========================================================================
  LECTURES ON BAPTISM
  by John Shirreff
========================================================================

Scholarly lectures on the doctrine and practice of baptism by the learned Church
of Scotland preacher John Shirreff. Drawing extensively from the writings of the
Church Fathers, Shirreff provides a thorough examination of the biblical and
historical basis for baptism.

  Chapters: 19

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 02. Editor's Preface
    2. 03. Lecture I; Positive Institutions and Observations
    3. 04. Lecture II; Nature of the Evidence Required
    4. 05. Lecture III; The New Testament The Only Rule In Regard to the Institutions
    5. 06. Lecture IV; Practice Determined By Direct Passages
    6. 07. Lecture V; Positive Proof Essential
    7. 08. Lecture VI; Estimate of the Value of Inferential Reasoning
    8. 09. Lecture VIII; Farther Presumptions Against Infant Baptism
    9. 10. Lecture IX; Farther Presumptions
   10. 11. Lecture X. Futher Presumptions
   11. 12. Lecture XI; Concluding Presumptions
   12. 13. Lecture XII; The Baptism of John
   13. 14. Lecture XIII; Baptism of the Disciples
   14. 15. Lecture XIV; Baptism on Pentecost
   15. 16. Lecture XVI; Baptism of the Samaritans and Ethiopian
   16. 17. Lecture XVI; Baptism of Saul and the Centurion
   17. 18. Lecture XVII; Baptism of Lydia and the Jailor.
   18. 19. Lecture XVIII; Baptisms at Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome.
   19. 20. Lecture XIX; Baptisms in Galatia, Colosse, and 1Pe_3:1-22.

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 02. EDITOR'S PREFACE
========================================================================

EDITOR’S PREFACE.

Mr Shirreff was, for many years, one of the most learned, popular, and
impressive Preachers in the Church of Scotland.

He devoted himself much to study, and eagerly perused the writings of the
Fathers, to which, besides those in his own valuable collection, he had access,
through the Library which Archbishop Leighton had established at Dunblane, when
he presided over that diocese. So much was Mr Shirreff engaged in this study,
that it was a common remark, when he was absent from the meetings of Presbytery,
"He is at home with his Fathers." In the progress of his researches, he became
satisfied that the attempted union of Church and State is AntiChristian; and he
was not disobedient to the heavenly oracle, “Come out from among them, and be ye
separate." He resigned the charge of the parish of St Ninians, in the Presbytery
of Stirling, which he had held during thirty-five years. He then removed to
Glasgow, where, for upwards of nine years, he labored in word and doctrine, as
the Elder of a Christian Church

He was convinced that Infant Baptism was the key-stone of the arch on which
National Churches have always rested, and will rest, so long as they continue to
scatter the flock of Christ. He naturally wished to exhibit those arguments from
which he had himself received the fullest satisfaction on this most important
subject. The result was, the preparation of these Lectures, which he delivered
weekly, on Wednesday evenings, in Albion Street Chapel.

They would have appeared to greater advantage, had he lived to carry them
through the press. This was not permitted; but the Editor has endeavored to
correct any trifling inaccuracies, which can hardly fail to occur in a
manuscript not expressly written out for publication. Had the Author
superintended the press, he would probably have expunged some passages of
Scripture, together with the remarks to which they gave rise, which may be
considered as repetitions; but the Editor did not feel himself at liberty to
expunge what had appeared to the Author, and might appear to others, important
to the argument. Indeed, the plan of considering all the passages in the New
Testament in which Baptism is introduced, unavoidably led the Author
occasionally to touch upon the same ground. The Reader will, it is presumed,
recognize in these Lectures the vigorous actings of an acute and powerful mind;
he will feel that he has to do with a man who was mighty in the Scriptures; and
who endeavored, by manifestation of the truth, to commend himself to every man’s
conscience in the sight of God.

Mr Shirreff commenced a History of Baptism, — a work for which he was eminently
qualified by his extensive acquaintance with the writings of the Fathers: he
was, however, removed from the world before he had brought it to such a state as
to be submitted to the public.

It appears to the Editor the mark of a superior mind, that, with the learning
which Mr Shirreff possessed, as he did not intend to deliver critical Lectures
upon the subject of Baptism, he has almost entirely avoided referring to the
original, (almost the only exception is, what he says upon the untranslated word
baptize, the meaning of which, with every scholar, Mr Shirreff held to be
immerse; the unlearned reader, who observes that baptism is repeatedly described
as a burial and resurrection, can be at no loss to see that such is the
signification of the word) and has adapted his reasoning to the acquirements of
those who, although well versed in the word of God, have never studied it in any
language but their own. On every occasion, the Author stands forth the zealous
and uncompromising vindicator of the truth of God, but never attempts to derive
advantage from his superior knowledge of the original. A few Notes have been
subjoined, for which the Editor is responsible. The publication of the following
pages is not connected with any prospect of pecuniary advantage. Its sole object
is to promote the knowledge of the will of Jesus. The expenses have been all
defrayed; and whatever may arise from the sale is devoted to the Education of
Young Men for the Work of the Ministry, under the Direction of the Glasgow
Baptist Educational Society.

Edinburgh, March 31, 1845.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 03. LECTURE I; POSITIVE INSTITUTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
========================================================================

INTRODUCTORY LECTURE.

IMPORTANCE OF POSITIVE INSTITUTIONS, AND OBSERVATIONS ON THE ORDINANCE OF
BAPTISM. The object of these Lectures is to state the doctrine of the Scriptures
on the ordinance of Christian Baptism. It is a very common, though a very
groundless and hurtful opinion, that the discussion of this subject is
unnecessary. Positive institutions are far from being uninteresting to the
friends of religion; in them the truth is embodied, and the observance of them,
as of every precept of revelation, belongs to the obedience of faith, and
comfort of the gospel. We have salutary warning in the scriptures, that it is at
our peril, if we act on the popular error, that positive institutions are
unworthy of study and attention. "He that despised Moses’ law, died without
mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye,
shall he be thought worthy, who hath — done despite unto the spirit of grace."
"The Lord smote the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of
the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten
men." "And when they came to Nachon’s thrashing floor, Uzzah put forth his hand
to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of
the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error, and
there he died by the ark of God." 1Co 11:27, "Wherefore, whosoever shall eat
this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the
body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of
that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily,
eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For
this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would
judge ourselves, we should not be judged."

James, speaking of violating a positive injunction, viz. having respect of
persons in church associations, represents it as a violation of the whole law.
"But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law
as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one
point, he is guilty of all." And speaking of the commandments, whether positive
or moral, our Lord says, Mat 5:19, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these
least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the
kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be
called great in the kingdom of heaven." Our consciences are charged with the
study of the doctrine of baptism, by peculiar and affecting considerations. It
occupies a large proportion of New Testament revelation. From the line of
positive institutions, baptism stands prominently out, and attracts special
attention, Mark 16:15-16, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to
every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." John 3:5,
"Jesus answered, verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water
and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." 1Pe 3:21, "Baptism
doth also now save us, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the
answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
The interests of the Church of Christ are deeply concerned in the scriptural
administration, and of course, in the diligent study of this ordinance. Baptism,
like every other ordinance, must be administered in the name of God. Suppose for
a moment, that the administrator proceeds in this name, whilst he cannot produce
his mandate, he proceeds in profanation of the dreadful name of Jehovah. Whoever
countenances, or encourages the profanation, makes the guilt his own, and
subjects himself to the consequences. Suppose a parent to misunderstand this
ordinance; he not only himself sins against God, but throws in the way of his
child, obstructions which he may never be able to surmount. Suppose a missionary
to introduce amongst the heathen, a corrupt administration of this ordinance;
ages may be required to remove the corruption. The Churches of Christ are at
present, most unhappily divided, and until this institution be honestly studied,
and rightly observed, these mortifying divisions can never be healed. The study
of the subject is pressed on the conscience of each individual, by a regard to
his own interest. The Christian world is divided; the question is practical; I
must bear witness in one way or another. If I have not studied the subject, how
do I know that I am not bearing false witness against my neighbor; calling good
evil, and evil good; and instead of making my light so shine before men, that
others may see my good works, and glorify God? — if I have not studied the
subject, how do I know that I am not, by my example, misleading others, and
bringing myself under the woe denounced? Mat 18:7, “Woe unto the world because
of offences, for it must needs be, that offences come; but woe to that man by
whom the offence cometh." “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." “Faith cometh by
hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Consequently, if I cannot from the
word of God, vindicate my practice to my own mind, I sin against God. It ought
never to be forgotten, that ignorance is no valid plea. Luk 12:47, “That servant
which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to
his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did
commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes."

Hence, the reiterated command to search the Scriptures, John 5:39, to prove all
things, and to hold fast that which is good, 1Th 5:21. Those who fear God, who
respect the interests of the Church, of the public, of themselves, or of their
relatives, must have anticipated the conclusion, that Baptism should be
diligently studied. The faithful disciple of Christ must, in Baptism, as in
every other branch of ecclesiastical polity, examine, judge, and act for
himself. The great mass of our race are the slaves of human authority. In
heathen countries, the population is generally heathen — Mahommedan, under the
government of the Turk. In some countries, infants are immersed, — in this
country they are generally sprinkled. Thus, according to the fashion, men are
Papists, or Protestants, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, or Independents. The
great majority of men are the creatures of external condition, of fashion, of
interest, and similar influences. The Christian has renounced the world; and
here, as in other things, he must justify his profession. The law is, “Call no
man your father upon earth, for one is your Father, which is in heaven," Mat
23:9. “If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though
living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, — after the commandments and
doctrines of men?" Col 2:20. In Rev 2:1-29; Rev 3:1-22 how often is it repeated,
"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches." The
design of these Lectures will not be altogether frustrated, if, by their means,
any shall be induced to lay aside prejudice, to examine for themselves, and for
themselves to decide and act in regard to this important ordinance of Christ.
The object of these Discourses is to assist the honest inquirer in his search
after truth. When he is in danger of being misled by habit, misrepresentation,
or sophistry, he must be apprised of his danger; these habits,
misrepresentations, and sophistries must be exposed. Beyond this necessary duty,
every thing polemical and controversial, will be avoided. It is with doctrines
that the inquirer after truth is concerned. The grand question is — “What saith
the Scripture?" Having ascertained this, it ought to be of no moment by whom the
doctrine is either taught or received, opposed or rejected.

It is the desire and duty of the speaker to assist the honest and enlightened
part of the community in detecting and removing the corruptions of Christianity.
This design would be frustrated by the perversion, misrepresentation, or
misapplication of any part of Scripture. Inquirers therefore may depend on it,
that, according to the grace given, the example of the Apostle will be followed,
2Co 4:1, “Seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not.
But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness,
nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth
commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God." In order to
profit by these Lectures, the following hints may be useful: —

1st, Continue in prayer to God for the direction and guidance of the Spirit, Psa
25:12, “What man is he that feareth the Lord? him shall he teach in the way that
he shall choose." Luk 11:13, “If ye, then, being evil, know how to give good
gifts to your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy
Spirit to them that ask Him?"

2d, Whilst any particular topic is under discussion, we should confine our
attention to that particular topic. Of that exclusively it will be our interest
to think and determine. For instance, the inquiry whether Christians, after
believing, ought to be baptized, does not involve the consideration of infant
baptism. Again, supposing infant baptism to be commanded, the question whether
this should supersede our observance of Baptism after believing, is distinct
from both the preceding inquiries.

3d, The inquirer should be on his guard against the effects of remaining
corruption and external influence. Many good men (like the first Reformers) have
never studied these subjects. Some of approved character and learning have
defended corruptions of the truth by arguments which prove only the power of
preconceived opinions. In the ordinary affairs of life, the man would be pitied
who had the weakness seriously to advance such arguments. The influence of
corruption remaining in the mind, is still more to be dreaded. He has little to
expect from the assistance of others, who is not continually on his guard
against it.

4th, The inquirer must himself read through the New Testament; he must observe
all the passages which treat on the subject of Baptism at one, or rather at
different readings; he must observe what each passage intimates on the different
topics of inquiry. Having finished this process, he must mark the result. If he
reads other books (as he probably will) he must act in regard to his books, as a
judge or a jury acts in regard to counsel: having heard both sides, they decide
for themselves. I said, books besides the New Testament will probably be read;
but allow me to say also, that this labor is not absolutely necessary. The
Scriptures themselves are sufficient to make the man of God perfect, thoroughly
furnished to every good work. But whether other books be perused or not, the
inquirer must begin and end with the perusal of the New Testament. The Spirit of
God must have the honor, which is exclusively due to himself. The inquirer will
find that submission to, and the enjoyment of God are here, as every where the,
inseparably connected. Of the reasonings of men, we shall treat in their place;
at present, I give only the following cautions: — Never mistake supposition, or
mere assertions, for proof. Never act on a proof proposed, but not understood.
Never confound the creatures of imagination with the conclusions of reason.
Never mistake one subject for another, but distinguish things that differ.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 04. LECTURE II; NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE REQUIRED
========================================================================

LECTURE II.

NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE REQUIRED. The object of this Lecture is to ascertain the
kind of evidence required in discussions on Baptism. Inattention to this has
occasioned much unproductive labor. The candid inquirer will consult both his
duty and comfort, by recollecting the truth and consequences of the following
positions.

Position I. The Scriptures of truth are the only rule to direct us how, in this
ordinance, as in every thing else, God is to be glorified and enjoyed.

These words are used partly because they express what is intended, and partly
because they anticipate the objection from novelty. Minute attention to what God
appoints is repeatedly enjoined both in the Old and in the New Testaments. Deu
4:2, “Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments
which I teach you, for to do them: ye shall not add unto the word which I
command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the
commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Isa 8:20, “To the Jaw
and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because
there is no light in them." 2Th 3:6, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that
walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." 2Ti
1:13, “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith
and love which is in Christ Jesus." 2Ti 3:16-17, “All Scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly
furnished unto all good works." 1Jn 4:6, “We are of God: he that knoweth God
heareth us: he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of
truth, and the spirit of error." But I need not multiply proofs. The truth of
the doctrine is incontestable. Let us mark the consequence. Arguments for the
baptism or sprinkling of infants, if drawn from any other source than the
Scriptures, cannot bind the conscience. Of this description are arguments taken
from the practice of Pedo-baptists, ancient or modern — arguments founded on the
piety, learning, and numbers of such as baptize, or sprinkle infants — arguments
founded on the writings of the Jewish Rabbins, and the alleged practice of the
Jews in admitting their proselytes — arguments founded on the writings of the
Fathers and Church historians —arguments founded on the authority of assemblies
and councils — arguments founded on the supposed congruity and utility of
baptizing or sprinkling infants. The inquirer, on reflection, must refer to the
same class, all arguments which he finds he does not understand.

All the evidence in these circumstances resolves itself into a regard to human
authority. To all these and similar arguments the candid inquirer will reply:
The Scriptures alone must determine my faith; if I find that in the Scriptures I
am directed to baptize or sprinkle my infants, they must be baptized or
sprinkled accordingly, whatever the contrary practice may have been, how long
soever it may have existed, and how extensively soever it may have preveiled —
whatever be the piety, learning, or numbers of its opponents — whatever be the
doctrine of Jewish Rabbins or Christian Fathers — whatever be the pretences of
congruity or utility; or whatever opinion I may entertain of the learning of the
advocates of the opposite practice. On the contrary, if I find no instructions
in the Scriptures either to baptize or sprinkle infants, I can neither immerse
nor sprinkle them (be the practices and opinions of men what they may) without
violating my allegiance to the God of the Scriptures, and contracting the guilt
of willworship.

I repeat the conclusion: if a man have ability and inclination to study the
writings of the Jews, the Fathers, and Church historians; if he wishes to know
the history of Baptism, and of Councils, he may indulge his curiosity; but his
conscience must be directed by the Bible alone.

Position II. The Scriptures of the New Testament are the only rule to direct us
as to the positive institutions of the Gospel Dispensation.

First, we must prove the truth of the position, and then mark its bearings on
the subject before us.

Before, however, we adduce the proof, allow me, in order to secure attention to
it, to premise one of the designs of provinga position so obviously true. From
our earliest years, we have been accustomed to associate the ideas of the
Lord’s-supper and the passover, of circumcision and baptism, of Abraham and his
posterity with parents and their children; with what propriety or impropriety,
we shall afterwards inquire. It is a fact, that such an association of ideas
generally exists. In some of us, it has grown with our growth, and strengthened
with our strength. Certain teachers have not failed to aveil themselves of the
prejudice. By it, they have led us to visionary speculations respecting the
covenants with Noah, Abraham, and Moses. Their object is frequently gained. Men
who are not indisposed to be misled, easily find an excuse for gratifying their
wishes. Honest inquirers, perplexed and confused by the general practice, and
distrustful of their own judgments, hesitate to practise what they know, and
perhaps altogether abandon their inquiries after truth. To the first of these
classes, I have at present nothing to say. To the second, all attention is due.
Their duty is plain. Having learned from the New Testament the mind of the Lord,
let them act on their convictions, though they may feel the influence of early
prejudices, and though there be still many things in the Old Dispensation which
they are not able fully to explain.

I proceed to prove, that if any, through prejudice, should imagine that the
doctrines of the New Testament are inconsistent with the institutions of the
Old, then the obscure passages in the Old Testament must be explained by the
clear passages in the New. I am not to darken my views of the New Testament by
looking at it only through the veil of the Old.*

Observe, first, that the Old Dispensation is come to an end, and all its
positive institutions, i.e. its ceremonial observances, are abrogated. Before we
produce the proof of this assertion, the doctrine must be distinctly stated. It
will be of considerable advantage to the inquirer fully to understand it.
Mistake or misrepresentation here has given a degree of plausibility to
arguments, the fallacy of which would otherwise have been obvious. First, then,
let it be noticed, that the plan of redemption, or the covenant of grace, as it
is commonly called, is always the same. It admits of no change. It is the same
under the New Dispensation that it was under the Old.

Men have always been saved in the same way, whether under the Christian economy,
or under the Mosaic, Abrahamic, or more ancient branches of the Old
Dispensation.

Let it also be noticed that there are two distinct dispensations, and but two:
The Old Testament, and the New Testament; or, as they are generally denominated,
the Law and the Gospel. The Old Dispensation had four branches; the first,
reaching from Adam to Noah, — the second, from Noah to Abraham — the third, from
Abraham to Moses, — the fourth, from Moses to Christ. These four branches are
distinct, but the dispensation is one, viz. the Law, or Old Testament. Let it be
noticed, thirdly, that the positive institutions flowed down, and increased,
until they all met, and were absorbed in the Mosaical branch of that
dispensation. Thus from Adam to Noah we find sacrifices, but no other positive
institutions. Sacrifices are carried forward into the branch under Noah; the
prohibition of blood is added, perhaps the payment of tithes, and the
distinction of animals into clean and unclean.

These are carried forward into the branch from Abraham, and circumcision is
added. All these together are carried forward into the branch from Moses to
Christ. The ceremonial was then completed, and remained in force until it was
fulfilled and abolished by Christ. Thus the Savior, speaking of circumcision,
says, “Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision, (not because it is of Moses,
but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the
sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken;
are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath
day?" John 7:22-23. Observe, that it was given by Moses, and belonged to his
law; but that it was not originally of Moses, being introduced into his law from
the branch of the dispensation under the patriarchs. Let it be noticed farther,
that the characters of the Old and New Dispensations of the covenant of grace
are different. The Old is prophecy; the New is fulfillment. Mat 11:13, “For all
the prophets and the law prophesied unto John" Christ came to fulfill these
prophecies. Mat 5:17; “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." The Old Dispensation is the
painting, the shadow, the type. The New is the original, the substance, the
antitype. John 1:17, “The law was given by Moses; but grace and truth came by
Jesus Christ." Truth is opposed not only to falsehood, but to type and shadow.
(Dan 7:19; John 4:24) The Old Dispensation is promise; the New is performance.
2Co 1:20, “For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in Him amen, unto the
glory of God by us." The contrast is noted in many other ways in the Scriptures:
the letter and the spirit, the servant and the son, and the like. Hence, the
type and the antitype are often described in the same words. “David" is used to
signify both the son of Jesse, and David’s son and Lord. God is the God of
Abraham, and of his seed, both in a typical and antitypical sense. The apostle
reasons from the type to the antitype. “Abraham had two sons," &c, Gal 4:22-31.

Carrying these things along with us, we proceed to prove the assertion that the
Old Dispensation, in all its branches, is at an end, and all its positive
institutions abrogated. This the judaizing teachers denied; they taught that men
must be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses. Many in our own time teach
things of the same kind. As to the doctrine of Baptism, they say, that,
excepting the mode of administration, baptism is circumcision, and circumcision
baptism; and that unless a law of repeal te produced, we must baptize according
to the law of circumcision. The law of repeal I am now to produce. The Lord by
Jer 31:31 — He promises to make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and
with the house of Judah; and the apostle, after quoting the passage, says, — “In
that he says, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which
decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away," Heb 8:13. Surely that which
has vanished away is repealed, and the repeal of the covenant implies the repeal
of all its ordinances. Again the apostle, after quoting Hag 2:6, says; — “Whose
voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I
shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, Yet once more,
signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are
made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain," Heb 12:26-27. Here
we are expressly taught that the things that were shaken were removed, evidently
referring to the positive observances of the Old Dispensation, — among which
circumcision was one, John 7:23; while the great principle of love, which is the
end of the law, must for ever remain. He then proceeds to glory in the stability
of the New Dispensation. “Wherefore we, receiving a kingdom which cannot be
moved, let us have grace," &c. Again he says, — “If that which was done away was
glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious," and represents Israel as
unable to look to the end of that which is abolished, 2Co 3:11 — 13. In these,
and many other passages, we are explicitly taught that the Old Dispensation,
with all its rites and ordinances, is at an end, and consequently, it is
unlawful for us to observe any of the positive institutions of this abrogated
dispensation.

Accordingly, a great part of the New Testament is employed, in opposition to the
judaizing teachers, in asserting the liberty of Christians from the laws of the
Old Dispensation. The writing of the Old Dispensation is called the Old
Testament, — the law and the prophets, — and particularly Moses; because the
Mosaic branch of the Old Dispensation included the three preceding branches.
This writing begins with Genesis, and ends with Malachi, and comprehends all the
branches of the first dispensation. 2Co 3:14-15, — “But their minds were
blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading
of the Old Testament; which veil is done away in Christ. But even unto this day,
when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart."

Notwithstanding all this, it is urged that we are still more or less bound by
the law of circumcision; though the form be altered, it is said “the substance,
the spirit of circumcision — the thing itself, is binding; at least so far as
the subjects of baptism are concerned." But, it is answered, the whole consists
of all the parts; and if the whole be abolished, every part must be abolished.
This pertinacity, however, obliges me to refer to one example of the many
scriptures which declare, that circumcision, in particular, is abrogated. Gal
5:3, “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall
profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that
he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you."
Here the apostle expressly declares, that the law of circumcision is abrogated.
Circumcision is abolished, — not the name merely, not the dress merely, — but
circumcision itself is abolished.

It is not sprinkling with water, instead of the effusion of blood; not the form
of administration that is altered, but circumcision itself is abolished. (The
reader is referred to Acts 15:24-29; Gal 4:9; Gal 5:2-6; Gal 6:12-15; Php 3:3;
Col 2:11.)


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 05. LECTURE III; THE NEW TESTAMENT THE ONLY RULE IN REGARD TO THE INSTITUTIONS
========================================================================

LECTURE III. THE NEW TESTAMENT THE ONLY RULE IN REGARD TO THE POSITIVE
INSTITUTIONS OF THE GOSPEL. The position under consideration is, That the
Scriptures of the New Testament are the only rule to direct us in regard to the
positive institutions of the Gospel; and of this position the first proof is,
that the Old Dispensation is at an end. From the Old Dispensation, arguments
have been drawn in support of the pontificate — the gradations of the hierarchy
— the establishment and materials of national churches — the payment of tithes,
— and, what is before us, the baptism or sprinkling of infants. But the Old
Dispensation is at an end. Are we, then, to baptize or sprinkle our infants,
because infants under the law were circumcised? In the business of life, the
plea would be treated with scorn. Suppose an advocate, in pleading for his
client, should seriously urge the customs and laws of a foreign country, or an
act of parliament that had long ago been repealed, — what judge or jury would
endure such impertinence? Should a person raise an action for recovering a debt,
on a deed bearing legal evidence that the debt had been paid, and the deed
cancelled, — what advocate would undertake the cause, or what court would for a
moment listen to the pleader? Yet this is the very pith and strength of the
arguments for baptizing or sprinkling infants. The whole rests on institutions
that have been abrogated for nearly eighteen hundred years, or rather on
inferences from these institutions. What at present we plead for, is, that the
doctrine of Baptism must be learned, not from the institutions of the Old
Economy, but from the Scriptures of the New Testament. As to inferences, their
weight in the present question shall afterwards be considered. In the meantime,
allow me to observe, that an inference from nothing amounts to nothing. Should
I, without foundation, infer that I shall have an estate, — what would a sober
man think of my state of mind, or of my prospects?

