christian wantium.
A
**.
s E R Mo N,
* PREACHED IN THE LAL BAZAR CHAPEL,
CALCUTTA:
3 &
:
:
sº
Q
g
*
se
e
:
ON LORD's DAY, SEPT. 27, 1812:
*
PREVIOUS TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORDINANCE
B A PT'i's M.
**
witH MANY QUoTATIONS FROM PEDOBAPTIST AUTHoRs.
*
t
By ADONIRAM JUDSON, JUN. A. M. r. º. Z. &
F o U R T H A M E R 1 C A N E D IT I o N,
coRRECTED AND ENLARGED. - . . . .
I, IN Co LN AND E D M AND s. ;
|
35 0 s to it:
HARTFoRD, F. J. HUNTINGToN ; UTICA, BENNETT & BRIGHT ; PHILADELPHIA, ... . . . . . . . . . .
BAFTIST TRACT DEPository; CINGINNATI, HUBBARD & EDMANDs. . . . . . .




HU;
!!!
|
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1839,
By Lincoln & EDMANDs, -
In the Clerk's office of the District Court of Massachusetts.
Girt of
Charlotte F. Brewer



PREFACE TO THE INDIA EDITION.
THE author of the following discourse was, by education and pro-
Jession, a Pedobaptist. During his passage from America to India,
in the spring of 1812, he began to doubt the truth of his former senti-
*nents. After his arrival in this country, and before he communicated
the exercises of his mind to any of the Baptist denomination, he became
toguinged, that the immersion of a professing believer, into the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is the only christian
baptism. " - -
This discourse exhibits the reasons of his present belief. It is com-
mitted to the press, in compliance with the request of some who heard it,
and through the desire of furnishing his distant friends in America,
with a more full and satisfactory statement of the reasons of his change,
than could be made in private communications.
.N. B. For many of the testimonies, inserted in this discourse, the
author acknowledges himself indebted to Mr. Booth's Pedobaptism Ex-
amined. † -,-,-, “”
CALcuTTA, Nov. 1812.
PREFACE TO THE FOURTH AMERICAN EDITION.
THE author has spared a few days from his missionary work, in
revising this discourse for a new edition. .
He feels much satisfaction, in finding, that, through the lapse of seven
gears, the authenticity and correctness of the numerous testimonies ad;
duced, have not been questioned, in a single instance. . . *
He wishes also to say, that after having seen and heard much that
has been urged, both in India and America, against his statements, he
sincerely thinks, that not one has been disproved, except that concerning
persons born of Christian parents, and not baptized till adult age.
Finding himself mistaken, in the case of Augustine, he has now sup-
pressed the whole paragraph, not because he dowbts that there are such
cases on record, but because his present situation deprives him of the
means of authenticating them to satisfaction.
The principal additions will be found under the 5th particular of the
1st part, the 4th particular of the 2nd part, and the notes marked *.*.
RANGoon, JNov. 1819.
**** Y
Tº y
$
...”
*
- ?
2 º'
A.
•
... " -
º
J
>;
sERMON.
MATIHEw xxviii. 19.
Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost. -
WHEN our Lord commissioned his disciples to proselyte all
nations, he instituted the sacred ordinance of baptism.
The words of the institution suggest two inquiries: What is bap-
tism 2 and, To whom is baptism to be administered 2
1. What is baptism 2
Had the Greek word, which denotes the act of baptizing, been
translated, in the English version of the New Testament, there would
probably have been, among English readers, no dispute concerning
its import. Had either of the English words, wash, or sprinkle, or
immerse, been substituted for the Greek word, an English reader
would instantly conceive an appropriate meaning. But, unhappily,
our translators have retained the original word, and contented them-
selves with merely changing its termination. Thus, an English
reader is deprived of his usual guide. There are no other applica-
tions of the word, in his own language, from which he can learn its
import. The only expedient, therefore, of which he can avail him-
self, is to ascertain the import of the original word: and to this end,
the following considerations may conduce.
1. The primitive word (347.1a,) from which the word denoting
baptism, is derived, signifies immersion. This, with the general con-
sent of the Pedobaptists themselves, is as much the appropriate
meaning of the Greek word, as of the English word, dip or immerse.”
This is the word used in the New Testament, when the rich man
entreats, that Lazarus may be sent to dip the tip of his finger in
* Dr. WoRCESTER. “Had it been the intention of the Saviour, to confine
his followers to dipping or immersion, the proper word to express this ordinance,
would have been, not A&ºlića, but 8&la.” Letters to Dr. Baldwin, Let.
xxii. p. 125.
Mr. Buck. “They,” (the Pedobaptists,) “believe, that the word 8&la,”
signifies to dip or to plunge ; but that the term 8&lſo, which is only a
derivative of 84*la,” &c. Theolog. Dict. Mrt. Baptism.
6
water:* when Christ says, “He it is, to whom I shall give a sop,
when I have dipped it;”; and when, in the Revelation, Christ is
represented, as clothed with a vesture dipped in blood. The inspir-
ed penmen have used no other word, beside this and its derivatives,
to convey the idea of immersion; nor have they ever used this word
in any other sense.
The word denoting baptism (32.Élić”), is derived from the verbal
of this primitive word (342 log), by a change in the termination, which,
according to an established principle in the Greek language, never af-
fects the primary idea; but when made on words, expressing a quality
or attribute, merely conveys the additional idea of causing or making.
Thus the Greek word, which signifies pure, with this change of ter-
mination, signifies to make pure. The Greek word, which signifies
sprinkled, with this change of termination, signifies to make sprinkled, or
to sprinkle. And the Greek word, which signifies immersed, with this
change of termination, signifies to make immersed, or to immerse.}
Accordingly, that eminent Greek critic, Dr. Campbell, expressly
pronounces the primitive and the derivative to be synonymous.]
* Luke xvi. 24. f John xiii. 26. # Rev. xix. 13.
§ There is no position more frequently maintained by modern Pedobaptist
writers, than that Søzºlića, is a diminutive of 3&ºla. But there is certainly no
position more untenable, and more perfectly destitute of all support from stand-
ard philologists and Greek classics.
The termination iča, in Greek derivatives, is of the same import, as the ter-
mination fy, in English derivatives, from the Latin fio, to make; as,
sanctify, to make holy, from sanctus, holy ;
mollify, to soften, fron mollis, soft, &c.
Thus,
e * e \
&yvića, to punify, from 20/yds, pure ;
f tº &
copića, to make wise, from 0.0964, wise ;
A
'yºſº, to fill, from Yºo, to be full, &c.
And derivatives are thus formed, not only from adjectives and neuter verbs,
but also from the verbals of transitive verbs ; as,
«ipša, to choose; «ipålæg, chosen : «ipéliº, to make chosen, to choose ;
s 3. \ 5.
ºpaiva, to show; ºpawns, shown; #242vića, to make shown, to
show ;
22&aipa, to cleanse; x202fts, clean; 2232piča, to make clean, to
cleanse ;
e $ e N º e / &
Éziya, to sprinkle; Ézyląg, sprinkled ; Ézylića, to make sprinkled, to
sprinkle.
And according to the same analogy ;
/ & w f e
8&zºla, to immerse; 32%log immersed; 32%lić”, to make immersed,
to immerse.
*...* It follows, therefore, that verbs in ića, derived from the verbals of trans-
itive verbs, are, with scarcely any exceptions, of the same import as their roots.
A late writer, however, with his usual perspicuity, fancies that in the above,
wº P f
I have “laboured to establish a difference between Ádázºla, and 8×zºlića, !”
| Four Gospels, Note on Matt. xx. 22. ... See also, to the same purpose
BECKMANNUs, Eazercit. Theolog. Ex. xvii. p. 257; BURMANNUs, Synops.
Theolog. Iloc. xliii. c. vi. § 2; SUICER Us, Thesaur. Eccles. sub voce
A&zºligºzcz; TuRRETTINUs, Institut. Loc. xix. Quoest. xi. § 4; HEIDEGG LRUs.
Corpus Theolog. Christ. Loc. xxv. § 21.
7
2. The word which denotes the act of baptizing, according to
the usage of Greek writers, uniformly signifies or implies immersion.
It is the word used in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testa-
mont, to express the action of Naaman, when he dipped himself sev-
en times in Jordan.* It is the word used by Josephus, to convey
the idea of immersion ; in describing the death of one, who was
drowned in a pool, by order of Herod ; and by the same author, in
instances too numerous to be detailed.|
It is the word used by Porphyry, in mentioning a river, in which
an offender on entering, is immediately immersed up to the head."
Numerous instances may be produced from other Greek authors, to
confirm this signification.|
Nor has any instance been produced in which the word, literally
applied, does not denote immersion, or washing by immersion. In
figurative applications, this word, like the English words dip and im-
merse, and like all other words, is probably used with some freedom.
But should a few instances of this kind be found, would they be
sufficient to invalidate the force of evidence resulting from the prop-
er and general use of the word P. What law will bind a subject, if
he is at liberty to depart from the proper and general interpretation
of the principal term, and affix to it a signification, which is drawn
from some rare figurative application ? Had the rite of baptism been
prescribed in the English language, and the word dip been used to
express the act, could we have entertained a doubt concerning the
meaning 2 And in what light should we regard an attempt to prove,
that it has no definite import, but signifies sprinkling, or any kind of
wetting, because Dr. Johnson defines the word, 1. To immerse ; 2.
To moisten, to wet ; and in proof of the latter meaning cites these
lines of Milton :
* 2 Rings v. 14. f Antiq. Jud. L. xv. C. iii. § 3.
f Antiq. Jud. L. iv. C. iv. § 6; De Bell. Jud. L. iv. C. iii. § 3; Vita, §
3; and as quoted by Dr. D. Scott, L. i. C., xxii. § 2; L. i. C. xxvii. § i; L.
ii. C. xviii. § 4; L. ii. C. xx & 1 ; L. iii. C. ix. § 3; L. iii. C. x. § 9.
§ *...* De Styge, p. 282. In regard to this, and similar instances, which are
sometimes adduced, by Pedobaptist writers (by way, we must suppose, of illus-
trating their profound acquaintance with the subject,) it is to be observed, that
the word 827.1%a conveys the eimple idea of immersion, whether partial or
total. Restricting clauses may teach us, that it is partial ; the absence of such
clauses, and perhaps collateral circumstances, may teach us that it is total. If
Christ had commanded his disciples to be immersed up to the head, he would
have commanded a partial immersion ; but since he has commanded them to
be immersed, without adding any restricting clause, we infer the necessity of
total immersion. The same is Inferrible from other circumstances. See the
first quotation from Dr. Wall, under the 8th particular of the 1st part.
| STRABO, L. vi. p. 84; L. xii. p. 391; L. xiv. p. 458; DIo, xxxvii. p. 64;
xxxviii. p. 84; 1. p. 492; Poly B. L. iii. C. lxxii; L. v. C. xlvii; PLUTARCH,
DE Superstit. Tom. ii. Op. f. 166; DIoDoRU’s S1 cu LUs, L. i. C. xxxvi.
L. i. C. lxxiàºl. xvi. C. lxxx; HELIODoRUs, L. v. p. 197; £schy LUs,
Prometh. Vàºp. 53; ARIST. de JMirab. Auscult. p. 87.

8
“And tho’ not mortal, yet a cold shuddering dew
Dips me all over ?”
If this principle of interpretation be allowed, it will destroy the
force of every command.
That immersion is the native and proper signification of the word
&azriča, is so universally asserted by all lexicographers and critics,
that no one scarcely presumes to deny it; and to attempt to prove
this point, by citing authorities, would be quite preposterous.
That immersion is the eacclusive signification of the word, appears
from the following testimonies of eminent Pedobaptist authors, whose
concessions on this subject could not have been affected by Baptist
partialities, but must have resulted from a conviction of truth alone.f
BUDDEUs. “The words 32×líčany and 3.xzºligº; are not to be in-
terpreted of aspersion, but always of immersion.”S
ALSTEDIUs. “Azzºliºsty, to baptize, signifies only to immerse, not to
wash, except by consequence.”
J. J. WETSTENIUs. “To baptize is to plunge, to dip. The body,
or part of the body, being under water, is said to be baptized.”"
J. ALTINGIUs. “For baptism is immersion, when the whole body
is immerged ; but the term baptism is never used concerning asper-
Sion.”**
BEz.A. “Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word, it
is certain, immersion is signified. Nor does 327.1%aly signify to wash,
except by consequence; for it properly signifies to immerse for the
sake of dyeing. To be baptized in water, signifies no other, than
to be immersed in water, which is the external ceremony of bap-
tism *#
LUTHER. “The term baptism is a Greek word. It may be ren-
dered immersion, as when we plunge something in water, that it
may be entirely covered with water. And though that custom is
now abolished among the generality, (for even children are not en-
* *...* This figurative application of the word dip, finely illustrates the appli-
cation of the word &la in the Septuagint translation of the prophecy of
Daniel, where it is said, that the body of Nebuchadnezzar was dipt in the
dew of heaven ;-an instance commonly quoted by Pedobaptist writers.
# But as a specimen, See WALESI Us, Annot. in Euseb. Hist. Eccles. L. vi.
C. xliii. p. 120; LEIGH, Critica Sacra, sub voce ; CALVIN, Instit. L. iv. C.
xv. § 19; WITs INs, OEcon. Faed. L. iv. C. xvi. § 13.
# *...* If it be asked why these learned men still practised pouring or sprink-
ling, one of their number shall inform us : CALVIN. “It is certain, that we
want nothing which maketh to the substance of baptism. Wherefore, the
church did grant herself liberty, since the beginning, to change the rites some-
what, except the substance.” Comment. in Acts viii. 38, in Baldwin’s Series
of Letters, p. 201.
Whether Calvin derived this doctrine from the New Testament, or from the
church of Rome, from which he had just emerged, is another consideration.
§ Theolog. Dogmat. L. v. C. i. § 5. | Lewicon Theolog. C. xii. p. 221.
iſ Comment. ad Matt. iii. 6. * Comment. adjºix. 10.
# Epist. ii. ad Thom. Tilium. Annot. in Marc. vii. 4, and ºf

9
tirely immersed, but only have a little water poured on them ;) never-
theless, they ought to be completely immersed, and immediately
drawn out. For the etymology of the word evidently requires it.”
CASAUBON. “This was the rite of baptizing, that persons were
plunged into the water; which the very word 3241&ly, to baptize,
sufficiently declares.”f
CATTENBURGH. “In baptism the whole body is ordered to be im-
mersed.”f
KEcKERMANNUs. “We cannot deny, that the first institution of
baptism, consisted in immersion, and not sprinkling.”"
SALMASIUs.|| “Thus Novatian, when sick, received baptism, being
ziptzvēsis, sprinkled, not 3&ºliºsig, baptized. Euseb. vi. Hist. C.
xliii.”[
Dr. CAMPBELL. “The word 32.1%ly, both in sacred authors, and
in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse; and was rendered
by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, tingere, the term used
for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed
suitably to this meaning. Thus it is #y $321, #y Tø Iop?own. But I should
not lay much stress on the preposition sy, which, answering to the
Hebrew , may denote with, as well as in, did not the whole phrase-
ology, in regard to this ceremony, concur in evincing the same thing.
—Had 32.1% been here employed in the sense of jaiyo', I sprinkle,
(which, as far as I know, it never is, in any use, sacred or classical,)
the expression would doubtless have been,” &c.”—“When, there-
fore, the Greek word 32.1%a is adopted, I may say, rather than trans-
lated into modern languages, the mode of construction ought to be
preserved, so far as may conduce to suggest its original import. It
is to be regretted, that we have so much evidence, that even good
and learned men allow their judgments to be warped, by the senti-
ments and customs of the sect which they prefer. The true partizan
of whatever denomination, always inclines to correct the diction of
the Spirit, by that of the party.”ff
* Opera, Tom. i. p. 72. Wit. 1582. f.Annot. in Matt. iii. 6.
f Spicileg. Theolog. L. iv. C. lxiv. Sect. ii. § 22.
§ System. Theolog. L. iii. C. viii. p. 369.
| Dr. Johnson. “Salmasius was a man of skill in languages, knowledge of
antiquity, and sagacity of emendatory criticism, almost exceeding all hope of
human attainment.” Life of JMilton, p. 75.
T Apud Witsii Feon, Fed. L. iv. C. xvi. § 13.
* The two verbs, rendered wash, in the English translation, are different in
the original. The first is vºboſlot, properly translated wash ; the second is
6&ºligoſlat, which limits us to a particular mode of washing ; for 6azlića,
denotes to pl #. to dip.– 827; lºgdaº'says that excellent critic (Wetstein)
**
‘est manus aftee immergere, viºlactal, manibus affundere.” JVote on Mark
vii. 3, 4.
f : Four Gospels, Note on Matt. iii. 11. 2
2 :
:
10
3. There are no instances, in the New Testament, which require
us to depart from the etymological and established interpretation of
the word.
We must believe, that the writers of the New Testament used words,
according to their usual acceptation, in the Greek language, unless
the connexion requires some other interpretation. If we suppose,
that they used words in a manner different from common, established
use, without giving sufficient intimation, either expressly, or by the
obvious scope of the passage, we must give up our only guide to the
meaning of any word, or charge them with a design of misleading.
They certainly knew, that their readers would naturally and neces-
sarily interpret every word in the usual way, unless taught different-
ly by the connexion.
Let us examine those instances, in which it has been supposed,
that the connexion renders the idea of immersion inadmissible.
It is said, that we cannot suppose, that the washings (according to
the Greek, baptisms) of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables,
or those ablutions which the Jews practised before eating, were all
done by immersion.*
With regard to the former, it must be remembered, that the Jews
were commanded, in their law, to cleanse unclean vessels by immers-
ing them ; “whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin,
or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must
be put into water.”f What is more probable, than that they abused
the first institution of this ceremony, by superstitiously immersing a
variety of articles, not included in the divine command?
That the Jews, on returning from market, immersed themselves
before eating, may appear improbable to an inhabitant of the north
of Europe or America ; but not to you, my brethren, who are ac-
quainted with the customs of these eastern countries, and witness the
frequent ceremonial immersion of the natives.
But that these baptisms were really immersions, and, therefore,
that the use of the word, in these instances, instead of weakening,
must confirm the belief, that it always means immersion, appears
from the following testimonies.
GROTIUS. “They cleansed themselves from defilement, contracted
in the market, not by washing the hands merely, but by immersing
the body.”f
ScALIGER. “The more superstitious part of them” (the Jews,)
“every day, before they sat down to meat, dipped the whole body.
Hence the Pharisees’ admiration at Christ, Luke xi. 38.”S
RABB1 MAIMONIDEs. “Wherever in the law, washing of the flesh,
or of the clothes is mentioned, it means nothing else, than the dip-
ping of the whole body in a laver; for if any man dips himself all
over, except the tip of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness.”
Jºe,
3: .
* Mark vii. 3, 4. f Lev. xi. 32. # Annot. #. vii. 3, 4.
§ De Emend. Templ. L. vi. p. 771.
| Hilchof. MŽkvaot.C. i. Sect. ii.
dº º tº
* *
*
º © .
:
.
11
“A bed that is wholly defiled, if a man dips it part by part, it is
pure.”
It is said, that the three thousand, converted on the day of Pente-
cost, f could not have been baptized by immersion the same day.
Admitting that they were all baptized the same day, which, how.
ever, is not asserted, it remains to be proved, that the twelve apostles
were not assisted by others. In the preceding chapter, we are in-
formed that the number of disciples together, was one hundred and
twenty, among whom were doubtless many of the seventy, appointed
by Christ himself. And after it is proved, that the twelve apostles
were alone concerned in administering the ordinance, the expedition
with which some modern baptisms of large numbers have been ac-
tually performed, relieves the subject from all possible difficulty.
Another objection is thus stated: “At dead of might, in the city of
Philippi, the jailer and all his, were baptized by Paul and Silas.i.
Is it to be believed, that, in a city guarded by Roman centinels, the
prisoners, Paul and Silas, when their jailer had received a strict
charge, at his peril, to keep them safely, would, nevertheless, take
him and his family abroad, in the might, just after the whole city had
been roused by an earthquake, and go to a pond, or a river, to bap-
tize them by immersion ?”S 2
This case can present no difficulty to the minds of any of you, my
brethren, who may have been within the yard of the prison in this
city, or are acquainted with the fact, that prison yards, in the east,
as well as the yards and gardens of private houses, are usually furnish-
ed with tanks of water.
