01.07. Sermon IV. The Mode of Administering Baptism

SERMON IV. THE MODE OF ADMINISTERING BAPTISM. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized? — Acts 10:47.

5. The difficulties attending the administration of baptism by immersion, in many cases, ought to satisfy us that this mode of administering the ordinance cannot be the only valid mode, and is not the most proper and edifying mode.

It is perfectly evident, to every reflecting mind, that the obstacles which may be conceived, and which very frequently, in fact, occur, to render baptism by immersion difficult, if not impracticable, are very many, and very serious. It will be sufficient to hint at a few of the more familiar and obvious. It is well known that some very large districts of country, in various parts of our globe, are so parched and dry, and streams of water so rare, or rather, in many cases, so unknown, for many miles together, that the means of immersing a human body, in any natural stream or pool of water, cannot possibly be obtained but with great trouble and expense; a trouble and expense impracticable to a large portion of every community inhabiting those countries. There are other parts of our globe, near the polar regions, where, during the major portion of every year, the constant reign of severe frost, seals up every natural stream and fountain, and renders the immersion of a human body not merely difficult, but impracticable, without great labor and cost. Nor is this all; even in the temperate and well watered latitudes, there are seasons of the year, often of four or five month’s continuance, when baptism by immersion is generally dangerous, and in many cases, highly so, to the health, and even the lives of both those who administer, and those who receive the ordinance. {17} And, finally, at all seasons, persons laboring under disease, can never be baptized in this mode, with safety, at all; and, of course, must be deprived entirely of the privilege of receiving this seal of the Christian covenant, so reasonable in itself, and so gratifying to the pious mind. It is also certain, that Baptist ministers who are aged and infirm, can never safely officiate in baptizing in any case; and when they are men remarkably frail and feeble in body, they can never undertake, without manifest danger, to baptize individuals of large stature, or more than common corpulency. To all which may be added, that the public baptism of females, with all the delicacy and care which can possibly be employed, is certainly, as thousands attest, a practice little in keeping with those religious feelings and impressions with which it is desirable that every Christian solemnity should be attended.

Now, contrast all these difficulties, which, surely, form a mass of no small magnitude, with the entire absence of every difficulty in baptizing by sprinkling or affusion. According to our plan, which, we have no doubt, is by far the most scriptural and edifying, baptism may be performed with equal ease and convenience in all countries; at all seasons of the year; in all situations of health or sickness; with equal safety by all ministers, whether young or old, athletic or feeble; and in all circumstances that can well be conceived. How admirably does this accord with the Gospel economy, which is not intended to be confined to any one people, or to any particular climate; but is equally adapted, in all its principles, and in all its rites to every “kindred, and people, and nation, and tongue!"

Accordingly, it is a notorious fact, that, in consideration of the difficulties which have been mentioned as attending immersion, a large body of Baptists, in Holland, I mean the Mennonites, who were once warm and uncompromising contenders for this mode of administering baptism, at length gave it up, and, while they still baptize none but adults, have been, for more than a hundred years, in the practice of pouring water on the head of the candidate, through the hand of the administrator. They found that when candidates for baptism were lying on sick beds; or confined in prison; or in a state of peculiarly delicate health; or in various other unusual situations, which may be easily imagined; there was so much difficulty, not to say, in some cases, a total impossibility in baptizing by plunging; that they deliberately, as a denomination, after the death of their first leader, agreed to lay aside, as I said, the practice of immersion, and substituted the plan of affusion.

There is one difficulty more, in reference to the mode of baptism by immersion, of which it is not easy to speak, on an occasion like the present, without appearing to intend ridicule of an ordinance so solemn and important. Fidelity to the subject, however, demands that I speak of it; and I trust no one will suspect me of a design to make any other than a perfectly grave and fair use of the matter to which I refer. The circumstance to which I allude is, that in the third, fourth, and immediately following centuries — in the days of Cyprian, Cyril, Athanasius, and Chrysostom — when, as all agree, the mode of baptizing by immersion was the most prevalent method; there is no historical fact more perfectly established, than that whenever baptism was thus administered, the candidate, whether infant or adult, male or female, was entirely divested of all clothing: not merely of outer garments, but, I repeat, of all clothing. No exception was allowed in any case, even when the most timid and delicate female importunately desired it. This fact is established, not only by the most direct and unequivocal statements, and that by a number of writers, but also by the narration of a number of curious particulars connected with this practice. {18} Among the rest, we are told of scenes of indecorum exhibited in the baptisteries of those days, which convinced the friends of religion that the practice ought to be discontinued, and it was finally laid aside. Perhaps it will be asked, whether this fact in the history of Christian baptism is adverted to for the purpose of reflecting odium, in a sinister and indirect manner, on the practice of immersion? I answer, by no means; but simply for the purpose of showing that in tracing the history of baptism by immersion, we have the very same evidence in favor of immersing divested of all clothings that we have for immersing at all; that, so far as the history of the church, subsequent to the apostolic age, informs us, these two practices must stand or fall together; {19} and that an appendage to baptism so revolting, so immoral, and so entirely inadmissible, plainly shows that those who practiced it, must have been chargeable with a superstitious and extravagant adoption of a mere form, which, from its character, we are compelled to believe was a human invention, and took its rise in the rudeness of growing superstition, perhaps from a source still more impure and criminal.