Hitherto, we have said that Pedo-baptism or sprinkling, can neither be founded
on, nor inferred from the law of circumcision. The reason has been produced; the
Old Economy, in general, and circumcision, in particular, are abrogated. This
fact, however, viz., the termination of the Old Economy, will carry us farther.
Though infants had been not only circumcised, hut baptized, under the abrogated
dispensation, they could not, without a new law, be baptized under the Gospel
Dispensation. A merchant gives a commission to his agent; if he withdraw that
commission, his agent cannot act on the commission now withdrawn: farther
agency, though by the same person, and in the same department, requires a new
commission. The application is obvious; we are not subject to the law of an
abrogated dispensation. I repeat, that we have but to transfer to the ordinary
business of life, the arguments for infant baptism, and their futility will
instantly appear.

Thus it appears that the old dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, in all its
branches, is at an end. The existing dispensation is the Gospel; and it is from
the record of that dispensation, the New Testament, that we must take our
instructions respecting its positive institutions.

Besides, there is nothing taught in the Old Testament respecting baptism; the
obvious consequence is, the truth of the position under consideration, that the
Scriptures of the New Testament are the only rule to direct us as to this and
other positive institutions of the Gospel dispensation.

2dly, The sacred writers call the Gospel dispensation a New Dispensation;
Pedo-baptists take the opposite side: they would carry us back to the weak and
beggarly elements of Judaism; some have argued in favor of national covenanting,
connected with the identity of the Old and New Testament Churches; all in one
way or another deny that the Gospel dispensation is new. The doctrine,
therefore, must be proved.

We need not again be reminded that the covenant of grace is under every
dispensation the same. We are to prove that the dispensation is new, and confine
ourselves, to avoid unnecessary discussions, to its positive institutions. Isa
65:17, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall
not be remembered nor come into mind." Jer 31:31, “Behold the days come, saith
the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the
house of Judah." 2Co 5:17, “Old things are passed away; behold, all things are
become new." The preaching of John the Baptist and the Apostles is called "the
beginning of the Gospel," Mark 1:1, &c.; again we read, 1Co 11:25, “After the
same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the
New Testament in my blood." Hence the writings of this dispensation are commonly
and rightly termed the New Testament. What, then, is the duty of the inquirer?
There are two Testaments before him; the one declared by God to be old and
vanished away: the other new and everlasting. By which ought he to regulate his
practice? The very existence of the Testament, entitled New by the Lord of our
consciences, determines the matter. A master calls his servant from one work,
and appoints him to perform another; a dutiful servant will act by the
instructions last received. We are urged to carry the former state of things
along with us. The Scriptures quoted teach us a very different doctrine. The era
with which Mark begins his history, is the beginning of the Gospel. It is there,
and not before, that we are to begin to learn the institutions of the Gospel.
Without knowing, then, the contents of the Old Testament, or of the New, the
titles Old and New suggest, as soon as observed, expectations directly the
reverse of what is suggested in the arguments for sprinkling of infants." I
expect to find changes in the dispensation, numerous and great; and what these
changes are, can be learned only from the New Testament. One word more, and I
conclude tills proof of our second position. If I find, as the inquirer
certainly will, that in the New Testament the whole doctrine of Baptism is
clearly revealed, I must act on this paramount evidence, although I feel the
influence of inveterate, but groundless associations.

(All must admit that baptism is an ordinance of the new covenant, and surely
nothing can be more evident than that the ordinances of the new covenant are
intended only for the children of that covenant. Now, all the children of the
new covenant, from the least to the greatest, know the Lord, and to such, so far
as we can ascertain, is the ordinance of baptism to be confined. —Ed.) This
feeling will gradually subside, light will gradually increase, every day I shall
be more and more led to esteem all the precepts of my Lord concerning all things
to be right, and to hate every false way. “If any man will do His will, he shall
know of the doctrine, whether it be of God."

3dly, Christ exclusively is Lord of the New Dispensation. Acts 2:36, “God hath
made him both Lord and Christ." Mat 28:18, “All power is given unto me in heaven
and in earth." Mark 2:28, “The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." In this
relation, Christ is preferred to Moses. Deu 18:15, “The Lord thy God will raise
up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me;
unto Him ye shall hearken. Ver. 18, I will raise them up a prophet from among
their brethren, like unto thee (Moses), and will put my words in his mouth; and
he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to
pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my
name, I will require it of him." Mat 17:5, While he (Peter) spake to the Lord on
the Mount of transfiguration, “Behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and
behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I
am well pleased; hear ye him." It will be recollected, that when this voice was
heard, Moses and Elias were with Christ on the mount. There cannot be a doubt
that the vision is recorded to call the attention of men from the servant to the
Son, from Moses to Christ. Heb 2:5, “For unto the angels hath he not put in
subjection the world to come, (the Gospel Dispensation of which we speak. — And
Moses, verily, was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of
those things which were to be spoken after; but Christ as a Son over his own
house." “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider
the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus." The Lord is the
ordinary title which the disciples give to their Master; and that we may not
mistake their meaning, they frequently tell us, and in a great variety of
language, that "he is Lord of all," Acts 10:36. From whom, then, are we to
receive our instructions respecting the positive institutions of the Gospel
Dispensation? The answer is plain; we must receive all our instructions from the
Lord and Apostle of our profession, Christ Jesus. It is not to the purpose to
say, that the whole Scriptures are dictated by the Spirit of Christ. Our duty is
plain from Heb 1:1, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in
time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto
us by His Son." Him, therefore, we must hear.

4thly, The Apostles were exclusively commissioned to make known to the churches
the commands of their King. Them he chose, them he qualified, them he
commissioned to execute this trust. It was into their hands exclusively that he
committed the keys of his kingdom. Mat 16:19, “And I will give unto thee (Peter
and the other Apostles) the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou
shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven." Mat 19:28, “And Jesus said unto them (the
Apostles) verily, I say unto you, that when the Son of Man shall sit on the
throne of his glory, (the ascension of Christ) ye also shall sit upon twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel;" that is, Ye shall have the honor
of publishing the laws, and introducing the ordinances of the dispensation of
the Gospel. Luk 10:16, “He that heareth youheareth me: and he that despiseth you
despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." John 13:20,
“He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me
receiveth him that sent me." The conclusion is obvious. Suppose that I find
every thing concerning baptism plainly revealed by the Apostles; suppose that,
through a groundless association of ideas, or ignorance of the relation of the
Old and New Testaments, I cannot explain some things in the former Dispensation;
ought I, or ought I not, to regulate my conduct by those whom Christ has chosen,
qualified, commissioned, and sent to regulate it? You have anticipated the
answer; but I repeat it in the words of the Apostle: 1Jn 4:6, “We (the Apostles)
are of God; he that knoweth God heareth us: he that is not of God heareth not
us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error."

5thly, The Apostles were qualified and commissioned to explain the prophecies,
types, and other mysteries of the Old Dispensation; and they declare, and have
confirmed the truth of the declaration by miracles, that they have faithfully,
and as far as the interests of the" Church required, completely executed this
part of their commission. Men were miraculously qualified for explaining the
mysteries of the Old Testament. 1Co 12:8, “For to one is given by the Spirit the
word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit — to another
prophecy." Members of churches used these gifts for the edification of the
churches to which they severally belonged. The Apostles possessed these gifts in
a super-eminent degree, and committed their revelations to writing, for the
instruction of all the churches, in every age. Paul often speaks of this branch
of his commission and work; for example, Eph 3:3-4, “If ye have heard of the
dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: how that by
revelation He made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,)
whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of
Christ.’’ Repeating the same thing to the Colossians, he tells them, that he
taught every man in all wisdom, Col 1:25-28. Of the execution of this part of
his work, we have manifold examples. I name two or three: The antitype of
Abraham’s two wives, Sarah and Hagar — the meaning and antitype of circumcision
— the marvelous revelations in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The clearness with
which they executed this work, both absolute and comparative, they not only
exemplify, but likewise declare. Take one example: 2Co 3:12-15, “Seeing then
that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech; and not as Moses,
which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not
steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were
blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading
of the Old Testament; which veil is done away in Christ. But even unto this day,
when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart." And, after referring to the
faithfulness with which he fulfilled the ministry committed to him, he adds,
“But if our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of
this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."

Mark now the proof which these things afford of our position, that the
Scriptures of the New Testament are the only rule of the doctrine of the
positive institutions of the Gospel Dispensation. Such as prefer to be guided by
the Old Testament, ask how the Apostles, accustomed to the circumcision of
infants, would understand their commission if it had run in these words: Go and
teach all nations, circumcising them. They would have us to look at the doctrine
of the Apostles only through the medium of the law, or (as. they generally
express it) to carry the former state of things along with us. The facts just
produced will enable the inquirer to answer the question. The Apostles were
never in their official capacity left to inference, or their own judgment.
Whilst Christ was with them in the flesh, they baptized according to His
instructions; and when He went to heaven, they delivered to the churches
whatever, by the Holy Ghost, He was pleased to teach them. As to ourselves, we
have their example, their doctrine, their expositions of the law, and,
particularly, complete information respecting circumcision and baptism.

What is the conscientious inquirer now to do? Is he to judge by the mystery, or
the explanation of the mystery? Is he to judge by the type, or the plain speech?
Is he to examine the subject, by the meridian light, or the comparative
darkness? Is he to look at the object through a veil, or with open face? If any
man refuse to come to the light, if a man prefer the darkness before it, the
Scriptures tell us the reason. The present subject illustrates this information.
To darken the clear light of apostolical doctrine by clouds of groundless
inferences, is not only preposterous, but sinful. The Apostles are the
commissioned expositors of the law: they have executed their commission, as
might be expected, from men enlightened and directed by the Holy Ghost. To
neglect their teaching for unwarranted imaginations of our own, is highly
presumptuous.

6thly, The Apostles declare, and by their miracles have proved the truth of
their declaration, that they have executed their commission faithfully and
completely. 1Co 4:1-2, “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of
Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in
stewards, that a man be found faithful." I am not conscious of any
unfaithfulness, but he that judgeth me is the Lord. 2Co 3:6, “God hath made us
able ministers of the New Testament." Acts 20:27, "I have not shunned to declare
unto you all the counsel of God.’’ 1Ti 3:15, “These things write I unto thee, —
that thou niayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God."
Tit 1:5, “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order
the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as / had appointed
thee."