It is said again, with reference to the rites of cleansing, under the
Jewish dispensation, that, “by the apostle to the Hebrews, these
various purifications, or sprinklings, are expressly called (32°opot;
Azzºlirºots) diverse baptisms.”"
This might be urged with some plausibility, had no immersions been
prescribed in the Jewish ritual. But since these were numerous, as
will appear, on examining the Levitical law,” the application of the
word, by the apostle Paul, affords no reason for ascribing to it any
other, beside its usual import.it
Another instance, supposed to be objectionable, may be thus stated.
Christ promised to baptize his disciples with the Holy Spirit;if and
on the day of Pentecost, ſulfilled his promise by pouring out the
Spirit upon them.SS Here, it is said, the pouring out of the Spirit is
* Hilchot. Celim. C. xxvi. Sect. xiv. See also, to the same purpose, IKENIUS,
.Antiq. Hebraica, Pars i. C. xviii. § 9. and Mr. STACKHous E. Hist. of the
Bible, B. viii. C. i. p. 1234.
f Acts ii. 41. # Acts xvi. 23–34.
§ Dr. WoRCESTER’s Letters to Dr. Baldwin. Let. xxii. p. 127.
| Heb. ix. 10.
iſ Dr. WoRCESTER’s Letters to Dr. Baldwin, Let. xxii. p. 128.
* See, among other instances, Lev. xv. xvi. 26. 28. Num. xix. 7, 8.
# J. ALTINGIUs. “Washings, the Apostle calls diverse baptisms; that is,
various immersions. Those Jewish washings were manifold.” Comment.
ad Heb. ix. 10.
# Acts i. 5. §§ Acts ii. 1–4 and 33.
12
compatible with the supposition, that sprinkling or pouring is bap-
tism, but not with the supposition, that immersion only is baptism.
This objection derives all its force, from the erroneous supposition
that the baptism of the disciples consisted in having the Spirit poured
out upon them. But if the pouring out of the Spirit proves that
pouring is baptism, their being filled with the Spirit proves that filling
is baptism.
The truth is, that the pouring out of the Spirit was merely the
means by which they became baptized or immersed in the Spirit.
The Spirit was poured out to such a degree, that the promise of
Christ was accomplished, and they were immersed, yea, filled with
the Spirit. In confirmation of this interpretation, the miraculous
wind, the symbol of the Holy Spirit, is represented, as filling all the
house where they were sitting.” -
It is true, that, on this interpretation, there is no literal immersion;
but since the representation is figurative, we ought not to expect a
perfect resemblance in all points, but such a resemblance only, as
will justify the figurative application.
The same remark is applicable to the baptism of the Israelites, in
the cloud, and in the sea, which has been thought incompatible with
the idea of immersion.
The apostle, in the context, informs us how they were baptized,
not by being sprinkled or washed, but by being under the cloud, and by
passing through the sea. Is there any impropriety in representing
their situation, with the sea on each side, and the cloud covering
them, as an immersion in the cloud, and in the sea 2 Is not this
the natural, obvious import of the passage P. As to the supposition,
that they were sprinkled with spray from the sea, and rain from the
cloud, it is made without evidence (the eighth and ninth verses of the
sixty-eighth Psalm, not alluding to this eventſ), and appears too fan-
ciful, and too evidently contrived to serve a turn, to require further
remark.)
We have now considered the principal instances, in the New Tes-
tament, which have been thought to attach some other idea, beside
* Abp. TILLOTson. “It filled all the house. This is that which our Saviour
calls, baptizing with the Holy Ghost. So that they, who sat in the house,
were, as it were, immersed in the Holy Ghost, as they who were buried with
water, were overwhelmed, or covered all over with water, which is the proper
notion of baptism.” Sermons, Serm. cxcvii. See also, to the same purpose,
CYRIL, Cateches. xvii., § 8, 10; GURTLERUs, Institut. Theolog. C. xxxiii;
IKENIUS, Dissert. Philolog. Theolog. Dissert. xix. p. 325; LE CLERc, Re-
marques sur Wouw. Test, a Matt. iii. 1; CASAUBon, in Act. i. 5; Mr. LEIGH,
º on Matt. iii. 11; Bp. HoPKINS, Works, p. 519; Bp. REYNoLDs, Works,
p. 226.
f 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. # See Dr. TH. Scott’s JNotes on Ps. lxviii. 9.
§ WITSIUs. “How were the Israelites baptized in the cloud, and in the
sea, seeing they were neither immersed in the sea, nor wet by the cloud P
It is to be considered, that the apostle here uses the term baptism in a figura-
tive sense.—The cloud hung over their heads; and so the water is over those
that are baptized.—The sea surrounded them on each side; and so the water
in regard to those that are baptized.” GEcon. Faid, L. iv. C. x. § 11. See also,
to the same purpose, TURRETTINUs, Disput. de Bap. Nubis et Maris, $ 24;
13
that of immersion, to the term denoting baptism ; and certainly dis-
cover no sufficient reason, for departing from the etymological and
established interpretation.
4. The places chosen for baptizing, and the circumstances attend-
ing those instances, in which the act of baptizing is particularly de-
scribed, in the New Testament, plainly indicate immersion.
John baptized in the river Jordan,” and in Enon, because there was
much water there. Christ was baptized in Jordan, and after the or-
dinance, came up out of the water.i Philip and the eunuch went down
both into the water, and after baptism, came up out of the water. The
phrase, went into the water, does not, indeed, imply in itself, that the
subjects were immersed. It is one thing, to go into the water; and
it is another thing, to be immersed. But the phrase implies by con-
sequence, that the subjects were immersed. For it cannot be suppos-
ed, that John and the primitive disciples resorted to rivers, and went
into the water, for the purpose of pouring or sprinkling. Do the
advocates of pouring or sprinkling find this the most convenient mode
of administering the ordinance P
5. Baptism is, by the apostle Paul, repeatedly compared to a bur-
ial. In one passage, believers are said to be buried with Christ by
baptism, and in another, to be buried with him in baptism, and to be
therein risen with him."
Whether baptism, in these passages, denotes external or spiritual
baptism, it is evident, that the figure derives all its propriety and
beauty, from some implied resemblance between the czternal rite and
a burial ; nor can it be imagined, that the apostle would have ever
compared baptism of any kind to a burial, had there been no such
resemblance. -*
When we are said to be spiritually circumcised, in putting off the
body of the sins of the flesh,” there is an evident allusion to the na-
ture of the external rite of circumcision ; and the propriety of the
figure depends solely on the resemblance which can be traced, be-
tween the external rite and the spiritual operation.
When Paul was exhorted to be baptized, and to wash away his sins, #
there was an evident allusion to the use of water, in the ordinance
of baptism ; and had there been no application of water on which
to ground such an allusion, we may be certain that we should never
have heard of washing away sins in baptism.
Accordingly, none are ever said to be washed in circumcision, be-
cause there is no resemblance between that rite and washing. So
also, though we are said, in a spiritual sense, to be crucified with
Sir Norton KNATCHBULL, Animad. in Lib. JNov. Test. ad 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21;
VENEMA, Dissert. Sac. L. ii. C. xiv. § 9–I1; GRotius, in 1 Cor. x. 2.;
BRAUNIUs, Doctrina Faed. Loc. xviii. C. x. § 7; Mr. GATAKER, Adversar.
JMiscel. Cap. iv.; CAMERO, in loc. BENGELIUs, Gnomon, in loc. MARckius.
Bib. Eacercitat. Ex. viii. § 12; Mr. Pool's Continuators ; Dr. HAMM on D
and Dr. WHITBY, on the place.
* Mark i. 5. f John iii. 23. # Mark i. 9, 10. § Acts viii. 38, 39.
| Rom. vi. 4. iſ Col. ii. 12. ** Col. ii. 11. if Acts xxii. 16.
14
Christ, we are not said to be crucified with him in baptism or circum-
cision, because there is no resemblance between those rites and cru-
cifixion.*
Nor are we ever said to be buried in circumcision, or to be risen
therein to newness of life. Such expressions would be highly im-
proper and absurd ; because there is nothing like a burial or a res-
urrection in the rite of circumcision.
For the same reason, we may rest assured, that if baptism had
consisted in sprinkling or pouring, or any partial application of wa-
ter whatever, though we might possibly have heard of being washed
in baptism, we should never have heard of being buried in baptism ;
for there being no resemblance, between such applications of water
and a burial, there could have been no propriety in representing bap-
tism under such a figure.
But there is a confessed resemblance between immersion and a
burial; and since the phrase, buried in baptism, is sanctioned by
the highest authority, even divine inspiration, we have invincible
proof, that baptism consists not in sprinkling or pouring, but in im-
Iſle I’SIOIl.
6. The idea of immersion is the only one, which will suit all the
various connexions, in which the word is used in the New Testa-
In ent.
The word certainly has some meaning, whether more limited, or
more general ; and when used to denote the ordinance of baptism,
certainly has one uniform meaning, which is applicable in every in-
stance. What is this meaning?
Is it sprinkling 2 We must then read, And they were all sprinkled
of him in the river Jordan : Buried with him by sprinkling : They
were all sprinkled unto (Greek, into) Moses, in the cloud and in the sea.S
Is it washing 2 We must then read, He shall wash you with
(Greek, in) the Holy Ghost and fire : Arise and be washed, and
wash away thy sins: So many of us, as were washed into Jesus
Christ, were washed into his death.*
* But though the apostle does not say expressly, that we are crucified in
baptism, does he not say this implicitly P. He says, that we are baptized into
the death of Christ; and in the context, that we are buried with him by bap-
tism into death, and also that our old man is crucified with him. Does he not,
therefore, virtually say, that we are crucified in baptism 2 * *
This is the capital argument always wielded against buried in baptism, by
those who think they do not, like the Baptists, view things superficially, and
suffer themselves to be led away by the sound of words.
It must be admitted, that, if it is good reasoning to infer figures, we can
doubtless make out the monstrous absurdity of baptismal crucifixion, as it is
gravely termed. But on the same principle we can make the inspired writers
answerable for the most incongruous and grotesque figures, that the wildest
imagination can suggest. For instance,—Christ says, I am the door, and di-
rectly after, I am the good Shepherd that giveth his life for the sheep. Now,
according to Pedobaptist logic, Christ is made to say, that the door gives
its life for the sheep. To all such sophistical trifling, we reply—The figure is
changed, and it is not consistent with good reasoning, to infer figures, as we
do literal propositions, or to reason from one figure to another.
# Mark i. 5. # Rom. vi. 4. § 1 Cor. x. 2. | Matt. iii. 11.
TI Acts xxii. 16. * Rom. vi. 3.
15
The idea of immersion always suits the connexion in which the
word is used ; or, in the words of Dr. Campbell, the word “ is al-
ways construed suitably to this meaning.” Thus we may read, with
propriety of sentiment and expression—And they were all immersed
of him in the river Jordan : Buried with him by immersion: They
were all immersed into Moses (the Mosaic religion,) in the cloud
and in the sea : He shall immerse you in the Holy Ghost and fire :
Arise and be immersed, and wash away thy sins: So many of us,
as were immersed into Jesus Christ, were immersed into his death.
7. The Greek people certainly understand their own native lan-
guage, better than any foreigners. We must, therefore, believe that
their practice, whatever it be, affords a correct and indisputable in-
terpretation of the Greek word. Now, from the first introduction of
the gospel, to the present time, they have invariably practised irrl-
mersion. This is true, not only of the Greek people, but of the
whole Greek church, from the southern provinces of Greece, to the
northern extremity of the Russian empire, a church, which, in point
of territory and population, embraces nearly one half of Christendom.
DEYLINGIUs. “The Greeks retain the rite of immersion to this
day, as Jeremiah, the patriarch of Constantinople declares.”
Mr. CHAMBERs. “In the primitive times, this ceremony was per-
formed by immersion ; as it is to this day, in the oriental churches,
according to the original signification of the word.”f -
Dr. WALL. “All the christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about
one third part of Europe, are of the last sort,” (practise immersion,)
“in which third part of Europe, are comprehended the Christians of
Graecia, Thracia, Servia, Bulgaria, Rascia, Wallachia, Moldavia, Rus-
sia, Nigra, and so on ; and even the Muscovites, who, if coldness of
the country will excuse, might plead for a dispensation, with the
most reason of any.”—“The Greek church, in all the branches of it,
does still use immersion ; and they hardly count a child, except in
case of sickness, well baptized without it.”f
8. Not only all the branches of the Greek church, but the whole
christian world, for the space of thirteen hundred years, practised
immersion, as the only real baptism. Sprinkling or pouring was
never tolerated, except in case of dangerous sickness, or want of a
sufficient quantity of water, and in such cases, was called baptism,
by way of courtesy merely,–not being regarded as real baptism, but
as a substitute, which, through the indulgence of God, and (in later
times) the authority of the pope, would answer the ends of baptism.
Never, by any christians, in any age, was sprinkling or pouring al-
lowed in common cases, until the council of Ravenna, assembled by
the pope, in the year thirteen hundred and eleven, declared immer-
sion or pouring to be indifferent. From that time, the latter gradu-
ally came into general use. It was not, however, admitted into En-
gland, till the middle of the sixteeeth century, and not sanctioned
* De Prudent. Pastoral. Pars. iii. C. iii. § 26.
# Cyclopaedia, Art. Baptism. Edit. 7th.
# Hist, of Inf. Bap. Partii. C. ix. p. 477.
16
till the middle of the seventeenth ; when the Westminster assembly,
influenced by Dr. Lightfoot, decided, that “ dipping of the person in
water, is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered, by pour-
ing or sprinkling water upon the person.” -
As the truth of these assertions, concerning the practice of the
church, must be established by testimony, independently of argumen-
tation, I hope to be excused for the number and length of the follow-
ing quotations, from Pedobaptist authors of acknowledged authority.
GROTIUs. “That baptism used to be performed by immersion,
and not by pouring, appears both from the proper signification of
the word, and the places chosen for the administration of the rite,
John iii. 23; Acts viii. 38; and also from the many allusions of the
apostles, which cannot be referred to sprinkling, Rom. vi. 3, 4 ; Col.
ii. 12.”;
VITRINGA. “The act of baptizing is the immersion of believers in
water. This expresses the force of the word. Thus also it was
performed by Christ and the apostles.”f .
CURCELLOEUs. “Baptism was performed by plunging the whole
body into water, and not by sprinkling a few drops, as is now the
practice. Nor did the disciples, that were sent out by Christ, admin-
ister baptism afterwards, in any other way.”$
WESTMINSTER Ass EMBLY of DIVINEs. “Buried with him by bap-
tism. See Col. ii. 12. In this phrase, the apostle seemeth to allude
to the ancient manner of baptism, which was to dip the parties bap-
tized, and, as it were, to bury them under the water.”||
CALVIN. “From these words, John iii. 23, it may be inferred,
that baptism was administered by John and Christ, by plunging the
whole body under water. Here we perceive how baptism was ad-
ministered among the ancients; for they immersed the whole body
in water.” I -
Mr. BAILEY. “Baptism, in strictness of speech, is that kind of
ablution or washing, which consists in dipping ; and when applied
to the christian institution, so called, it was used by the primitive
christians, in no other sense than that of dipping, as the learned Gro-
tius and Casaubon well observe.”
Dr. WALL.H. “We should not know by these accounts,” (John iii.
23 : Mark i. 5; Acts viii. 38) whether the whole body of the bap-
tized was put under water, head and all, were it not for two later
* Confession, Chap. xxviii. 3.
f Apud Poli Sinops. ad Matt. iii. 6.
f.Aphorismi Sanct. Theolog. Aph. 884.
§ Relig. Christ. Institut. L. v. C. ii.
| Annot. on Rom. vi. 4. See also, to the same purpose, Bp. PEARCE, JVote
on 1 Cor. xv. 29; and Bp. BURNET, Expos. xxxix. Articles, p. 374.
T In Joan iii. 23. Comment. in Act viii. 38.
* Dictionary, Dr. Scott's Edit. 1772.
# In a general convocation of the English clergy, Feb. 9, 1706, it was or-
dered, “that the thanks of this house be given to Mr. Wall, vicar of Shore-
ham in Kent, for the learned and excellent book he hath lately written, con-
cerning infant baptism.” In Dr. Baldwin's Bap. of Believers only, Part li.
Sectiv. p. 91.
17
proofs, which seem to me to put it out of the question. One, that
St. Paul does twice, in an allusive way of speaking, call baptism a
burial, which allusion is not so proper, if we conceive them to have
gone into the water, only up to the armpits, &c. as it is, if their whole
body was immersed. The other, the custom of the near succeeding
times.—As for sprinkling, I say, as Mr. Blake, at its first coming up
in England, Let them defend it, that wse it.”
Mr. BINGHAM. “There are a great many passages in the epistles
of St. Paul, which plainly refer to this custom” (immersion.) “As
this was the original apostolical practice ; so it continued to be the whi-
versal practice of the church, for many ages, upon the same symbolical
reasons, as it was first used by the apostles. It appears from Epip-
hanius and others, that almost all heretics who retained any baptism,
retained immersion also. The only heretics, against whom this
charge” (of not baptizing by a total immersion) “is brought, were th
Eunomians, a branch of the Arians.”f -
Dr. ToweR son. “But, therefore, as there is so much the more
reason, to represent the rite of immersion, as the only legitimate rite
of baptism, because the only one, that can answer the ends of its in-
stitution, and those things which were to be signified by it; so espe-
cially, if (as is well known, and undoubtedly of great force) the gener-
al practice of the primitive church was agreeable thereto, and the
practice of the Greek church, to this very day. For who can think,
either the one, or the other, would have been so tenacious of so
troublesome a rite, were it not, that they were well assured, as they
of the primitive church might very well be, of its being the only insti-
tuted and legitimate one P’ſ .
WENEMA. “It is, without controversy, that baptism, in the primi-
tive church, was administered by immersion into water, and not by
sprinkling. The essential act of baptizing, in the second century,
consisted, not in sprinkling, but in immersion into water, in the name
of each person in the Trinity. Concerning immersion, the words and
phrases that are used, sufficiently testify ; and that it was performed
in a river, a pool, or a fountain. To the essential rites of baptism, in
the third century, pertained immersion, and not aspersion, except in
cases of necessity, and it was accounted a half-perfect baptism. Immer-
sion, in the fourth century, was one of those acts that were consid-
ered as essential to baptism:—nevertheless, aspersion was used in the
last moments of life, on such as were called clinics, and also, where
there was not a sufficient quantity of water.”$
SALMAsius. “The ancients did not baptize, otherwise than by
immersion, either once or thrice ; except clinics, or persons confined
to their beds, who were baptized in a manner of which they were
capable ; not in the entire laver, as those who plunge the head under
water; but the whole body had water poured upon it. (Cypr. iv.
* Def of Hist. of Inf. Bap. p. 131, 140.
# Origines Eccles. B. xi. C. xi.
# Of the Sacram. of Bap. Part iii. p. 58.
§ Hist. Eccles. Secul. i. § 138; Secul. ii. § 100; Secul. iii. § 51; Secul.
iv. § 110. 3
18
* **-
Epist. vii.) Thus Novatian, when sick, received baptism, being
zrepºxvěstº, sprinkled, not 3&ºlicºsig, baptized. Euseb. vi. Hist. C.
xliii.”*
Bp. TAYLoR. “The custom of the ancient churches was not
sprinkling, but immersion ; in pursuance of the sense of the word
(baptize) in the commandment, and the example of our blessed Sa-
viour. Now this was of so sacred account in their esteem, that they
did not account it lawful to receive him into the clergy who had
been only sprinkled in his baptism, as we learn from the epistle of
Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch, apud Euseb. L. vi. C. xliii. It was
a formal and solemn question, made by Magnus to Cyprian, whether
they are to be esteemed right Christians, who were only sprinkled
with water, and not washed or dipped.”f r
CYPRIAN. (In reply to Magnus.) “You ask, dear son, what I
think of those, who; in sickness, receive the sacred ordinance; wheth-
er, since they are not washed, (loti,) in the saving water, but have it
poured on them, (perfusi,) they are to be esteemed right Christians.[
In the saving sacraments, when necessity obliges, and God grants his
indulgence, abridgments of divine things, (divina compendia,) will
confer the whole on believers.”S
Dr. WALL. “Anno Dom. 251, Novatian was, by one party of the
clergy and people of Rome, chosen bishop of that church, in a schis-
matical way, and in opposition to Cornelius, who had been before
chosen by the major part, and was already ordained. Cornelius does,
in a letter to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, vindicate his right, and shews
that Novatian came not canonically to his orders of priesthood, much
less was he capable of being chosen bishop ; for that all the clergy, and
a great many of the laity, were against his being ordained presbyter,
because it was not lawful, they said, for any one that had been bap-
tized in his bed, in time of sickness (roy ay xxwn 312 vorov repuzu'sſia,)
cas he had been, to be admitted to any office of the clergy.”!