Besides, if the principle for which our Baptist brethren contend, be correct; if the immersion of the whole body be essential to Christian baptism, and if the thing signified be the cleansing and purifying of the individual by an ablution which must of necessity extend to the whole person; it would really seem that performing this ceremony, divested of all clothing, is essential to its emblematic meaning. Who ever thought of covering the hands with gloves when they were about to be washed; or expected really to cleanse them through such a covering? No wonder, then, when the principle began to find a place in the church, that the submersion of every part of the body in water; that the literal bathing of the whole person was essential both to the expressiveness and the validity of the emblematical transaction; no wonder, I say, that the obvious consequence should soon be admitted, that the whole body ought to be uncovered, as never fails to be the case, with any member of the body which we wish to be successfully cleansed by bathing. And we have no hesitation in saying, that, if we fully adopted the general principle of our Baptist brethren in relation to this matter, we should no more think of subjecting the body to that process which must, in order to its validity, be strictly emblematical of a complete spiritual bathing, while covered with clothes; than we should think, in common life, of washing the hands or the feet, while carefully covered with the articles of dress with which they are commonly clothed. Whereas, if the principle of Paedobaptists on this subject be adopted, then the solemn application of water to that part of the body which is an epitome of the whole person, and which is always, as a matter of course, uncovered, is amply sufficient to answer every purpose both of emblem and of benefit.

Besides, let me appeal to our Baptist brethren, by asking, if they verily believe that the primitive and apostolic mode of administering baptism was by immersion, and that this immersion was performed in a state of entire nakedness; how can they dare, upon their principles, to depart, as to one iota from that mode? Let them not say, that they carefully retain the substance, the essential characters of the plan of immersion. Very true. This is our plea; and it accords very well with what we consider as the correct system; but in the mouth of a Baptist it is altogether inadmissible. The institute in question is a “positive" one; and, according to him, we must not depart one jot or tittle from the original plan.

These considerations, my friends, strike me as affording decisive evidence, that a mode of baptism, attended with so many real and formidable difficulties, cannot be of divine appointment; at any rate that it cannot be universally binding on the Church of God; and that laying so much stress upon the completeness of the submersion, is servility and superstition. We may say of this ordinance, as our Lord said of the Sabbath, Baptism was made for man, and not man for baptism. Where a particular mode of complying with a religious observance would be, in many cases, “a yoke of bondage," and one, too, for which no divine warrant could be pleaded, it would surely argue the very slavery of superstition, to enforce that mode of the observance as essential to a regular standing in the visible family of Christ.

6. As a further objection to the doctrine of our Baptist brethren in relation to the mode of baptism, let us examine some of the figurative language of Scripture which refers to this ordinance; and especially certain passages on which they are accustomed to place the greatest reliance for the support of their cause.

Perhaps no passages of Scripture have been more frequently and confidently pressed into the service of baptism by immersion than those which are found in Romans 6:3-4, and Colossians 2:12. In the former we find the following: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Corresponding with this, in Colossians 2:12, the following passage occurs: “Buried with him in baptism; wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