They command all their institutions to be observed on pain of separation. 2Th
2:15, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have
been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." 1Co 11:1-2, “Be ye followers of
me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember
me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them unto you." On
occasion of a particular order, 1Co 7:17, "And so ordain I in all churches." 1Co
4:17, “For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and
faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be
in Christ, as I teach every where in every church." 2Th 3:6, “Now we command
you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves
from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he
received of us." This language is plain and conclusive, but there is a fact
which exceedingly heightens the evidence. The primitive churches were, in
general, richly furnished with miraculous gifts. We learn from the last chapter
of the first epistle, that the church at Thessalonica enjoyed this distinction.
The church of Corinth had prophets, teachers, and other spiritual men — men, in
possession of miraculous gifts, in great numbers, and of great distinction.
Timothy and Titus were qualified and commissioned for extraordinary work, the
work of evangelists. Yet it is not allowed to any, or to all who possessed
miraculous gifts in any of the churches — it is not allowed to the evangelists
themselves to increase, or diminish, or alter, in the smallest degree, any of
the positive institutions of Christianity, as ordained by the Apostles. The
consequence need hardly be mentioned. If it shall be found that the Apostles
command us to baptize or sprinkle our infants, it is at our peril that we
neglect to obey them. But if it shall be found that the Apostles have given no
such instructions, I leave it to those who tremble at the word of the Lord, to
judge of the temerity of the man who does, on the authority of some groundless
imagination, what neither the prophets, evangelists, nor spiritual men of the
primitive churches might presume to attempt. Our second position was, That the
Scriptures of the New Testament are the only rule to direct us in the positive
institutions of the Gospel Dispensation. In proof of this position, six reasons
have been adduced. Each of them proves it, much more all of them taken together.
Recollect that the Old Dispensation is come to an end, — that the sacred writers
call the Gospel a new Dispensation, in distinction from the whole and every
branch of the Old Dispensation — that Christ is Lord of the New Dispensation, —
and that we are commanded to hear Him, in distinction from Moses and Elias —
that the Apostles, exclusively, are commissioned to make known to the churches
the laws of the kingdom of heaven, — that the Apostles were qualified and
commissioned for the very purpose of explaining the Old Dispensation. Add to all
this, that the Apostles have executed their commission faithfully and
completely. They have put us in possession of the whole will of God respecting
these institutions in general, and respecting baptism and all its parts, in
particular. Take these things together, and the path of duty becomes plain. I
must learn the institutions of the Gospel from the New Testament, and practice
what I have thus learned. This position is still farther confirmed by some
general considerations, which come to be stated before I take leave of it. 1st,
Take the Old Testament altogether, from Genesis to Malachi, take the New
Testament altogether, from Matthew to Revelation, then, let me ask, are we to
regulate all the institutions of the latter, by all the institutions of the
former, each by each; the elders, for example, of the New Testament by the
priests of the Old — the materials of the churches, by the materials of the
temple and tabernacle — the constitution of the churches of the one, by the
constitution of the church of the other — baptism, by circumcision — the
Lord’s-supper, by the passover — the discipline of the last, by the discipline
of the first Dispensation, and so on? If we are answered in the affirmative,
where, then, it must be asked, do we receive our instructions for this
procedure? And why, if such instructions can be found, are they not, in all
their extent, reduced to practice? Should it be said that it is not by the Old
Testament taken together, but by some particular branch of the Old Dispensation,
that the institutions of the New Testament are to be regulated, we must inquire
which branch is to be preferred? Not the Mosaic branch, say some, because it is
not of the fathers. The meaning of the text alluded to is mistaken. But waving
the mistake, the cmestion returns, Which branch is to be preferred? There are
three branches before the Mosaic. The first, from Adam to Noah; the second, from
Noah to Abraham; the third, from Abraham to Moses. The motive for preferring the
Abrahamic branch is obvious. Should we take the first branch, or the second,
neither parents nor children were circumcised; and on the principles of
Pedo-baptists, there would be no baptism either of parents or of their infants.
Still, however, a reason must be asked for the preference, — and it must be
farther asked,— Are all the institutions of the Gospel to be regulated by all
the institutions of the Abrahamic covenant? If in one thing only the Gospel is
to be ruled by that law, a reason must be assigned for this singularity. But,
suppose all these difficulties surmounted, (which the inquirer will find to be
impracticable) — suppose for a moment that circumcision is to regulate the
administration of baptism, a new series of unanswerable questions immediately
presents itself. Where is the law obliging us to regulate .baptism by
circumcision? And, suppose the law produced — (which cannot be done) is the law
of circumcision, in all its parts, or in one particular only, to regulate the
ordinance of baptism? If, in one particular only, where is this law of
peculiarity? If, in all its parts, why is not the principle acted on in all its
extent? Why are not females excluded from baptism, as they were by the Abrahamic
covenant from circumcision? Why is not the eighth day exclusively observed? Why
are not servants baptized on the faith of their masters, and adults in a family
on the faith of their parent? The fact is, that neither Papist, Episcopalian,
Presbyterian, nor Pedo-baptist act on their own principles. Christianity has
been corrupted on a false principle, and the principle is inconsistently
defended for the sake of the consequences of the corruption. The candid
inquirer, on reflecting on these things, can hardly fail to be satisfied, that
had it not been for a groundless association of ideas, he would never have
seriously listened to arguments for infant-baptism, founded on the laws of the
Old Dispensation.

He will search the New Testament, and by what he finds there, will regulate his
principles and practice, notwithstanding his inability to free himself at once
and completely from the influence of long cherished prejudice.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 06. LECTURE IV; PRACTICE DETERMINED BY DIRECT PASSAGES
========================================================================

LECTURE IV. OUR PRACTICE MUST BE DETERMINED BY THOSE PASSAGES WHICH MORE
DIRECTLY TREAT OF THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY.

Position III. Those passages of Scripture which treat of baptism more directly
and more fully, must determine our judgment, in distinction from such passages
as refer to the subject more indirectly, or not at all. This position needs no
proof; it shines in its own light. In the New Testament there are many passages
which fully and directly treat of baptism: there are some which merely refer to
it, and many which do not refer to it at all. One would expect that in directing
the student of baptism, teachers would follow the course which common sense
suggests; that they would recommend special attention to those passages which
directly and fully treat on the subject, and would advise the student to form
his judgment by them. The reverse of this, however, has been, and still is the
plan followed by the teachers of Pedo-baptism. When our Lord commissioned the
Apostles to evangelize the nations, He gave them particular instructions on the
subject of baptism. Mat 28:19. The manner in which they executed their
instructions is exemplified in a great variety of instances. I shall quote some
of them: Acts 2:38-41, “Then Peter said unto them, ’ Repent, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Then they that gladly received his
word were baptized." Acts 8:12, “But when they believed Philip preaching the
things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were
baptized both men and women." Acts 8:36-38, “And as they went on their way they
came to a certain water: and the eunuch said, See here is water; what doth
hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine
heart thou may est. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the
Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down both
into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." Acts 9:18,
“And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received
sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." Acts 10:47-48, “Can any man
forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy
Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the
Lord." Acts 16:15, “And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought
us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house,
and abide there. And she constrained us." Ver. 33, 34, “And he took them the
same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all
his, straightway, — believing in God with all his house." Acts 18:8, “And
Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his
house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." In
these scriptures the subject is fully and distinctly taught. But is it to these,
or scriptures like these, that the teachers of Pedo-baptism direct our
attention? Quite otherwise. For proof of infant baptism, we are directed to
passages which speak of baptism, but not of infants; or which speak of infants,
but not of baptism; and often to scriptures which speak neither of infants nor
baptism. That a course so preposterous should be either adopted or encouraged,
nothing but the fact could persuade us to believe. Yet such the fact
unquestionably is; and it may, therefore, be useful to quote the scriptures
offered in evidence of infant baptism.

We are now on the subject of evidence; and the mere quotation of the scriptures
referred to, will satisfy the candid inquirer that it is not from such, but from
scriptures which expressly treat of the subject, that he must form his judgment
on the doctrine of baptism. Mat 19:13, "Then were there brought unto him little
children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples
rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to
come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on
them, and departed thence." Here is mention of infants, and the kingdom of
heaven; but none, of their admission to baptism. They were brought, not to be
baptized, but that our Lord should put his hands on them, and pray. He did not
baptize them; he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

(The practice is continued to the present day. The writer of this note
witnessed, in a synagogue in London, children brought to the Rabbi, when the
service was concluded — who laid his hands on them, and appeared to offer a
short prayer. There is no evidence that those who brought little children to
Jesus, were believers. Many were filled with admiration of him who spake as
never man spake, wondering at the gracious words which proceeded out of his
mouth, who were still the slaves of Satan. Luk 4:22-29 — Ed.) The next in order
is Acts 2:39, “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all
that are afar off, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Here is
mention of children, and a promise, but none of infants, or their baptism. The
word children is here taken in the sense of descendants, of age sufficient for
prophesying and being called. Their capacity for prophesying appears from
comparing with the text the prediction quoted by Peter. You will find it in Joe
2:1-32. That these descendants were capable of being called appears from the
text. “For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are
afar off, [infants? Nay,] even as many as the Lord your God shall call."
Therefore I said, here is no mention of infants, or of the baptism of infants;
but if the inquirer examine the whole context, he will find that men, after
gladly receiving the word, ought to be baptized, and that infants ought not to
be baptized.

We are next referred to Acts 16:1-40 for the baptism of the household of Lydia
and of the jailor. But in this chapter not a word occurs of either the baptism
or the sprinkling of infants. The scripture next adduced is Rom 4:11, “And he
received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith
which he had, yet being uncircumcised." The Apostle is here treating of
justification without the works of the law; and in proof of his doctrine, he
refers to the history of Abraham and his circumcision. He does not mention
either infants or baptism. In Gal 3:29, it is written, ’’ If ye be Christ’s,
then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." It is evident
from the context, that by “Abraham’s seed" is meant, partakers of like precious
faith with Abraham. This passage cannot, therefore, apply to infants.

Rom 11:16, “For if the first-fruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the
root be holy, so are the branches." This is another example of pleading for
infant baptism, from a text treating neither of infants, nor of sprinkling, nor
of baptism. The apostle is treating of the conversion of the Jews, and the
figures refer to them and the patriarchs.

1Co 7:14, ’’For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the
unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean,
but now are they holy." The Corinthians had consulted Paul whether a believing
might live with an unbelieving spouse. He acquaints them with the law on the
passages treating on the subject which sanctified the relation. He is not
treating of baptism, nor does he mention, in any way, the sprinkling of infants.

Eph 6:1-5, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor
thy father and mother, which is the first commandment with promise, that it may
be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers,
provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and
admonition of the Lord. Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters,
according to the flesh." In this paragraph we have children, but not infants.
The children are capable of receiving this address, and of judging what commands
of their parents were, or were not, in the Lord. And let it be particularly
observed, that children are addressed on the same ground on which servants are
addressed, namely, their relation to Christ, and not on the ground of grace
derived to them either from their parents or masters. If these addresses prove
that children ought to be baptized or sprinkled on account of their connection
with their parents, they also prove that servants ought to be baptized on
account of their connection with their masters. But the fact is, that the
apostle is not treating of baptism, nor speaking of the baptism or sprinkling
either of infants or of servants. To save time, I omit similar exhortations to
children and servants; the remarks just made apply to them all.

Col 2:10-13, "And ye are complete in Him, which is the head of all principality
and power; 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 baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through
the faith of the operation of God, who 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, having forgiven you all trespasses." In these words we have
baptism, but no infants. The Colossians are described as saints, and faithful
brethren in Christ; and in this place, as believers, both justified and
sanctified. Observe, they possess faith of the operation of God, — God has
forgiven them all their trespasses, — they have the circumcision of Christ, the
circumcision made without hands, viz. the putting off the body of the sins of
the flesh. It will be recollected that it is with facts, and not with
inferences, that we are at present concerned. The apostle, in this place, speaks
nothing of infants. His object is to dissuade the Colossians from subjecting
themselves to the institutions of philosophy, or of the law. He tells them, that
having believed in Christ, they were complete, — justified and sanctified; and
that their union with him, and participation of these benefits, were signified
in their baptism. The whole is an example, not of the baptism of infants, but of
the necessity of regeneration and of faith, in those who are baptized.

These are all the passages in the New Testament which, as far as I know, have
been pleaded in support of infant baptism. None of them are pertinent; — in
every one of them there is wanting something essential to make it conclusive.
Minds practiced in reasoning, must be satisfied already that infant baptism
cannot be admitted on evidence like this. According to the position before us,
it must be received or rejected on the scriptures which treat of the subjects of
baptism. An example may assist the young in reaching the same conviction.
Suppose that, by a deed of entail, an estate was conveyed in succession to the
eldest male in a certain lineage: suppose that an action for obtaining the
estate is raised; suppose, farther, that the applicant is either not of the line
described in the deed of entail, or not the eldest in the line, or a female: the
rejection of the plea must necessarily follow. Yet this is the very kind of
evidence on which infant baptism has been defended and practised. We have
examined all the passages adduced. Some of them speak of infants, but nothing of
baptism; all of them we have seen, are palpably deficient in the proof required.
The importance and evidence of this position calls me, before I pass to another,
to press the consideration of it on my readers, from their sense of consistency.

We have discontinued the observance of the seventh day Sabbath; but improperly,
if the arguments for infant baptism be correct. The New Testament, indeed, says,
that no man ought to judge us in respect of a Sabbath; but apply the arguments
for sprinkling, and, according to them, we shall find that, notwithstanding
this, and similar texts, we must still sanctify the seventh day of the week. In
the epistle referred to, the apostle is reasoning on the doctrine of
justification. The fourth commandment is not merely ceremonial, it stands in the
first table of the decalogue. It is ranked with precepts moral and immutable. It
was not of Moses, it was of the Fathers. It was more, it was Supralapsarian; it
was observed in Eden, in innocence, and sanctioned by the example of its Author.
Spread out these topics, and the plea becomes plausible, — incomparably more
plausible than the plea for infant baptism. But what has been the conduct of the
professing world in regard to the seventh day, and on what principles has that
conduct been adopted and pursued? The observance of the seventh-day Sabbath has
been discontinued. The grounds of the change are, shortly, two: first, The Old
Dispensation is at an end; secondly, The scriptures of the New Testament, which
more fully treat of the Lord’s-day, direct us to the first day of the week. This
is the doctrine of our position; and the man who determines the first day of the
week to be the day of worship, is hound, in consistency, also to determine, upon
the same principle;, who shall he the subjects of baptism.

