms, and the little children that clung by the skirts of their garments, to partake of his divine benediction. The Saviour approved of their faith; he rejoiced in beholding the heart cheering scene, and in manifesting his condescension to, and care of, the lambs. He saw some there that he knew were to be eminent by his grace in the Church. Nicephorus tells us, that the famous father Ignatius was one of the babes now presented to Jesus for his reception and blessing. The disciples seem to have been left to fall, for a little, into this unbelieving, carnal and proud way of reasoning. These parents and children are encroaching upon our master’s time and more important business of instructing and proselyting adults. They seem strangely to have fallen into the system of Anti-pedobaptists, and so to have concluded, that any public religious attention to babes was useless, seeing they did not understand the use of it. Such seems obviously to have been the view of the disciples, in thrusting away the parents who came to put their children into the arms of Jesus. Strange there are parents by pious instinct wishing to do their duty, and active to fulfil a prophecy, and there are teaching disciples that for a time oppose both. What did they not know that the great Shepherd, whose voice they heard and followed, was to gather the lambs in his arms? All events of Providence subserve the system of grace. Those who act in concurrence and those who act in opposition seem frequently alike ignorant of this.

The instruction of the scripture, while it has a particular adaptation to the case on which it was first exhibited, has a practical accommodation to a whole class of analogous cases. Had there not been a propriety at this time to reprove the Anti-pedobaptist spirit of the disciples, the children could, as well, have been blessed at a distance as at hand. The design then of the saying of our Lord is to teach us all, that in some public way children should be presented to Christ, and acknowledged as members of the kingdom of heaven or of his Church.

I do not see how our opponents will avoid this conclusion, except by saying, either, that they were not children, in age, but in grace; or by saying, that the kingdom does not mean the Church. As to the first, viz. that they were not children in age, but in grace, by a new, and not by a natural birth;—in answer to this we would confidently say, that if they were not children in age, it would be hard to shew what words or circumstance would be calculated to express such. First. The word is the diminutive of child, it is paidion our translators noticed this and so calls them little children. In the parallel passage, Luke xviii. 15, they are called brephe, “And they brought unto him infants, that he should touch them, and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them.” This name is given to those who are passive or considerably so in receiving their food. It is sometimes used for a babe in its mother’s womb. Luke 1, 41. “When Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary the babe [brephe] leaped in her womb.” Sometimes for a new born child. Luke 11, 12. “Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes.” The farthest that it can go in expressing age is when the child first begins to receive the affectionate lessons of a parent. 2 Tim. iii. 15. “And that from a child thou hast known the scriptures.” Second. The circumstances; parents bring them. It is to the parents that the reproof of the disciples is directed, Mark x. 13. “And they brought young children to him that he should touch them, and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.” It is true it is said suffer them to come, but who does not know that we speak in this style of every person or thing approaching us, whether it be active or passive. How often have we all heard one kind matron addressing the child of another before it could speak or stand, “Come to me.” Again, as we have already hinted, it is quite likely that some of them were walking and some of them sucking children. Concerning all of them it is said that he took them up in his arms. Mark X. 16. “And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them and blessed them.” The very circumstance, that the disciples opposed their access to Christ, will be strong as a thousand arguments to every attentive reader, that these were children in age. Would it not seem passing strange indeed that the disciples, who, with the exception of Judas Iscariot, have been always accounted regenerated men, and were acquainted with the fact that except a man was born again he could not enter into the kingdom of heaven, should object to their admission on this very account. That Servetus, who ridiculed the doctrine of the Trinity, and argued that infants should not be baptized, because the doctrines of Trismegistus and the Sibyls forbade sacred ablutions to any but adults, should so explain the passage as to involve such an absurdity, need not seem strange. That men who are ignorant and unlearned, should wrest the scriptures need not surprise us. From those who have no recommendation to teach but that they say they are converted and called, we are not to look for consistency. But that such men as Dr. [John] Gill of London, and Dr. [William] Stoughton of Philadelphia, should countenance and circulate such inept comments on sacred scripture is really astonishing. It shews how far even men of learning may go in defending a favorite system.

Farther—If we make one part of the passage allegorical, we must make the other so also. Make the children, then, not children of age, but in grace; then who will be the parents? Who was it that begat men by the word of truth, and travailed as in birth until Christ was formed with in them? Was it not the disciples? Then according to this the disciples would be the parents presenting them, and opposed to their presentation at the same time.

But, will it be said, as a dernier [last] resort, that the children presented were children in years but that when he says, of such are the kingdom of heaven, he means those who are made such by grace? We admit, that unless a man be converted and become as a little child in docility and dependence upon the heavenly Father, he cannot be saved, chap. xviii. 3. Every regenerate person becomes, in many respects, as a little child; but, if this be the construction, the disciples might say, All this is admitted, but it is not to the point. Shall we then charge a non sequitur [i.e., a conclusion that does not follow logically] to a proposition of our Lord. Every person must see this gloss of the passage would make the Saviour’s position inconclusive. That, therefore, cannot be the meaning of the Saviour’s remark. Try it. Suffer these little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of grown up, regenerate persons is the kingdom of heaven. One would suppose that even party prejudice would feel a little reluctant, at putting such an incoherent argument into the mouth of the divine Teacher.

It may be thought, however, in the second place, that these absurdities may be evaded by saying that the phrase, kingdom of heaven, means the place and state of endless happiness, or the Church above. But this is not only contrary to the general current of expositors and the scope of the place itself, it would also be not a little odd, if they could be members of the church of glory, and yet could not belong to the church of grace—of the church triumphant and not of the church militant. If they may be admitted members of the heavenly society, would it not be proper that, by some ordinance, their obligation to the blood of atonement should be expressed? Our Baptist brethren, of the regular order at least, we hope, are not become Socinians to deny original sin, nor heathens, to think of any other way of salvation; but by the name of Jesus. The passage then plainly proves that children in age should be allowed to be presented by their parents to Jesus, and should, by regular church officers, be acknowledged members of his Church. If so, we ask, By what rite? Let the Baptists themselves answer. They practically admit that baptism is the rite whereby membership in the Church is declared or effected. It will avail nothing here to say, that these children were not baptized. The adults whom Christ received, he did not baptize, for he baptized none (John iv. 2) nor was baptism as yet perfectly settled as the door of admission; but he did that which was tantamount; he invited them to him, encouraged the bringing of them, and signified to his disciples, to whom the keys of the kingdom of God were given, that they were members of his kingdom; and accordingly conferred upon them the blessings of that kingdom; and his giving them the thing signified may sufficiently justify his ministers in giving the sign.

In other societies, the children of such as are members are commonly looked upon as members. Though a wise man doth not always beget a wise man, yet a free man begets a free man. As the pious Matthew Henry justly remarks—“The king of England would give those small thanks, who should cut off all the children of the kingdom. Our law calls natural allegiance, high allegiance, and he that oweth it is called subditus natus, natural liege subject. It is the privilege of the subject, and the prerogative of the king, that it should be so.” And shall it not be allowed in the visible kingdom of Christ? By the Jewish law, if a servant married and had children born in the master’s house, they were the master’s; they were taken under his protection and interested in the privileges of the family, though yet capable of no service. This law David applies spiritually. Psalm cxvi. 16. O Lord, truly I am thy servant; I am thy servant, the son of thy handmaid, born in thy house. Those consult neither the honour of the master, the credit of the family, nor the benefit of their children, who, though servants in Christ’s family themselves, will not allow their children. To deny the Church membership of the seed of believers, is to deny privileges to those who once had them, and who have never forfeited them. It is, in effect, to deliver their children to Satan as members of his visible kingdom; for I know no mean between the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light. Give me leave, then, as the infants’ advocate, to make their complaint in the words of David, 1 Sam. xxvi. 19. They have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord, saying, Go and serve other gods, and to present their petition for a visible church membership, in the words of the Reubenites and Gadites. Josh. xxii. 24, 25—For fear lest, in time to come your children might speak unto our children, saying, What have you to do with the Lord God of Israel; ye have no part in the Lord; so shall your children make our children cease from fearing the Lord. Therefore, according to the warrant of the written word, we maintain baptism, as a sign of the church membership of our infants; that it may be a witness for our generations after us, that they may do the service of the Lord, and might not be cut off from following after him. For whatsoever those who are otherwise minded, uncharitably suggest, the Lord God of Gods, the Lord God of gods, he knoweth and Israel shall know, that it is not in rebellion nor transgression against the Lord. We desire to express as great a jealousy as they can do for the institutions of Christ, and are as fearful of going a step without a warrant.