Now, our Baptist brethren, believing and insisting that baptism and immersion ought to be considered, in all cases, as synonymous terms, take for granted that the expression, “Buried with him in baptism," is intended to refer to the resemblance between the interment of a dead body, and its subsequent resurrection from beneath the surface of the earth; and the immersion of a baptized person entirely under the water, and raising him up again from beneath the surface of the fluid. In a word, our Baptist brethren assure us, that the design of the apostle in these passages is to say, that “the baptized person’s communion with Christ in his death and burial, is represented by his being laid under the water; and his communion with him in his resurrection, by his being raised out of it." In this general interpretation of the figure many Paedobaptists have agreed; and have thus not a little confirmed the confidence of antiPaedobaptists in their cause. I am persuaded, however, that a candid examination of the real import of the figurative language before us, will show that this confidence is entirely unfounded. The aposde, in the preceding part of the Epistle to the Romans, had shown that Christians are justified by faith in the righteousness of Christ. He proceeds in the sixth chapter to obviate the objection, that this doctrine tends to licentiousness. “What shall we say, then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid!" He rejects with abhorrence the odious thought. “How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?" He then adverts to the significance of baptism, which, being the ordinance which seals our introduction into the family of Christ, may be considered as exhibiting both the first principles of Gospel truth, and the first elements of Christian character. "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?" He then infers, that since baptism has so immediate a reference to the death of Christ, it must, by consequence, be connected also with his resurrection; and that, as in the former view, it teaches the regenerated the abandoning of the old life of sin; so, in the latter, it equally teaches them the pursuit and progress of the new life of righteousness. “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." The obvious design of the apostle is to illustrate the character and obligations of believers, from the circumstance, that they are, in a certain respect, conformed to Christ’s death: that as he died /br sin, so they are dead, or are under obligations to be dead, to sin; that is, they are holy, or are, by their profession, obliged to be holy. “So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death." And this is explained by what follows. “In that Christ died, he died unto sin (or on account of sin) once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, (or in respect to sin,) but alive unto God through Jesus Christ." This is what was signified by baptism. And so believers were baptized into Christ’s death: not that baptism was a symbol of death, or the state of the dead; for water, or washing in water, never was a symbol of this. But water, used in ceremonial, whether by washing or sprinkling, and afterwards in Christian baptism, always signified the fact, or the acknowledged necessity of ’purification. Now being dead, or in a state of death to sin, is the same thing as to be spiritually purified, or made holy. And this is the very thing that baptism, coming in the place of absolutions under the former economy, is exactly adapted to signify. Or, to say all in a word, water used in baptism is a sign of that moral purification of believers, which the apostle means to express by their being crucified, dead and conformed to Christ’s death." Their being dead in conformity with Christ, is the expression which contains the metaphor. And baptism, as an appointed token or symbol, denotes what is signified by the metaphor, not the metaphor itself."{20} The sum of the apostle’s illustrations, then, so far as the point before us is concerned, is simply this — That in baptism, as a rite emblematical oi moral purification ^ Christians profess to be baptized into the death of Christ, as well as into (or into the hope of) his resurrection; that they are dead and buried in respect to sin, that is, in a moral and spiritual sense; so that every Christian can say, with Paul — “I am crucified with Christ; I have been made conformable to his death; being dead indeed to sin, and alive to God by Jesus Christ." But besides all this, which is sufficient of itself to show how little reliance is to be placed on the gloss of this passage adopted by our Baptist brethren — the burial of Christ was by no means such as the friends of this exposition commonly suppose. The body of our Savior was never buried in the manner in which we are accustomed to inter human corpses, that is by letting it down into the bosom of the earth, and covering it with earth. It was placed in a tomb hewn out of a rock; not a tomb sunk in the earth, but hollowed out of a rock, above ground, and containing separate cells for the reception of bodies, “as the manner of the Jews was to bury." Even supposing, then, that it were yielded to our Baptist brethren that the design of the apostle is to teach the mode of baptism, by comparing it to the burial of Christ, it would by no means serve their purpose. There was not in fact any such subterranean immersion, if the expression may be allowed, as they imagine. The body of the Savior was evidently laid in a stone cell, above ground, in which no earth came in contact with it, and in which, when the stone which closed up the door was taken away, the body was distinctly visible. In short, the burial of Christ no more resembled the modern interment of a dead body among us, than the depositing such a body, for a time, in an apartment in the basement story of a dwelling house, the floor of which was either not sunk below the surface of the earth at all, or, if any, not more than a few inches; admitting of free ingress and egress as a common inhabited room. The figure in question, then, does not serve the turn of our Baptist brethren; thus affording another proof, that nothing more was intended by its use, than to set forth that, by being baptized into the death of Christ, we profess to be dead and buried in respect to sin, without any reference whatever to the mode in which either the burial or the baptism might be performed.