CoRNELIUS. “He,” (Novatian,) “fell into a grievous distemper,
and it being supposed that he would die immediately, he received
baptism, being sprinkled with water on the bed whereon he lay, if
that can be termed baptism.”T
. . .VALESIUs. “As sick persons who were baptized in their beds,
..could not be immersed by the priest, they had only water poured on
them, (per fundebantur.) Therefore, this kind of baptism was ac-
“counted informal and imperfect; for it appeared to be received, not
voluntarily, but through fear of death, by men labouring under distrac-
tion of mind, and actuated by no suitable views; and since baptism
* Apud Witsii OEcon. Fad. L. iv. C. xvi. § 13.
- - f Ductor Dubitantium, B. iii. C. iv. Rule 15.
# It cannot be disputed what kind of washing Cyprian intends, for none
suppºse that baptism has ever been performed in any other way than by im-
mersion, and pouring or sprinkling.
§ Epistola ad Magnum, Edit. Paris, 1643.
sº || Hist, of Inf. Bap. Part ii. C. ix. p. 463.
T Epist, ad Fabium, apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. L. vi. C. xliii.
19
properly signifies immersion, this kind of affusion could scarcely be call-
ed baptism. Wherefore, clinics, (for so they were called, who re-
ceived this kind of baptism,) were, by the twelfth canon of the coun-
cil of Neocoesarea, prohibited the priesthood.”
Monks of CREssy. “Is it lawful, in case of necessity, occasion-
ed by sickness, to baptize an infant, by pouring water on its head,
from a cup, or the hands P’’;
Pope STEPHEN iii. (In reply to the Monks of Cressy.) “Such a
baptism, performed in such a case of necessity, shall be accounted
valid.”f -
BASNAGE. “This,” (the response of Stephen, in the year 754,)
“is accounted the first law against immersion. The pontiff, however,
did not dispense with immersion, except in case of extreme necessity.
This law, therefore, did not change the mode of dipping, in public
baptisms; and it was not till five hundred and fifty-seven years after,
that the legislature, in a council at Ravenna, in the year 1311, de-
clared immersion and pouring indifferent.”f l
VENEMA. “Beveridge, on the fiftieth apostolical canon, asserts,
that the ceremony of sprinkling began to be used instead of immer-
sion, about the time of Pope Gregory, in the sixth century ; but
without producing any testimony in favour of his assertion; and it is
undoubtedly a mistake. Martene declares in his Antiq. Eccles. Rit.
L. i. P. i. C. i. that in all the ritual books, or pontifical manuscripts,
ancient or modern, that he had seen, immersion was required; ex-
cept by the Cenomanensian, and that of a more modern date, in
which pouring on the head is mentioned. In the council of Ravenna,
also, held in the year thirteen hundred and eleven, both immersion
and pouring are left to the determination of the administrator; and
the council of Nismes, in the year one thousand two hundred and
eighty-four, permitted pouring, if a vessel could not be had ; therefore,
only in case of necessity.”S -
Dr. WHITBY. “It being so expressly declared here,” (Rom. vi. 4.)
“ and Col. ii. 12, that we are buried with Christ in baptism, by being
buried under water, and the argument to oblige us to a conformity
to his death, by dying to sin, being taken hence ; and this immersion
being religiously observed by all christians for thirteen centuries, and
approved by our church” (of England,) “and the change of it into
sprinkling, even without any allowance from the Author of this in-
stitution, or any license from any council of the church, being that
3
* *.* Annot. in Euseb. Hist, Eccles. L. vi. C. xliii. p. 120. Hence, it ap-
pears, that the validity of clinic baptism was disputed, not only because the sin-
cerity of the recipients was questionable, but because they had not been im-
mersed. Such also was the opinion of Bp. Taylor, (see above,) and Dr. Cave,
Prim. Christ. P. i. C. x. p. 196. The same appears from the words of Corne-
lius to Fabius, and still clearer from the reply of Cyprian to Magnus, which
evidently implies that the objection of his correspondent was founded, not on
jºpposed deficiency in the recipient, but on the imperfection of the rite
itself.
# Apud Labbei Concilia, Tom. vi. p. 1650.
# Monumenta, Vol. i. Praefat. C. v. §4, in Robinson's Hist, of Bap, G. xxxiii.
§ Hist, Eccles. Secul. vi. § 251.
20
which the Romanist still urgeth to justify his refusal of the cup to
the laity; it were to be wished that this custom might be again of
general use, and aspersion only permitted, as of old, in case of the
clinici, or in present danger of death.” -
Mr. STAcKHous E. “Accordingly, several authors have shewn,
that we read no where in scripture of any one's being baptized but
by immersion; and from the acts of councils, and ancient rituals,
have proved, that this manner of immersion continued, as much as
possible, to be used, for thirteen hundred years after Christ.”f
Dr. WALL. “France seems to have been the first country in the
world, where baptism by affusion was used ordinarily to persons in
health, and in the public way of administering it.—It being allowed
to weak children” (in the reign of Queen Elizabeth) “to be baptized
by aspersion, many fond ladies and gentlewomen first, and then, by
degrees, the common people, would obtain the favour of the priest, to
have their children pass for weak children, too tender to endure
dipping in the water. As for sprinkling, properly called, it seems it
was at sixteen hundred and forty-five, just then beginning, and used
by very few. It must have begun in the disorderly times after forty-
one. They, (the assembly of divines in Westminster,) reformed the
font into a basin. This learned assembly could not remember, that
fonts to baptize in, had been always used by the primitive christians,
long before the beginning of popery, and ever since churches were
built; but that sprinkling, for the common use of baptizing, was
really introduced, (in France first, and then in other popish countries,)
in times of popery: And that, accordingly, all those countries, in which
the usurped power of the pope is, or has formerly been owned, have left
off dipping of children in the font; but that all other countries in the
world, which had never regarded his authority, do still use it; and that
basins, except in cases of necessity, were never used by papists, or any
other christians whosoever, till by themselves.”f
“The way that is now ordinarily used, we cannot deny to have been
a novelty, brought into this church, by those that had learned it in
Germany, or at Geneva. And they were not contented to follow the
example of pouring a quantity of water, (which had there been intro-
duced instead of immersion,) but improved it, if I may so abuse that
word, from pouring to sprinkling ; that it might have as little resem-
blance of the ancient way of baptizing as possible.”S
Let me conclude this part of the discourse, with one remark. The
question which we have examined, evidently relates, not to the mode,
but the nature of baptism. We have not been inquiring, how baptism
"must be performed, in order to be valid ; but simply, what baptism is.
If the several considerations which have been presented are sufficient
to show that baptism is immersion, it is equally clear that the terms,
baptism and immersion, are equivalent and interchangeable, and that
When Christ commanded his disciples to be baptized, he commanded
them to be immersed. *
% Note on Rom. vi. 4. f Hist. of the Bible, B. viii. C. i.
# Hist. of Inf. Pºp. P. ii. C. ix. § Def. of Hist, of Inf. Bap. p. 403.
21
II. To whom is baptism to be administered?
The words of the commission are, Go ye, therefore, and teach (or
rather disciple) all nations, baptizing them into (sic) the name of the Fa-
ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Is there any difficulty
in understanding these plain instructions P Did not Christ obviously
intend, that the apostles should make disciples among all nations, and
then baptize them P He surely did not intend that they should bap-
tize whole nations indiscriminately; but those of the nations who
should become disciples.* This is confirmed by the terms of the
commission, as recorded by another evangelist: “Go ye into all the
world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth,
and is baptized, shall be saved.”f
Notwithstanding the obvious import of the law of baptism, the
greater part of the christian world baptize the children of believers,
on the faith of their parents, or the profession of their sponsors, and
refuse baptism to believers, if they have been baptized in infancy.
Does their practice appear consistent with the command of Christ P
Christ commands those who believe, to be baptized. Pedobaptists
adopt a system, which tends to preclude the baptism of believers.
They baptize the involuntary infant, and deprive him of the privilege
of ever professing his faith in the appointed way. If this system
were universally adopted, it would banish believers’ baptism out of
the world. But leaving the evident discordance between the system
of the Pedobaptists, and the command of Christ, let us inquire wheth-
er infant baptism has any just support, either direct or inferential.
When any practice is proposed and enforced as a binding duty,
we have a right to examine the grounds of the alleged obligation.
It is not sufficient for the proposer to show, that the practice is in-
nocent, and even compatible with every other duty : it is requisite,
that he prove it binding. If one should enforce the ancient custom
of dressing in white, for several days after baptism, as the duty of
every Christian, it would not be necessary for us to urge one argu-
ment against it ; nor would it be sufficient for him to prove it inno-
cent, and even compatible with every other duty. We might reason-
ably refuse compliance, until he should prove, that we are bound to
comply. So, in the case of infant baptism, it is not necessary for us
* Dr. CAMPBELL. “Go, therefore, convert all the nations, baptizing them, &c.”
“There are manifestly three things which our Lord here distinctly enjoins
his apostles to execute, with regard to the nations; to wit, coºlevity,
Bazličew, 222avily, that is, to convert them to the faith, to initiate the con-
verts into the church by baptism, and to instruct the baptized in all the duties
of the christian life.” Four Gospels, and JVote, on the place.
Mr. BAxTER. “Go, disciple me all nations, baptizing them. As for those
that say they are discipled by baptizing, and not before baptizing, they speak
not the sense of that text. When Christ layeth down, in the apostolical com-
mission, the nature and order of his apostles' work, it is first to make disciples,
and then to baptize them into the name of the Father,” &c. Disputat. of right
to Sacram. p. 91, &c.
f Mark xvi. 15, 16.
22
to urge one argument against it; nor is it sufficient for the proposer
to prove, that every objection is groundless. It is requisite for him
to prove, that it is obligatory. The question with every parent ought
to be, Am I under obligation to have my children baptized 2 Now,
on what grounds, is this obligation predicated P
We should naturally expect, that the baptism of infants, if enjoined
at all, would have been enjoined in the law, which instituted the
ordinance of Christian baptism. But this law is silent on the subject
of infants. Has not Christ, however, left some other command, en-
joining infant baptism 2 Not one. Have not the apostles, who were
intrusted with farther communications of the will of Christ, left some
command on this subject P Not one. Have they not left us some
example of infant baptism 2 Not one. Have they not spoken of
baptized infants, and thus given undeniable intimation of this practice P
No, in no instance. . On the contrary, whenever they have spoken
of baptism, or of those to whom it was administered, their language
implies, that baptism was a voluntary act of worship, and the bap-
tized, professing believers. “As many of you,” said Paul to the
Galatians, “as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.”
But does not the baptism of the households of Lydia, the jailer,
and Stephanas, afford some evidence in favour of this practice P
As the term, household, does not necessarily imply infants, these
instances, though admitted without examination, cannot be consider-
ed, as furnishing any certain precedent, in favour of the baptism of
infants. Do they afford any presumptive evidence P
It appears, that Lydia was a woman of Thyatira, residing in Philip-
pi, for the purpose of trade f It does not appear, that she had a
husband or children. It is more probable, that her household was
composed of assistants in her business, who, following her example,
believed and were baptized. For we are informed, that when Paul
and Silas left the city, they entered into the house of Lydia, and saw
and comforted the brethren.f *.
In the case of the jailer, Paul and Silas “spake unto him the
word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.” And he “rejoiced,
believing in God, with all his house.”
Concerning the household of Stephanas, Paul writes, at the close
of the epistle," “that it is the first-fruits of Achaia, and that they
have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.”
* Gal. iii. 27. Acts xvi. 14, 15. # Acts xvi. 40. § Acts xvi. 23–34.
| Dr. MACKNIGHT. “Having believed in God with all his house ; who, it
seems, were equally impressed with Paul’s sermon, as the jailer himself was.”
Life of the Apostle Paul, Chap. v. - . . . .
CALv1.N.—“ in which also the grace of God illustriously appeared, because
it suddenly brought the whole family to a pious consent.” Comment. in loc.
T 1 Cor. xvi. 15. - -
- * Dr. MACKNIGHT. “The family of Stephanas seem all to have been adults
when they were baptized. For they are said, chap. xvi. 15, to have devoted
themselves to the ministry to the saints.” Translation of the Apost. Epist.
Note 1st. on 1 Cor. i. 16. -
Dr. Guyse. “It therefore seems—that the family of Stephanas were all
adult believers, and so were baptized upon their own personal profession of
faith in Christ.” JNote, on 1 Cor. i. 16.
23
Thus, in each of these instances, especially in the two latter, some
circumstances appear, which lead us to conclude, that the members
of these households were professing believers. It may, therefore,
be repeated, that there is no precept nor precedent in scripture, for in-
jant baptism. -
Let us next examine the inferential evidence, adduced in favour
of this practice.* tº
1. Children, it is said, have been connected with their parents in
covenant with God, and, in consequence of this connexion, have received,
by divine appointment, the initiating seal; their covenant connexion has
never been dissolved, nor their right to the initiating seal disannulled. .
*m
* *.*A late circumstance renders it necessary to make a remark, which
would otherwise be a poor compliment to the understanding of the reader.
It must be evident, that, in the above, I do not object to infant baptism,
“because it is not enjoined by any express command.” The sum of my
objection is this—There is no command—there is no example—there is no
inferential evidence, I do indeed believe, that a New Testament command
or example is the only proper ground, on which any christian ordinance can
be supported; and that it is incorrect to reason from a positive institute under
one dispensation, to a positive institute under another. But many cannot see
the correctness of this distinction ; and as I wish to accommodate myself to
all capacities, I place the subject on open ground, and say—prove it directly,
or prove it inferentially—only prove it. - -
But suppose we should say, that express precept or example is requisite to
support any ordinance. What then P Why, they exclaim, where is your ex-
press command for female communion : , where, for baptizing “adults born
of christian parents P” and (why not add 3) where, for baptizing a man over
fifty years old, or for baptizing Burmans and Hindoos ? The pertinency of such
objections may be illustrated by a case.f
A master orders his servants to mark the fruit trees, in a certain field. The
first proceeds according to orders. The second proceeds to mark other than
fruit trees. Stay, says the first, none but fruit trees. Our master has express-
ly ordered fruit trees to be marked, and in my opinion, we are to mark no.
trees, but such as are expressed in the order. Indeed, says the second—then
leave this orange and yonder pomegranate, for they are not expressly men-
tioned in the order. But, replies the first, since we are ordered to mark fruit
trees, all trees of that description, whether orange or pomegranate, olive or
tamarind, being expressed by the generic term fruit trees, are expressly or-
dered to be marked. - -
Thus when believers are commanded to be baptized, all persons who sus-
tain this character, whether born of christian parents or not, whether men or
women, of whatever age and whatever country, being expressed by the gen-
eric term believers, are expressly commanded to be baptized.
Thus, also, when church members, saints, all, that in every place, call on
the name of Jesus, are commanded to partake of the Lord's supper, Š and when
instances are recorded, in which disciples, those who received the word and
were baptized, did partake, all persons who sustain these characters, wheth-
er men or women, old or young, bond or free, being expressed by the gener-
ic terms believers, disciples, church members, &c. are expressly commanded
to partake of the Lord’s supper. - . *
But where is your express command for women? We have no express com-
mand for women, as such, or for men, as such, or for children as such ; but
we have an express command for believers; and if this man, that woman, and
yonder child, are believers, we have an express command for them, in the
character of believers. - - .
f See Dr. WoRCESTER’s Letters to Dr. Baldwin, Let. xxi. p. iii.
f See Watt's Essays Glasgow, p. 71. §1 Cor. i. 2, and xi. 17–34. || Acts xx. 7, and ii. 41,42.
24
It does not follow, that children are connected with their parents
in every covenant, because they were connected with their parents in
one covenant. The whole strength of the argument, now presented
rests in the supposition, that the covenant of grace, in which chris-
tians now stand, is the same with the covenant of circumcision, in
which children were connected with their parents. The latter cove-
nant is recorded in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis. -
“And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord ap-
peared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk
before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant be-
tween me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram
fell on his face; and God talked with him saying, As for me, behold
my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name
shall be called Abraham ; for a father of many nations have I made
thee. And I will make thee exceedingly fruitful, and I will make na-
tions of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish
my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their
generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and
to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed
after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Ca-
naan, for an everlasting possession ; and I will be their God. And
God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant, therefore,
thou, and thy seed after thee, in their generations. This is my cov-
enant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after
thee: Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye
shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin : and it shall be a token
of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old,
shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your genera-
tions, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any
stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house,
and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised ;
and my covenant shall be in your flesh, for an everlasting covenant.
And the uncircumcised man child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not
circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people ; he hath
broken my covenant.” The covenant proceeds, with regard to Sa-
rah and Ishmael, and closes in the twenty-second verse.
I now ask the Christian parent, Is this the covenant, which God
has made with you ? Has God covenanted to give you these bless-
ings? Though he may have covenanted to give you some of these
blessings, together with many others, the question must be repeated,
Is this the very covenant, which God has made with you ? If, on ex-
amining the several parts of the covenant, you feel authorized to an-
swer in the affirmative, I reply, You are under sacred obligation to
perform your part. You are under sacred obligation to circumcise,
or (if you are satisfied, that baptism is substituted) to baptize “every
man child” “ that is eight years old :'' him “that is born in the
house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy
seed.” It is in direct disobedience of the command of God, to bap-
tize before the eighth day, or to defer baptism beyond the eighth
day. It is an entire departure from the command of God, to baptize
25
a female child, or to withhold baptism from one “that is born in the
house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy
seed. God has, in no part of his word, released you from your obli-
gation to baptize on the eighth day. Nor has he required you to
baptize a female child. “Who hath required this at your hand P’’
Nor has he released you from your obligation to baptize the servant,
born in the house, or bought with money.”
But I ask again, Do you really believe, that God has promised
you the very blessings, which he promised Abraham and his seed?
Do you really believe, that God has promised to give you the land of
* Gal. iii. 28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female ; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. This pas-
sage has been produced, both as a declaration of the right of female infants to
baptism, and as a repeal of the right of servants.
It is important, in construing scripture, to adopt the very meaning, which
the inspired writer obviously intended to convey ; and not to suffer the mind
to lay hold on some distant meaning, which is contrary to the whole scope of
the context, and probably would never have occurred, had not an hypothesis
needed its support. If the latter licentious mode of interpretation be tolerated,
any doctrine, however trifling or contradictory, any practice, however puerile
or pernicious, may be proved to be scriptural.
In the passage before us, let us ascertain, what characters are described,
and in what respect, they are one in Christ Jesus.
Ver. 26. For ye are all the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus. 27.
For as many of you, as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, 28.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither
male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Is it not too evident to re-
quire any remark, that the apostle is speaking of believers only, such as are the
children of God by faith in Christ, and have put on Christ by being baptized 2
2. The Galatians, through the influence of Judaizing teachers, had imbibed
the error, that, in order to be justified, it was necessary to be circumcised,
and to keep the Mosaic law. The chief object of the apostle, in this epistle,
and particularly in this chapter, is to show, that we must be justified by faith
alone; that it is not necessary to become a Jew, in order to be justified ; for
in Christ Jesus, no distinction of nation, outward condition, or sex, is of any
avail. In Christ Jesus, there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male
nor female. If ye have faith in Christ, whatever be your descent or condition,
Sye are all on an equality, in point of acceptance with God.
*...* Here follows a new edition of the law of circumcision, or the newest
and most approved method of evading the difficulty of the eighth day—a diffi-
culty, which has annoyed the Pedobaptists from the age of Fidus and Cypri-
an, down to the present time.