Permit me, by one example more, to illustrate and enforce my position. In this
and other countries, originally connected with the Papacy, infants have been
excluded from communion. This practice is scriptural: infants ought not to be
admitted to the Lord’s Table. But admit them we must, on the pleas by which
infant baptism is justified. The pleas for baptizing infants, and admitting them
to the Supper, are the same: point for point they agree — together they must be
admitted as conclusive, or together rejected as sophistical.

Let us run the parallel, and make the experiment. Docs baptism come in the place
of circumcision? By the same kind of evidence, the Supper comes in place of the
passover. Were children circumcised? Children likewise partook of the festal
sacrifices, and most evidently of the passover. Was circumcision before the law,
and of the Fathers? So were sacrifices: the passover, in particular, was
instituted in Egypt previous to-the covenant at Sinai. Is the same truth
represented by baptism and circumcision? Both the Supper and the passover
exhibit the sacrifice of Christ.

Must the former state of things, that is, circumcision, determine the subjects
of baptism? For the same reason, the former state of things, that is, the
passover, must determine tbe subjects of the Supper. Children belong to the
kingdom of heaven. If this privilege proves infant baptism, it proves also
infant communion. Many prophecies connect parents with their seed. If these
prophecies prove that infants should be baptized, they prove also that infants
should be admitted to the Supper. The promise is to the Israelites, and to their
children. If this warrants the baptism of infants, it warrants also their
communion. The root and the branches are holy. If this establishes either infant
baptism or infant communion, it establishes both. Children of believers are
holy. The holiness that qualifies for Baptism, qualifies as effectually for the
Supper. Households were baptized. Every one knows that the passover was eaten by
households. Is the practice of baptizing infants of remote antiquity? Infant
communion was as ancient as pedo-baptism, and much more ancient than sprinkling.
Have pedo-baptism and sprinkling been practised by men of learning and piety?
Infant communion has a like recommendation.

It is objected to infant communion, that infants can neither examine themselves,
nor eat the Supper in remembrance of Christ. Against infant baptism there lies a
similar objection. Infants can perform no baptismal duties, either antecedent,
concomitant, or consequent. To the objection against infant baptism, it is
answered, that faith, confessing the faith, and other baptismal duties, must be
restricted to the adult, like the command which restricts eating to working. The
answer is equally applicable to the objection against infant communion. It is as
absurd to require his faith to his communion, as his work to his sustenance, or
his confession to his baptism. On what grounds, let me now ask, ought infant
communion to be rejected? On two, it will be answered: first, the Old
Dispensation is at an end; and secondly, the Apostles’ doctrine in its obvious
sense, restricts this communion to believers. But this is our position again,
and again I repeat the consequence; the man who on it determines the subjects of
the Supper, is in consistency bound also to determine the subjects of baptism.
The sum of what has been said is this: — The scriptures which treat on the
subject, and not other scriptures, must determine the question of baptism. It is
on this principle that men proceed in the affairs of life; but the advocates for
infant baptism reverse it. Two examples (out of many) have been produced, viz.
discontinuing infant communion, and the observance of the seventh-day sabbath,
in which the position, that we are to be guided by those passages which more
directly treat of the subject of inquiry, is acted on; and thus the foundation
of the arguments for infant baptism is reprobated by the professing world in
general, and even by Pedo-baptists themselves.

Another stage, then, of the inquirer’s road is made plain: he will, depending on
Divine teaching, collect and examine all the passages of the New Testament which
treat of Baptism, and by them will determine all questions on this subject.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 07. LECTURE V; POSITIVE PROOF ESSENTIAL
========================================================================

LECTURE V.

POSITIVE PROOF ESSENTIAL TO WORSHIP IN BAPTISM.

Position IV. Proof in some degree positive is essential to worship in Baptism.

Before I can take part in baptizing an infant, either as administrator or
sponsor, I must he satisfied that the action is positively required, and not
that, peradventure, it may be my duty. We have been so long accustomed to hear
infant baptism defended by certain arguments, that we are apt to believe that
there may be something in them, although we cannot tell what. On this undefined
feeling, without further evidence, many take part in the practice, and decline
being themselves baptized. They reason thus:— Although I cannot find them, there
may be examples of infant baptism; and, although I am not satisfied with the
arguments for the practice, there may be something in them; I feel I know not
what suspicion, that the Baptists may be wrong; for the present, I will delay my
own baptism; and as to my child, I will proceed as usual." Now, if our position
be true, this apology is inadmissible, and the conduct founded on it is wrong.
In proof that evidence in some degree positive, is essential to worship in
baptism, I observe, first, that the formula commonly used runs in positive
terms; and without some degree of positive evidence, I cannot conscientiously
use it. The words of the formula are “I baptize thee in the name," which means,
amongst other things, I baptize thee by the commandment of God. The words are
not — I baptize thee, perhaps or it may be, by the command of God. The words
mean, that there is a command for baptizing infants; that I know that there is
such a command; .and that I act on the positive knowledge that there is. Now,
unless there be such a command, and unless it consist with my knowledge that
there is, I cannot conscientiously act under the formula. I prevaricate, when I
intimate that I know it, when I only imagine that possibly there may be such a
command. Suppose that a prisoner is indicted for murder, committed at such a
time, in such a place; suppose that a witness depones, that the pannel committed
the deed, at the time and in the place indicted; suppose, farther, on
cross-examination, he admits that he cannot positively say whether the pannel
was in the place at the time; or that he committed the deed; hut that his (the
deponent’s) mind was impressed, he could not well tell how, that the prisoner
might be in the place, at the time indicted, and that, perhaps, he committed the
murder. In a case like this, few need to be told, that the counsel for the
pannel would not fail to remind the jury that this witness had prevaricated on
oath. Most assuredly neither judge nor jury would pay the least attention to his
evidence.

I use the example, not to measure the degree of criminality, but to illustrate
and establish the fact, that the man prevaricates — whether as administrator or
sponsor, who, without some degree of positive proof, takes part in baptizing a
child in the name of the Trinity.

2d, Proof in some degree positive is essential, because faith is essential to
worship in baptism. The necessity of faith in every part of worship is often and
plainly asserted. “Without faith it is impossible to please God." “Whatsoever is
not of faith is sin." The necessity of positive evidence to faith may, without
difficulty, be evinced. Rom 10:17, “Faith cometh — by the word of God." Unless a
fact be revealed, and I know that it is revealed, 1 cannot believe it. I do not
believe, if I suppose only that perhaps it is revealed. "He that cometh to God
must believe that He is, and that He is the re warder of them that diligently
seek him." The acceptable worshipper must be persuaded, not that there may be a
God, but that there is a God: not that perhaps he may, but that he will, reward
them who diligently seek him. He that believes that Jesus is the Christ — not he
that supposes that perhaps Jesus is the Christ — shall be saved. Apply these
things to infant baptism. If it be not practised in faith, it is sin. To faith,
two things are required — 1st, that it be revealed in the Scriptures; and, 2d,
that I know that it is revealed. As yet I inquire not whether it be or be not
revealed, — but suppose, either that it is not revealed, or that 1 do not know
that it is, — it cannot be practised in faith. If I imagine merely that
peradventure it may be revealed, this is not faith; and there fore during this
uncertainty of mind, I cannot with a good conscience take any part in the
practice, either as administrator or sponsor. “Happy is he that condemneth not
himself in that thing which he alloweth; and he that doubteth is condemned if he
eat, because he eateth not of faith; for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
“Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

3d, Proof in some degree positive is essential in baptism, because without such
proof our service would be will-worship. We are guilty of will worship when we
worship without a warrant from Scripture. Isa 8:20, "To the law and to the
testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no
light in them." To worship without a warrant, without evidence, and without
certainty, are sins of the same kind; if they differ, they differ only in
degree: the guilt of will-worship more or less attaches to them all. To worship
without knowing the warrant is, as to the worshipper, as though no warrant
existed; and to act in uncertainty, is to act on a peradventure that there may
be no warrant. What may be, may also not be; to act, therefore, under
uncertainty whether I have or have not a warrant for my conduct, is to act under
uncertainty whether I am or am not contracting the guilt of will-worship; that
is, I do in some degree contract that guilt.

Suppose that an apothecary kills a patient by selling him poison instead of
medicine; suppose it proved on his trial that the apothecary knew the drug to be
poison, he would be guilty of death; he had murdered his patient. Supposing it
proved that he sold the poison, suspecting it might be poison, a question might
arise among the jurors respecting the designation of his crime — whether he
should be found guilty of murder, or of culpable homicide. But, whatever name
they may give to his crime, acquit him they could not: he had criminally taken
away the life of his patient.

If, under a conviction that I have no Scripture warrant for my conduct, I take
part in baptizing a child, I contract the guilt of will-worship, in all its
malignity: if I act under a conviction that, for any thing 1 know, it may be
will-worship, the degree may be less, but my sin is the same in kind — still I
am guilty of will worship.

We are now prepared to state and answer the practical question, — May I, in the
circumstances supposed, without some degree of positive assurance that it is
required of me, take part in baptizing or sprinkling my child? I may not; in the
fear of God I cannot proceed. The doctrine of Scripture here is plain and often
repeated. Mat 15:7, “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, In
vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Mat
23:8, "Be not ye called rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye
are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your
Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your
Master, even Christ." Col 2:20; Col 2:22, “Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ
from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye
subject to ordinances — after the commandments and doctrines of men?"

4th, Evidence, in some degree positive or real, is essential to worship in
baptism, because, acting without this kind of evidence, I am guilty of offending
my brother. To offend, is to tempt to sin. Offences are given in many ways. In
the case before us, I give offence, when I tempt another to perform an action,
of the lawfulness of which he is not fully satisfied. A good conscience requires
that, in his own mind, the agent have no doubt of the lawfulness of his conduct.
Some Gentile converts questioned the lawfulness of eating things offered to
idols: some Jewish converts questioned the propriety of eating meats forbidden
by Moses; for such to eat — notwithstanding their scruples — was to sin, perhaps
to destruction. To tempt them to eat, was to offend them: it was to lay a
stumblingblock in their way, over which they might fall into sin and perdition.
The doctrine before us is both illustrated and proved by these plain and pointed
references. If my evidence of infant baptism does not exceed a “peradventure," a
"may be" that it is lawful, I cannot but doubt; and he that doubteth is
condemned. If my brother imitate my practice, that is, if he act, whilst he has
scruples about the lawfulness of his conduct, he falls under the same
condemnation. I, in the meantime, am doubly guilty; I am self condemned, because
I doubt the lawfulness of my own procedure — I offend my brother, and make his
guilt and danger my own. The language of Scripture on this subject is peculiarly
striking. 1Co 8:9-13, “But take heed, lest by any means this liberty of yours
become a stumbling-block to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which
hast knowledge, sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of
him which is weak, be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died 1
But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin
against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no
flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." Rom 14:13,
“Let us not, therefore, judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that
no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother’s way. Ver.
14, To him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Ver.
20, For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is
evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor
to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is
made weak," &c. Mat 18:7, “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must
be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh."

Here, before we proceed farther, it may be proper to apply the remarks already
made. Every one knows, or may know, the grounds and character of his own
convictions; and according to them, he ought to continue, or decline to take
part, in baptizing or sprinkling infants. Conduct, in every man of principle,
must be determined by the dictates of his conscience." If he find that the
practice is groundless, he must renounce it, for the same reason that human
authority must be renounced in other matters of religion. If he have doubts, he
cannot proceed, for he that doubteth is condemned. If he be conscious that his
convictions do not rise above a peradventure, or may be, his practice cannot be
of faith, and whatever is not of faith is sin.