Several other scriptural arguments have been undeniably urged, to prove the church membership of infants; but what was said to prove their covenant right, and to shew the reasons of it, serve indifferently to this; for the visible church and the external administration of the covenant are of equal extent and latitude. Grant me that infants are of that visible body, or society, to which pertaineth the adoption and the glory & the covenant, &c. in the same sense, in which these pertained to the Jews of old and to their seed, and I desire no more. That is their covenant right, and their church membership which entitleth them to baptism.

We have before said, that Christ had not, at the time in which he took up these children in his arms and blessed them, appointed baptism as the badge of his disciples. That institution was not to be generally observed, until after his baptism unto death; and therefore, he does not institute it until recently before his ascension. Let us consider the words of institution, Matth. xxviii. 19. “Go ye, therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” The word rendered, teach, in the former part of this verse is not the same of that which is translated, teach, in the beginning of the next verse, The former is matheteusate; the latter is didaskontes. The distinction of their meaning is as great as of their form and ought to be observed. The first is a causative verb, formed from the word which signifies a disciple, and so its meaning is evidently to discipulate or make disciples, i.e. initiate them into the school of the Church. In all cases children are introduced as scholars before they are taught. Students are matriculated before they enjoy the advantages of seminaries of learning. So it is to be done here. Disciple the nations, baptizing them, i.e. Disciple them by this rite. It is well known that infants compose a great part of all nations; the general command, therefore will embrace all the particular characters. It was not necessary to say, men, women and children. All these were evidently included in the general term nations. If they had been unacquainted with the ancient plan and common order of society—with the particular condescension and kindness of Christ to babes, it might have been necessary that some specification should have been made. The disciples, however, were supposed to be men of common sense, and had received in the school of Jesus instruction to qualify them for their work. All that can be inferred from the circumstance that (matheteusate) disciple precedes the word baptise is, that they were to be in the way of learning. Now who does not know that parents may bind children to trades, employ for them tutors, confer upon them rights, and leave them inheritances before they are of age? All this should be done under proper responsible guardians.

Suppose the dispensation had been altered solely with respect to the extent of character whom it would embrace; and not with respect to the mode and rites of administration. Instead of being sent exclusively to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, let them be sent to all the nations of the earth to proselyte and circumcise. Would they in this case, have needed any particular instruction respecting the infants of their proselytes? Would they not have known that the descendants of such as believed and became members of the church, whose usage on that point had been long known should be circumcised? If they had neglected this would there have been no Jew or Gentile convert, acquainted with Jewish statute and precedent upon that subject, who would have said, Why are our children excluded when we are received? We have been taught that this was a dispensation of peculiar mercy; why then are not children recognized and made visibly to participate of this mercy as well as before? What is the difference then between the cases? The disciples evidently understood the one coming in the room of the other, at least this far, that the one was the Jewish and the other the Christian rite of introduction into the Church.

It is to be observed also, that those who were commissioned were Jews, and needed not to be informed of the ancient usage of the church upon this subject, and if they had any unbelieving scruple about the right of infants to membership in his Church and kingdom, he had already settled that in a passage previously considered and adduced.

From this commission then it would appear pretty clear that the Apostles and their successors could have no reasonable scruples about admitting the infants of professors into the Church. The rite of admission was baptism; they, therefore, could have no scruple about baptizing the infants of believers or members of the Church. If they had been so illiberal and ill acquainted with the Christian dispensation of eminent condescension and grace, they would have been corrected. Pious parents would have urged their babes for admittance and the Redeemer would plead their cause. To all this reasoning upon the commission and original instruction given to the Apostles, it may perhaps be objected, that although they are commanded to proselyte nations [ta ethna] yet they are only commanded to baptize them, [autous] which Dr. Gill thinks is a clear proof that them does not relate to nations as its antecedent. Nations we admit is neuter in the original and them masculine. But according to his way of criticising, it is evident that females would be excluded from this ordinance by the commission; but we know they are not by the practice of the Apostles. Campbell says—“There are manifestly three things which our Lord here distinctly enjoins his Apostles to execute with regard to the nations, to wit—mathetuein, baptizein, didaskein, that is, to convert them to the faith, to initiate the converts into the church by baptism, and to instruct the baptized in all the duties of the christian life.” He shews a great many ways of rendering the first word matheteusate, and all his authorities agreeing on the meaning of the latter. Perhaps, however, it might be more proper to consider the charge as one thing, but the execution of it to consist of two parts. The charge is, make disciples of the nations. This is to be done by baptizing and teaching them. If you attend to the translation, it will shew you that this is the true meaning of it, and how well this will agree with the admission of infant pupils, every considerate person will at once see. It will not follow from this reasoning that the infants of Jews, Turks, and profane persons are to be baptized. These are not proselyted or converted. The Apostles would never once dream of such a thing; these parents would by no means allow it; and nothing but a desperate case would ever have made the Baptists suggest it as inferable. Infants have not yet learned the knowledge of Christ: that does not hinder their being members of the Christian’s school. It would be a strange seminary, that would admit none as pupils but those who knew the very science, which it proposed to teach. It is evident from Rabbinical writings and from the scripture, that an unlearned person may be a Christian pupil. The Jewish children were considered members of that Church and nation, although, as yet, they knew nothing of the constitution of either church or state. There is an account upon record of a Gentile who says to Rabbi Hillel; “Fac me proselytum ut me doceas.” Make me a disciple or proselyte that you may teach me.

It is very evident that if objections should be made to the foregoing as alluding to Jewish maxims, that, we have these sanctioned and the point in hand established by New Testament authority. Acts xv. 10. “Now therefore, why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” It is evident here that circumcision is the matter of controversy. “Certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, Except ye be circumcised, after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” “But there arose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed saying, That it was needful to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” This was quite natural that even those who believed of the Jews should have scruples about their ancient rituals. If they thought circumcision should continue in use it is impossible to shew, upon what principle, they would reject infants from being its subjects. These men from Judea and the believing Pharisees, it appears, then wished to have circumcision administered to all who personally or by representation were members of Christ’s school, i.e. adults and their infants. But these, upon whom they wished to impose this yoke are called disciples; therefore infants may be called disciples; and if disciples, they may and ought to be baptised according to the words of institution. It will, perhaps, yet be objected against these conclusions, that the words here in Matthew must be taken in connection with the same commission as recorded in the other gospels, from which some infer, that faith is necessary in all cases to precede baptism.

We readily admit that before any adult person receive this ordinance, he should give evidence that he believes with all his heart. But it will never do to apply the same rules to infants as to adults. According to that mode of proceeding, you would starve your children to death and exclude them from all hopes of everlasting life. The commandment is peremptory. 2. Thes. iii. 10. “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work neither should he eat.” Now I cannot see, if we will apply rules to infants which evidently respect adults, why this canon would not forbid us to give children food as well as the commanding of faith and repentance, as prerequisites to adult baptism, would exclude them from that ordinance. Yea, it would be more exclusive only for the common sense and natural affection which commonly govern in natural things. The command about eating and drinking is negative and so peculiarly strong, “If any would not work, neither should he eat.” That is manifestly much stronger than the other; “Repent and be baptised. He that believeth and is baptized ; it is not—He that believeth not shall not be baptized. Are we then to say, because our babes cannot work, that they shall have no food? Verily this would exhibit dark prospects of the duration and continuance of the species in the world, as the exclusion of babes from membership would do of the Church.