“The reason why circumcision was enjoined on the eighth day, is clearly
expressed in the ritual. If a woman have borne a man child, she shall be un-
clean seven days; and on the eighth day, he shall be circumcised (Lev.
xii. 2, 3.) On account of the mother's uncleanness, her child could not lie at
her breast, or even touch her, till after seven days, without contracting cere-
monial pollution. On the eighth day, it must be circumcised. The language
of the covenant was then virtually this—Let the child be circumcised as soon
as possible. Such is its language still in respect to baptism.”f tº sº a $
Now suppose, that some modern Fidus, instigated by the inquisitive and
restless spirit of his African predecessor, should come forward with such
questions as the following:
1. Since the ceremonial uncleanness of the mother, was constituted by
the Mosaic ritual alone, which ritual was enacted four hundred years after
the law of circumcision, how is it possible to imagine, that circumcision was
# Pond's Treatise on Baptism, p. 78.
4
26
Canaan, even that land, in which your father Abraham was a stranger ?
If not, whatever blessings God has promised to give you, whatever
covenant he has made with you, it is not the covenant, which he
made with Abraham, and in which children were connected with
parents.
That the promise of the land of Canaan, was, at least, one princi-
pal promise, in the covenant of circumcision, appears from the nu-
merous passages, in which it is distinguished and presented, as the
substance of the covenant.
God said to Moses, “I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and
unto Jacob—and I have also established my covenant with them, to
give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they
were strangers.” David exhorted Israel; “O ye seed of Israel, his
servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones—Be ye mindful always
of his covenant ; the word which he commanded to a thousand gen-
erations; even of the covenant, which he made with Abraham, and
of his oath unto lsaac ; and hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a
restricted to the eighth day, because of the ceremonial uncleanness of the
mother, especially when we consider, that just the reverse of this is the fact,
viz. that the ritual, in limiting the uncleanness of the mother to seven days,
in case of a male child, was evidently modified to suit the previously estab-
lished law of circumcision,-this interpretation being singularly confirmed,
by the circumstance, that, in the case of a female child, where the law of
circumcision did not interfere, the uncleanness was extended to fourteen
days P
; Suppose, however, and it is the only supposable case, that circumcision
was restricted to the eighth day, in view of the future ceremonial uncleanness
of the mother, since this uncleanness could no more exist and operate, be-
fore the Mosaic ritual was enacted, than it could after the ritual was abolish-
ed, how stood the case of father Abraham, and all his descendants, who lived
during the four hundred years preceding the Mosaic dispensation ? Were
they not highly criminal, in pertinaciously delaying circumcision, until the
eighth day, without any assignable reason, and in direct violation of the cov-
enant, the language of which is virtually this, Let the child be circumcised
as soon as possible 2
3. But admitting that these questions are irrelevant, and that the language
of the covenant is virtually as stated, in the revised edition, let me inquire,
how stands our own case ? Since the ceremonial uncleanness of the mother
is now abolished, is it justifiable to delay baptism a single day, or even a
single hour, except in case of absolute impossibility ? Can the prevailing
practice of delaying baptism, not merely for eight days, but for an indefinite
period, be sufficiently denounced 2 And if through the wilful and criminal
neglect of the parents, the child happens to die, without receiving the sealing
ordinance, whither but I forbear.
We will now suppose, in order to settle the difficulty, in a still more ex-
peditious manner, (I crave pardon for my presumption), that the shade of
Cyprian, perturbed by the scrupulosity of this modern Fidus, appears before
us, in the same venerable form, in which he presided in the council of
Carthage, and thus decides the matter? Let all things be done decently and
in order: from which passage it is plain, that as we live under a new and
liberal dispensation, the eighth day means an indefinite period, and the
Ianguage of the covenant is virtually this—Let the child be circumcised, that is,
baptized, as soon as convenient to all parties. Query : Which is preferable,
the reason here given by the shade of Cyprian, or the reasons which he actu-
ally gave, in the year 256 2–a taste of which the reader shall be indulged
with in due time, and then he will be ahle to make his choice.
* Exod. vi. 3, 4.
27
law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant, saying, Unto thee will I
give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance.” The same senti-
ment prevailed in the time of Nehemiah ; for on a day of fasting, the
whole congregation of Israel addressed God in prayer: “Thou art
the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram—and madest a covenant
with him to give the land of the Canaanites—to his seed.”
The covenant of grace does not contain this promise. When we
contemplate two covenants, and see that one principal article, contain-
ed in the one, is not contained in the other, by what singular process
can the mind be brought to the conclusion, that these two covenants,
so palpably different and distinct, are one and the same 2
But it is urged, that “the covenant made with Abraham, is express-
ly declared to be an everlasting, or perpetual covenant ; a covenant
to continue to the latest generation.”f
And was not the land of Canaan given to Abraham and his seed,
for an “everlasting possession ?” Even when the covenant is repre-
Sented as “the word, which God commanded to a thousand genera-
tions,” the promise of the land of Canaan is brought forward, as
the chief thing, yea, as the very sum and substance of this everlast-
ing covenant.
So also the priesthood was confirmed to Phinehas and his seed, in
an everlasting covenant.S So also the feast of expiation, on the tenth
day of the seventh month, was established by a statute, which was
declared to be an everlasting statute.| - -
It is urged, that the covenant “ comprised all the blessings and
privileges ever promised to believers and the church.”
Whether this be true or not, since it comprised one blessing, which
is not eomprised in the covenant of grace, it cannot be the same cove-
nant. But is it true P
The two principal promises, made to the seed of Abraham, are,
that God would give them the land of Canaan, and that he would
be their God. What is the import of the latter promise 2
Is there any absurdity in saying, that God was the God, not only
of the few pious descendants of Abraham, but of the nation of Israel
at large P Was he not the God of the Jews, in a sense, in which he
was not the God of the Gentiles P Did he not select the posterity of
Abraham, in the line of Isaac and Jacob, and distinguished them
above all other nations P Did he not protect them from their enemies,
and grant them a rich abundance of temporal blessings? Did he not
give thern his law, and establish among them his worship, and the
ordinances of his house ? Did he not, by these spiritual advantages,
furnish them with opportunities, which no other nation enjoyed, of
obtaining him, as their spiritual portion ? Is there any absurdity in
saying, that, in these respects, he was the God of the nation at large 2
If not, is there any absurdity in supposing, that his promise imported,
that he would be their God, in these respects 2
*1 Chron. xvi. 13–18. i Neh. ix. 7, 8.
# Dr. WoRCESTER’s Two Discourses, Disc. 1. p. 27.
§ Num. xxv. 13. - | Lev. xvi. 34.
28
God is represented, in the scriptures, as the God of his people, in
different senses. When, in the new covenant, he promises to put
his laws in their mind, and to write them in their hearts, and to be
to them a God,” the promised renewal of heart shows, that the latter
promise imports, that he will be the spiritual portion of his people.
When, in the Revelation, it is promised, that God will be with men,
and be their God, the connexion shows, that the promise imports
that he will be their eternal portion. When, in the covenant of cir-
cumcision, he promised to be the God of the seed of Abraham, the
connexion of this promise with other promises, and the manner of
fulfilment, show, that the promise imported, that he would multiply
and protect them ; that he would grant them an abundance of tem-
poral blessings; and that he would distinguish them above all other
nations, by spiritual advantages. -
The seed to which the land of Canaan was promised, was most
evidently, the lineal descendants of Abraham. To the same seed
the Ilord promised to be a God. Mark the terms of the promises:
“I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein
thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting posses-
sion ; and I will be their God.” But he was not their God, in a spirit-
ual sense. It appears from their history, that, in every age, a remnant
only were truly pious.
Those who maintain, that he promised to be the spiritual portion
of the seed of Abraham, are obliged to explain the promise to mean,
that God would be the God of some of the seed of Abraham. Is this
a fair explanation ? Is it not using undue freedom with the word of
God? Is it not indeed frittering away the plain import of scripture ?
Suppose that a king should promise peculiar privileges to a faithful
subject and his posterity; not all or some, but simply, his posterity.
Would not the subject be authorized to expect, that all his posterity
would enjoy these privileges P Suppose that it should appear, that
the king actually conferred certain peculiar privileges, on all the pos-
terity, excepting those who refused his kindness. Suppose farther,
that it should appear, that the king had selected, from among his sub-
jects, a number, in which were some of the posterity of the faithful
subject, and raised them to nobility. Would there be any doubt, con-
cerning the import of the king’s promise to his faithful subject 2
Could it be urged, with any appearance of probability, that, when he
promised peculiar privileges, to the posterity of this subject, he did
not intend those which he actually conferred on them, but that mobili-
ty, which he conferred on a very few of them P
God covenanted to give the land of Canaan and his favour, to the
posterity of Abraham, in the line of Isaac. That his posterity were
not to come into immediate possession of the land, had been previously
stipulated. God faithfully performed his promises. He conſerred
the blessings promised, on the posterity of Abraham, in the line of
Isaac, excepting those only, who rejected his kindness. A refusal to
accept a promised favour, always releases the promiser from his ob-
ligation, unloss (is it necessary to add P) the promised favour includes
* Heb. viii. 10. # Rev. xxi. 3. f Gen. xv. 13–16.
29
such a diposition of heart, as precludes refusal. Esau and his poster-
ity, as well as many of the posterity of Jacob, refused to accept the
Lord as their God; not merely, as their spiritual portion, but as their
God in the sense promised. They acknowledged and worshipped
other gods. The Israelites frequently forsook God; and he as fre-
Quently forsook them. But when they repented and returned to him,
he remembered his covenant, and delivered them from their distresses.
At length, they rejected him, in the most decided manner, by reject-
ing his Son. They would not have him to reign over them. Since
that time, God has ſorsaken them. But when they shall repent and
return, God will again remember his covenant. The manner, how-
ever, in which he will restore his favour, though intimated in the
prophecies, can be learned from the event only.
What is the ground taken by the advocates of the coyenant of
circumcision ? Do they say, that God promised to be the God of
Abraham's seed, in a spiritual sense, if they accepted the promise ?
“This would be a complete abandonment of their argument. For it
would place such, as claim interest in the covenant of circumcision,
exactly upon a level with all others. God has engaged to save all
who reverence, worship and obey him, though Abraham be ignorant
of them, and Israel acknowledge them not.”
Do they say, that the promise imported, “that, on condition of faith
and fidelity on Abraham’s part, in respect to his children, they should
become subjects of grace, and heirs of the blessings of the covenant?”
But have we a right to make conditions, which God has not made 2
Have we a right to take his covenant, and fashion it to suit our pre-
conceived, favourite sentiments? God did not promise, I will be a
God to thy seed, on condition of faith and fidelity on thy part, in re-
spect to thy seed. Neither in this covenant, nor in any of his com-
munications with Abraham, did God inform him, that the grand con-
dition, on which he would be a God to his seed, was fidelity on his
part, in respect to his seed.}
But it is said, that, in this covenant, God required Abraham to walk
before him, and to be perfect.
* Dr. WoRCESTER’s Two Discourses, Disc. 1, p. 36.
f Gen. xviii. 19. For I know him, that he will command his children, and his
household after him; and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and
judgment ; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken
of him. Much stress has been laid on the auxiliary shall, as implying an
engagement to the family of Abraham, in consequence of his fidelity in
instructing them. In the original, the grammatical construction of the
verb Yºn? Yº, rendered they shall keep, is precisely of the same import, as the
grammatical construction of the preceding verb Tºº?, rendered he will com-
mand. No reason, therefore, can be given, why the verbs should not be con-
structed similarly in the translation. For the same reason, that the preceding
verb is rendered will command, ought the following to be rendered will keep.
This passage appears to contain a prediction, rather than an engagement.
God foresaw that Abraham would be faithful in instructing his family; that
they would observe the requirements taught them ; and that, with a view to
this obedience, both on the part of Abraham, and his family, it would be suita-
ble for him to bestow on them the promised blessings.
30
Is this a condition of the covenant P Did God suspend the perform-
ance of his promises, on the perfection of Abraham P. Surely, then,
this was not the covenant of grace. Under the new dispensation,
we are indeed commanded to love God with all the heart, and to be
perfect in holiness. God requires this of all mankind, under every
dispensation. It would be derogatory to his character to require less.
But this is not a condition of the covenant of grace. The blessings
of the covenant are not suspended on such a condition. If we are
interested in Christ by faith, notwithstanding our imperfections and
sins, God will be our God through grace. Yet the author above-cited,
says, “To become entitled to the blessings of the covenant, Abraham
must walk before God, and be perfect.” If so, this covenant was
certainly not the covenant of grace. It might be expected, therefore,
that the advocates of this covenant would, for the sake of their own
cause, readily admit, and strenuously maintain, what appears to be
the fact, that this requirement was not a condition of the covenant,
or even a part of the covenant, but merely a preamble or introduc-
tion to the covenant. God introduces the solemn transaction, by
saying, Walk before me, and be thou perfect. Then follows, I will
make my covenant with thee. Then are presented the terms of the
covenant; first, the part which God would perform, consisting in
the bestowment of several blessings on Abraham, and his seed ; and
secondly, the part which Abraham and his seed were to perform,
consisting in the observance of the rite of circumcision ; and lastly,
several explanatory and restricting articles, with regard to Sarah and
Ishmael and Isaac. That the observance of the right of circumcision
was, emphatically, the condition of this covenant, appears from the
manner in which it is presented, the conspicuous place which it holds
in the covenant, and the penalty attached to its neglect. “And the
uncircumcised man child—shall be cut off from his people; he hath
broken my covenant.”
It is a popular and prevailing sentiment, that this promise imports,
that so many of the seed shall be subjects of grace, that the church
shall be perpetuated “in the line of natural descent.”
Is this hypothesis consistent with facts P Has not God transferred
the church from the posterity of Abraham to the Gentiles? Is it said,
that the Jews were rejected because of unbelief ? But has not God
the hearts of all in his hand P and had he not, on this hypothesis,
promised, that the church should be perpetuated in the posterity of
Abraham P. Why, then, did he not perform P. But this is not the only
transfer. If the christian church is the same with the Jewish, and
if the same promises are made to the former, as were made to the
latter, may it not be asked, Where are the descendants of the once
flourishing churches, in the North of Africa? Where are the descen-
dants of all the Asiatic churches, planted by the apostles themselves 2
They are now covered with the darkness of Mahomedan superstition.
Surely, we are not there to look for the church of Christ. This
church is now transferred to the west of Europe, and embraces the
* Dr. WoRCESTER’s Two Discourses, Disc. 1. p. 34.
31
descendants of those, who were bowing down to idols of wood and
stone, during the prosperity of the eastern churches.
It is true, that God regards the prayers of pious parents, for their
offspring, and frequently grants his blessing on their religious instruc-
tions. We may, therefore, expect, that, in places where the truth
has prevailed, a pious seed will be preserved for some generations.
But that this is God’s uniform mode of operation, or that he has cov-
enanted to perpetuate the church, in the line of natural descent, a
slight glance at ecclesiastical history must effectually disprove.
Let us next consider several passages in the New Testament, in
which it has been supposed, that the covenant of circumcision is re-
cognized, as the covenant of grace.
On the day of Pentecost, Peter addressed the Jews: “ The prom-
ise 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 expression,
wnto you and to your children, resembling the expression writo thee and
to thy seed, used in the covenant of circumcision, has occasioned the
supposition, that this is a repetition of one of the promises, contained
in that covenant. There were several promises made to Abraham
and his seed. Does the context lead us to suppose, that Peter in-
tended one, rather than another ? Or was one of the promises called
by way of eminence, the promise ? Is it probable, that Peter alluded
to one of the promises in this covenant, calling it the promise, when,
through his whole discourse, he had not spoken of Abraham, or of
any covenant made with him 2 Is it not probable—is it not certain,
that he alluded to the promise, concerning which he had been dis-
coursing from the first 2
The Jews were astonished at the pouring out of the Spirit on the
disciples. Peter states the event, as a fulfilment of the promise,
spoken by the prophet Joel : “And it shall come to pass, in the last
days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh ; and your
sons and your daughters shall prophesy,” &c.;
In the progress of this discourse, he says, that Jesus, having re-
ceived of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed forth
this ; and finally, he exhorts 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. For the promise is
wnto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as
many as the Lord our God shall call.” More summarily, thus ; God
said, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, even on your sons and
daughters: Jesus hath received this promise, and begun to perform
it, by shedding forth this on us, his disciples; repent ye, therefore,
and ye shall receive the same gift ; the Spirit shall be poured out
on you ; for the same promise is made to you and to your children,
&c.;
* Acts ii. 39. + Ver, 17.
# In this explanation of the promise, I am happy to agree with WITSIUs,
Exercitat. in Symb. Exercit. xi. § 19; LIMBORCH, Comment. in loc. VENEMA,
Dissertat. Sac. L. iii. C. iv. § 7, 8; Dr. Owen, Doct. of Saints' Perseverance,
p. 116; Dr. HAMMOND, Works, Vol. i. p. 490; Dr. WHITBY, Annot. on the
place; and Dr. DoDDRIDGE, JNote, on the place.
32
In the epistle to the Galatians, it is written, “If ye be Christ's,
then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Let us inquire, what is implied in believers’ being the seed of
Abraham ; and what promise is here intended.
In the context (ver. 6, 7,) it is written, “Even as Abraham believ-
ed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness: Know ye,
therefore, that they which are of faith, the same are the children of
Abraham.” Abraham believed ; therefore, they who believe, are his
children. This is perfectly in the style of scripture. The unbeliev-
ing Jews are called children of the devil, because they were like the
devil, in their character and conduct. On the same principle, the
profligate are called children of Belial ; believers, children of light;
and unbelievers, children of disobedience. On the same principle,
believers are called children of Abraham. They are like Abraham,
in character and conduct. They have the faith of Abraham.
But why are they called children of Abraham, rather than of some
other patriarch, or holy man of old, whose faith they likewise imi-
tate 2 The reason is most obvious. The apostle addressed this and
most of his epistles to churches composed of converted Jews and
persons imbued with Jewish sentiments—persons, who constantly
heard from the Jews, with whom they consorted, of the high privi-
lege of being descended from Abraham. Most pertinently, therefore,
does he exhort them : Be not bewitched, ye foolish men, with such
representations. If ye have the faith of Abraham, whether descend-
ed from him or not, ye are really his children to every valuable pur-
pose, being his spiritual seed ; for if ye resemble Abraham in his
faith, rest assured, that ye will resemble him in his reward ; your
faith, like his, will be accounted for righteousness. And thus, as
the natural seed are heirs of the land of Canaan, and the temporal
blessings, secured in the covenant of circumcision, ye, the spiritual
seed, are heirs of the far more excellent, the spiritual blessings, secur-
ed in the covenant of grace. For “if children, then heirs.” Accord-
ingly, the apostle continues, “And the scripture, foreseeing that
God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the
gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So
then, they which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham.”
And again (ver. 14,) “That the blessing of Abraham might come on
the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ.” And in the last verse, “And
if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to
the promise.”
There can be no doubt, that the blessing, of which believers are
heirs, is justification by faith ; and that the promise, according to
which they are heirs of this blessing, is the gospel promise made to
Abraham. The apostle's reasoning may be summarily stated thus:
As Abraham was justified, by having his faith accounted for righte-
ousness; and as the blessing of Abraham is come on the Gentiles,
through Jesus Christ, so that they who are of faith, are blessed with
faithful Abraham, according to the promise, In thee shall all nations
be blessed ; ye, believing Gentiles, heing, by faith, the children of
* Gal. iii. 29.
33
Abraham, are, according to the promise, heirs of the blessing of justi-
fication by faith.*
The same sentiments are contained in the epistle to the Romans :
“For we say, that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
How was it then reckoned P when he was in circumcision, or in un-
circumcision ? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he
received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the
faith, which he had, yet being uncircumcised : that he might be the
father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised: that
righteousness might be imputed unto them also.” He received the
sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he
had, yet being uncircumcised. The meaning of the apostle cannot
be that Abraham performed circumcision on himself and family, and
thus sealed his faith, or attested his faith, as believers seal or attest
their faith by solemn acts of worship. Not his faith, but the righte-
ousness of his faith, was sealed. Man may seal or attest his faith,
by acts of worship and obedience; none but God, can seal the righte-
* Dr. MACKNIGHT, on Gal. iii. 16. Translation. “Now, to Abraham were
the promises spoken, and to his seed. (See ver. 19.) He doth not say, And in
seeds, as concerning many, but as concerning one person, And in thy seed,
who is Christ.”