Accordingly, in the verse immediately preceding that before commented on, in the second Epistle to the Colossians, the following passage occurs, evidently intended to teach the same lesson: “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." And in the verse immediately following that in which the burial of Christ is alluded to, the figure of circumcision as an emblem of spiritual cleansing, is still pursued: “And you being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." Here, it is plain, the same general idea is meant to be conveyed, as in the reference to baptism, which has come in the room of circumcision. In both the putting away sin; the “putting off the sins of the flesh," is emblematically represented and sealed: as a man dead and buried is cut off from all temporal connections and indulgences; so the baptized man is really, or at least by profession, dead to sin, and in this way made conformable to the death of Christ, in its great design and efficacy, which are to purify to himself a peculiar people, dead to the world, dead to carnal ambition, and secluded from every unhallowed practice.

Another signal example of the figurative language of Scripture applied to baptism, occurs in 1 Corinthians 10:1-2. “Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Now, when we turn to the narrative given by Moses, in the fourteenth chapter of Exodus we find that the Red Sea, through which the Israelites passed, was divided before them; that the waters stood up like a wall on each side; and that they passed through ON DRY GROUND. We are also informed, that the cloud by which their line of march was divinely directed, did not even fall upon them in the form of a shower, much less submerge them; but that it alternately went behind them and before them; now hanging in their rear, for the purpose of concealing them from their enemies; and then preceding them in their course, presenting a face of splendor to them, and a face of darkness to their pursuers. In all this, there was evidently nothing like immersion. The utmost that could have happened, in consistency with the inspired narrative, was their being sprinkled by the spray of the sea, or by drops from the miraculous cloud, when it passed over their heads. The last passage of the class under consideration to which I shall advert, is that found in the first Epistle of Peter, 1 Peter 3:20-21 : “The long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The principle implied in this passage is plain; and it affords not the smallest countenance to the doctrine of our Baptist brethren. Every one sees, that in the case of Noah and his family," and of all the animals preserved with them in the ark, there was no immersion in the waters of the flood. Nay, this was the very evil from which the ark preserved them. Of course, whatever else the passage may prove, it is impossible that it should be legitimately considered as favoring baptism by plunging the whole body under water.

7. Further; that immersion is not necessary in baptism; and that to insist upon it, as indispensable, is superstition, appears from the indisputable fact, that both the significance and the effect of baptism are to be considered as depending, not on the physical influence of water, or upon the quantity of it employed, but on its symbolical meaning, and on the blessing of God upon its application as a symbol. There has always been a tendency in human nature to lay more stress than the Bible warrants upon outward forms; and to imagine that external rites have a virtue inherent in themselves, by which their recipients are of course savingly benefited. It is generally granted by enlightened Protestants to be one of the mischievous errors of Popery, that baptism, and the other appointed rites of our religion, when administered by authorized hands, have an inherent efficacy; a sort of self-operating power on those to whom they are administered. This we consider as a superstitious and dangerous error. We believe that no external ordinance has any power in itself; but that its power to benefit those who receive it, depends altogether upon the influence of the Holy Spirit of God, making it effectual; and that this influence may accompany or follow the ordinance, whatever may be the outward form of its administration. If, indeed, we had reason to believe that the benefit of baptism was caused by the physical influence of water on any or every part of the body, and depended upon that influence: if the least intimation of this kind were given us, either by the word of God, or the nature of the case; it would be wise to insist on a rigorous adherence to that form. But as the benefit of the ordinance has no connection, so far as we know, with the operation of water on the animal frame; but is the result, solely, of a divine blessing on a prescribed and striking emblem; and as the word of God has no where informed us of the precise mode in which that emblem shall be applied — we infer that the divine blessing may attend upon any mode of applying it. The language of our blessed Savior, on a memorable occasion, is full of instruction on this subject. In order to give his disciples a striking lesson both of humility and purity, he condescended, on a certain evening, when they were assembled under solemn circumstances, to wash their feet. Simon Peter, when his Master came to him, like too many at the present day, misunderstanding the nature and significance of the symbolical action, at first strongly objected, and said, “Thou shalt never wash my feet." Jesus answered, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part in me." To which Peter, in the fullness of his fervent zeal, replied, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.”

Jesus, however, meaning to convey the idea that the whole action was symbolical, and that the application of water to any part of the body was abundantly sufficient, rejoins to Peter, “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit:" as much as to say, “It is not the physical ablution, but the symbolical meaning, to which I now wish to call your attention; and for this purpose the application of water to the feet only, carries with it all the fullness of meaning, and all the richness of benefit, that could have resulted from the most plentiful application of it to the whole frame."