But, moreover, apply this rule a little farther, and you will not only have none of them in the Church below, but you will also shut against them the gales of the Church above. Although it is not said he that believeth not shall not be baptized, it is said “He that believeth not shall be damned.” Now, it is evident according to the way our opponents argue, that infants cannot be saved. Apply the adult rule to infant subjects, and you see what horrid conclusions force themselves upon you. The Anabaptist reasons—Because the infant cannot believe, therefore it can not be baptised. By a much clearer inference it might be said, because they cannot believe, they cannot be saved. It must be here observed that I do not blame the Baptist for holding either of these opinions, to wit: that children should be starved; or that they will all be excluded the kingdom of heaven. It is their system and not their hearts, that holds both of these shocking tenets. They would, in humanity, administer food to the hungry babe—they would, in pity, pray that babes might, in divine mercy be saved. It would be but reasonable, however, to consider consequences and renounce systems, which, if followed, would be so horrid in their results. We have seen then that infants may be disciples, that those who are made disciples in the Church are to be baptized, that the tendency of the reasoning which opposes this, would lead to the starvation of children and the denial of their salvation. No scripture rightly understood can lead to absurdity, and scripture should be compared with scripture, before we draw inferences and conclusions, which we would not ourselves with their whole train admit.

Let us see then what other parts of holy writ will say, upon this subject. Before we finally decide upon this interesting question, whether or not infants should be baptized, we must try what way the Apostles understood their instruction. We cannot do this better than by noticing their practice under this general direction. We have not any, instance of a nation becoming Christian during the ministry of inspired men. Of course we have no Apostolic model for regulating a national Church.

Several years, yea centuries of years had to elapse from that period, before the kingdoms of the world should become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ. However, they made full proof of their ministry. They labored to bring about the much desired time. They endeavored to compel men to enter into the kingdom. We have no instance of their ever refusing to baptize the infants of professors—no instance, after the regular establishment of the Church in any place, that the children of adult members upon growing up, were baptized. We have very strong evidence that they did, under the direction of their permanent commission, baptize the infants of believing proselytes. What evidence ought to be required upon this head? Would it not be sufficient, if we had the ancient promise confirmed and ratified in connection with the command to receive this seal? Indeed only for the slowness of man's heart to believe, there would have been no necessity to confirm and ratify a divine grant. The heavens may depart and the earth be removed, but he will never fail of anything he has promised. We might therefore have said, If he has not withdrawn his promise from the children; but we are not under the necessity of reasoning closely to maintain their right; we have line upon line and promise upon promise. To illustrate and prove our point let us suppose an instance:

Suppose a king possessed of large territories entirely at his own disposal, should first have enfeoffed his land [given a grant of land for a promise of service] to the adults and infants of a certain tribe. This enfeoffment is made by a seal attached to a charter. The original occupants forfeit their right, and by their rebellion alienate the property. After some time he alters the seal, and extends his royal munificence to all other tribes indiscriminately, upon their agreeing to come and be orderly residents in the region. He sends out factors and agents to seal and deliver over legal rights to the new settlers. Would any person suppose that the children, in this new arrangement were to be excluded? Certainly not. If some agents were afterwards to refuse this, would not the settlers have a right to enquire in to the reason of the alteration. If none could be given but such as might, with equal propriety, have been advanced against the ancient, known custom and regulation of the tenure; would not all think that these agents did not understand the nature of their lord’s grant?

The case, you will see, is similar to the one in hand. Examine Acts ii. 39. “For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” The first of these characters are the descendants of Abraham, unto whom and to his seed the promise was originally given. The second, are the nations who are to be blessed in his seed, chap. iii. 25. “Ye are the children of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with our fathers saying to Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” The promise can be no other than what we have been already considering in the second part of our plea, to wit, “I will be your God and the God of your seed.” But this promise was sealed, Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith. His seed also received the seal. Male infants were to be circumcised. This promise is mentioned, confirmed and ratified in connection with a command to respect the seal and sacrament of baptism. This itself is no obscure hint that baptism came in the room of circumcision and should, of course, like its predecessor be administered to infants, unless you would make the type more condescending and kind to babes than the antitype. Peter had charged home upon the awakened consciences of some, the terrible deed of crucifying the Lord. They cried under pungent conviction, “Men and brethren, what shall we do Then, Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

In the verse already quoted, he assigns this as a reason, “For the promise is unto you and to your children.” Why should children be here mentioned, if they have nothing to do with the promise nor its seal? It is trifling to say that the promise would be to their children, when they were grown up to be men and women, i.e. when they are no longer children. It is evident that, according to this way of explaining, or rather, wresting the passage, there is no promise to children. It is further added, lest any should be led to believe that the Gentiles should not have the same privileges; “And to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” If none but adults have an interest in this promise, it will mangle and destroy the promise itself. The promise is, “I will be the God of your seed, as well as I will be your God.” The promise then was not according to its original form to them, if not also to their infant seed. No person has any right to abstract from the grant of Jehovah. Our plea then is fair, that the promise is to the children of the called Gentiles, although anciently afar off, they are now brought nigh by the blood of Christ. They are no longer strangers, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of faith.

Shall they, then, who have the promise, not have the seal of the promise? Shall they of the household of faith, not have the privileges of that house or family Shall citizens not have the immunities and franchise of citizens? What if the children of the Gentiles were once accounted stones, no matter if, by an enlargement of the grant, they are now accounted children, shall they not have the mark and name of children?

We have therefore seen that the Apostles gave these penitent applicants ground to expect, that, although the character of the seal was a little changed, still the same persons as formerly should receive it. Who were these? Were they not believing penitents end their children? Is it not, therefore, reasonable to suppose that believers would bring their children with them to be initiated, as formerly, into the same covenant privileges and state with themselves? Is there any hint, that in all these plausible calculations they were disappointed What can be assigned as the reason that there is no such hint, unless it be the reason which establishes our plea, and the claim of the infants of church members to church privileges, that is, that they were not disappointed in these calculations? But it will be said that these were men, and had not their households with them. That this objection might be obviated, we have documents still more explicit upon this head. It will, therefore, be satisfactory to all who love God’s grace and the rights of children founded thereon, if it be evident that the Apostles actually did baptize households. It is well known that house or household generally signifies families consisting of persons of different ages, of adults and infants. Now although there are some houses in which there are no children; so there are some houses in which there are no grown persons, still it is certain, that the word house, when any moral act is done by, or upon it, intimates that there are inhabitants, yea unless there be something said to the contrary, that there are children.

In this style of language the scripture often speaks, “He maketh the barren woman to keep house.” Psalm cxiii. 9. The explanation of that phrase is given in the second part of the parallelism, according to the idiom of Hebrew poesy “and to be a joyful mother of children.” Thus you see she is not considered properly to keep house, until she is made a mother of children. Take another instance of this signification of house as certainly implying children. Jer. xi. 10. “The house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant, which I made with their fathers.” This text proves two things for our purpose. 1st. That house signifies an assemblage of people of different ages. 2d. That posterity may be bound by the representation of their predecessors and fathers. If they were not bound by the covenant which God made with their fathers, how could they break its obligations?