JVote. “He does not say, And in seeds. So rotg azrafiºcoza's should be transla-
ted, the preposition sy being understood here, as is plain from the promise it-
self, Gen. xxii. 18. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be bless-
ed. † The apostle having affirmed, ver. 15, that, according to the customs
of men, none but the parties themselves can set aside or alter a covenant that
is ratified, he observes in this verse, that the promises in the covenant with
Abraham, were made to him and to his seed. The promise to Abraham is
that recorded Gen. xii. 3. In thee shall all the families, Lxx. 7274 & ©vxas,
all the tribes, of the earth be blessed. The promise to his seed is that recorded
Gen. xxii. 18. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. See
ver. 19. Now since by the oath which God sware to Abraham, after he had
laid Isaac on the altar, both promises were ratified, the apostle reasons justly,
when he affirms, that both promises must be fulfilled. And having shown,
ver. 9, that the promise to Abraham to bless all the families of the earth in
him, means their being blessed, as Abraham had been, not with justification
through the law of Moses, as the Jews affirmed, but with justification by
faith, he proceeds, in this passage, to consider the promise made to Abraham's
seed, that in it likewise all the nations of the earth should be blessed. And
from the words of the promise, which are not, and in thy seeds, but in thy
seed, he argues that the seed, in which the nations of the earth should be
blessed, is not Abraham's seed in general, but one of his seed in particular,
namely, Christ; who, by dying for all nations, hath delivered them from the
curse of the law, that the blessing of justification by faith might come on be-
º: of all nations, through Christ, as was promised to Abraham and to
rist.”
Dr. Guys E. “The covenant that I have given a hint of (ver, 8, 9, 14), re-
lating to the way of our being accepted of God as righteous, consisted of a
free promise, which, because of its vast comprehension of blessings, and of its
being first made to Abraham, and afterwards repeated to him, and to lsaac,
(Gen. xii. 3, and xxii. 18, and xxvi. 4) may be called the promises.” Para-
phrase on Gal. iii. 16.
f Rom. iv. 9–11.
# See Acts ii. 25; also Luther's Commentary on Galatians, p. 307.
5
34
ousness of faith. None but God, can declare faith imputable for
righteousness. Abraham received the sign of circumcision, as a di-
vine attestation of the righteousness of his faith ; or, in the words of
Stephen, “God gave him the covenant of circumcision,” and thus
sealed the righteousness of his faith, or declared, that his faith was
accounted for righteousness. Still farther, God attested the righte-
ousness of that faith, which Abraham had in uncircumcision, and
thus established him the father of all them that believe, though they
be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them al-
so. Had not the righteousness of this faith been attested, it might
have been doubted, whether Abraham was the father of any but cir-
cumcised believers, in such a sense, as that they would be heirs of
his blessing, or have their faith imputed for righteousness. But God
attested the righteousness of that faith, which he had in uncircum-
cision, and thus proved, that it is not so much circumcision, as faith,
that makes us children of Abraham ; and consequently (for if chil-
dren, then heirs,) that, if we have his faith, though we be not circum-
cised, our faith, like his, will be imputed for righteousness, and thus
we become heirs of the blessing of justification by faith, according to
the promise, made to Abraham, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
This gospel promise, an ever memorable charter of all the bless-
ings which Jewish and Gentile believers enjoy through Christ, is not
contained in the covenant of circumcision, but in a covenant made
with Abraham, at the time of his calling, twenty-four years before,
and recorded in the twelfth chapter of Genesis. This covenant
was confirmed to Abraham, by an oath, when he offered up
Isaac ºf “that by two immutable things,” a promise and an oath, “in
which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong con-
solation.”S This covenant was renewed to Isaac and Jacob, together
with the covenant of circumcision. This is the covenant, which
the apostle Peter, “on the bright morning of the gospel day,” pre-
sented in these words: “Ye are the children of the prophets, and of
the covenant, which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham,
.And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.” This
is the covenant, which being “ confirmed before of God in Christ,
the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after,” and we
may add, the covenant of circumcision, which was twenty-four years
after, “cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none
effect.”%% *
But it will be said, that in the fourth of Romans, we find an in-
contestible application of one of the promises in the covenant of cir-
cumcision. The apostle represents Abraham's being the father of
believers, as a fulfilment of the promise, that he should be a father of
many nations.#
The New Testament writers frequently apply historical and pro-
phetical passages of the Old Testament, in a secondary sense, without
* Acts vii. 8. f Ver. 2, 3. f Gen. xxii. 16–18.
§ Heb. vi. 18. | Gen. xxvi. 3, 4, and xxviii. 13, 14. iſ Acts ill. 25.
** Gal. iii. 17. #f Ver, 17.
35
giving any intimation of their primary import. The Lord said, by
the prophet Hosea, “When Israel was a child, then I loved him,
and called my son out of Egypt.” This is applied, by an evangel-
ist, to the return of Jesus from Egypt, without any intimation of its
primary import. The Jews were commanded not to break a bone
of the pascal lamb. This is applied, by another evangelist, directly
to Jesus, without any intimation of its primary import.) In the case
before us, God constituted Abraham a father of many nations. This
is applied, by an apostle, to Abraham’s being the father of all be-
lievers, without any intimation of its primary import and fulfilment.
These instances illustrate the principle, on which the New Testa-
ment frequently proceeds, in applying events and predictions record-
ed in the Old Testament. We are to use their application with
proper caution. We are not to extend the parallel between the type
and the antitype, farther than we are authorized by the inspired pen-
men. t . -
When the evangelist represents the return of Jesus from Egypt, as
a fulfilment of that which was spoken by the Lord, “Out of Egypt
have I called my son,” he recognizes some kind of identity between
Jesus and the people of Israel. When the apostle represents the re-
lation between believers and Abraham, as a fulfilment of that which
was spoken to Abraham, “A father of many nations have I made
thee,” he recognizes some kind of identity between the posterity of
Abraham and believers. In both cases, the recognition of identity is
of the same kind, and to the same extent. But we do not infer, from
the former application, that Jesus and Israel are the same, in any
other respect, than that they both are sons of God, though in very
different senses, and were both called out of Egypt. Nor from the
latter, are we to infer, that believers and the posterity of Abraham
are the Sarne, in any other respect, than that they both have Abraham
for a father, though in very different senses; the one, on account of
natural descent, the other, on account of faith. We instantly dis-
cover the impropriety of extending the parallel between Israel and
Jesus, or of reasoning from the former to the latter. And is it not as
evidently improper to extend the parallel between the prosterity of
Abraham and believers ? or to infer that the latter are under the same
regulations, or in the same covenant, as the former ? -
Though the evangelist John presents the fact, that the soldiers
broke not the legs of Christ, as a fulfilment of the prophecy, inplied
in the command, respecting the paschal lamb, “Neither shall ye break
a bone thereof,” and thus, in the most unequivocal manner, recognizes
an identity between the paschal lamb and Christ, yet we do not hes-
itate to infer, that the lamb was merely a type of Christ. And we
do not feel authorized to reason from the type to the antitype. We
do not conclude, that Christ is subject to the same rules of treatment,
as the paschal lamb; or that those who partake of Christ are bound,
by the Mosaic ritual, to use the same ceremonies, as the Jews, in
* Hos. xi. 1. - i Matt. ii. 15.
# Exod, xii. 46. § John xix. 86.
36
partaking of the paschal lamb. Yet this may be proved, by the same
kind of reasoning, as it can be proved, from the allusion of the apos-
tle, under consideration, that believers are subject to the same regu-
lations, or are in the same covenant, as the posterity of Abraham.
But in the words of Dr. Scott, when speaking of another instance of
“forcing figurative language into a literal meaning, and so grounding
doctrines upon it,” “common sense is usually sufficient to preserve
men from such absurdities, when there is no personal or party interest
to serve by them.”
Let me now call your attention to the important fact, that with
regard to the Gentiles, the token of the covenant of circumcision has
been forbidden.
When certain Jews from Jerusalem taught the believing Gentiles
at Antioch, that except they were circumcised after the manner of
Moses, they could not be saved, the council of Apostles and elders,
assembled in Jerusalem, under the special direction of the Holy Spirit,
wrote and concluded, that the brethren “observe no such thing.”f
Accordingly, Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “Is any man called in
uncircumcision, let him not be circumcised ;” I and to the Galatians,
“Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall
profit you nothing.”S
Is not the prohibition of the token of a covenant, an explicit declaration,
that the covenant is abolished 2
God instituted the rite of circumcision, to be the token of a certain
covenant, which he made with Abraham and his seed, and declared,
at the same time, that he who did not receive the token, had broken
the covenant. Such a token is one species of language. Wherever
it appears, it conveys an idea of what it was instituted to represent.
The language of the rainbow is, There will never again be a deluge.
The language of the sign of circumcision is, Such a covenant exists
between the seed of Abraham and God. After this language has
been allowed for several centuries, to the natural and also to the
adopted seed, it is finally, with regard to the Gentiles, expressly for-
bidden. God says, Let this language be no longer used ; let it be
no longer said, that such a covenant exists between me and any
Gentile.
It is urged, that though the rite of circumcision is abolished, the
rite of baptism is substituted, as a token of the same import.
But if this be true, should we not expect to find baptism enjoined,
when circumcision is forbidden 2 Should we not expect to find this
substitution clearly stated in scripture ? Yet, in no instance where
circumcision is forbidden, is there any intimation of baptism. Nor is
this substitution mentioned in any passage, through the whole of the
New Testament. It is not mentioned, nor even intimated, in those
instances, where, had it been really made, the circumstances render
the omission perfectly unaccountable. Notwithstanding the Judaiz-
ing teachers greatly complained, that circumcision was not enforced
* JVote on 1 Cor. x. 4. f Acts xv. 1–31, and xxi. 25.
# I Cor. vii. 18. § Gal. v. 2.
37
on the Gentiles, the substitution of baptism, which would have furnish-
ed a complete answer, was never suggested by the apostles. Not-
withstanding the Galatians had imbibed a belief of the necessity of
circumcision, and Paul wrote an epistle expressly to correct their
mistake, yet, throughout this epistle, no distant intimation is given of
the very thing, which must have completely satisfied their minds, and
silenced all opposition. -
On the contrary, so far were the Jewish converts from believing in
this substitution, that even after they were commanded to be baptized
themselves, though already circumcised, they continued, under the
direction of the apostles, to circumcise their children. The elders at
Jerusalem said to Paul, The Jews that are zealous of the law, “ are
informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews, which are among
the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to circum-
cise their children, neither to walk after the customs. Do, therefore,
this that we say to thee,_that all may know, that those things, whereof
they are informed concerning thee, are nothing.”
But as the substitution of baptism in the place of circumcision, is
generally considered absolutely essential to the Pedobaptist cause,
you will naturally presume, that though the scripture is silent on the
subject, and though facts recorded in scripture, are adverse to the
supposition, still something plausible can be urged in its favour.
Let me, therefore, present to your view, accompanied with a few
remarks, the four arguments, which a late distinguished writer has
advanced, in proof of this substitution.f
“1. Baptism is now, as circumcision anciently was, an instituted
pre-requisite to a regular standing in the visible church.”
Not to question the propriety of calling the Jewish and Christian
churches collectively the visible church, it is sufficient here to ob-
serve, that circumcision was not pre-requisite to a regular stand-
ing in the church ; otherwise, females were not regular members.f
* Acts xxi. 20–24.
f Dr. WoRCESTER’s Letters to Dr. Baldwin, Lel. xvi.
# *...* Was circumcision pre-requisite to a regular standing in the Jewish
church, or not? If it was not, it cannot be considered analogous to baptism.
If it was, it follows inevitably, that females were not regular members. This
dilemma cannot be avoided. Either the proposition, or the membership of
Jewish females, must be relinquished.
If I had ever asserted, that circumcision was pre-requisite to an interest in the
Abrahamic covenant, or to a separation from the Gentile world, since females
were interested in the covenant, and were also separated from the Gentile
world, it would ill become me to press this dilemma. But I hope I have not as-
serted such an absurdity. It is true, I have stated, that circumcision signified,
that the subject was interested in the Abrahamic covenant, and that it separat-
ed the Jews from the Gentile world. But I crave pardon for being unable to
see what connection this has with the subject, though the pastor of the
church in Ward sees it, with his usual perspicuity, and has expressed it, in
his characteristic chaste and decorous style. r
But suppose it be admitted (and there is no other possible meaning
wrapt up in the designed obscurity of the original proposition), that in a
general serfse, baptism is the initiatory rite of the christian church as circum-
cision was of the Jewish, what imaginable bearing has this on the question,
whether baptism is substituted for circumcision, as a token of the same cove-
mant 2
38
“2. Baptism, under the present dispensation, is of the same sig-
nificance, with circumcision under the ancient.” “As circumcision
signified the renovation of the heart, or regeneration; so baptism sig-
nifies the same thing.”
But did circumcision, as it was commanded to be administered
among the Jews, signify that the subject was regenerated P Surely
In Ot. .
In all languages, terms which literally denote sensible objects, are
sometimes figuratively used, to convey ideas, of immaterial or spiritual
objects. But we do not infer, that the former objects are signs of
the latter. The term heart, which literally denotes a part of the body,
is figuratively used, to denote the affections or the mind. But we
do not infer, that the former is a sign of the latter. Circumcision, in
the literal acceptation, separated the Jews from the Gentile world,
and brought them into a state of relative holiness. Hence, the term
was figuratively used, to signify moral separation from the world,
and real holiness of heart. But it is preposterous to infer, from
this figurative use of the word, that circumcision signified regenera-
tion. -
Admitting, however, that circumcision and baptism are both signifi-
cant of regeneration, it does not follow, that the general significance
of the two ordinances is the same, because there is a similarity of
significance in one particular. Circumcision chiefly signified, that
the subject was interested in that covenant, which God made with
Abraham, and of which he expressly declared this ordinance to be
the token. Baptism is represented as an act of worship, by which
the baptized profess the religion of Christ, and signify their fellow-
ship with Christ, in death and resurrection, and their being washed
from sin. How different the leading import of the two ordinances.
“ 3. Baptism, under the present dispensation, is a seal of the
same thing, of which circumcision was a seal under the ancient. We
have the express declaration of the apostle, that circumcision was a
seal of the righteousness of faith.”—“Of the same righteousness of
faith, baptism is now also a seal.”
God gave Abraham the sign of circumcision, and thus sealed the
righteousness of the faith, which he had in uncircumcision. But the
performance of this rite, though it might seal or attest the faith of an
adult subject, could not attest the righteousness of his faith ; much
less could it attest the righteousness of their faith, who never exer-
cised any faith. That the administration of baptism can attest the
righteousness of faith, is equally impossible. And that baptism is
an attestation from God of the righteousness of faith, has been scarce-
ly advanced, much less proved. .
“4. That baptism is come in the place of circumcision, we are
decisively taught, by the apostle, in Col. ii. 10–13. And ye are
complete in him, which is the head of all principality and pow-
er. In whom also ye are circumcised, with the circumcision made
without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by
the circumcision of Christ; buried with him in baptisu, whercin also
ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who
39
hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins,
and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together
with him.”
In this passage, we are taught, that the Colossians were spiritual-
ly circumcised, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, and
spiritually baptized, by being buried with Christ, and being raised to
newness of life.” Thus they are represented, as having passed the
whole process of death, burial and resurrection. The death, the put-
ting off of the body, is called circumcision, in allusion to the nature
of that rite; and the burial and resurrection are fitly represented in
the ordinance of baptism or immersion. But though some other
explanation of the passage should be adopted, is it possible, since the
apostle is speaking of spiritual circumcision and spiritual baptism,
both of which have been received by the Colossians, to make out an
inference, that external baptism has come in the place of external cir-
cumcision ?
A view of these four arguments may serve to convince you, how
little can be said in support of a point, which, on account of its im-
portance in the Pedobaptist system, demands the fairest and most in-
vincible proof; and may lead you to adopt the sentiment, contained
in the following words of Dr. Emmons: “Can we justly conclude,
that it is the duty of believers now to circumcise their children, or
even to baptize them, because it was once their duty to circumcise
them 2 The truth is, we must learn the peculiar duties of believers,
under the present dispensation of the covenant of grace, from the dis-
pensation itself, which enjoins all the peculiar duties which belong it.”f
2. By many Pedobaptist writers, especially the advocates of na-
tional churches, the argument from the Abrahamic or Jewish dispen-
sation, is stated in a manner somewhat different from that which we
have been considering.
Infants, they say, were constituted members of the visible church ;
they have never been excluded from the church, and consequently are
now members. + -
This argument, when analyzed, stands thus: Infants were consti-
tuted members of the Abrahamic or Jewish church ; they were nev-
er excluded from this church ; therefore, they are members of the
christian church. Is this conclusive P The whole strength of the
argument rests in the supposition, that the christian church is the
same with the Abrahamic or Jewish. How can this be proved P
It cannot be proved, by showing, that they are founded on the
same covenant; for there is no evidence, that the covenant of circum-
cision is the same with the covenant of grace.
Nor can it be proved, by adducing promises and prophecies of the
perpetuity of Zion, and her final triumph and glory. Some of these
promises and prophecies relate to the final conversion and restora-
tion of the Jewish people. Others evidently belong to the true church ;
to that Zion, which includes all the saints, who existed before the or-
* See Rom. vi. 4.
t Dissert, on the Qualifications for the christian sacraments, Chap. ii. Sect v.
º
40
ganization of a visible church, and all the truly pious, whether they
have belonged to any organized visible church or not. No one de-
nies the perpetuity and idenity of the church of God, to which the
promises and prophecies belong. In order to make the application
of these promises and prophecies bear on the subject, it is necessary
to show, that they belong not to that church, which commenced in
the persons of our first parents, and will continue to the end of the
world, but to a particular organized body, which commenced in the
family of Abraham. -
Nor can the point be proved, from the apostle's discourse concern-
ing the olive tree, from which the Jews, the natural branches, were
broken off, and into which the believing Gentiles were ingrafted;"
unless it be shown, that the olive tree represents that particular or-
ganized body, the Abrahamic or Jewish church, or in the words of
Dr. Austin, “the society of Israel.”
It is evident, that the olive tree cannot represent this body or so-
ciety, as existing under the Sinai law, for Gentile believers are not
introduced into a similar state. And is it not equally evident, that,
for a similar reason, it cannot represent this body or society, as found-
ed on the covenant of circumcision ? The ingrafted branches are
represented, as partaking of the root and fatness of the olive tree.
But whatever blessings Gentile believers enjoy, they do not enjoy the
peculiar blessings, secured in the covenant of circumcision. They do
not inherit the land of Canaan, though that was one distinct, princi-
pal promise, in this covenant. Nor can it be admitted, that they enjoy
the favour of God, in that sense, and in that only, in which it was en-
gaged to the posterity of Abraham. The olive tree cannot, there-
fore, represent the community of Israel, as founded on the covenant
of circumcision ; nor, for the same reason, can it represent the cove-
nant itself.
Christ said to his disciples, “I am the true vine, and my Father is
the husbandman. Every branch in me, that beareth not fruit, he tak-
eth away.” This may suggest the proper interpretation of the sym-
bolical language of the apostle. The olive tree may represent the
Messiah, as presented in the gospel promise made to Abraham, and
in subsequent promises, in which all the pious cordially rested, and
in which the Jews, as a nation, professed to rest. They are called
* Rom. xi. 16—24.
f Dr. AustiN. “The reinsertion of these broken off branches into the good
olive tree (alluding to the restoration of the Jews,) “can mean no less than
their occupying the place, which they held, before they were broken off.
Occupying this place, they necessarily partake of the fatness of the olive tree.
This is the blessing, the entire blessing secured in the promise. But the land
of Canaan is expressly a part of this blessing. Their being brought back
then under the covenant, must necessarily restore them to the enjoyment of
this land.” View of the Economy of the Church of God, Chap. xiv. p. 305.
If this reasoning be correct, it follows, that Gentile believers cannot be
considered as ingrafted into the olive tree, because they do not inherit the
land of Canaan, which is expressly a part of the blessing secured in the
promise, and represented by the fatness of the olive.
# John xv. 1,2.
41
natural branches, conformably to the language of the evangelist, “ He
came unto his own, and his own received him not.” The natural
branches were unfruitful, and, therefore, according to the prediction
of Christ, were taken away; or, in the style of the apostle, because
of unbelief they were broken off; and in their place the believing
Gentiles were ingrafted, and now partake of the root and fatness of
the olive tree, the riches of grace in Jesus Christ. -
Nor can it be proved, that the churches are the same, by showing,
that they are alike in some respects. Much labour has been expend-
ed, in exhibiting those points, in which the churches are alike. But
surely, two things may be alike in many respects, and still not be the
same. It is granted, that they are not alike in all respects. The
very point, therefore, necessary to be proved, is, that they are alike in
that respect, which concerns the question, the mode of introduction,
or the requisites to admission. To ascertain whether two institu-
tions are alike in any one respect, we must form an idea of each,
from all the information we can obtain, and compare the ideas.