8. Another, and in my view, conclusive reason for believing that our Baptist brethren are in error, in insisting that no baptism unless by immersion is valid, is, that the native tendency of this doctrine is to superstition and abuse. The tendency here alleged has been often observed and lamented by serious people, as likely to be connected with a false hope, and to destroy the souls of multitudes. Facts in support of this remark have fallen under my own painful observation. I have known many Baptists, who appeared to feel as if there was some inherent efficacy in being “buried under the water," and that those who submitted to that "self-denying" rite, were, of course, real Christians. They have evidently appeared to think that that was the great step in religion; and that, having taken it, all was secure. Now, I contend, that this is the natural tendency of the Baptist doctrine; that their laying so much stress upon “going under the water," and holding it up, with unceasing zeal, to the popular view, as the great, distinguishing, and indispensable badge of discipleship, is, unavoidably, adapted to betray "unwary souls" into a delusive confidence. There is no disposition in depraved human nature more deeply inwrought, or more incessantly operative, than the disposition to rely upon something done by us for securing the divine favor. It is this disposition which has led to all that enormous mass of superstitious observances, which distinguishes the Papal system, and which we have every reason to believe is built upon by millions, as the foundation of hope, instead of Christ. Whenever, therefore, any external rite becomes the grand distinction of a sect, and the object of something approaching to sectarian idolatry, we may be sure there exists not only the danger, but the actual commencement, to some extent, of that superstitious reliance, which he who has not learned to fear, “knows nothing of the human heart yet as he ought to know." That this suggestion has something more than mere fancy on which to rest, is evident from facts of recent and ’ most mournful occurrence. A large and daily increasing sect has arisen, within a few years, in the bosom of the Baptist denomination, which maintains the delusive and destructive doctrine, that baptism is regeneration; that no man can be regenerated who is not immersed; and that all, without exception, who have a historical faith, and are immersed, are, of course, in a state of salvation. This pernicious heresy, so contrary to the plainest principles and facts of the word of God, and so manifestly adapted to destroy the souls of all who believe it, has been propagated to a melancholy extent, by a plausible, reckless, and impious demagogue, and is supposed to embrace one half of the Baptist body in the western country, besides many in the east. In short, the Baptist churches, in large districts of country, are so rent in pieces, and deluded by the miserable impostor referred to, that their prospects, for many years to come, are not only gloomy, but, without a special interposition of the King of Zion in their favour, altogether desperate.

Now I maintain that this wretched delusion is by no means an unnatural result of the doctrine and practice of our Baptist brethren, in regard to the baptismal rite. Multitudes of them, I know, reject and abhor the heresy in question as much as any of us. But have they duly considered, that it seems naturally to have grown out of their own theory and practice in regard to baptism; their attaching such a disproportioned importance to the mode of administering that ordinance; often, very often, directing the attention of the people more to the river than the cross; excluding all from Christian communion, however pious, who have not been immersed; and making representations which, whether so intended or not, naturally lead the weak and the uninformed to consider immersion as a kind of talisman, always connected with a saving blessing? This I sincerely believe, is the native tendency of the doctrine of our Baptist brethren, although they, I am equally confident, neither perceive nor admit this to be the case. If pious Christians who have not been immersed, cannot be admitted to communion in the church below, there would seem to be still more reason for excluding them from the purer church above. And so far as this principle is received and cherished, though far from being alike mischievous in all cases, it can scarcely fail of predisposing many minds in favor of that awful delusion, by which we have reason to believe that not a few, under its higher workings, have been blinded, betrayed, and lost.

9. Finally; that immersion cannot be considered, to say the least, as essential to a valid baptism, is plain from the history of this ordinance.

It is not denied that, for the first few centuries after Christ, the most common mode of administering baptism was by immersion. But it is maintained, that affusion and sprinkling were also practiced, and when used, were considered as perfectly valid and sufficient. Of this the proof is so complete and indubitable, that no one really acquainted with the early history of the church, will think, for a moment, of calling it in question. The learned Wall, whose “History of Infant Baptism" is generally considered, by competent judges, as one of the most profound and faithful works extant, on the subject before us; after showing conclusively that Paedobaptists ought not to refuse the admission, that baptism by dipping, was the most prevalent mode, even in the western church, for a number of centuries after Christ; goes on to remark that, on the other hand, the AntiPaedobaptists will be quite as unfair in their turn, if they do not grant, that in cases of sickness, weakliness, haste, want of a sufficient quantity of water, or any such extraordinary occasion, baptism by the affusion of water on the face, was, by the ancients, counted sufficient baptism. Of the testimony which he offers in support of this statement, a specimen will be presented. {21}