There are two other classes of professors who should here be addressed. The
first of these float on the tide of fashion: they have never inquired, and have
no intention of inquiring, after truth. These may have no doubts, but they can
have no faith. In words, perhaps, they call no man master, but — knowing no
warrant for it — their practice is willworship. They may not intend either to
profane the name of God, or offend their brethren; yet they do both. They abuse
the common formula, and by their inconsiderate conduct tempt others to imitate
their profanity. The}’ shut their eyes against the light, and their cars against
the voice of God in the Scriptures calling them to inquire. They have already
reached the borders of presumptuous sinning; before they pass them, it is their
interest to pause. “To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it
is sin." The class which comes next to be considered, consists of those who
really believe in the doctrine of infant baptism. It is a fact, that error or
mistake may be as confidently credited and defended as truth. Transubstantiation
was introduced into the Church in the thirteenth century; for six hundred years
it has formed an article in the Romish creed. Protestants have often, and
unanswerably, proved it to be idolatrous and absurd. The priests, however, have
all along defended the absurdity, and the people have approved of their
sophistry. Light and learning have greatly increased, yet transubstantiation
continues the disgrace of the reason and consciences of men. Amidst all the
improvements of the nineteenth century, the monstrous tenet is, throughout the
wide extent of the Papacy, defended and believed with unabating confidence. This
is a mortifying but instructive fact. Infant baptism has been defended by men
who professed to believe it. Multitudes have been, and still are, misled by
their apparent sincerity; but neither the reasonings of men, however confidently
urged, nor their belief, however sincere, are the rule of our conduct. Confident
assertions have been mistaken for evidence; but our appeal must be to the
Scriptures of Truth. Notwithstanding the numbers, and the confidence with which
they have been defended, transubstantiation and infant baptism may both be
corruptions of Christianity. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not
according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." The fact that
error is often believed with confidence, is equally instructive to believers in
infant baptism and transubstantiation. Was pedo-baptism silently and gradually
introduced into the Church? so comparatively was transubstantiation. Is
pedo-baptism of great antiquity? transubstantiation has preveiled for 600 years.
Has pedo-baptism been supported by learning? so has transubstantiation. Has
sprinkling been defended with plausibility? the words, “this is my body,"
applied to the bread, give a plea to the Papists more plausible than any that
has yet been urged in defence of infant baptism. Has infant baptism hitherto
survived the attacks of its opponents? transubstantiation exists,
notwithstanding all the labors of the Reformed. Are Pedo-baptists confident in
their cause? so are the Papists. Do Pedo-baptists exult in their numbers? so do
the abettors of transubstantiation. The parallel proceeds; but I follow it no
farther than to its application. What is the duty of the Papist as to
transubstantiation? I answer, — The same as the duty of the believer in infant
baptism. Both the one and the other ought by the Scriptures to examine the
grounds of his confidence. “For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but
whom the Lord commendeth."

Before concluding, it may be useful to exemplify the more particular application
of our position.

It has been disputed on whom lies what logicians call the onus in’oband1:The
onus probandi, that is, the labor of finding warrant for our practice, lies on
the man who practises infant baptism. Every Pedo-baptist, if he would act in the
fear of God, must furnish himself with satisfactory evidence that God requires
it at his hands. By satisfactory, I understand what has been proved; not that
for any thing he knows, it may be so, but that, from Scripture, he is convinced
in his own conscience that infant baptism is an ordinance of God. That we may
more clearly see how to apply this position to practice, I shall take a case of
common occurrence. The inquirer has an infant: he deliberates whether it be his
duty to have it baptized, or to delay baptism until the gospel be credibly
professed; he will, and perhaps not improperly, have recourse to the arguments
for sprinkling. A hint to such may be useful. In perusing every particular
argument, mark down all the Scriptures offered in proof; lay aside your author.
Examine the proof scriptures, in the Bible itself, in their connection. After
prayer and consideration, judge, as you must answer at last, whether these
Scriptures, in the connection in which they stand in the Bible, satisfy your
conscience that God requires you to baptize or sprinkle your child. In looking
into the fire, or at the clouds, you sometimes observe something like figures —
birds, beasts, men, and the like. These figures, every one knows, are the effect
of imagination working on certain appearances in the clouds or the fire; in a
short time the appearances cease to exist. Texts, taken out of their connection
in the Bible, and stuck into a well-wrought argument, may assume the appearance
of evidence. Look at them in their connection in the Bible; and the evidence,
like figures in the fire or the clouds, will speedily vanish. For a man, wishing
to practise on his understanding, I know few rules more, efficacious than never
to look at the text adduced in proof, in the Bible, but always in some book that
pleads for the favoured practice. The candid inquirer will follow a different
course; he will examine the texts as they stand in the scriptures; and until he
find, to the satisfaction of his conscience, that it is an ordinance of God, he
will take no part, directly or indirectly, in the practice of baptizing or
sprinkling infants.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: 08. LECTURE VI; ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF INFERENTIAL REASONING
========================================================================

LECTURE VI.

ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF INFERENTIAL REASONING ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. The
opponents of infant-sprinkling have generally objected to inferential reasoning
on this topic. They distinguish between positive institutions and moral duties:
the latter may, in their judgment; the former cannot, be admitted on inference.
The abettors of the practice reply, “If the will of God be intimated, we are
bound by the intimation, however made. Our duty is the same, whether intimated
in express doctrine, or implied inference." The examination of these statements
belongs to the head of evidence, and must now be attempted. At present, I
confine my observations to the inquiry, Whether infant-sprinkling be rightly
inferred from the topics usually adduced?

These topics may be reduced to three classes: — 1st, The procedure of professing
Christians; 2d, Certain texts in the Scripture; 3d, Certain institutions once
observed, but now discontinued by Divine appointment.

1st, The procedure of Pedo-baptists furnishes what has the appearance of
evidence in their favour. Multitudes have practised sprinkling; many have avowed
their conviction that it is founded on argument; and not a few have defended the
practice. These things, taken separately or together, assume, as I said, the
appearance of evidence. If numbers so great have examined the question with
capacity and integrity, it is probable that their practice is right, and their
verdict true; and on this inference, there is no doubt, that many have sprinkled
their children. Let us try this inference. Many are incapable, from ignorance
and inattention, of examining or investigating the controversies on the subject;
more, through indolence, have never examined it. Many are prejudiced,
interested, and faithless. It is, therefore, no breach of charity to say, that
the testimony of such characters as these is not to be depended on.
Notwithstanding their numbers, the Heathen, Mahommedan, and Papal worlds are
wrong; and from any thing that can be learned from their procedure, the
infant-sprinkling world may be wrong also. The presumption is against them. Look
at the generality of Pedo-baptist churches, Papal, Episcopalian, and
Presbyterian; whoever has studied ecclesiastical polity will soon observe, that
in other institutes (and that not a few), the laws of Christ are not observed.
The unreserved obedience of the Bible is a thing unknown to many of these
societies. This ought to put the inquirer on his guard. The prevarication of a
witness in one point, vitiates the whole of his evidence. If, in other parts of
ecclesiastical polity, the Scriptures be disregarded, perhaps they are
disregarded in the sprinkling of infants also. In all the defenses of infant
sprinkling, with few (if any) exceptions, violence is offered to the Scriptures.
The simple rule for learning the mind of the Spirit is this: — “Collect whatever
He has said on the subject in question, and by the collection regulate your
faith." Instead, however, of collecting whatever the Spirit has revealed on
baptism, the most explicit revelations are carefully avoided, and the reader is
decoyed into another direction. The obvious meaning and design of particular
texts are concealed, and inferences sometimes deduced from them, directly the
reverse of both. These things may leave us in doubt whether the authors are
designing or mistaken; but they can leave us in none respecting the character of
their evidence. "When a scholar tells us that sprinkling is baptism, and proves
it from the eighth of the Acts; when a logician infers baptism from
circumcision, and proves Ins inference from the seventeenth of Genesis; when a
critic proves the sprinkling of infants from Luke’s history of the baptism of
such as gladly heard Peter’s sermon, or from the seventh of First Corinthians;
and the inquirer allows himself to be misled by such testimony, he has himself,
and not those whom he has taken for his guides, to blame.

These remarks cannot be misunderstood. They are necessary for the sake of a part
of the community peculiarly valuable. Christians, humble and teachable, have
been, and will be, in danger of resigning their own better judgment to the
prejudices and presumption of mistaken or designing men. Papists, Episcopalians,
Presbyterians, and Independents, are generally Pedobaptists. If, however, their
procedure and defenses be compared with the Scriptures, the contrariety will
soon strike the studious inquirer, and by the Divine blessing preserve him from
the influence of this fallacious inference. Should an humble and modest
Christian, unassisted by a liberal education, begin to search the ground of
infant baptism, he is commonly assailed with this observation: — “Many worthies,
renowned for piety, talent . and learning, have practiced and defended the
popular worship. You are unlearned, weak, and inexperienced; it is presumptuous
in you to question their evidence, or oppose your judgment to theirs." The facts
just stated make this conclusion doubtful; but the Scriptures entirely reject
such a principle. The individual is commanded to judge and act for himself; the
Scriptures exclusively are prescribed as his rule; our duty is there stated and
enforced, in terms negative and positive, often and plainly, and in great
variety of language. John 5:39, “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye
have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." 2Ti 3:16, "All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God
(every believer) may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works;" and
consequently to the right observance of baptism. 1Th 5:21, “Prove all things;
hold fast that which is good." The matter in question is infant baptism; the
agent is every believer; the rule is the Scriptures; the result — hold or reject
it according to this rule. And, to emote but one Scripture more, Rev 3:22, “He
that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." Thus it
appears, that this popular inference is nothing more than a vulgar error. In no
way can it justify infant sprinkling. The Scriptures themselves must be
examined. If our faculties be impaired through inaction, more prayer and energy
will be requisite. In the mean time, the practice, in as far as it is founded on
this inference, must be discontinued. It is from God, and not from men, that we
must take our instructions; it is from the Scriptures, and not from the works of
men, that we must learn the will of God. Faith comes not by the reasonings of
men, but by the word of God; and whatever is not of faith is sin. The second
ground of inference comprehends the texts from which inferences are deduced. I
shall now name them together, and it will appear, from a few remarks on them,
that the doctrine of infant baptism can be inferred from none of them. Mat
19:18, “Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his
hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them." Acts 2:39, “For the
promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as
many as the Lord our God shall call." Acts 16:15, "And when she was baptized,
and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful
to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us." Acts
16:33, ’’ And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes;
and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." Rom 4:11, “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." Rom 11:16, “For if the first-fruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if
the root be holy, so are the branches." 1Co 1:16, “And I baptized the household
of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." 1Co 7:14, "For
the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is
sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they
holy." Eph 6:1, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right."
Col 2:11, "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without I
in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ."
And some have added J dm 3:5, “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God."

These are all the texts quoted by Pedo-baptists in support of their practice.
Not one is omitted that 1 recollect. They were briefly commented on in a
preceding lecture. They are now brought together, that the impression of their
united force may be felt.

Whatever in the contexts has a tendency to weaken the effect, has been
intentionally suppressed. And now every individual must judge of the impression
made on himself. I am greatly mistaken if any considerable number feel convinced
by these texts that infant sprinkling is the doctrine of the Bible. To judge,
however, without bias, a supposition or two must be made.

Suppose, first, that a stranger to our controversies were to state what, in his
judgment, is implied in these texts. We can anticipate his exposition. He would
give us their first and obvious meaning; of infant baptism or sprinkling he
would say nothing; the very idea, it is more than probable, would never occur to
him. Make the experiment another way: Suppose adult baptism universally
practiced, infant sprinkling unknown, and these texts, for the first time, urged
to prove it our duty to alter our worship, and adopt infant sprinkling.

It is easy to conceive what would happen; instantly and unanimously it would be
said — ’* These texts speak nothing of infant sprinkling; all of them treat of
other subjects: the practice proposed might be inferred from Ezra’s genealogies,
or the chambers in -Ezekiel’s temple, as soon as from these texts." The whole
evidence would be treated with scorn and contempt, and the proposal universally
rejected.

If it be your judgment that such would be the result in the case supposed, it is
of course your judgment that infant sprinkling cannot naturally be inferred from
any text in the New Testament. But let us suppose that the inquirer imagines,
that from these texts inferences may be drawn favorable to the cause of
pedo-baptism. What is to be done? The apostolical practice, I answer, will
effectually determine the correctness or incorrectness of the alleged or
imagined inferences. The practice of the Apostles in this matter shall be
minutely examined; and if it shall be found, as it certainly will, that there is
no evidence that they either baptized infants, or instructed men to baptize
them, we must yield to the determination of fact. Inferences to the contrary
must be fallacious, whether I shall be able to expose the fallacy or not. A
third kind of inference in support of pedo-baptism is drawn from institutions
already appointed, but now discontinued by Divine authority. Inferences of this
kind are altogether illogical. Positive evangelical institutions cannot be
inferred from legal institutions now abrogated. The truth of this assertion may
be evinced in many ways.