On examining the scriptures, with regard to the Jewish church,
we find, that it was a select race, composed chiefly of the posterity of
Abraham, in the line of Isaac and Jacob. To be descended from
Abraham, in this line, was sufficient to introduce the subject into the
Jewish church. Persons of Gentile extraction, also, who were pur-
chased by Jews, or wished to enjoy the privileges of Jews, could be
introduced into this church, by circumcision. Whether any other
requisite to admission was appointed by God, we are not informed.
This church continued nearly two thousand years. At length Christ
came, and, according to ancient prophecies, set up his kingdom in the
world. He abolished the distinction, which had so long subsisted
between the posterity of Abraham and other nations, and either in
person, or by his Spirit, selected his followers from both Jews and
Gentiles, thus making “in himself, of twain, one new man.”S
On examining the scriptures, with regard to this new kingdom,
the christian church, we learn, from the formation of particular church-
es, and the instructions addressed to the members, as well as from ad-
dresses made to both Jews and Gentiles, who were without, that it is
a society, composed of select individuals, who, not merely collective-
ly or nationally, but personally, profess faith in Christ: credible evi-
dence of personal piety being the requisite to admission. Whether
natural descent, or any religious rite, is sufficient to introduce the
subject into this church, we are not informed. We have, therefore,
no evidence, that, in that respect, which concerns the question before
us, the two churches are alike.
It has, however, been supposed, that the church membership of
infants is supported, in the following passage: “Suffer little children,
and forbid them not, to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of
heaven.”
* John i. 11. i Exod. xii. 44–49. # Dari. ii. 44.
§ Eph. ii. 15. | Matt. xix. 14.
42
In the gospels of Mark and Luke, it follows, “Whosoever shall
not receive the kingdom of God, as a little child, he shall not enter
therein.” We cannot suppose, that our Lord used words, in such
different senses, in the same speech, as would unavoidably mislead
his hearers. In the latter passage, the kingdom of God denotes heav-
en, and to receive the kingdom, as a little child, is to receive it with
the humility and docile disposition which characterize children.
This passage explains the former. Of such, says Christ, is the king-
dom of heaven. Does he mean, of such in age and size, of such in the
moral temper of the heart, or of such in humility and docility of dis-
position ? His subsequent remark determines in favour of the latter
meaning. Nor is this a singular application of the phrase. On
another occasion, he says, “Except ye be converted, and become as
little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” He
certainly does not mean, Except ye become as little children, in age
and size, but in humility; for he immediately adds, “Whosoever,
therefore, shall humble himself, as this little child,” &c.;
The following passage also has been supposed to favour the
church membership of infants: “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.”$
The holiness ascribed to the children, cannot be moral holiness,
for it is ascribed to the unbelieving parent also. Nor can it be cere-
monial or federal holiness, securing a title to church membership, or
any church privilege ; for though it is ascribed to the unbelieving
parent, he is not considered a member of the church, or entitled to
any church privilege. Nor is this interpretation consistent with the
apostle's reasoning. It appears, that the Corinthians had inquired of
the apostle, whether it was lawful for believers, who were married
to unbelievers, to continue the marriage connexion. The apostle
determines, that it is lawful; for, says he, the unbeliever is sanctified
by the believer, that is, as “every creature of God is good, and moth-
ing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving ; for it is sanc-
tified by the word of God and prayer.”| In this sense, the unbeliever
is sanctified, so that it is lawful for the parties to dwell together. Now
if it was not lawful to dwell together, your children would, of
consequence, be unclean. But they are not unclean. Therefore,
you may be satisfied, that your cohabitation is lawful marriage. But
to urge the church membership of children, or their title to any church
"Mark x. 15, and Luke xviii. 17. f Matt. xviii. 3.
# Matt, Suffer little children. Mark, Suffer the little children. Luke. Suffer
little children. It should, however, be observed, that, in the original, the ex-
pression is the same in each gospel. The article is uniformly inserted; though,
by our translators, it is omitted in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. With-
out the article, the words of Christ seem to form a general direction concern-
ing little children ; but, with the article, they evidently form a particular
direction, concerning those children, whose approach the disciples were pre-
venting.
§ 1 Cor. vii. 14. || 1 Tim, iv. 4, 5.
43
privilege, as proof, that the unbeliever is sanctifled to the believer,
so that it is lawful for them to dwell together, would have been quite
irrelevant.*
The question returns, Is there any evidence, that the Jewish
and Christian churches are the same P or that the children of be-
lievers are members of the Christian church, as the children of Jews
were members of the Jewish church 2 We cannot believe without
evidence. And clear evidence is requisite to support a sentiment,
which counteracts the first impressions we receive from the word of
God; still clearer, to support a sentiment, fraught with consequences
embarrassing and dangerous.
Are we ready to acknowledge the children of believers, as mem-
bers of the Christian church, in the same sense, as the children of
Jews were members of the Jewish church 2 Are we ready to
acknowledge their right to the Lord's supper, as soon, at least, as
they are capable of discerning the Lord's body ? and the consequent
obligation of the church, to require their attendance, and to discipline
them, if they neglect to attend ? To consider and treat them, as
members of the church, until formally excluded ; and to consider
and treat them as not members, until formally admitted, are very
different things. The latter is the uniform practice of Protestant
dissenters, in England, and their descendants, the churches in Amer-
ica; the former only is consistent with the principle, that the chil-
dren of believers are church members. But it most evidently tends
to confound the church with the world, and, it is to be feared, is the
most pernicious practice, that ever infested and laid waste the vine-
yard of the Lord.
3. An attempt has been sometimes made, to support the practice
of infant baptism, on the ground of the Jewish proselyte baptism.
The argument is this. The Jews were in the habit of receiving
proselytes, both adults and infants, by baptism, as well as by circum-
cision. Christ and his apostles being acquainted with this practice,
when he commanded them, in general terms, to teach all nations,
baptizing them, he must have intended, and they must have under-
stood him to intend, that baptism to which they had been accustomed,
the baptism of infants as well as adults.
This argument would have some force, were there any sufficient
evidence, that the Jews, in the time of Christ, or in any preceding
age, admitted proselytes by baptism. But there is not the slightest
evidence of Jewish proselyte baptism, in the Old Testament, or in
* The interpretation here adopted, is strengthened by the use of the word
&ytºwog, in 1 Thes. iv. 3, 4, 7, and approved by AMBRosłº, who says, “The
children are holy, because they are born of lawful marriage,” MUsculus and
MELANGTHoN, in Mr. Tombes' Exercitation, p. 11, 12, 13; CAMERARIUS,
WATABLUs and CAMERo, in loc. VELTHUysius, Opera, Tom. i. p. 801 ; SUAREs
and VAsques, apud Chamieri Panstrat. Tom. iv. L. v. C. x. § 50; DIETERICUs,
apud Wolfii Curae, in loc. See also Dr. MACKNIGHT, who says, “I, therefore,
think with Elsner, that the words, in this verse, have neither a federal nor a
moral meaning, but are used in the idiom of the Hebrews,” &c. T &
of the flpost. Epist. Note on 1 Cor. vii. 14.
44
the New, and therefore, no sufficient evidence; for if we admit “the
perfection of scripture, as a Christian's only rule of faith and practice,”
we cannot imagine, that we are left to discover the truth of a doctrine,
as we sometimes are, the meaning of an original word, from unin-
spired writings; we cannot imagine, with Dr. Wall and others, that
proselyte baptism, of which there is no trace in the word of God, is
the proper ground, on which to support infant baptism. It may,
however, afford satisfaction to the minds of some, to be further assur-
ed that there is no intimation of proselyte baptism, in the apochry-
phal writings, or in the works of Philo and Josephus, who both wrote
concerning the laws and customs of the Jews, or in any other eccle-
siastical writings, about the time of Christ, or in the Targums or
Chaldee Paraphrases, or in the works of the Christian fathers, for
the first three or four centuries. The first mention of proselyte bap-
tism"is in the Jewish Talmuds, which were composed between the
second and fifth centuries; and the manner, in which it is men-
tioned in the Talmuds, shows, that it was then a novel and question-
able practice. Accordingly, though some learned Pedobaptists, in
their zeal to find some foundation for infant baptism, have suffered
themselves to be imposed on, by the Jewish Rabbins, others have
the candour to express themselves, in the following manner:
Dr. JENNINGs. “But after all, it remains to be proved, not only
that Christian baptism was instituted in the room of proselyte bap-
tism ; but that the Jews had any such baptism, in our Saviour's time.
The earliest accounts we have of it, are in the Mishna and Gemara ;
the ſormer compiled, as the Jews assert, by Rabbi Juda, in the second
century; though learned men, in general, bring it several centuries
lower; the latter, not till the seventh century. There is not a word
of it in Philo, nor yet in Josephus, though he gives an account of the
proselyting of the Idumeans, by Hyrcanus.”
Dr. Owen. “ The institution of the rite of baptism is no where
mentioned in the Old Testament. There is no example of it in
those ancients records; nor was it ever used in the admission of
proselytes while the Jewish church continued. No mention of it
occurs in Philo, in Josephus, in Jesus, the son of Sirach, nor in the
Evangelical History. This Rabbinical opinion, therefore, owes its
rise to the Tanneroe, or Ante-Mishnical doctors, after the destruction
of their city. The opinion of some learned men, therefore, about the
transferring of a Jewish baptismal rite (which in reality did not then
exist), by the Lord Jesus, for the use of his disciples, is destitute of
all probability.”f
Dr. LARDNER. “As for the baptism of Jewish proselytes, I take
it to be a mere fiction of the Rabbins, by whom we have suffered our-
selves to be imposed upon.”f
* Jewish Antiq. Vol. 1. p. 136.
f Theologoumena, L. v. Digress. iv.
f Letters to and from Dr. Doddridge, Let. lxxxix. p. 275. But for a full
examination of the subject, see Dr. GILL's Dissertation concerning the Baptism
of Jewish Proselytes.
45 …'
Provided that the command of Christ to teach did not limit his
subsequent command to such as were taught, it is, doubtless, fair
reasoning, that when Christ, in general terms, commanded his apos-
tles to baptize, he must have intended, and they must have under-
stood him to intend, that kind of baptism to which they had been ac-
customed. So far the argument would be good. But there is no
sufficient evidence, that the baptism, to which they had been accus-
tomed, was proselyte baptism of adults and infants. To what kind of
baptism, then, had they been accustomed 2 We know of none, but
the baptism of John. But John did not baptize infants. His bap-
tism was a baptism of repentance, and acknowledgment of Him that
was to come, and, therefore, a baptism of adults only. This was the
baptism, which the disciples of Jesus administered, in the beginning
of his ministry, as it is written, “that Jesus made and baptized more
disciples than John ; though Jesus himself baptized not, but his dis-
ciples.” The baptism of adults was that, to which alone they had
been accustomed; and therefore, if Christ, in general terms, com-
manded his apostles to baptize, he must have intended, and they
must have understood him to intend, the baptism of adults only.
4. The following quotations present to our view the last ground
to which Pedobaptists resort.
Boss UET, Bishop of Meaux. “Experience has shown, that all the
attempts of the Reformed to confound the Anabaptists, by the scrip-
ture, have been weak ; and, therefore, they are, at last, obliged to
allege to them the practice of the church.”f
Mr. CHAMBERs. “As none but adults are capable of believing,
they” (the German Baptists) “argued, that no others are capable of
baptism ; especially, as there is no passage, in all the New Testa-
ment, where the baptism of infants is clearly enjoined. Calvin, and
other writers against them, are pretty much embarrassed, to answer
this argument; and are obliged to have recourse to tradition, and the
practice of the primitive church.”f -
Also the Oxford Divines, in a convocation, held one thousand, six
hundred and forty seven, acknowledged, “that, without the con-
sentaneous judgment of the universal church, they should be at
a loss, when they are called upon for proof, in the point of infant
baptism.”S -
What, then, is the evidence from antiquity, in favour of infant
baptism?
It has been already stated, that the writers of the New Testament
are silent on this subject, whether recording the formation of the
primitive churches, or addressing epistles to those churches. They
frequently mention the baptism of believers; but preserve a profound
silence on the baptism of infants.
The Christian writers of the first century, who immediately suc-
ceeded the apostles, Barnabas, Hermas, Clemens, Romanus, Ignatius
and Polycarp, usually called, by way of distinction, apostolical fathers,
* John iv. 1, 2. f In Stennet's Answer to Russen, p. 184.
# Cyclopedia, Art. Anabaptists. § In Lawson's Baptismalogia, p. 116.
46
frequently mention the baptism of believers; but, like the inspired
penmen, are entirely silent on the subject of infant baptism.
The Christian writers of the second century, Justin Martyr, Athen-
agoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian, Irenoeus and Clemens Alex-
andrinus, frequently mention the baptism of believers; but, like the
inspired penmen, and the apostolical fathers, never mention infant
baptism.
There is, indeed, in the writings of Irenceus, one passage, which
has been adduced in proof of this practice : “Christ passed through
all the ages of man, that he might save all by himself, that is, all who,
by him, are regenerated to God, infants, and little ones, and children,
and youths, and persons advanced in age.”
As the word translated regenerated, sometimes, in the writings of
the christian fathers, denotes baptism, some have supposed, that, in
this passage, it may be properly translated baptized. The passage
would then stand, Christ came to save all by himself—that is, all who,
by him, are baptized to God, &c.
There are two considerations, which forbid this translation. First :
It makes the passage unintelligible. It is intelligible, that all who
are saved, are regenerated by Christ; but what possible meaning can
be attached to the assertion, that all who are saved, are baptized by
Christ to God 2 On what principle of interpretation is it justifiable,
to reject the natural, common meaning of a word, when, at the same
time, it perfectly accords with the scope of the passage, and to adopt
a figurative meaning, which renders the passage unintelligible P
Secondly : This interpretation will not accord with the strain of
the writer’s discourse ; or, in the words of Le Clerc, “we see noth-
ing here concerning baptism ; nor is there any thing relating to it, in
the immediately preceding or following words.”f
Now this testimony, uncertain as it must be considered, at the best,
and given at the close of the second century, is the first testimony that
is insisted on by learned Pedobaptists. Dr. Wall admits, “This
is the first express mention we have met with of infants baptized.”S
But though Dr. Wall calls it express mention, it is generally given up
as very uncertain.
MonTHLY REv1Ew. “ The authorities produced, are Justin Mar-
tyr and Irenceus, in the second century. With respect to the testimo-
ny of Justin, it requires very considerable ingenuity, to make it, in
any view, an argument in favour of infant baptism. There is a
passage in Irenceus more to the purpose; but the passage is equivocal.”
* Contra Haeres. L. ii. C. xxii.
# Hist. Eccles. Secul. ii. Ann. 180. § 33. p. 778.
# *...* Passages have been sometimes cited from the Ecclesiastic Hierarchy,
the Clementina, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the Questions and Respon-
ses to the Orthodox ; but these works are denounced by the learned, as de-
cidedly spurious. See Drs. Cave, Wall, Mosheim and Maclaine. -
§ Hist, of Inf. Bap. Part i. C. iii. p. 16.
| See particularly, VEN EMU. IIist. Eccles. Tom. iii. Secul. ii. § 109.
T For May, 1784, p. 394.
47
The first christian writer, in the beginning of the third century,
Tertullian of Carthage, the oldest Latin father, whose writings are
extant, opposed the baptism of infants, which in the words of Profes-
sor Wenema, “ he certainly would not have done, if it had been a tra-
dition, and a public custom of the church, seeing he was very tena-
cious of traditions; nor had it been a tradition, would he have failed
to mention it.” His words lead us to conclude, that infant baptism
was then a novel practice, just beginning and approved by very
few.
In his treatise on baptism, against the Quintilianists, after con-
demning rash baptisms, and maintaining the propriety and advanta-
ges of delay, especially in the case of little children, he proceeds thus:
“What necessity is there, that sponsors should be brought into dan-
ger; since, by reason of death, they may fail in their engagements,
or be disappointed, by the intervention of a bad disposition ? Our
Lord indeed says, “Forbid them not to come to me.” But let them
come, when they are growing up—when they are learning—when
they are taught for what purpose they come. Let them be made
Christians, when they are able to know Christ. Why does that inno-
cent age hasten to baptism P’’t
Several quotations concerning infant baptism have been made
from the writings of Origen, who flourished in the former part of the
third century. But his original works are not now extant. These quo-
tations are taken from a very corrupt Latin version, made by Ruffinus;
who, as Quenstedius observes, “ has used so great a liberty (as he
himself acknowledges in his prefaces, and for which Jerome re-
proves him,) that he retrenched, added, and altered, whatever he con-
sidered as deserving to be cashiered, added or changed ; so that the
reader is frequently uncertain, whether he read Origen or Ruffinus.”f
And Grotius also, concerning the sentiments of Origen, says, “Some
things ascribed to him were penned by an uncertain author, and
some things are interpolated. What Origen thought about the final
punishment of the wicked, is difficult from his writings to be assert-
ed, all things are so interpolated by Ruffinus.”S
The only passage from the Greek of Origen, which is produced
in proof of this practice, contains a clause, which represents the in-
fants, as desiring the sincere milk of the word. Therefore, Dr. Wall
acknowledges, that this does “very much puzzle the cause, and make
it doubtful, whether Origen be to be there understood, of infants in
age, or of such christian men, as are endued with the innocence and
simplicity of infants.”||
This practice, however, probably commenced in the latter part of
the second century, and gradually gained ground in the third. As
the Sentiment prevailed, that baptism was necessary to Salvation, pa-
* Hist. Eccles. Secul. ii. § 108. f Lib. de Baptismo, C. xviii.
# Dialog. de Patriis Illust. Doct. Script. Virorum, p. 632.
§ Apud Poli Synops. ad Matt. xix. 14, and xxv. 46.
| Hist, of Inf. Bap. Part i. p. 32.
48
rents became more anxious to have their children baptized, especial-
ly when sick and in danger of death.
WITRINGA. “The ancient christian church, from the highest an-
tiquity, after the apostolic times, appears generally to have thought,
that baptism is absolutely necessary for all that would be saved by
the grace of Jesus Christ. It was, therefore, customary in the an-
cient church, if infants were greatly afflicted, and in danger of death;
or if parents were affected with a singular concern about the salva-
tion of their children, to present their infants, or children, in their
minority, to the bishop, to be baptized. But if these reasons did not
urge them, they thought it better, and more for the interest of mi-
nors, that their baptism should be deferred, till they arrived at a more
advanced age ; which custom was not yet abolished, in the time of
Augustine, though he vehemently urged the necessity of baptism,
while, with all his might, he defended the doctrines of grace against
Pelagius.”
SALMASIUs. “An opinion prevailed, that no one could be saved,
without being baptized ; and for that reason, the custom arose of bap-
tizing infants.”f w
So unsettled, however, was the practice in Africa, in the middle of
the third century, that, at the suggestion of Fidus, an African bishop,
it was made a question before the council of Carthage, in which Cy-
prian presided, whether infants might be baptized before the eighth
day. The council decided in the affirmative, for the following
reasollS :— ^. -
“The mercy and grace of God should be denied to none. For if
the Lord says in his gospel, “The Son of man is not come to destroy
men’s lives, but to save them,” how ought we to do our utmost, that
no soul be lost. Spiritual circumcision should not be impeded by
carnal circumcision. If even to the foulest offenders, when they af-
terwards believe, remission of sins is granted, and none is prohibited
from baptism and grace, how much more should an infant be ad-
mitted. Besides, God would be a respecter of persons, if he denied to
infants what he grants to adults. Did not the prophet Elisha lie upon
a child, and put his mouth on his mouth, and his eyes on his eyes, and
his hands on his hands 2 Now the spiritual sense of this is, that in-
fants are equal to men. But if you refuse to baptize them, you des-
troy this equality, and are partial.”f .
We here see the primitive grounds of infant baptism, and from
this reasoning, may form some idea of the wisdom and judgment of
that “ holy assembly”—the most ancient bulwark of Pedobaptism—on
whose integrity and infallibility, Mr. Milner seems almost disposed to
rest the whole defence of the cause.