Eusebius states, (Book 6. chapter 43.) on the authority of preceding writers, that Novatian being sick, and near death, as was supposed, was baptized on his bed by affusion. He, however, recovered, and was afterwards ordained to the work of the ministry. And although some questioned, whether a man who had been brought to make a profession of religion only on a sick bed, and when he considered himself as about to die, ought to be made a minister; yet this doubt arose, we are assured, not from any apprehension that the baptism itself was incomplete; but on the principle, that he who came to the faith not voluntarily, but from necessity, ought not to be made a priest, unless his subsequent diligence and faith should be distinguished and highly commendable. Of the character of Cyprian, who flourished in the former part of the third century, enough has been said in a preceding discourse. A certain Magnus, a country minister, consulted him on the question, whether those who had been introduced into the Christian church, by baptism, on their sick beds, and, of course, by affusion, or sprinkling, ought to be baptized again, if they recovered? Cyprian’s answer to this question is as follows:

"You inquire, my dear son, what I think of such as attain grace in time of sickness and infirmity: whether they are to be accounted lawful Christians, because they have not been washed all over with the water of salvation, but have only had some of it poured on them. In which matter I would use so much modesty and humility, as not to prescribe so positively, but that every one should enjoy the freedom of his own thought, and do as he thinks best. I do, however, according to the best of my mean capacity, judge thus: That the divine favors can in no wise be mutilated or weakened, so that any thing less than the whole of them is conveyed, where the benefit of them is received with a full and complete faith, on the part both of the giver and receiver. For, in the sacrament of salvation, the contagion of sin is not washed off in the same manner as the filth of the body is in a carnal and secular bath. It is entirely in a different way that the heart of a believer — it is after another fashion that the mind of man is by faith cleansed. In the sacraments of salvation, through the indulgence of God, when necessity compels, the shortest way of transacting divine matters, conveys the whole benefit to those who believe. Nor let any be moved by the fact, that the sick, when they are baptized, are only perfused or sprinkled, since the Scripture says, by the prophet Ezekiel, (Ezekiel 36:25; Ezekiel 36:36.) "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you; a new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you." It is also said in the book of Numbers, (Numbers 19:1-22) “And the man which shall be unclean until the evening, shall be purified on the third day, and on the seventh day, and he shall be clean. But if he shall not be purified on the third day, and on the seventh day, he shall not be clean, and that soul shall be cut oflf from Israel, because the water of aspersion hath not been sprinkled upon him." And again, the Lord spake unto Moses, in the book of Numbers, (Numbers 8:1-26) “Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them; and thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them; sprinkle water of purifying upon them." And again, “the water of aspersion is purification." From which it appears that sprinkling is sufficient instead of immersion; and whensoever it is done, if there be a sound faith, on the part both of the giver and receiver, it is perfect and complete." From these passages, as well as from a number of others, which might be quoted, found in the works of Cyprian, it is evident, that, in a little more than one hundred and fifty years from the death of the last apostle, cases of baptism by perfusion or sprinkling had notoriously, and in repeated instances, occurred; that such examples were found among the heretics, as well as in the orthodox church; that a man so learned and pious as the venerable Cyprian, was decisively of the opinion that they were to be justified; and, finally, that he considered this as a point concerning which Christians were at liberty to entertain their own opinion, and to do as they judged best. Plainly implying that he did not consider it at all as an essential matter.

Origen was contemporary with Cyprian. He wrote in the Greek language. It was his vernacular tongue; and he was, probably, the most learned man of the century in which he lived. This venerable Christian father, commenting on 1 Kings 18:33, in which we read of Elijah’s ordering water to be poured on the burnt sacrifice, tells us that he baptized the wood on the altar. Was not Origen a good judge of the meaning of a Greek word? Can we imagine that he would have used the word baptize in this sense, if he had regarded immersion as its exclusive meaning? When Laurentius, a Roman deacon, about the middle of the third century, was brought to the stake to suffer martyrdom, a soldier who had been employed to be one of his executioners, professed to be converted, and requested baptism from the hands of him whom he had been engaged to assist in burning. For this purpose, pitcher of water was brought, and the soldier baptized at the place of execution. In circumstances so solemn as these, surely no conscientious man would have sported with a divine ordinance, or subjected it to any essential mutilation. It was, doubtless, deemed a sufficient mode of administering baptism. {22}