1st, It has been shown that Christ alone is Lord of Gospel institutions. Be
pleased to observe that it is in the exercise of sovereignty that He appoints
these institutions. Now, the effects of the exercise of infinite sovereignty we
cannot possibly anticipate. Sovereignty, it is true, is always exercised
according to the attributes of Divinity. As to us, however, since we do not
possess these attributes, it is impossible to discover the determining causes.
For example, amongst the tribes of Israel, could we possibly anticipate the
tribe to be elected for the priesthood? Facts speak the same language. There
were four distinct branches of the Old Dispensation. On comparison, we shall
find that no two of these branches have the same positive institutions. For
instance, in the two first branches, neither parents nor children were
circumcised. It was otherwise in the third and fourth. These things are
sufficient proof, that positive evangelical institutions cannot be inferred from
legal institutions now abrogated. Were I to judge of the subjects of baptism
from inference, I would infer that they were not the same as the subjects of
circumcision. My reason for so inferring, is the manifold differences by which
the different branches of the Old Dispensation had been distinguished one from
another. My inference is justified by the fact. The subjects of circumcision and
baptism are not the same. But had I not been previously acquainted with this
fact, I could with certainty have inferred nothing either on the one side or the
other.

2ndly, Positive evangelical institutions cannot be inferred from legal
institutions now abrogated, without violating the simplicity of the Gospel. We
are commanded to keep the ordinances as the Apostles delivered them to us. We
are commanded to stand fast, and hold the traditions which they have taught us.
Were we to infer positive institutions from other positive institutions, such
institutions might be multiplied without end. On the same principle that the
Pedobaptist infers infant-sprinkling from circumcision, he might infer the
pontiff, the popish jubilee, and the mass, from the high-priest, jubilee, and
sacrifices of the Israelites. The inclination to Judaize has infected different
societies in different degrees. Its effects on Papists, Episcopalians, and
others, are sufficiently known. But it is evident that if the principle on which
baptism is inferred from circumcision be acted on at all, no limits can be set
to the procedure. There is an end of the simplicity of the Gospel Dispensation.

3rdly, I cannot observe institutes, inferred from other institutes, with full
satisfaction of mind. I am perplexed with a number of unanswerable questions.
Take the following as a specimen. From which of the abrogated institutions am I
to draw inferences? From all, from some, or from one only? How many institutes
am I to infer from each? How am I to modify my inferred institutions? Is every
man to infer institutions for himself; or is one man, as in the Papacy, or many,
as in Prelacy, to draw the inferences? No answer can be given to these
questions, and yet answers are essential to satisfaction in duty. For anything I
know, I may have too many inferences, or too few, or such I should not have.
Such a doubtful state of mind is expressly excluded from worship, Rom 14:5-23.
In inquiring whether New Testament institutes may be inferred from those of the
Old Testament, it must never be forgotten, that the positive institutions of the
Old Dispensation are abrogated. Abrogated institutions have no existence; every
inference deduced from them is illusory. Of nothing, I repeat the logical
aphorism, men can make nothing; from nothing, nothing can be inferred. This is
especially the case in the matter before us. The repeal of the law of
circumcision is specially recorded. Were I to reason on inference, it is from
the repeal, and not from the institute, that I would reason; and my inference
would be this, that, excepting with the antitype, that is, personal holiness, I
am no way concerned with the law of circumcision. From it I can learn nothing of
the character of the institutions of the New Dispensation.

4thly, The observance of institutions founded on inference is, in effect,
prohibited. We do not expect that every error in doctrine, government,
discipline, and worship, is in the Scriptures to be particularly marked and
refuted. Whatever is inconsistent with revelation is wrong. As to positive
ordinances, and particularly Baptism, we have all our instructions in the
Scriptures. There is no room for additions. The Apostles have taught us to
observe all tilings whatsoever Christ has commanded us. There is no room for
reduction or alteration. The same authority requires us to observe all the
ordinances as they were delivered, 1Co 11:2. The consequence of disobedience is
separation, 2Th 3:6. As these things are true of positive institutions in
general, so they are true of Baptism in particular. Respecting this institution
our instructions are complete. Thus we have seen that institutions cannot be
observed on inference, either from the procedure of professing Christians, from
the Scriptures usually alleged, or from the abrogated rites of the Old
Dispensation.

I shall now conclude this lecture with a few general remarks. 1st, We have no
instructions, either by precept or example, to found positive ordinances on
inference. My second remark respects the unhappy consequences of tampering with
revelation.

Inferential reasoning on the point in question, like every other tradition of
man, makes void the commandments of God. I assume two facts, known already, it
is probable, to the inquirer, and which shall afterwards be proved by
incontestable evidence. The first is, that every man after believing is, by the
Scriptures, obliged to be baptized. The second is, that infant sprinkling is
nowhere enjoined in the Scriptures. Mark, now, the effect of inference. We do
what is virtually forbidden, and neglect what is positively required. Except
such as have not been sprinkled, none of the adult are baptized. Infant
sprinkling, on the contrary, engrosses the attention of the churches. The work
enjoined by our heavenly Master has, in a great measure, been omitted, whilst
His professed servants have been wasting their time in operations which He never
required. Take another example of the unhappy consequences of founding
institutions on inference, viz. The lamentable divisions and sub-divisions of
professing Christians. One man thinks he sees the inference, and acts on the
imagination; another cannot see it, and rejects the corresponding practice.
Suppose that both these men seriously believe and practice their principles —
division is inevitable. There is one way, and but one, of uniting Christians,
and that is, acting on revelation as we find it. The fact accords with these
statements. Men have never agreed (at least since inquiry has been excited)
either in the practice of infant sprinkling, or in the inferences on which it is
founded. The less learned inquirer may need to be informed, that although they
agree in the practice, the abettors of infant sprinkling are at variance amongst
themselves, respecting the inferences on which they found it. In the end of the
last century, a work was published on infant sprinkling. The author collects all
the inferences in its favor, and proves by quotations, that every one of these
inferences has been rejected as illegitimate, by men of distinction, who adhered
to the practice. Suppose, now, what has often happened, that all these
inferences should appear to the inquirer as groundless, as each of them has
appeared to one or other of the abettors of sprinkling. What is the consequence?
Division follows, of course. Expedients may conceal, —they cannot cure the evil;
and the more extensively this pernicious principle is acted on, divisions are
multiplied, extended, and embittered. What was said before, we must repeat, —
There is one way, and but one, of uniting Christians, and that is by receiving
the Christian institutes, not from inference, but from the doctrine or examples
of Scripture.

LECTURE VII.

PRESUMPTIONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM. The abettors of Infant Baptism have
endeavored to vindicate their practice by a kind of cumulative or presumptive
evidence. They introduce their reasoning as follows. “Suppose, for the sake of
argument, that not one of our proofs, taken by itself, should appear
satisfactory, yet all of them taken together, warrant our practice. Recollect
the extent and antiquity of the practice, — the circumcision of infants, — the
prophecies respecting children in the Old Testament, and all the texts in the
New respecting households, the holiness and blessings of infants and the rest.
Take these things together, and the lawfulness, if not the necessity, of our
practice is sufficiently vindicated." To this mode of reasoning it were
sufficient to reply, that cumulative evidence is of force, then, and then only,
when all the particulars in the assemblage contribute to strengthen the cause;
but where each particular is inefficient, the whole is inefficient. The
presumption is not greater from the whole, than it is from any of the parts. An
accumulation of ciphers amounts to nothing. The object, however, of a
conscientious inquirer is, not the refutation of others, but the satisfaction of
his own mind. We must, therefore, examine the presumptions against infant
baptism, that the presumptions for and against it may be thrown into opposite
scales, and the judgment of the inquirer determined by that which preponderates.
To some of the presumptions against infant baptism, it has been objected, "that
the Scriptures on which they are founded concern adults only, — that they do not
concern infants, — and that although qualifications are required in adults, it
does not follow, that like qualifications are required to the baptism of
infants: it will not be said that infants are interdicted from eating by the
apostolic injunction, 2Th 3:10.

It is answered, 1st, In the text quoted, infants are obviously excepted; it is
those who are able, but unwilling to work, that are mentioned. But although the
words had run thus, as they do not, “If any work not, neither should he eat,"
still the nourishment of infants would not be prohibited. The reason is plain;
the support of infants is elsewhere required; and this explicit requisition
exempts them from the general rule. 2dly, As to the matter of the objection, —
Recollect that infants are in no part of Scripture excepted from the usual
requisites for baptism, and that infant baptism is nowhere enjoined. Were it
otherwise, infants must be baptized, notwithstanding their want of
qualifications, &c, but as the fact stands, the want of the requisite
qualifications bars their baptism.

Take a parallel case for illustration: — The qualifications for the Lord’s
Supper refer to adults only; yet in this country, professing Christians,
Pedo-baptists not excepted, hold that they are such as must exclude infants from
communion. All say that the worthy communicant must be able to discern the
Lord’s body; and, on the same grounds, we say that the baptized must possess the
scriptural qualifications. Infants are excluded from both ordinances on the same
ground. The example carries the matter farther; it bars the argument from
inference. It is known that the pleas for infant communion are the same with the
pleas for infant baptism. All of them, however, are repelled by the
consideration of the requisites for partaking of the supper. A conscientious
regard to truth requires similar procedure in similar circumstances. The
qualifications necessary to the baptized, prevent us from observing infant
baptism on inference. I shall only add, that some of the presumptions are
founded on facts essential to baptism. No remembrance of Christ; no partaking of
the supper. No reception of the truth; no baptism. Add to this consideration the
want of exception in favor of infants, and the want of command respecting the
baptism of infants, and the objection is still farther removed; the presumptions
being strengthened that infants are not the scriptural subjects of that
ordinance. The first presumption against infant sprinkling arises from the
silence of the Scriptures on the subject. The silence of the Scriptures on the
sprinkling or baptism of infants, is known to all who have read the Bible. We
speak not at present of inferences, but of expressions. On this topic, not a
single word occurs either in the Old Testament or in the New. This fact is
universally acknowledged; it cannot be denied. From this fact, arise various
presumptions unfavorable to the popular practice. Infant baptism is never
mentioned in Scripture. None of the parties interested have received any
instructions concerning it. The parties concerned are infants, parents,
children, teachers, and the churches. Let us consider them in their order.

1st, The infants to be sprinkled are not specified. We are nowhere told what
infants are, and what infants are not, to be sprinkled. Instructions are
necessary to all appointed worship; but, in the present case, they are
peculiarly necessary. Many questions arise on the right to sprinkling, whether
the right be supposed to be lodged in the infants or in the parents. If the
right be lodged in the infants, the question will be, Ought all infants to be
sprinkled? or some only? If all ought to be sprinkled, why are not missionaries
employed to gain the consent of parents, and sprinkle infants every where, at
home and abroad? If some only are to be sprinkled; if grace be required, how is
it to be ascertained in infants? How are we to distinguish the gracious from the
graceless? Suppose the right invested in the parents; the question, then, will
be, who are to be sponsors? The parents exclusively? or others? If others, what
others? From what parents is the right derived? The immediate or the remote? The
father, or the mother, or both? The abettors of infant baptism are divided on
these questions. The practice differs in different communions. But be the
practice what it may, a warrant is required, and cannot be produced. On all
these questions, the silence of the Scriptures is profound. Had God required the
sprinkling of infants, the infants to be sprinkled would certainly have been
specified.

2dly, Parents are deeply interested, but never directed in this imaginary duty.
They are nowhere instructed to teach their children to improve their baptism;
and, what ought to be particularly noticed, parents are nowhere required to have
their children baptized. The instructions to parents are many and minute; they
are repeatedly commanded to train up their children in the nurture and
admonition of the Lord, and repeatedly instructed in the import of this nurture
and admonition. But is it not unaccountably strange, that one of the chief
parental duties should never once be hinted at? If infant sprinkling be a duty,
it is a most momentous duty; it would be amongst the first and greatest duties
which parents owe to their children. Although nothing had been revealed of other
parental duties, we should have expected, from its importance, that this would
have been fully explained, and repeatedly inculcated; it is evident, however,
that the fact accords not with this expectation. Infant baptism is no parental
duty; it is one of the corruptions of Christianity, and its foundation, like the
foundation of Popery, is sapped by the silence of Scripture.

3dly, Children and youth are interested, but they are never directed to improve
their infant baptism or sprinkling. The instructions given to believers in
general may easily be applied to the young; and, no doubt, the general
instructions respecting baptism are as applicable to them as to others. In other
things, however, the Holy Spirit has not left them to general admonitions, He
has favoured them with special instructions. He has taught them to know the
Scriptures, to obey their parents, to be sober-minded, to be humble, to be
submissive. He has enforced these duties by various motives; such as, a regard
to rectitude, to their own best interests, and the like. But of their baptism in
infancy, He speaks not a word; they are neither taught to improve it for duty,
motive, or comfort; and they are never, directly or indirectly, so much as
reminded of the fact. For this significant silence there must be a cause: and
the most natural cause is, that infant baptism was unknown to the apostles.