Let us proceed to the fourth century. Even at this period, we
find Gregory Nazianzen, bishop of Constantinople, “metropolitan of
all Greece and the oracle of the catholic world,” expressing himself,
* Observat. Sac. Tom i. L. ii. C. vi. § 9.
f Epist. ad Justum Pacium.
# CYPRIAN, Epist. lxvi. ad Fidum.
49
on the subject of infant baptism, in the following words:–“But say
some, what is your opinion of infants, who are not capable of judging
either of the grace of baptism, or of the damage sustained by the want
of it; shall we baptize them too P By all means, if there be any ap-
parent danger. For it were better, that they were sanctified, without
knowing it, than that they should die, without being sealed and ini-
tiated. As for others, I give my opinion, that when they are three
years of age or thereabouts (for then they are able to hear and an-
swer some of the mystical words, and although they do not fully un-
derstand, they may receive impressions,) they be sanctified, both soul
and body, by the great mystery of initiation.”
It is evident, however, from the writings of Ambrose, Chrysostom,
Jerome and Augustine, that, in the latter part of the fourth century
and the beginning of the fifth, the practice of infant baptism very
generally prevailed,—so much so, that Augustine, the latest of those
writers, adduced it in proof of the doctrine of original sin, in these
words:—“Infant baptism the whole church practises : it was not
instituted by councils, but was ever in use ;” and his opponent Pela-
gius admitted, that “baptism ought to be administered to infants”—
knowing probably, that by stemming the popular torrent, he should
lose more, in point of credit, than he could gain, in point of argu-
Iſlent. . . .
When Augustine says, that the whole church practised infant bap-
tism, did he mean, that this was the universal practice of the church 2
The testimonies which have been already produced, and the well
known fact that through the whole of his life, he found it necessary to
urge and enforce the baptism of infants, render this interpretation inad-
missible. We must conclude, that infant baptism, in the time of
Augustine, though not yet considered a necessary duty, was general-
ly tolerated, nor ever refused to those parents, who desired it for
their children. Further than this, it is impossible to stretch the
meaning of Augustine, without making him contradict his contempo-
raries and himself.
That he should suppose this practice to have been “ever in use,”
is not strange, when we consider, that, in the words of Hospinian, “ in
the time of Augustine, it was commonly believed, that whatever was
received by the church, as a devotional custom, proceeded from apos-
tolical tradition, and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.”
But however prevalent infant baptism had become, in the time of
Augustine, he thought it would not be amiss to instigate the Milevi-
tan council, to explain and encourage the practice a little, in the
following gentle and persuasive terms—“It is the pleasure of all the
bishops present in this holy synod to order, that whoever denieth,
that infants newly born of their mother, are to be baptized, or saith
that baptism is administered for the remission of their own sins, but
not on account of original sin derived from Adam, and to be expiat-
ed by the laver of regeneration: be accursed.”f
*In Robinson's Hist. of Bap. C. xxiv. # Hist. Sacram. L. ii. p. 41.
# In Robinson’s Hist of Bap. C. xxiii.
7
:
:
50
His motives were at least humane ; for he says in another place,
that “not only persons, who have come to the use of reason, but
also little children and infants newly born, if they die without baptism,
do go into everlasting fire.” - -
The correctness of these statements, concerning the practice of
the primitive church, is confirmed by the following testimonies; the
first, furnished by an apostle, and the rest, as usual, by Pedobaptist
authors.
St. PAUL. “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ,
have put on Christ.”f
ERASMUs. “Paul does not seem” (in Rom. v. 14.) “to treat
about infants.--It was not yet the custom for infants to be baptized.”f
LUTHER. “It cannot be proved by the sacred scripture, that in-
fant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians
after the apostles.”S t -
M. De La RoquE. “The primitive church did not baptize in-
fants; and the learned Grotius proves it, in his annotations on the
gospel.”||
LUDov ICUs WI v Es. “No one, in former times, was admitted to
the sacred baptistery, except he was of age, understood what the mys-
tical water meant, desired to be washed in it, and expressed that de-
sire more than once.”'ſ
* In Davye on Baptism, p. 67. From this period, every century has pre-
sented a succession of witnesses to the truth of the Baptist sentiments, as well
as numberless decrees of popes, and kings, and councils, denouncing the
severest penalties on this “pernicious sect.”
Cardinal Hosius, President of the Council of Trent. “If the truth of re-
ligion were to be judged of, by the readiness and cheerfulness, which a man
of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of no sect can
be truer or surer than that of the Anabaptists; since there have been none,
for these twelve hundred years past, that have been more grievously punished,
or that have more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone, and even offered
themselves to, the most cruel sorts of punishment, than these people.” “The
Anabaptists are a pernicious sect, of which kind the Waldensian brethren
seem also to have been. Nor is this heresy a modern thing ; for it existed
in the time of Augustine.” In Rees’ Reply to Walker, p. 220 ; and apud
Schyn Hist. Mennonit. p. 135.
Dr. Mos HEIM. “The true origin of that sect, which acquired the denomi-
nation of Anabaptists, by their administering anew the rite of baptism, to those
who came over to their communion, and derived that of JMemnonites, from the
famous man, to whom they owe the greatest part of their present felicity, is
hid in the remotest depths of antiquity, and is, of consequence, extremely diffi-
cult to be ascertained.” Eccles. Hist. Vol. iv. p. 439.
See also DANVERs on Baptism, REES' Reply to Walker, and Rob INson’s
History and Researches. .
Concerning Dr. Gill’s supposed concession, that he was not able to find
any instance of an opposer of infant baptism, from the fourth to the ele-
venth century, See Dr. BALDw1N's Series of Letters to Dr. Worcester, Let.
xxiv. p. 232.
f Gal. iii. 27. j Annotat. ad Rom. v. [4,
§ In A. R.'s. Vanity of Infant Baptism, Part ii. p. 8.
| In Stennett's Answer to Russen, p. 188.
T Annotat, in Aug. de Civ. Dei. L. i. C. xxxvii.
f 51
Mr. CHAMBERs. “It appears, that in the primitive times, none
were baptized but adults.”
Bp. BARLow. “I do believe and know, that there is neither
precept nor example in scripture, for pedobaptism, nor any just evi-
dence for it, for about two hundred years after Christ.” . . .
SALMASIUs and SUICERUs. “In the two first centuries, no one
was baptized, except, being instructed in the faith and acquainted
with the doctrine of Christ, he was able to profess himself a be-
liever; because of those words, He that believeth, and is baptized.”f
M. FoEMEy. “They baptized, from this time,” (the latter end of
the second century) “infants, as well as adults.”S
|CURCELLEUs. “The baptism of infants, in the two first centuries
after Christ, was altogether unknown ; but in the third and fourth, was
allowed by some few. In the fifth and following ages, it was gener-
ally received. The custom of baptizing infants did not begin before
the third age after Christ was born. In the former ages, no trace of it
appears, and it was introduced without the command of Christ.”||
RIGALTIUs. “In the Acts of the Apostles, we read that both
men and women were baptized, when they believed the gospel
preached by Philip ; without any mention being made of infants.
JFrom the apostolic age, therefore, to the time of Tertullian, the matter is
doubtful.” I
VENEMA. “Tertullian has no where mentioned pedobaptism
among the traditions of the church, nor even among the customs of
the church, that were publicly received, and usually observed; nay,
he plainly intimates that, in his time, it was yet a doubtful affair.
Nothing can be affirmed with certainty, concerning the custom of
the church before Tertullian ; seeing there is not any where, in more
ancient writers, that I know of, undoubted mention of infant baptism.
Justin Martyr, in his second apology, when describing baptism, men-
tions only that of adults. I conclude, therefore, that pedobaptism
cannot be certainly proved to have been practised before the times
of Tertullian ; and that there were persons in his age, who desired
their infants might be baptized, especially, when they were afraid of
their dying without baptism; which opinion Tertullian opposed, and
by so doing, he intimates, that pedobaptism began to prevail. These
are the things that may be affirmed, with apparent certainty, con-
cerning the antiquity of infant baptism, after the times of the apostles;
for more are maintained without solid foundation.” y
GROTIUs. “It seems to me, that the baptism of infants was, of
old, much more frequently practised in Africa, than in Asia, or other
* Cyclopædia, Art. Baptism. f Letter to JMr. J. Tombs.
# Epist. ad Justum Pacium. Thesawr. Eccles. sub. voce. >vy2és, Tom. ii.
p. 1136. -
§ 4bridg. Eccles. Hist. Vol. i. p. 33.
| Institut. Relig. Christ. L. i. C. xii. Dissert. Secund. de Pecc. Orig. § 56,
T In Stennett's Answer to Russen, p. 74.
* Hist, Eccles. Tom. iii. Secul. ii. § 108, 109.
52
parts of the world ; and with a certain opinion of the greater
necessity of it. For you will not find, in any of the councils,
a more ancient mention of this custom, than in the council of
Carthage.” •
EPIsco PIUs. “ Pedobaptism was not accounted a necessary rite,
till it was determined so to be, in the Milevitan council, held in the
year four hundred and eighteen.”f
Dr. DoDDRIDGE. “It is indeed surprising, that nothing more ex-
press is to be met with in antiquity upon this subject”f
But how was it possible, that infant baptism could have been quietly
introduced, in the early ages of Christianity, unsupported by apostolic
authority, and the previous practice of the church 2 To the declama-
tions of Towgood and others on this subject, the Baptists think it
quite sufficient to reply, by asking, How were episcopacy and infant
communion, and the use of sponsors or god-parents, and a great
variety of usages and ceremonies, introduced, without “a whisper
of opposition,” and suffered to pave the way to the complete en-
thronement of the man of sin P. The truth is, that as soon as the
spirit of inspiration withdrew from the earth, a multitude of errors
and corruptions rushed in and deluged the church. This is indeed
mortifying to human nature, and apparently unaccountable ; but the
facts are never disputed, unless a favourite hypothesis is in danger.
Consider the case of episcopacy. It can claim much higher author-
ity than even infant baptism. For while the latter is not mentioned, by
any writer, in the two first centuries, frequent references to episcopa-
cy, or the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons, occur in the
writings of the second century, and even in the epistles of Ignatius,
one of the apostolical fathers. Professor Campbell, an opposer of
episcopacy, though he questions the integrity of the epistles of Igna-
tius, admits, that “before the middle of the second century, a subor-
dination in the ecclesiastic polity, which may be called primitive
episcopacy, and may be considered the first step of the hierarchy,
began to prevail very generally throughout the Christian world.”
Suppose, therefore, that even the quotation from Irenoeus, at the
close of the second century, and those from Origen, in the third, are
admitted to be relevant and genuine, (and these are the very earliest
that are insisted on,) what ground is gained by an anti-episcopalian
Pedobaptist P
But the case of infant communion deserves more particular con-
sideration. The same evidence can be adduced, in favour of the
antiquity of this practice, as of that of infant baptism. And in the
article of opposition, infant communion has the decided advantage:
For while there appears to have be some opposition to the introduc-
* Annotat. in Matt. xix. 14, f Institut. Theolog, L. iv. C. xiv.
# Lectures, p. 522.
§ Dr. WALL. “There is no time or age of the church, in which there is
any appearance, that infants were ordinarily baptized, without sponsors or
god-fathers.” Def. of Hist. § 22.
| Eccles. Hist. Sect. vii.
53
tion of infant baptism, by Tertullian, Gregory Nazianzen and others,
nothing of the kind appears in the case of infant communion.
As these points, if established, must, in the minds of those who
reject infant communion, completely invalidate the argument from
antiquity, in favour of infant baptism, and as these points must be
established by testimony, independently of argumentation, permit me
to introduce the following quotations.
SALMASIUs and SUICERUs. “Because the eucharist was given to
adult catechumens, when they were washed with holy baptism, with-
out any space of time intervening, this also was done to infants, after
pedobaptism was introduced.”
BUDDGEUs. “It is manifest, that in the ancient church, it was
usual to give the eucharist to infants; which custom arose about
the third century, and continued in the western church, to the be-
ginning of the twelfth century, as Quenstedius shows. This custom
seems to have prevailed, first in the African church, and to have been
propagated thence to other churches of the west. Certainly, we no
where find it more frequently mentioned, than in the writings of
Cyprian, of Augustine, and of Paulinus. The error seems to have
arisen, from a false opinion concerning the absolute necessity of
the eucharist; and it has been observed by learned men, that this
arose from the words of Christ, John vi. 53, not well understood.”f
HospiNIANUs. “The Lord’s supper was given to the infants of
believers, in the time of Pope Innocent the First, of Cyprian, and of
Augustine; as well in Europe, as in Asia and Africa, and that as
necessary to salvation. Jerome, Augustine and other fathers, tes-
tify, that they who were baptized, not only adults, but also infants,
without any delay, received the Lord's supper in both kinds.”f
CHILLINGw or TH. “ St. Augustine, I am sure, held the commu-
nicating of infants, as much apostolic tradition, as the baptizing of
them. The eucharist's necessity for infants—was taught by the
consent of the eminent fathers of some ages, without any oppo-
sition, from any of their contemporaries; and was delivered by
them, not as doctors, but as witnesses; not as their opinion, but as
apostolic tradition.”S
Dr. PRIESTLEy. “It is remarkable, that, in all Christian antiqui-
ty, we always find, that communion in the Lord's supper im-
mediately followed baptism. And no such thing occurs, as that
of any person having a right to one of these ordinances, and not to
the other.”||
VENEMA. “In the ancient church, those two sacraments” (baptism
and the Lord's supper) “in respect of the subjects, were never sep-
arated, the one from the other. In the thirteenth century, baptized
* Thesaur. Eccles. sub voce 2vvæðig,
f Theolog. Dogmat. L. v. C. i. § 19. f Hist. Sacram, L ii. C. ii. p. 51.
§ Relig. of Protest. Answer to Pref. § I0, and Chap. iii. § 44.
| Address on giving the Lord's Supper to Children, p. 10.
54
infants ceased to be admitted to the eucharist, because it began to be
administered under one kind.” -
Dr. WALL. “–That the Roman church, about the year one thou-
sand, entertaining the doctrine of transubstantiation, let fall the custom
of giving the holy elements to infants; and the other western churches,
mostly following their example, did the like, upon the same account ;
but that the Greeks, not having the same doctrine, continued, and do
still continue, the custom of communicating infants.”f
HALLET. “The late Rev. Mr. Pierce has demonstrably proved,
that it was the ancient practice, to give the eucharist to children, in
an unanswerable essay on this subject. And as no one has, after
many years, attempted to answer him, I may well here take it for
granted, that infants, in the primitive church, were admitted to the
communion of Christians.”
Let me conclude this part of the discourse, by inquiring, Why do
not the advocates of infant baptism, become advocates of infant com-
munion ?
Is the scripture silent concerning the latter ordinance 2 It is equal-
ly silent concerning the former. Are infants incapable of remem-
bering Christ, of examining themselves, and of discerning the Lord's
body, which are required of those who receive the supper ? They
are equally incapable of repenting and believing, which are required
of those who receive baptism. Every argument which is brought to
prove, that the requirement to repent and believe does not exclude
infants from the one ordinance, will equally prove, that the require-
ment to examine one’s self and discern the Lord’s body, does not ex-
clude them from the other ordinance.
Every argument also, which is urged in support of the one ordi-
nance, may be urged, with equal plausibility, in support of the other.
Ought infants to be baptized, because, under a former dispensation
they were circumcised ? So also, because under a former dispensa-
tion they partook of the passover,S they ought now to be admitted
to communion. Ought they to be baptized, because they are con-
nected with their parents, in covenant with God P For the same rea-
son, they ought, with their parents, to be admitted to communion.
Ought they to be baptized, because they are members of the visible
church 2 For the same reason, they ought to be admitted to commu-
nion. Ought they to be baptized, because Christ commanded little
children to be brought to him, and declared, that of such is the king-
* Hist. Eccles. Secul. ii. § 100; Secul. xii. § 164.
f Hist of Inf. Bap. p. 517.
# In Dr. Austin's Econ. of the Church, C. xii. p. 243.
*...* After the tabernacle, where alone the passover could be eaten, was
established at Jerusalem, young children on account of the distance, were not
required to partake of the passover, till they had attained the age of twelve
years Buf it would be gross to infer, that previous to that age, they had no
right to partake of it, and did not partake, whenever presented. That they
partook of the first passover, is admitted by all parties. See Dr. Th. Scott,
on Exod. xii. 43–45.
•
55
dom of heaven 2 For the same reason, they ought to be admitted to
communion. Ought they to be baptized, because they are not un-
clean, but holy 2 For the same reason, they ought to be admitted to
communion. Does it lessen the privileges, which the church an-
ciently enjoyed, to withhold baptism from infants P And does it not
equally lessen those privileges, to debar infants from communion ?
Is it harsh and injurious to exclude infants from baptism 2 And is it
not equally harsh and injurious to exclude them from communion ?
Accordingly, Dr. Williams, the opponent of Mr. Booth, inquires,
“Are not the same reasons, which are brought for infant baptism, in
like manner, applicable to infant communion ? And will not the ob-
jections against the latter, admit of the same answer, as those against
the former ?”% .
The reasons stated in both parts of this discourse, lead us to the
conclusion, that the immersion of a professing believer, into the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is the only chris-
tian baptism.
“He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that be-
lieveth not, shall be damned.” To believe in Christ is necessary to
salvation ; and to be baptized is the instituted method of professing our
belief. It is, therefore, not only an infinitely important question to
all men, whether they believe in Christ; but it is also a very impor-
tant question to all Christians, whether they have been baptized.
If you love Christ, you cannot consider this question unimportant.
You will be desirous of discovering the will of him whom you love,
and of testifying your love, by joyfully obeying. “If ye love me,”
said Jesus, “ keep my commandments.” “ Ye are my friends, if ye do
whatsoever I command you.”S
If, when your mind adverts to this question, you fear the conse-
quences of an examination, and dread those sacrifices, which a dis-
covery that you have been mistaken, may enforce on your conscience ;
or if you feel the influence of long established sentiments, and imag-
ine, that the subject is too dark and intricate for your investigation ;
look to the Son of God, who hesitated not to make the greatest sac-
rifices, and to endure the most painful sufferings for you ; and look
up to the Father of lights, to send the Holy Spirit, according to the
promise of his Son, to guide you into all the truth.
Especially, my brethren, diligently use the means of discovering
the truth. Put yourselves in the way of evidence. Indulge free ex-
amination. Though the sun shines with perfect clearness, you will
never see that light which others enjoy, if you confine yourselves in
a cavern, which the beams of the sun cannot penetrate. Be assured
that there is sufficient evidence on this subject, if you seek to dis-
cover it. But if your love for truth is not sufficiently strong to make
you willing to labor for the discovery of evidence, God will probably
leave you to be contented with error.
* JVotes on Mr. Morrice's Social Relig. p. 78. t Mark xvi. 16.
# John xiv. 15. § John xv. I4.
56
In order, therefore, to stimulate your minds to candid and ener-
getic.research, prize truth above all other things. Be impressed with
the conviction, that nothing can compensate you, for the loss of
truth. “She is more precious than rubies, and all the things thou
canst desire, are not to be compared unto her.” She will keep
you in the right way, the way of duty, of usefulness, of happiness.
She will lead you to heaven. Seek her, therefore, as silver, and
search for her, as for hid treasures.
Finally, If any man desire to do the will of God, “he shall know of
the doctrine, whether it be of God.”f
* Prov. iii. 15. f John vii. 17.
tº-
LETTER.
A. JUDSON, JUN. MISSIONARY IN INDIA BEYOND THE GANGES,
TO THE THIRD CHURCH IN PLYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS,
Dearly beloved in our common Lord,
WHEN I remember my early connection with your beloved church,
the pleasant seasons which I formerly enjoyed with many dear indi-
viduals, the interest which you took in my welfare, and the affection
with which you commended me to God, on leaving my native land
for these Eastern shores, together with the certainty, that I shall see
your faces no more, I cannot suppress my feelings, or restrain my
teal’S.
I have several times had it in my heart to address you a few lines,
but feared, that it would be presuming in me, who am but a youth, to
call on the attention of those, who, in a spiritual sense, are men of
war from their youth.