Baptists themselves understand both of these principles. They understand the philological principle respecting the meaning of the word, as you may see by the way they sometimes reason on Ex. xii. 3, 4. They understand its moral principle. They consider treaties obligatory upon the posterity of the personal contractors. Should it be said that house or household does not always and necessarily intimate the presence of children, if it be admitted that it generally does, it is enough for our purpose. If we have the precedent of the Apostles baptizing households we shall be pretty safe in following their example. There was no need for this purpose that the names, sex and ages of the several members should be given, and unless there be exceptions made, we have no right to make any. It is worthy of remark, that in these instances mentioned there is no notice taken of the profession of any but of the head of the family. Acts xvi. 14, 15. “And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us; whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptised and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me faithful, come into my house and abide there.” If it be said that this woman was a single lady and abroad on business, and had no family, we would ask, What was the meaning of her house being baptized? Did Paul dip the building? It is very probable she was a widow; but it is also very certain that she had a family, and that they were baptized, when her heart was opened to receive the things spoken by Paul.

Thus it is evident, that if there had been but this one instance of a household baptism, it would have been probable, that in that house there were children; and that, at any rate, would have been a precedent for baptizing households. It is not, however, solitary. It is recorded, with equal particularity, that, when the jailer believed, he and his were all baptized straightway. v. 33. It was certainly not without design, and so should not be unnoticed, that the two instances of household baptism in this one chapter are one of them under the representation of a female, and the other of a male head. How condescending, gracious, and considerate is our Lord! We have not done yet with instances and evidences of this kind. 1 Cor. 1. 16. “And I baptized also the household of Stephanus.” We have then seen three instances of household baptism recorded, without any exceptions made of the children of these professed believers. The mode of recording these transactions evidently agrees with the account of circumcision in Abraham’s family. There was no need to give any express statute farther with regard to the privileges of children there was no dispute at that time about this point. The instances of household baptism are doubled and trebled that all doubts might be removed, and all cavils silenced. The first instance would be sufficient for the liberal mind that calculated correctly from ancient usage, and the consistency and grace of God. The second would confirm the more wavering and timid; the third would, it might be supposed, put the question to rest and stop the mouth of all who would oppose the baptism of the children of the Church. Therefore we conclude that the infants of such as are members of the visible Church, are to be baptized.

If more evidence should be thought necessary, or if more be proper and tolerable after the matter is clear to the candid, we can shew that the Churches, in their ordinary course of religious order, considered the children of professors members, and meet subjects of the holy ordinance of baptism. We have ample evidence to shew the informed and considerate that the custom was uniform, and that instances of household baptism, while they were planting the Church happened frequently. They who are descended of even one professing parent, are called clean and holy. 1 Cor. vii. 14. “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”

Much depends here upon the meaning you attach to the words holy and clean. Sometimes holy signifies dedicated. All the utensils about the ancient tabernacle, and temple, were in this sense holy. The regenerated people of God, in whom his spirit dwells, are holy. They are built up a holy temple to be a habitation of God by the Spirit. It is used more than five hundred times, in scripture, to signify ceremonial purity or meetness for enjoying religious privileges. This is evidently its signification in this place. That all the descendants of professors, even when both parents are credibly pious, are spiritually holy, neither Pedobaptists nor Anabaptists will assert. This inward piety or holiness of heart is not a thing about which we superficial creatures are capable of judging correctly. “It is God that searcheth the heart.” In some way however, it appears, that the children of one pious convert were accounted holy. How was this? Of what external rite or ordinance were they accounted worthy if not of baptism : Can they not be the subjects of what baptism implies? Can not the Redeemer, who gathers these lambs in his arms, and carries them in his bosom, wash them by his blood? If not, they have assuredly no part in him. Pious parents will not believe that their Saviour cannot be the Saviour of their offspring even in infancy, they will naturally wish, if at all practicable, to take their children with them into the Church and kingdom of Christ. They look with anxiety, whether the arms of mercy will embrace their babes as a part of themselves. They have found that it does, that although the partner continues yet in unbelief the mercy of the new dispensation is such, that the children are accounted clean and holy, the same as if the unbelieving party had also been sanctified. Yea, in the decision of the Church, he is accounted so far sanctified, even by the believing wife. The meaning which some Anabaptists put upon the word, is quite inadmissible, viz. that it signifies legitimacy of birth. Surely the Apostle would not prove a thing by itself. He would not say, Your marriage is legal and your offspring legitimate because they are so. There is no precedent in the scriptures nor in profane writings for this meaning. There is no instance in the law or usage of any nation, that the Christianity or piety of either one or both of the parties, was considered necessary for the legitimacy of the offspring. There was, however, in the usage of the Church, at this time, some difference between the children of professors and those of others. What was it? It must either have been that they were inwardly holy, that the spiritual character of the parents was entailed upon their posterity; or that they were visibly and federally holy and clean.

The former neither Pedobaptists nor Anabaptists will maintain. The latter must therefore be admitted, i.e. such infants, as are descended of parents of whom one or both are credible professors, should be considered clean and holy. They should therefore enjoy all the religious privileges of which they are proper recipients. Of what outward privileges then could they be the subjects, if not baptism, which is the very first? It need not be urged that according to this reasoning they should also receive the other sacrament. These are very different in their nature. The one is a seal of what infants may participate as well as adults. Surely they may be purged, regenerated, and translated into the kingdom of Christ.

They cannot examine themselves in order to prepare for the other seal. They cannot be edified in the participation of the other sacrament. I can easily conceive of a case, in which an adult might be received to the ordinance of baptism, before he was capable of receiving the proper advantage of the Lord’s supper. Birth is necessary for visible existence, and milk is suitable for babes, strong meat must be given only those of full growth, whose minds are exercised to discern good and evil. It seems very evident that there were some of the Corinthian brethren that eat and drank unworthily because they did not discern the Lord’s body, who yet were chastened of the Lord that they might not be judged with the world.

We reason then upon this subject conclusively in this manner. We ought to consider all those as members of his Church whom Christ recognizes; but Christ recognises children as members of his Church; so should we. Who can exclude those whom Christ the Lord of the house includes? Those children that are, either by birth, or admittance with the parents, members of the Church, should receive the seal and badge of membership ; but baptism is the seal and badge of membership : therefore children should be baptized. The Apostles were commanded to baptize all nations of proselytes, or all those over whom they might afterwards preside, in teaching them to walk in divine institutions. Ministers of the gospel succeed the Apostles, in the discharge of the ordinary negotiations of Christ’s kingdom. They should, therefore, consider themselves bound to baptize all, whom they could rationally expect afterwards to teach, to observe all things whatsoever Christ commands.

Gospel ministers ought to follow the example of the Apostles in administering divine ordinances; the Apostles, however, baptised households when the head, or heads, male or female believed; Therefore, so still should the ministers and stewards of the house and kingdom of Christ baptise the infants of Church members, the households of believers.

What we have reason to believe was a universal and known practice in the Apostolic and primitive Church, we should follow and maintain.

It is well known and must be admitted that in the primitive churches, even of Apostolic planting, the children of professing parents were considered holy; therefore they should be accounted so still. If we are still urged to give more express commandment, or more obvious example; we say, let our opponents give more express commandment, or more obvious example for female right to participate of the Lord’s supper. We say they have a right as well as the Anabaptist. But we infer it, and so do they. There is no commandment to dispense it to women; there is no explicit testimony that they did participate. If then reasoning and inference be admitted in favour of female rights, why should they not also be in favor of infants?