Gennadius, a distinguished ecclesiastic of Marseilles, in the fifth century, speaks of baptism as administered in the French church indifferently, by either immersion or affusion, or sprinkling. For having said, “We believe the way of salvation to be open only to baptized persons;” he adds, "except only in the case of martyrdom, in which all the sacraments of baptism are completed." Then, to show how martyrdom has all in it that baptism has, he says, “The person to be baptized, owns his faith before the priest; and when the interrogatories are put to him, makes his answer. The same does a martyr before the heathen judge. He also owns his faith; and when the question is put to him, makes answer. The one, after his confession, is either wetted with the water, or else plunged into it; and the other, is either wetted with his own blood, or plunged into the fire." This language plainly evinces that, in the time of Gennadius, both modes of baptism were in use and deemed equally valid.

Thomas Aquinas, and Bonaventura, are well known as two learned ecclesiastics of the twelfth century. In their time it is evident that both plunging and affusion were used in the churches of Italy, in the administration of baptism. Aquinas, in writing on the subject, expresses himself thus: “Baptism may be given not only by immersion, but also by affusion of water, or by sprinkling with it. But it is the safer way to baptize by immersion, because that is the most common custom." On the other hand, his contemporary, Bonaventura, observes, “The way of affusion in baptism was probably used by the apostles, and was, in his time, used in the churches of France, and some others;" but remarks, “The method of dipping into the water is the more common, and therefore the fitter and safer." The Synod of Angiers, A. D. 1275, speaks of dipping and pouring as indifferently used; and blames some ignorant priests, because they dipped, or poured on water, but once; and at the same time declaring that the general custom of the church was to dip, or to pour on water three times. The Synod of Langres, A. D. 1404, speaks of pouring or perfusion only. “Let the priest make three pourings or sprinklings of water on the infants head," &c. The Council of Cologne, in 1536, evidently intimate that both modes were constantly practiced. Their language is, “The child is thrice either dipped, or wetted with water." Fifteen years afterwards, in the Agenda of the church of Mentz, published by Sebastian, there is found the following direction: “Then let the priest take the child on his left arm, and holding him over the font, let him, with his right hand, three several times, take water out of the font, and pour it on the child’s head, so that the water may wet its head and shoulders." Then they give a note to this purpose; that immersion, once or thrice, or pouring of water may be used, and have been used, in the church; that this variety does not alter the nature of baptism; and that a man would do ill to break the custom of the church for either of them. But they add, that it is better, if the church will allow, to use pouring on of water. “For suppose," say they, “the priest be old and feeble, or have the palsy in his hands; or the weather be very cold; or the child be very infirm; or too big to be dipped in the font; then it is much fitter to use affusion of the water." Then they bring the instance of the apostles baptizing three thousand at a time; and the instance of Laurentius, the Roman deacon, before spoken of — and add, “That, therefore, there may not be one way for the sick, and another for the healthy; one for children, and another for bigger persons; it is better that the administrator of this sacrament do observe the safest way, which is, to pour water thrice; unless the custom be to the contrary."{23}

One more historical record, which, though apparently inconsiderable in itself, is, in my view, decisive, shall close the present list of testimonies. It is one referred to in a former discourse, when speaking of Infant baptism. I mean the undoubted fact, that the Waldenses, those farfamed and devoted witnesses of the truth, who maintained, during the darkness and desolation of the Papacy, “the testimony of Jesus," very soon after the Reformation opened, approached, with the most cordial friendliness, the Reformed churches of Geneva and France; recognized them as sisters in the Lord; received ministers from them; and maintained with them the most affectionate communion. Now it is certain that, at that time, in the churches of both Geneva and France, the baptism of infants, and the administration of the ordinance by sprinkling, were in constant use. On such an incontestable fact, the argument is this: The Waldenses either baptized by sprinkling or by immersion. If by sprinkling, an important testimony is gained in favor of that mode, from ecclesiastical history. If by immersion, they plainly laid no such stress upon the mode as our Baptist brethren now do; since they were willing to commune with, and to receive ministers from, churches which were in the habit of using sprinkling only. In my view, as I said, this argument is decisive. We know that the Waldenses habitually baptized infants; but in what mode they administered the ordinance is not quite so certain. But one thing is unquestionable; and that is, that those pious witnesses for Christ, even if they did immerse, did not consider the mode as essential, but were ready to hold the most unreserved communion with those who practiced aspersion.