I have particularly desired to say a few things in regard to the
change of sentiment, which I have experienced, since leaving you, to
state some of the exercises of my mind on that subject, and to solicit
a continuance of your candour and affectionate regards. And I hope,
that this desire will appear to your minds a sufficient apology for ad-
dressing you at this time.
You will readily believe me, when I say, that on leaving my coun-
try, I little imagined, that I should ever have become a Baptist. I
had not indeed candidly examined the subject of baptism ; but I had
strong prejudices against the sect, that is every where spoken against.
It was on board the vessel, in prospect of uny future life among the
heathen, that I was led to investigate this important subject. I was
going forth to proclaim the glad news of salvation through Jesus
Christ. I hoped, that my ministrations would be blessed to the conver-
sion of souls. In that case, I felt that I should have no hesitation
concerning my duty to the converts, it being plainly commanded in
scripture, that such are to be baptized, and received into church fel-
lowship. But how, thought I, am I to treat the unconverted children
and domestics of the converts? Are they to be considered members of
the church of Christ, by virtue of the conversion of the head of
their family, or not ? If they are, ought I not to treat them as such 3
After they are baptized, can I consistently set them aside, as aliens
from the commonwealth of Israel, until they are readmitted 2 If they
are not to be considered members of the church, can I consistently
administer to them the initiating ordinance of the church 2
If adopt the Abrahamic covenant, and consider the christian
church a continuation of the Abrahamic or Jewish system, I must
8
58
adopt the former part of the alternative. I must consider the chil-
dren and domestics of professors, as members of the church, and treat
them accordingly. Abraham, according to the terms of the covenant
which God made with him, circumcised not only his own sons, but all
the males, that were born in his house, or bought with money. His
male descendants, in the line of Isaac and Jacob, were entitled to the
same ordinance, by virtue of natural descent; and, together with their
domestics, composed the ancient church, and were entitled to all its
privileges. This is put beyond a doubt, by the single fact, that, in the
Abrahamic community, or the society of Israel, there was no sepa-
rate party, calling themselves, by way of distinction, the church, and
saying to others, who were equally circumcised with themselves,
Stand by, touch not the passover, we are holier than you. No. All
the Imembers of the community, or nation, were of course members of
the church. They were entitled to church membership, by birth or
purchase. Their church membership was recognized, or they were
initiated into the church, by circumcision ; and in subsequent life, they
partook of the passover, which was the standing sacrament of the
church analogous to the Lord's supper, and enjoyed all the rights and
privileges of the church, unless they were excommunicated, or,in scrip-
tural language, cut off from the people.”
Now let me be consistent. Since I am exhorted to walk in the
steps of father Abraham, let me follow him with the same faithfulness
which procured him eminent praise. Let me not adopt some parts
of his covenant, and reject others, as suits my own convenience, or
accords with the notions, in which I have been educated. Nor let me
complain for want of example and prescription. Behold the estab-
lished church of England. She proves herself, in many respects, a
worthy daughter of the Abrahamic or Jewish church. She receives
into her charitable bosom, all the descendants of professors; and all
those, who, though not of her seed, belong to the families of profes-
sors; and these collectively come, in "process of time, to com-
prise the whole nation. This is truly Abrahamic. This is the very
system, which the ancestors of the Jewish race, and their succeeding
rulers and priests uniformly maintained. And if I claim an interest
in the Abrahamic covenant, and consider the Christian church a con-
tinuation of the Jewish, why should I hesitate to prove myself a true
child of Abraham, and a consistent Christian, by adopting this system,
in all its parts, and introducing it among the heathen 2
But I considered again—How does this system accord with the
account of the church of Christ, given in the New Testament P It ap-
peared to me, from the manner in which this church commenced and
* If any one should be inclined to doubt the right of circumcised children
to the passover, let him consider the following:
Witsius. “In those companies” (that partook of the passover) “men and
women sat down together, old men and young, whole and sick, masters and
servants, in fine, every Jew that could eat a morsel of flesh, not excluding
even young children.” CE.com. Foed. L. iv. C. ix. § 14.
Dr. Scott. Every person, in each household, including women and chil-
dren, ate this first passover, none being excepted, but uncircumcised males:
and afterwards all, who were not ceremonially unclean, partook of it. The
women and children were not indeed commanded to go up to the tabernacle,
where it was celebrated; but when they did, they joined in this sacred
feast,” Note on Exodus xii. 43–45. g
After the tabernacle, where alone the passover could be eaten, was estab-
lished at Jerusalem, young children, on account of distance, not on account
of any personal disqualification, were seldom brought to partake of the pass-
over. . . This neglect, however, was not allowed after they had attained the
age of twelve years.
59
was continued, from the character of its members, and in fine, from
its whole economy, so far as detailed in the New Testament, that it
was a company, consisting of select individuals, men and women, who
gave credible evidence of being disciples of Christ; and that it had
no regard to natural descent, or accidental connection with the fam-
ilies of professors. -
When I proceeded to consider certain passages, which are thought
to favour the Pedobaptist system, I found nothing satisfactory.
The sanctification, which St. Paul ascribes to the children of a be-
liever, (1 Cor. vii. 14.) I found that he ascribed to the unbelieving pa-
rent also ; and therefore, whatever, be the meaning of the passage, it
could have no respect to church metribership, or a right to church or-
dinances. -
The declaration of St. Peter, “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,” (Act. ii. 39,) appeared not to bear at all on the
point in hand, because the apostle does not command his hearers to
have their children baptized, or acknowledged members of the church,
but to repent and be baptized themselves. There is indeed a promise
made to their children, and to all others that God shall call ; but it
does not follow, that they were to procure the baptism of their chil-
dren, or of those that were afar off, until they gave evidence that God
had called them.
When Christ said, concerning little children, that “of such is the
kingdom of heaven,” (Mat. xix. 14,) it appeared to me, that his com-
parison had respect, not to the age or size of little children, but to the
humility and docility which distinguish them from adults. This seem-
ed to be put beyond a doubt, by his own explanation, in a similar pas-
sage, in which he says, “Except ye be converted, and become as
little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Mat.
xviii. 3.) ~.
The baptism of households, which is mentioned, in three instances,
I could not consider, as affording any evidence one way or the other,
because, in a household, there may be infants and unbelieving domes-
tics, and there may not. Besides, 1 discovered some circumstances
in each of the cases which led me to conclude, that the members of
the households were real believers. They are expressly said to be so,
in the case of the jailer, (Acts xvi. 34,) and the same is evidently im-
plied, in the case of Stephanas, when it is said, that they addicted
themselves to the ministry of the saints, (I Cor. i. 16.) *
In a word, I could not find a single intimation, in the New Testa-
ment, that the children and domestics of believers were members of
the church, or entitled to any church ordinance, in consequence of
the profession of the head of their family. Every thing discounte-
nanced this idea. When baptism was spoken of, it was always in
connection with believing. None but believers were commanded to
be baptized ; and it did not appear to my mind that any others were
baptized.
Here, then, appeared a striking difference between the Abrahamic,
and the Christian systems. The one recognized the membership of
children, domestics and remote descendants of professors, and tended
directly to the establishment of a national religion. The other ap-
peared to be a selective system, acknowledging none, as members
of the church, but such as gave credible evidence of believing in
Christ.
This led me to suspect, that these two systems, so evidently differ-
ent, could not be one and the same. And now the light began to
t 60
dawn. The more I read, and the more I meditated on the subject”
the more clearly it appeared to ine, that all my errors and difficulties
had originated, in confounding these two systems. I began to see,
that since the very mature and constitution of the church of Christ ex-
cluded infants and unregenerate domestics, repentance and faith being
always represented as necessary to constitute a disciple, we had no
right to expect any directions for, or any examples of the initiation of
such unqualified persons into the church. To search for such direc-
, tions and examples in the New Testament, would be, as if the citizen
of a republic should go to search his national code, for laws concern-
ing the royal family, which, by the very nature and constitution of a
republic, is excluded. Suppose, that such a citizen, disappointed in
his search, should have recourse to the constitution and laws of a
neighbouring monarchy, for the desired information. This, it appear
ed to me, would aptly represent the proceeding of those who, unable
to find in the New Testament, satisfactory proof of the right of infants,
or unregenerate domestics, should have recourse to the Abrahamic and
Jewish codes. *.
At length, I adopted the following sentiments, concerning the two
churches, and the concern which we have, at present, with the old
dispensation. The Abrahamic church was preparatory to, and typi-
cal of, the Christian. The constitution was radically different; but it
was, nevertheless, wisely adapted to answer the ends which God had
in view. Natural descent or purchase was sufficient to introduce a
person into this church ; but still it appears, that, in every age, there
were some, who were truly pious ; who embraced the gospel promise
made to Abraham, before the covenant of circumcision was instituted ;
who also looked beyond the literal meaning of the requirements and
promises, contained in that covenant, to the glorious things typified
thereby, and thus exercised true faith in the coming Messiah, and in
a better country, that is, the heavenly. When the Messiah appeared,
this preparatory and typical system, having answered its end, was
destined to cease; and the Lord Jesus set up his kingdom on earth,
the gospel church, composed of such only as repent and believe, or
rather give credible evidence of these gracious exercises. The bar of
separation between the Jews and the rest of the world was removed ;
thenceforth, none were to plead, that they had Abraham for their
father ; none were to rest in the covenant of circumcision, assured
that if they did, Christ would profit them nothing ; but it was distinct-
ly declared, that thenceforth, there was neither Jew nor Greek,
bond nor free, male nor female, but all were one in Christ, (Gal
iii. 28.)
But whereas the Abrahamic system was typical of the Christian, so
the spiritual meaning of the requirements and promises still remains
in force. Thus, by looking beyond the letter, and regarding the spir-
itual import, according to the example of the pious Jews, a great part
of the Old Testament is still applicable to us, though the New Testa-
ment is emphatically the Christian’s law book. The natural seed of
Abraham typifies the spiritual seed. The land of Canaan typifies the
heavenly land. External circumcision typifies the circumcision of the
heart, a circumcision made without hands, that is, the putting off the
body of the sins of the flesh, even the circumcision of Christ, (Col. ii.
11.) Believers, therefore, may embrace the promise of Canaan, in its
spiritual application, as made to themselves, the spiritual seed, who
have received the spiritual circumcision. Hence, also, all the devo-
tional parts of the Old Testament, particularly the Psalms of David,
61
the modern believer can make his own, adopting the language, as the
genuine expressions of his own devout feelings.
In the same way are to be explained all the New Testament allu-
sions to the ancient dispensation. When, for instance, the apostle
says, “If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs accord-
ing to the promise,” (Gal. iii. 29,) we are to understand, not Abra-
ham's natural seed, surely, but his spiritual seed, those who by faith
are assimilated to him, and thus become his children ; not heirs of the
land of Canaan, in the literal acceptation of the words, but heirs of
the blessing of justification by faith, concerning which the apostle
had been discoursing, and consequently, of the spiritual Canaan, the
city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.
I cannot describe to you, dear brethren, the light and satisfaction,
which I obtained, in taking this view of the matter, in considering
the two churches distinct, and in classing my ideas of each in their
proper place. I became possessed of a key, that unlocked many a
difficulty, which had long perplexed me. And the more I read the
Bible, the more clearly I saw, that this was the true system therein
revealed.
But while I obtained light and satisfaction on one side, I was
plunged in difficulty and distress on the other. If, thought I, this sys-
tem is the true one, if the Christian church is not a continuation of
the Jewish, if the covenant of circumcision is not precisely the
covenant in which Christians now stand, the whole foundation of
Pedobaptism is gone ; there is no remaining ground for the adminis-
tration of any church ordinance, to the children and domestics of
professors; and it follows inevitably, that I, who was christened
in infancy, on the faith of my parents, have never yet received Chris-
tian baptism. Must I, then, forsake my parents, the church with
which I stand connected, the society under whose patronage I have
come out, the companions of my missionary undertaking P Must I for-
feit the good opinion of all my friends in my native land, occasioning
grief to some, and provoking others to anger, and be regarded hence-
forth, by all my former dear acquaintance, as a weak despicable Bap-
tist, who has not sense enough to comprehend the connexion between
the Abrahamic and the Christian systems ? All this was mortifying;
it was hard to flesh and blood. But I thought again—It is better to
be guided by the opinion of Christ, who is the truth, than by the opin-
ion of men, however good, whom I know to be in an error. The
praise of Christ is better than the praise of men. Let me cleave to
Christ at all events, and prefer his favour above my chief joy.
There was another thing which greatly contributed, just at this time,
to drive me to an extremity. I knew, that I had been sprinkled in
infancy, and that this had been deemed baptism. But throughout
the whole New Testament, I could find nothing, that looked like
sprinkling, in connexion with the ordinance of baptism. It appeared
to me, that if a plain person should, without any previous information
on the subject, read through the New Testament, he would never get
the idea, that baptism consisted in sprinkling. He would find, that
baptism in all the cases particularly described was administered in
rivers, and that the parties are represented, as going down into the
water, and coming up out of the water, which they would not have
been so foolish as to do for the purpose of sprinkling.
In regard to the word itself, which is translated baptism, a very
little search convinced me that its plain, appropriate meaning was im-
mersion or dipping; and though I read extensively on the subject, I
could not find that any learned Pedobaptist had ever been able to pro-
62
duce an instance, from any Greek writer, in which it meant sprinkling,
or any thing but immersion, except in some figurative applications,
which could not be fairly brought into the question. The Rev. Pro-
fessor Campbell, D. D. of Scotland, the most learned Greek scholar
and biblical critic of modern times, has the candour to declare, (though
he was no Baptist, and therefore, not to be suspected of partiality
to the Baptist system,) that the word was never, so far as he knew,
employed in the sense of sprinkling, in any use, sacred or classical.
(See Note on Matt. iii. II.) -
But as my limits will not permit me to enter further into detail, on
this part of the subject, I must beg leave to refer you to my Sermon,
a copy of which will accompany this letter. Suffice it to say, that
whereas a consideration of the nature of the church convinced me,
that I had never received Christian baptism, so a consideration of the
nature of baptism convinced me, that I had never been baptized at all,
nothing being baptism but immersion. -
Reduced to this extremity, what, dear brethren, could I do 2 I saw,
that, in a double sense, I was unbaptized, and I felt the command of
Christ press on my conscience. Now if I quieted my conscience in
regard to my own personal baptism, and concluded, that on account
of my peculiar circumstances, it was best to consult my own conven-
ience, rather than the command of Christ, still the question would re-
turn, with redoubled force,—How am I to treat the children and do-
mestics of converted heathen P. This was the beginning of all my diffi-
culties, and this, on Pedobaptist principles, I could not resolve, by the
Bible, or by any books that I consulted.
In order that you may feel the trying situation, in which I was plac-
ed, I beg you to make the case your own, particularly in regard to
this one point, the treatment of the families of believers. You may
thus be brought to feel the gripe of this Gordian knot, as I have felt
it. It is true, you have not the prospect of converted heathen and
their families to trouble you ; yet permit me to submit the case of your
own families. In what light do you consider and treat them P Do
you strictly comply with the terms of the Abrahamic covenant P Does
your conduct perfectly accord with the Abrahamic system 2 Do you
baptize (if baptism is in the place of circumcision) your male children,
and those only, on the eighth day after their birth P Do you baptize
your male domestics, and if you had slaves, would you have them also
baptized P Still further, Do you consider your baptized children and
servants, members of the church, as circumcised Jewish children and
servants were members of the Jewish church 2 Do you acknowledge
their right to the Lord’s supper, as soon, at least, as they are capable ;
and do you feel your own obligations to require their attendance, and
to discipline and exclude them, if they do not attend ? Circumcision
was the initiating ordinance of the Abrahamic or Jewish church ; bap-
tism has been regarded, in every age, and by all parties, as the initiat-
ing ordinance of the Christian church. Baptized persons are, there-
fore, members of the church. And if so, is it not wrong and danger-
ous to treat them, as if they were not P I need not inform you, that
among yourselves, and among all the Congregational churches in New
England, children and servants, who were baptized on account of the
head of their family, are considered no more members of the church,
than before, no more members of the church, than others, that have
not been baptized. They are, in fact, considered and treated, as out
of the church altogether, and as having no right to any further church
privilege, until they give evidence of possessing religion, and make a
personal public profession. Do you not hesitate, my brethren, at pur-
suing a course so antiabrahamic, so unscriptural P How can you plead
-
63
the promises made to Abraham, when you so flagrantly violate the
covenant, in which they are contained, and depart from the course di-
vinely prescribed in his family, and in subsequent generations P But
on the other hand, if you adopt and practise the Abrahamic system,
you will inevitably confound the church and the world; you will re-
ceive into the church multitudes who are destitute of those qualifica-
tions, which are represented, in the New Testament, as requisite to
constitute a member of the kingdom which Christ set up ; you will
ultimately establish a national religion; and this will be as contrary to
the system laid down in the New Testament, as your present system
<g to the Abrahamic.
Brethren and Fathers, I have now given you a slight sketch of the
difficulties, in which i became involved, while contemplating my mis-
sionary work, and which forced me at last, to adopt the Baptist sys-
tem as alone consistent and scriptural. If I have down wrong herein,
I shall be very grateful to any one, who will point out my error, who
will inform me what course I could have taken to extricate myself out
of my difficulties, without becoming a Baptist. And in order to facili-
tate the matter, I beg leave to state the several points, on which I
must obtain good satisfaction, or remain as I am.
1. Does it appear from the New Testament, that the unconverted
children and servants of believers are members of the church of Christ,
according to the terms of the Abrahamic covenant 2 If this could be
proved, it would go far towards proving, that the Christian church is
a continuation of the Jewish ; but if this cannot be proved, it appears
to me, that no little incidental similarities are sufficient to establish the
point.
2. If the children and servants of believers are members of the
church, by virtue of belonging to the families of professors, ought they
mot, after being initiated into the church by baptism, to be consider-
ed and treated as members ? Ought they not to be considered mem-
bers of the Christian church, in the same manner, as the circumcised
children and servants of the Jews were members of the Jewish church,
and similarly entitled to the privileges and discipline of the church 2
And is it right or consistent to class them with aliens, until they come
forward and join the church, to which it would seem, by the supposi-
tion, they had always belonged P
3. If the children and servants of believers are not real members
of the church, by what right is one of the ordinances of the church,
yea, even the initiating ordinance, administered to them P Do we dis-
cover any intimation, in the Old Testament, or the New, of any per-
Sons, who, not belonging to any church whatever, were yet entitled to
the privileges of a church, and particularly to the ordinance of initia-
tion, they being no more members of the church after they were ini-
*iated into it and acknowledged ºnembers, than others who wereº-
er thus initiated P And if a person should venture to maintain such a
position, on any other subject than that of Pedobaptism, would not the
soundness of his intellects be justly suspected P
4. If the children and servants of believers are not entitled to the
ordinance of baptism, must not those who have been baptized, on the
faith of their parents or masters, necessarily regard their baptism as a
nullity, and consider themselves, of course, in an unbaptized state 2
And when such persons believe in Christ, and hope that they have re-
ceived divine grace, how can they refrain from obeying the express
command of their Lord and Master 2








Submitting these questions, dear Brethren, to your candid and im-
partial consideration, I take my leave. You will not, I hope, be dis-
pleased with any expressions in my letter, that may seem to bear hard
on the system which you profess. Perhaps there are some such ex-
pressions. I have found it impossible to avoid them all, in stating my dif-
ficulties in their full force. And the same reasons, which induced me to
take up my pen at first, made me unwilling to soften and smooth those
difficulties, through fear of giving offence. I have been sensible, that
my change of sentiment would give much pain to many whom I loved
and respected, to the members of the church I am now addressing,
and to my honored father, your pastor. This reflection was the great-
est trial attending my baptism. It was natural for me, therefore, to
be desirous of showing you clearly the extremity to which I was re-
duced, and the potency of those arguments which constrained me to
become a Baptist; hoping that you would, by that means, be led to
sympathize with me, in the exercises of mind, that I have experien-
ced, and be willing to admit, that my conduct has not been the result
of momentary caprice, or the still more reprehensible effect of interest-
ed and sinister motives. I solemnly profess to have done this thing
from a single regard to truth and duty. I have not altered my senti-
ments, on any point of doctrine, or Christian experience. My heart
tells me, dear brethren, that I am still one with you, though we differ
on the subject of baptism. May every blessing, temporal and spiritu-
al, rest on you, and on your children. - --
May the God of truth lead you and me into all the truth; and may
the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
RANgooN, Aug. 20, 1817.