Finally, upon the subjects of Christian baptism and in favor of infants we say, the Christian Church is the same corporation of the ancient church called from the subject of it, the Jewish, not to distinguish it from Christian, but to distinguish it from the Gentile or Catholic Church. The Church in the wilderness of Arabia, and the Church in the continent of America is still the same. The Jewish branches were lopped off the good olive tree, or ecclesiastical organization, that we Gentiles might be grafted in. All the rights and immunities therefore, which they enjoyed, we should also enjoy, They enjoyed for their children the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of which not only Isaac and Jacob but we also are heirs. Their children were, in the construction of mercy, held as members of the church, till they forfeited their right or sold their birthright. So unquestionably should ours. Those who were the subjects of the ancient typical rite, should be the subjects of that which came in its room. Children were the subjects of the ancient rite or seal, therefore they should of the modern. Any of these topics of argumentation should be considered conclusive, and I cannot see how any man will candidly examine them, and conclude against them, taken together in their accumulative and corroborative force.

CHAP. II.

The Mode of Christian Baptism.

LET us now see what is the proper mode of Christian baptism.

Here we think, in the first place, it must be admitted on all hands that the water of baptism is not, by any direct power, efficient of spiritual purgation. Of course, it cannot be a matter of moment what its quantity be, only, that it be as much as may be a symbol of the blood of Christ. Even the Brahmins, who impute so much to lotions in the Ganges, consider that it is the holiness of its quality, and not the largeness of its quantity that gives it all its virtue.

All, therefore, must depend upon the divine appointment. Baptism does not avail to the purifying of the flesh; but as it is the answer of a good conscience, looking to God for a divine blessing upon a divine institution. It must also be admitted, that in the institution of baptism there is no particular direction given respecting the mode thereof. The disciples are commanded to go and baptize; in what way the water was to be exhibited, the Saviour said nothing.

The word (baptize) is one of very indefinite signification. Had the great head of the Church designed that there should be but one mode, it would have no doubt been expressed so that about the mode there could be no doubt. The translators were aware of these facts and so have not translated the word, only given it an English termination, leaving it the same latitude of signification in our language that it had in the original. It is by some considered a causative verb or word from bapto; by some it is reckoned a diminutive. Baptists do not consider it as a causative word, for they actually dip, and do not, I believe, generally cause the person, or any other to perform the rite for them. It must, therefore, be understood as a diminutive. I do not say this is very conclusive. I rest the force of the plea for effusion upon convenience, decency and expressiveness. In a rude state of society and in warm climates, where perhaps the principal attention to cleanliness is bodily ablutions and immersions, there may be no great inconveniency experienced in this operation. When people are inured not only to bodily hardship, but when their minds also are destitute of any delicate cultivation, there may, in such a state of society, be no sacrifice of bodily or mental feeling. In such a state of society, the sexes are accustomed to see each other in habits and attitudes, which civil society would count rather awkward. This they may do without either painful or licentious feelings. But in the highly cultivated state of American and British society, certainly every unbiassed mind must feel shocked at seeing the sturdy baptist drag the delicate female into the stream—seize her by the neck and breast, while he trips up her heels in the presence of the gazing crowd. It must require strong feelings of conscience or superstition to reconcile a mind of ordinary delicacy to this mode. If, however, it be commanded, it must be done. We must, in all cases of duty, take up our cross. There is no necessity, however, of making one, and I do not know that in any instance, it is appointed that the members or ministers of Christs flock are to impose these upon each other. They fulfil the law of Christ by bearing one another’s burdens. They imitate the corrupt Scribes and Pharisees when they impose onerous loads on Christ’s redeemed. It is true offences must come, but woe to them by whom they come. It were, better that a man were cast into the midst of the sea with a millstone at his neck, than that he should offend one of Christ’s little ones. When the wicked of the world treat them rudely because of their testimony in behalf of truth, they must, after the example of their divine Master, hold fast, nor love their lives unto the death for his sake. But does this prove that they must put stumbling blocks and rocks of offence in each other’s way—that they will be doing God service when they put one another to death indiscreetly if not intentionally? The Baptist, however, will say all this avails nothing in the face of scripture authority which, is all in favour of dipping. What is there then in favour of immersion as the exclusive mode of Christian baptism? If the scripture be obviously on that side, then let the reasoning perish that is opposed to revelation. Let every imagination be brought into the obedience of faith. The Baptist pleads for immersion, 1. On the precise signification of the word. 2. On the practice of John. 3. On the case of Philip and the eunuch. 4. On the phrase, “Buried with him by baptism into death.” Upon the first of these arguments we would remark, Does the word baptize in the English or baptize in the Greek signify to dip and nothing else? If it does not, there can be nothing certainly learned from the word. If it does, what was the use of making this word, seeing it and its parent, according to baptists mean the same thing.

If baptizo and bapto, baptize and dip signify one and the same thing, why are they not interchangeably used? Try an instance in Matthew iii. 11. “I indeed baptize you with water to repentance; but he that cometh after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am unworthy to bear, he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.” Make the word baptize signify nothing but dip, and you may render the passage thus—I indeed dip you with water, but one cometh after me, &c, he shall dip you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Even a baptist, we presume, perceives the solecism and feels shocked with both the sound and the sense that his own criticism on the meaning of the word makes. Will they then say that the word baptize always means to dip or immerse, and may always be so translated? The Jews, it is known, had a great many washings, sprinklings, and ceremonial purifications, all of which went by the general name of baptisms. Mark vii. 4. Heb. ix. 10. “And when they come from market, except they wash [are baptized, in the Greek] they eat not. And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing [baptisms] of cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables or couches. Now, it is evident, if they dipped in all their ritual purifications, they must have had very large ewers [jugs] or vessels. It will be of importance to know something about the size of them. As the shrewd youth remarked, when the very ingenious and rational preacher taught the people that the loaves which fed so many thousands were as large as a certain mountain which he named, “I would not wish,” said the arch wag “to doubt the truth of what the minister says, but I would like to know how large the oven was in which the loaves were baked.” If then the Jews baptized brass kettles, tables, &c. let us examine how large the vessels were, in which these ritual purifications were performed. Of these, we have an account in the anecdote of the marriage at Cana of Galilee. John 11. This family, we have reason to believe, were as well provided as others and especially at this time. v. 6. “And there were set six water pots of stone, after the Jews’ manner of purification.” How much then did these vessels contain? Our translation says two or three firkins; in the original, it is two or three measures. It would have been as well to have left it as in definite in the translation as in the original, and if they had put a precise modern measure upon it they surely ought not to have made such a large measure as the firkin answer to the original. The bath has by learned men been thought the more probable known measure of the metretas. However, some make the bath seven gallons and a half, some four and some three. The truth is, it must be more from circumstances than from a definite knowledge of the word, that we must as certain the quantity. However, should these stone pots contain the largest quantity that any body ever conjectured, it is evident they could not admit of a man's body to be immersed in them. It appears, indeed, from the whole story to me very evident that they did not contain more than two or three gallons each. It appears they were quite handy and portable not only when they were empty, but also after they were filled with the wine made of the water. It must be, therefore, very evident that the baptism performed in these vessels, or vessels of their size, either of tables or persons must have been a baptism by washing and not by dipping. We know also beyond any conjecture that the purifications under the law were performed by sprinklings and not by immersion. Take for instance the rite of cleansing the leper, Lev. xiv. And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times and shall pronounce him clean.” So also of the unclean house, verses 48, 49, 50, 51, 52. Now, although in both of these cases water was to be afterwards used, it is evident that the typical rite was sprinkling.