These testimonies, and many more to the same purpose, which might be presented if it were necessary, must, it appears to me, satisfy every impartial mind, that, from the days of the apostles, down to the Reformation, affusion and sprinkling in baptism, as well as immersion, have been in constant use; that some of the gravest and most soberminded writers have firmly defended the two former, as well as the latter; that the strong arguments in favor of affusion or sprinkling, as the preferable mode, have been, in all ages, distinctly appreciated; and that it has ever been considered as a part of Christian liberty to use either mode, as may be conscientiously preferred.

Suffer me now to close this discussion by presenting two or three practical inferences from the view which has been given of this latter part of the subject. And,

1. If our statement of evidence as to the mode of baptism be correct, then the conduct of our Baptist brethren, in not only denying to the infant seed of believers all right to membership in the church, but also making immersion indispensable to a valid baptism, are chargeable with taking ground which is plainly unscriptural, and with dividing the body of Christ, for a mere uncommanded circumstance; a circumstance in regard to which all reasoning, and all history are, on the whole, against them. We do not deny that the baptisms of these brethren are valid; but we do deny that they rest upon any more solid ground than ours; and we are persuaded that, without the least authority, they lay on the recipients of baptism “a yoke of bondage," which has no warrant from the Word of God; and which the whole genius of the Gospel forbids. Surely, if the inspired writers had regarded immersion in the same light with our Baptist brethren, we should have had some explicit statements on this subject in the instructions given to the churches in the infancy of their New Testament course. And, surely, the attempt to lay burdens which the Spirit of God has no where authorized, is to incur the guilt imputed to those who "add to" the things which are contained in the book of life. On this subject I feel that it is no longer our duty to content ourselves with standing on the defensive. Our opponents in this controversy, I verily believe, are chargeable with “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men;" and, of course, I consider them as equally sinning against the Head of the church, and against “the generation of the righteous."

2. These things being so, we may see how the conduct of some of our Baptist brethren, in particular states of the church, ought to be regarded by the friends of Zion. The conduct to which I refer is, their having so often intruded into churches in which some religious attention has existed, and in which scarcely a family of their own denomination was to be found; and when the minds of many individuals were anxious respecting their eternal interest, immediately broaching the controversy respecting infant baptism, and immersion, and distressing the consciences of serious inquirers — not with the great and momentous question, “what they shall do to be saved?" but — before their minds are at all settled as to their personal hope in Christ, or their fitness for any sacramental seal; perplexing them with the controversy about an external rite, which they themselves grant is not essential to salvation. I have personally known such proceedings to occur, with a frequency as wonderful as it was revolting; and with an obtrusive zeal worthy of a better cause. Young and timid consciences have been distressed, if not with the direct assertion, at least by the artful insinuation, that their particular mode of baptism was all in all; that there could be no safe Christianity without it. The river, the river, really seemed, by some, to be placed in the room of the Savior!

There is something in all this so deeply offensive to every enlightened and judicious Christian; which involves so much meanness; and which manifests so much more concern for the enlargement of a sect, than the salvation of souls, that it is difficult to speak of it in terms of as strong reprobation as it deserves, without infringing on the limits of Christian decorum and respectfulness. It is conduct of which no candid and generous mind, actuated by the spirit of Christ, will ever be guilty. And, I am happy to add, it is conduct in which many belonging to the denomination to which I allude, have souls too enlarged and elevated to allow themselves to indulge.

3. Once more; let us all be careful, my Christian friends, as a practical deduction from what has been said, to forbear “returning evil for evil," on this, or any other point of ecclesiastical controversy. However other denominations may treat us; let us never be chargeable with treating them in an unchristian manner. We are conscientiously compelled to differ from our Baptist brethren. We believe them to be in error; in important and highly mischievous error. But what then? They are still brethren in Christ. Let us, therefore, love them, and, however they may treat us, treat them with fraternal respectfulness, and seek their welfare. Let us never indulge a spirit of unhallowed proselytism. Let us never employ any other weapons against them than those of candid argument, and fervent prayer. Instead of “doting about questions, and strifes of words, whereof come envy, railings, evil surmisings, and corrupt disputings;" let us follow after patience, forbearance and charity; ever remembering that all who really belong to Christ, however they may differ in externals, are “one body in Him, and members one of another." May we all be deeply imbued with the spirit which ought to flow from this precious truth; and may all that we do be done with charity! Amen!