By attending to a colloquy in the third chapter of this same book, we will see that baptism was performed by John and the disciples of Jesus in a way, which resembled the rite of purification among the Jews: v. 25. “Then there arose a question between one of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying. v. 26. And they came unto John and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold the same baptizeth, and all men come unto him.” Our translators seem evidently to have taken up the proper signification of baptism as used in the New, and also in the Old Testament. It is the same, by which the assembly of divines at Westminster define it, viz. “The washing with water, and as a religious rite having a respect to the great economy of salvation, it must be done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who in that work take each a proper part.” That the translators under stood it so and right too, is evident from Heb. ix. 10. “Which stood only in meats and drinks and divers washings [Greek, baptismous.] It is here clear to every unprejudiced mind, that if they had translated the word baptismous, dippings, as they have done it washings, they would have said a falsehood, from what we have already seen concerning the legal purifications; it would have been improper to have called them dippings. It was very proper, however, to call them baptisms; therefore, baptism and dipping are different things. Washing then, it appears, is the radical idea. From Mark vii. 34 and Luke xi. 38, it is clear that washing and baptism mean the same thing. Except they are baptized as it is in the original, they eat not. What was this baptism? Why just washing their hands, and what too is worthy of remark, it was then a custom and is to this day in the east, to have water poured on the hands, but no matter how, to be baptized in the passages cited, was to have the hands washed, the vessels which the passages say were baptized, we have seen were washed. One signification therefore of the word baptize is to wash. Allowing then the baptist his signification viz. to dip, we shall have another signification of the word: this with the one made out before will make two. Let us see if scripture language will not afford us another sense. In 1 Cor. x. The Apostle says the Israelites were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Here was a baptizing and neither dipping nor, washing. For we can easily see how they might be sprinkled by the spray of the sea and the drops of the cloud. No honest, unprejudiced reader, and for such the scripture is designed, would ever think from the narrative that there was any dipping in the case as respected the Israelites. The Egyptians and not the Israelites got the immersion, or were dipped on that memorable occasion. It is only a desperate subterfuge in some Baptists, who say they were covered in the cloud and in the sea. Would a Baptist then say that a man might be receiving baptism, while he was walking upon dry ground, provided there was water on every side of him, and a hazy cloud over him? If so, it will be a valuable discovery for delicate constitutions in cold climates. But no, they would not call it baptism, unless they were all wet with water. No man of common sense would call such a positive dipping. The Apostle, however, declares there was a catholic baptism of all the ransomed tribes. It was not done by immersion, for they were not immersed. It was not done by washing, for they were not washed. Still if we give the Apostle credit for true narrative and correct language, they were baptized. Seeing that was performed upon them neither by washing nor dipping, we conclude it was done by sprinkling. To say, they were baptized by water in a vapoury state above them, and in a fluid state at a distance from them, and that this baptism was dipping, is not only inadmissible but absurd and ridiculous. According to this canon of criticism, men might always be called the subjects of baptism when a cloud of vapour impended and waters stood, or run on each side. Unless then, some fourth way be discovered of administering baptism, we must conclude the baptism of the Israelites in the Red Sea was done by affusion, or sprinkling. This then establishes one important fact which Baptists have unfairly tried to deny, and shews, to every candid mind, that the learned and inspired Apostle considered baptism really, and properly administered by sprinkling. The Apostles, then we see, not only baptized households, but they also evidently considered the word baptism to have the signification of sprinkling. They would therefore have considered, that they acted according to the tenor, spirit and letter of their commission, if they laboured to proselyte to the faith of Jesus nations, and in token of pardon and purgation through the merit and efficacy of his blood, would sprinkle the households and nations converted. Why should not we? Why should not the Baptists themselves yield to Apostolic authority, and admit that baptism may be valid without immersion? Allow then, dear brethren, the rod of divine authority to dry up the waters of this controversy—suffer the ransomed of the Lord to pass from Egyptian darkness and vassalage to the wilderness of ecclesiastical tutorage and the Canaan of heavenly rest on dry ground. Let the cloud of divine testimony drop down influences of heavenly grace on old and young—Let tears of penitence and gratitude mingle with the symbols of these gracious favours, and so let controversies of words and modes of initiation cease.

The second objection directs us to precedent and authority.

Here it is to be remarked, in the first place, that, even if it did appear that John dipped his disciples, I do not know that this would prove dipping to be the only proper way of administering the ordinance of baptism.

1. Because it is not very certain that John’s baptism, and that which is appointed in the Christian dispensation, are the same. It is certain it was not instituted by Christ's commandment to his disciples, and through them to the ambassadors of his kingdom. It seems, indeed, rather to have been a baptism in expression of the faith that the kingdom was at hand, than an introduction into the kingdom upon the New Testament plan modelled.

John was not in the kingdom thus modelled himself. “ The least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” His doctrine was not that the kingdom of heaven was come, but that the kingdom of heaven, or eminent reign of grace in the dispensation of the gospel after Christ’s death and resurrection, was at hand. His baptism, therefore, was the baptism of repentance and remission of sins, and reformation of life in expectation of these purer times and stricter dispensation approaching. Thus you see, he was the harbinger of Christ's advent, and not a messenger or minister of Christ, as having already established his Church upon its New Testament and permanent model.

Again—if John did baptize by immersion, and should it be admitted that John's baptism was essentially the same as ours, it does not therefore necessarily follow that we should. There is no necessity, as far as I know, that we should wear a garment of camel’s hair girded with a leathern belt, or that our meat should be locusts and wild honey. Unless, therefore, it be made appear, that there is something particularly expressive in this mode; or that it has positive institution in its favour, we would not be bound, as far as I see, to imitate the minutiæ of John’s example.

We have already seen, it has not the latter authority, viz. positive institution, for the commandment was, Go and baptize, not specifying in what mode. Not the former, if the scripture be sustained as a competent judge in the matter; for the scripture frequently expresses the thing signified in baptism by sprinkling, which is, as we have seen, one of its meanings, but never once, as far as we know, by dipping.

The Israelites varied their mode of eating the passover, and yet neither John nor the Saviour, who were both candid reprovers and strict reformers, found any fault with them on that account. At first, they eat standing upon their feet, with staves in their hands. In Christ’s time they eat it in a recumbent posture, after the mode of the Romans in feasting. Christians do not consider themselves bound to imitate all the circumstantial forms of the first eucharistic feast. For instance they do not think it necessary, that this feast should be celebrated in an upper chamber, nor in the night season. It is true, they will reckon themselves bound conscientiously to observe all significant parts of this and every other divine institution. They will, therefore, take, in token of the assumption of our nature by our Saviour, which is the great mystery of godliness. They will break, in symbol of his suffering for our sins; give, to keep up the sensible remembrance of his free offer of himself for our salvation; communicants will receive as an act of faith appropriating Christ; eat, to shew the hunger of the soul and the satisfying nourishment which is found in the Saviour, who is the true bread of life. They will not consider it a matter of importance, whether they take one little bit of bread or ten. I do not know that the Corinthians, would have been reproved for making it literally a feast, if they had not kept up invidious distinctions between the rich and the poor, which is obviously at war with all the principles of the gospel. Still I believe the most of Christians now admit that the Apostle’s instructions on that occasion, and the whole character and design of the sacrament, require that small portions of bread and wine should be used. Why such zeal then for copious element in the other sacrament? These facts and inductions however, shew that, in order to keep any ordinance pure and entire, it is not necessary to be minute only where there is obvious signification or express institution involved. We have seen that it is not very certain that John’s baptism was Christian baptism; that if it was, and even if he did immerse, that it is not necessary in another state of society and in another climate that we should immerse, Let us examine, however, before we close the reply to this objection, whether it be very evident that John did administer baptism in this manner.

The first account we have of this matter is in Matth. iii. 6, “And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.” Now the question is upon this part of the evidence. Did he dip them, or did he wash them, or did he sprinkle them? All these significations, we have found according to scripture usage, belong to the word. If he dipped them, and the record of the fact was intended to teach us that this mode is essential to the validity of the ordinance, why was it not mentioned in such language, and in connection with such circumstances, (for instance, the changing of apparel) as would have put the matter beyond a doubt? What renders the assumption of our opponents still more doubtful, is the expression which follows, v. 11. “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance.” Now is it not evident that water is here represented as the instrument of baptism, or that with which he performed the ceremony? But it is also evident that in dipping they do nothing with the water; they do all with the subject. The water stands or runs. The baptized operates as much upon the water as the baptizer. Try how it will read in the way the dipper would construe it, or with the help of his criticism. You must, of course, use the word in the sense which he says is its proper and exclusive signification. He dipped them with water; or I dip you with water. That is evidently a solecism or misapplication of terms. I baptize you with water, however makes very good sense. Whether then should we understand the word in the way that will make sense or in the way that will not? Our opponents will, perhaps wish to make another emendation of the text, and say that it should be read not that he dipped them with water, which would be incoherent language, but that he dipped them in water. Allow the alteration and apply the criticism to another expression of the same evangelist, and in the same chapter. v. 11, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance.—He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and fire.” The same event is predicted in Acts I, 5. “John baptized with water, ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” Who ever will be at the pains of reading and comparing these passages either in the original or in our translation, must, if candid, admit that with, and not in, is the preposition which should be used before water and before the Holy Ghost.

What sense would it make to say, He shall be dipped in the Holy Ghost and in fire, or ye shall be dipped in, &c. It is true there is no preposition at all used before fire, and therefore it might be said in relation to it, that we might render it in that way which would make the best sense. There are two things here which should be noticed. The first is, that the same signification should be attached to an indefinite preposition expressed as must be attached to the word without the preposition ; otherwise, there will be no connection. It would not do clearly to say, He shall dip you in the Holy Ghost and with fire. In the second place, If the syntax of the Greek language and the scope of the place would require that puri [fire] without a preposition should be read with fire as demoting the instrument of purification and not the place in which, then it must also be evident, that udari [water] standing in the same connection and case, should be in the same way translated [i.e., with water]. Let any man then, at all acquainted with the Greek, look at the passages cited, and he will at once see that in this way, the meaning of the preposition in this place must be with, as denoting the instrumentality of the substance to which it is prefixed. But if this be obscure to some who are unacquainted with biblical criticism, let them but attend to the fact, viz. that when the prediction was fulfilled, it was not by immersion, but by affusion. The disciples were baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire on the day of Pentecost. How was this done? Were they dipped in the Holy Ghost?—dipped in fire? No, the inspired Apostle declares cloven tongues like as of fire sat upon each of them, and moreover declares that now was accomplished the ancient prophecy, “I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh. Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

Thus you see, by comparing one part of the history of John’s baptism with another, and all the parts of it with the antitype or that which it prefigured, it is pretty evident that dipping, or immersion was not the mode of its administration. But what renders it still more improbable that they were baptized by dipping is this, “They were baptized, confessing their sins.” John seems to have been teaching them, and they confessing, while the ordinance was administered. Now we know when a man dips he has his hands pretty full of business without teaching, and the subjects have other employment for their lips than to confess their sins. This circumstance then upon record, renders it very improbable that he dipped them. If they went down into the water and kneeled, or stooped while he laved or sprinkled water upon them, the instruction and confession might be coetaneous with their baptism, not so if they were thrust under the water or immersed.

We have another text in this chapter, which is frequently cited, or suborned as a witness in this controversy. v. 16. “And Jesus when he was baptized went up straightway out of the water,” &c. The shortest reflection will shew you that there is nothing conclusive to be inferred from these words: Nothing but the positive manner in which they have been quoted, could make any person think there was any proof for dipping in the words.

Everybody knows that waters, or rivers have banks, that when you approach the water, even should you only descend or go down to the verge of the river, you may be said to go down into the water; when you recede you may be said to come up from or out of the water, although you have not been plunged all over in or under the water. In corroboration of this construction, we must remember that the baptism of Christ was not of repentance and confession, as that of others, but was a baptism of righteousness. He was about to enter upon the execution of sacerdotal functions, and so must be inducted according to the forms prescribed in Ex. xl. 12. “And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation and wash them with water.”

As he would not enter upon his public ministry, until he was thirty years of age, according to the statute, so he would observe, as far as circumstances would admit, the law respecting the mode of induction. “Thus it becometh us,” says he, “to fulfil all righteousness.” The manner in which this baptism, or washing of the priests at their instalment was performed, we are told in the 31st and 32d verses: The water was applied to their hands and their feet.

That the expression “into the water,” used in relation to those whom John baptized, and which we design shortly more fully to consider, does not necessarily signify to go under the water, is evident from the frequent use of it, in application to mountains. If going “into the mountain” to pray prove that the mountain was penetrated for that purpose, then going “into the water” to be baptized, proves that they were certainly dipped, or immersed. Further, that nothing can be finally determined by these prepositions is evident from this plain fact, that it is as expressly stated that John did baptize “in the wilderness,” as that he baptized in the river. Did he then take and dip them in the sand or rocks of the wilderness? If the expression prove this, then the expression “baptized in Jordan will prove that he dipped. If you compare the records of Luke and John, you will at once see that all the signification we are to attach to the preposition, is the instrumentality of the material, or the proximity of the place to which it is prefixed. Luke uses no preposition at all, and it must be observed that Luke, of all the Evangelists, writes the purest Greek. Of John he records that he said, “I indeed baptize you with or by water, “udati” i.e. In baptizing I make use of water, or I apply water to you in baptism. John, the evangelist, who mixed more Hebrew idiom with his Greek, uses the preposition which answers to the beth of the primitive language [Hebrew] and signifies with, by, or in. In two places he speaks of John the baptist. John 1, 26. “I indeed baptize you with water.” Luke before quoted may be used to explain in what way we should understand John’s preposition. But John himself shews that the baptism of his namesake was not always even near by or at Jordan, although it was always no doubt with water. That it was not confined to Jordan is clear, for in the 28th verse it is stated that he was baptizing in Bethabara beyond Jordan. Again in John iii. 23, it is said, “And John also was baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there, and they came and were baptized.” It has often been remarked in books on this controversy and in commentaries, that much water, “udata polla” signifies many waters rather than a large collection of waters, such as would be requisite for plunging. The very circumstance that it has been somewhat difficult to find the place where this took place shews clearly that there is no large body of water in Enon near Salim. So far as I have been able to gather from travelers and geographers who have described those countries, it would appear that the original expresses the topography of the place better than the translation; and that the meaning of the phrase rather is, that there was plenty of water to drink and for affusion, than that there was any copious lake or large river for immersion.

The third objection. The case of Philip and the eunuch is urged by the advocates of immersion as very decisive in their favour.

Let us then consider this evidence attentively. There is one circumstance in the fact which renders the case peculiarly worthy of our attention. The Administrator was a gospel minister, or deacon, and the subject was a Gentile believer: Of course we need expect nothing here but what is quite evangelical. If then it be proved that Philip immersed the eunuch of Ethiopia, it ought to have considerable weight as authority in settling the controversy about the mode of Christian baptism. It must also be observed that there is something peculiar in the case. In ordinary cases, it is plain that the administration of this sacrament should be public, and accompanied with the preaching of the word. “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every ereature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” We generally expect a plurality of auditors when we preach. Here however, we have the traveler and the preacher without any other human company. The Spirit, however, directed Philip to join himself to this chariot. It is not very likely that they had any convenience of baptising except by approaching some water.

There is another thing also here to be observed; that it is a dry desert where they were travelling between Jerusalem and Gaza. It appears that this prime minister and master of the treasury for Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, was a proselyte of the Jewish religion. It is likely that he had been up at Jerusalem upon some religious business, attending perhaps some of the periodical festivities. The agitated state of Jewish affairs might very probably affect his mind and produce concern. At any rate, he was deeply exercised in his mind, while he read and studied the scriptures. The passage of holy writ, which particularly engaged his attention, was the 53d chapter of Isaiah, and about it he was extremely anxious to know, whether the prophet spake of himself, or of some other man. A mere knowledge of grammar could not decide his question, for, although it was all in the third person, “He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.” Yet, so common was it, for men who wrote commentaries and histories, to speak of themselves, in the third person, that this alone could not settle the difficulty, Philip, however, in an opportune season arrived, and preached to him Jesus the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. The eunuch with enlightened eyes saw the truth of the passage and its fulfilment in the remarkable events of recent occurrence. He believed. While they travelled with minds strongly attent [heedful] on such a mighty and interesting subject, they came to a certain water, that seems to have run across the road. This suggested, at once, to the eunuch, the propriety of having his body sealed with the rite of baptism. Very probably he would be the more solicitous for this; because in the same connection and but a little before the verses he was reading when Philip joined his chariot, it is said of the same character on whom his faith was new fixed, “He shall sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him, for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they consider.” He was a great man in the court of Candace, felt himself the subject of part of this story, and desired to share also of the rest. He had seen and considered great things which were before hid. When he saw the water, then he asked Philip, What doth hinder me to be baptised And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Let the reader keep all these circumstances in his mind and ask, What is it in the passage that proves immersion? The Anabaptist will say, He went into the water. Well, does this prove that he went under the water? If it does, then it is said, as expressly, that Philip went into the water, i.e. as the Anabaptist explains the phrase, under the water, “And they went down both of them into the water [under the water, according to the Baptist comment] both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.” Now let the reader ask the plunger, How did Philip baptize the eunuch, when they were both under the water, before the rite of baptism was performed It will here obviously appear that the passage proves rather too much for the Anabaptist, upon his own plan of construing it. Our opponents will be now ready to say, that common sense teaches that there was no necessity of Philip’s going under the water. So we think also; but it is upon the meaning of words and verbal criticism that we are now reasoning, and if the proof of the eunuch’s immersion be good upon the phrase went into the water and come up out of the water, it must also be good upon the part of Philip. So the Baptists in order to be consistent with their own criticism must accompany their proselytes under the water, and administer the ordinance the best way they can in the regions of the deep.

However, we do not wish to insist longer upon verbal criticism. If he renounces that plea and appeals to common sense, I have no objections provided it be not the common sense of party prejudice. Common sense too, must judge upon facts and must remember that baptism is different from going into the water according to the scripture, must remember that there is no mention made of a bridge or a ferry to cross this water , that the place is a dry desert between Jerusalem and Gaza, where there is no lake nor river, but that they came to a certain water ; that there is no mention made of changing garments, but that as soon as the simple and easy gospel rite was administered, the Spirit carried away the baptizer, and the baptized went on his way rejoicing. Now, I confess, if unprejudiced common sense say, there is here clear evidence of immersion, rather than of any other way of baptizing, I cannot see it.

It must also appear evident, that if any portion of scripture can be found, which will favour the method of immersion in Christian baptism, it must be this. The Baptists themselves insist so much upon it as to shew that they think so too, and it is evident that if you take their own comment, it will prove too much even for them. If you reason upon all the circumstances of the narrative, if it be not demonstrably evident, that sprinkling was the mode, it is far more probable that it was sprinkling than immersion.

The 4th objection is taken from Col. ii. 12.

It is evident from this passage that baptism is come in the room of circumcision. All the Churches, as might naturally be expected, were harassed at that time with Judaizing teachers. These were incapable of resisting the external evidence of the gospel facts, and yet were also incapable of perceiving the spiritual signification of gospel rites. They were envious of Apostolic popularity, and afraid of Jewish or Gentile persecution. In order, then, to reconcile their convictions and policy, their views and ways, they taught a kind of corrupt system, and blended Jewish and Christian rites; they preached the gospel through envy, and, through pride or fear of persecution, taught Christians that they must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.

The Apostle teaches the Colossians that there was no need of receiving circumcision; for, in so doing, they became debtors to the whole ritual law. He shews them particularly here that they were circumcised virtually and really by being baptized. They had no need to complain that they were destitute of right rules, or suitable religious rites. All that was moral or spiritual in ancient prescription is certainly retained. For says he “Ye are complete in him who is the head of all principality and power. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision not made with hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.” The next verse is connected with the one now cited, and shews how all this takes place, v. 12. “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.”

Is this, then, the closing proof for immersion? If it be, we must see wherein its great strength lieth. There is the more necessity for this, because, we presume that a great many have derived edification from the passage, and yet have never seen anything in it relating to the mode of administering the ordinance of baptism. However, if it contain evidence and proof relative to this point let us see and own it though it should be rather occult and obscure.

Is this then the argument? Those that are buried are covered with earth ; therefore those that are baptized should be covered with water? When we are following analogy so close it would be well enough to ask, Whether the dead clothes and coffin do not hinder their entire immersion in the earth? If that is considered to make no odds in the case of interment, we would again ask, If this might not suggest an improvement upon the Baptist plan of immersion? If the subject were enclosed in a tight box, and box and proselyte deposited in a hole dug in the earth; water might be shoveled upon the box till it was covered, and the baptized’s clothes kept dry. In this way the common mode of sepulture might certainly be more completely represented than by the present mode of immersion. It would certainly, however, be advisable, if such a plan should be adopted, that the box should be a little farcical in its size, so as to contain some vital air lest the farce should terminate in serious reality as often as it now does. But we have gone perhaps too far in shewing how ridiculous this mode of interpreting the passage is. Let us see if the plain and obvious sense of it be not better, viz.: That we die completely to all hopes of life and salvation by the soul-humbling exhibition of the crucified, dead and buried Saviour.

Again—we rise to a newness of life and comfort by the faith of his resurrection. This comment is confirmed by collation with a parallel passage in Rom. vi. 3, 4. “Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism 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.” It is certainly proper that we should understand one scripture by another and one part of the same passage by another. According to this mode of comment it is evident that the rising, in these texts is not a rising out of the water of immersion, but out of the grave of a natural state, to walk, not on the banks of the river, out of which they have ascended, but to walk in newness of life.

If it should still be urged, that though these expressions do not positively prove that dipping is the only proper plan, they prove that it is the more expressive mode of exhibiting those spiritual truths and experience which baptism is designed to represent. If that itself were the case, certainly the consideration should have weight. But first, it is certain that Christ, in his baptism unto death was sprinkled. If, in all verbal and ritual institutions, then, we should have respect to Christ and him crucified, to have his death set before us, sprinkling is the best mode. Second. According to both ancient and modern modes of interment, burial is more naturally expressed by sprinkling, than by immersion. We do not plunge the corpse into the earth, but we lay it down and sprinkle mould upon it. We have already seen, that the scripture very often represents the spiritual signification of baptism by sprinkling, but never by immersion. The sum therefore of the matter seems to be this: Baptism has several significations in scripture use; the rite of course may be done in several ways. Ministers are not particularly instructed how they should administer it. Examples from scripture, so far from fixing its meaning to dipping, rather render it incredible, that this was the ancient mode. The most convenient, and decent way, allowing common sense to judge, is sprinkling, and the most significant mode, by the decision of the scriptures is sprinkling. Lev. xiv. 7. Psalm li. Isa. lii. 15, Ez. xxxvi. 25. Heb. ix. 13, x. 22, xii. 24. 1 Pet. i. 2.

Contact Us

Database

The subjects and mode of Christian Baptism.

November 28, 2019James Dodson

PART IV.

The subjects and mode of Christian Baptism.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

The Mode of Christian Baptism.

Contact Us

Reformed Presbyterian Church (Covenanted) - "Steelite" Covenanters

Database

The subjects and mode of Christian Baptism.

November 28, 2019James Dodson

PART IV.

The subjects and mode of Christian Baptism.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

The Mode of Christian Baptism.