There are two other parties concerned. The evangelists, I mean, and the
churches; but I need not enlarge on these. The remarks already made are so
certainly and so easily applicable, that to mention them should be sufficient.
The apostles, particularly Paul, had occasion, repeatedly, to address both the
evangelists and the churches. The former are fully instructed in all that they
had to teach; the latter, as to every part of their faith and practice; but
neither the one nor the other receive a single hint on the sprinkling or
baptizing of infants. Luke entitles his second work, The Acts, or the actings,
of the Apostles. If the apostles baptized infants, and their historian has not
recorded the fact, how are we to reconcile the omission with his character as a
faithful historian? H e professes to record the practice of the apostles; but if
they sprinkled or baptized infants, he has not verified his profession; a part
of their practice, most common and interesting, is not once either exemplified
or mentioned. His silence on this head becomes the more remarkable, as he is
particular in recording the concerns of children, when they occurred. Take an
example, Acts 21:5. Relating the events at Tyre, in Paul’s journey towards
Jerusalem, he tells us that the apostle was conducted to the shore by the
disciples, both men and women, and takes particular notice of their children.
Compare with this . account of the children the history of Philip’s baptizing at
Samaria, Acts 8:12. He tells us that men were baptized, and that women were
baptized, but there is no mention of children. Permit me to ask, why children
are so carefully noticed in the one case, and omitted in the other? The answer
is obvious: the parents with their children accompanied Paul; but Philip
baptized no infants. On the supposition that it was the usual practice of the
apostles to baptize infants, it is impossible to reconcile the silence of Luke
either with accuracy or fidelity. To judge here as we ought, however, two things
should be observed —1st, That Luke is writing under the direction of the Holy
Ghost; 2dly, That the design of his history is, by the practice of the apostles,
to direct the worship of all the churches to the end of the world. The history
accords with the fact, and by both, the churches are taught, in imitation of the
apostles, to restrict baptism to professing believers. A second presumption
against infant sprinkling arises from what the Scriptures do teach of Baptism.
They treat of it frequently, fully, and in a great variety of forms. It is
taught in doctrines, in precepts, in examples, and in inferences. But wherever,
or in what form soever, the subject occurs, it is restricted exclusively to
adults. This is known to all who are acquainted with the Bible. What do we learn
from this? If adult baptism be inculcated frequently, — if infant baptism be
never hinted at, the presumption is plain. In adult baptism we must be very
deeply interested; but with infant baptism we have nothing to do. Judge from a
similar case. Respecting the qualifications and duties of elders, we have full
information: but the Scriptures speak nothing of popes or of prelates.
Accordingly, we reject popery and prelacy, and receive the elders of the
Scriptures. In reason and consistency we are bound, in the matter of Baptism, to
form a similar judgment, and to pursue a similar practice. Infant sprinkling,
like popery, is nowhere enjoined in the Scriptures; and like it, must of course
be rejected. Adult baptism is frequently and strongly pressed on our
consciences, and must, like the scriptural eldership, be received and obeyed.
The presumption is strengthened by comparing the Scripture doctrine of baptism
with the actual state of the Church.

Suppose Pedo-baptism to be the truth, the number of adults will bear no
proportion to the number of infants to be baptized. The total amount of the
adults could not exceed the number of converts from the superstitions of Jews,
Mahonimedans, and Heathens. The number of infants would be incalculably greater,
particularly in the Millennium. During this period, the Jews, and the fullness
of the Gentiles, being converted, almost none, excepting infants, remain to be
baptized. Observe, then, the Church, through the extent of her history, and the
infants are by far the most numerous class; the adults to be baptized are
comparatively few. From the wisdom and care of their Ruler, I expect revelation
to be adapted to the exigencies of His people. I expect instructions on adult
baptism, because adults are to be baptized; but I expect more full, more
particular instructions on pedo-baptism, because, on the supposition of its
being a Christian ordinance, infants will be the majority of those to whom it is
administered. Compare these reasonable expectations with the fact, and it at
once appears that the Scripture doctrine of baptism is not adapted to the
baptism of infants. On adult baptism ] have the most ample information; but if
pedo-baptism be our duty, the Scriptures afford me no information on the
subject. In no part of them can I find any provision made for the supply of this
want. The inference is clear. This want or defect is merely imaginary;
revelation is not adapted to pedo-baptism. Infant baptism is a corruption of
Christianity; it is not regulated by the Scriptures, and must therefore be
rejected by the disciples of Christ. The baptism of believers ought exclusively
to be practiced, and so it undoubtedly will be in the Millennium. All the pleas
for infant baptism are cut off. The more obscure passages must be explained by
the passages that are more clear. Casual references must be explained by the
passages which treat more fully of the subject. Whatever is said of
circumcision, households, the blessings and holiness of children, and the like,
must be explained by the commission and the Acts of the Apostles. The practice
of infant baptism is not sanctioned by the commission and Acts of the Apostles;
and, consequently, by nothing in the Scriptures. What is the consequence? It
cannot be practiced in faith, for faith cometh by the word of God. It cannot be
administered or received in the name of Christ; for to baptize in the name of
Christ is, amongst other things, to baptize by his commission.

Infant sprinkling, like every other unscriptural practice, must be rejected as
will-worship, Col 2:20. “Why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to
ordinances — after the commandments and doctrines of men?"


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: 09. LECTURE VIII; FARTHER PRESUMPTIONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM
========================================================================

LECTURE VIII.

FARTHER PRESUMPTIONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM. A third presumption against infant
baptism arises out of the necessity of being satisfied that it is the will of
God.

Satisfaction as to our duty, in every part of the service of God, is frequently
required in the Scriptures. Col 3:17, “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do
all in the name of the Lord Jesus." Rom 14:5 — 23, “Let every man be fully
persuaded in his own mind." “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." These rules
must be applied to Baptism as well as to other .things, especially as the same
injunction is implied, if not expressed, in the common formula of
administration.

Satisfaction as to our duty is thus required, but how is it to be found? For
infant baptism there is neither doctrine nor precept, nor example, nor evident
inference. All the evidence offered, is some unproved inferences drawn from
irrelevant premises by a circuitous process of ratiocination. Whether these
inferences have in any instance proved satisfactory, each individual must judge.
They furnish a pretext, indeed, for such as desire a pretext, but are ill
calculated for giving satisfaction to the conscientious worshipper. A fourth
presumption against infant baptism arises from the qualifications required in
the baptized. The first qualification requisite in baptism is knowledge, of
which infants are incapable. The necessity of knowledge to baptism is implied in
every baptismal qualification. This necessity is expressly taught in Mat
28:18-20, “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you." In these few words, the necessity of
knowledge to baptism is mentioned in three different ways. 1st, The apostles are
commanded to teach the nations. 2ndly, They are commanded to baptize the
disciples in the name of the Trinity; that is, into the belief of the things
which they had been taught respecting the Trinity, — into the faith of the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 3dly, They are commanded to teach the baptized
after their baptism, as they had taught them before it: “Teaching them to"
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

Objections have been made to this testimony. The word "teach" in the beginning
of the verses, might, Bay the objectors, be rendered “disciple," or, make
disciples of the nations. But the objection is irrelevant, — the translation is
sufficiently correct; and though the word were altered, the meaning would
remain. To disciple, implies teaching. Farther, what Matthew calls teach, or
disciple, Mark renders "preach the gospel to every creature." To teach them,
therefore, is to preach to them the gospel. What is baptizing into the Trinity,
but baptizing into what we are taught concerning the Trinity? As to the teaching
in the second clause, the translation cannot be altered.

I need not say that infants are incapable of being taught, or of being baptized
into the name or faith of the Trinity. In these words there is no exception of
infants. This has indeed been suggested, but the suggestion refutes itself. It
is obvious, from the commission, that the subjects of baptism must first be
taught, or made disciples. Unless, then, we find in some part of Scripture an
exception in regard to infants, they must be excluded from baptism. They want
the requisite qualification of knowledge.

2dly, Faith, which infants do not possess, is a qualification requisite to
baptism, of which infants are incapable. That faith is necessary to baptism,
appears from many scriptures. I quote a few as examples. Mark 16:15-16, "He that
believeth, and is baptized shall be saved." Acts 8:36-37, "And Philip said, If
thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest (be baptized). Col 2:12,
“Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the
faith of the operation of God." These, and other scriptures, prove that faith is
necessary to baptism.

I must not take leave of this particular, without reminding the inquirer of two
things: 1st, That every objection known to the writer, has been anticipated in
this, or some preceding lecture; 2dly, That selfexamination and discerning the
Lord’s body, are not more essential to the observance of the Lord’s-supper, than
faith is to baptism. From Mark I learn, that baptism without faith is of no
avail. From Luke, I learn, that if the Ethiopian had not believed with all his
heart, he could not have been baptized. From Paul, I learn that the Colossians
rose with Christ in baptism, only through the faith of the operation of God, who
hath raised Christ from the dead. This last testimony is particularly to be
considered, because it extends to all to whom the epistle is directed. Its
doctrine is, that faith is essential to baptism, and is not restricted to any
particular class of the baptized. The conclusion is irresistible. Infants cannot
be baptized, because they cannot believe, or, what amounts to the same thing,
they cannot give evidence of their faith.

Repentance is a third qualification requisite in baptism, of which infants are
incapable. The connection between repentance and baptism is asserted or implied
in many Scriptures. Mat 3:11, "I indeed, says John, baptize you with water unto
repentance." Acts 2:37-39, “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their
heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren,
what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive
the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 22:16, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and
be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." In this
manner the Scriptures teach us the connection between repentance and baptism. In
the passages quoted, there is no exception of infants from the general rule.
Repentance is necessary to baptism; and children cannot be baptized, because
they cannot repent.

Holiness is the fourth qualification requisite to baptism. The necessity of
holiness to the baptized is often intimated. John 3:5, “Jesus answered
(Nicodemus) Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and
of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Tit 3:5, “According to
his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy
Ghost." Infants are capable of holiness, Jer 1:5; but all infants are not holy;
and no infant can give the evidence of holiness required in the Scriptures.

5thly, Putting on Christ, is another qualification requisite to baptism. Gal
3:27, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."
The figure is taken from putting on clothes: it implies action on the part of
the person baptized, of which infants are incapable. In baptism the believer
professes his faith in Christ. The process here is short, and the conclusion
certain. Infants cannot put on Christ, and consequently cannot be baptized.
Consider what is implied in putting on Christ, and this will appear still more
evident. By Christ, we are to understand the doctrine concerning Christ. 1Co
2:2, “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and
him crucified," — not the philosophy of the Greeks; not the ceremonies of the
Jews; but what is written concerning the person, character, offices, and work of
Christ. To preach Christ, then, is to preach the truth concerning Him. And what
is it "to put on Christ," but to understand, believe, apply, and practise that
truth? The apostle frequently uses the words in this sense. Rom 13:13-14, “Let
us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in
chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord
Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts
thereof." Col 3:8-10, "But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice,
blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another,
seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new
man, which is renewed in knowledge, after the image of him that created him." We
have, in our own language, expressions of the same kind. We speak of “laying
aside bad habits, and acquiring good habits." The general meaning of the
passages quoted is similar. To put off the old man and put on the new, is the
purpose and practice of reformation; putting on Christ, is the purpose and
practice of obeying the Gospel. Observe, next, the comprehensive and unlimited
form of the apostle’s assertion. Gal 3:27, “For as many of you as have been
baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." He does not mean that some of the
Galatians were baptized and some not. All the members of the churches of Galatia
were baptized. He does not mean that the baptized were bound in duty merely to
reformation. The fact is asserted: as many of them as were baptized had put on
Christ. He means that reformation was essential to baptism, and that every
individual baptized either was, or appeared to be, reformed; there was no
exception of Jew or Greek, of learned or unlearned, of young or old. The
presumption that infants cannot be baptized, is strengthened, because they are
incapable of moral agency, and of the actions described and required by the
apostle. A sixth qualification requisite to baptism, and incompetent to infants,
is the answer of a good conscience. 1Pe 3:21, “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." Here the apostle represents believers as being saved by baptism; but in
order to guard them against imagining that salvation was necessarily connected
with the observance of the ordinance, he says, “not the putting away the filth
of the flesh," but the answer of a good conscience, &c. In baptism, the believer
professes his faith in Christ for the remission of his sins, and that by his
resurrection he is begotten to a lively hope of salvation, 1Pe 1:3. “It is God
that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died; yea, rather
that is risen again." Thus he has the answer of a good conscience; his heart no
more condemns him. This is the beginning of the believer’s confidence, which he
is commanded to hold steadfast to the end, Heb 3:14.

Now, every one must see the consequence; infants cannot be baptized, because
they cannot have the answer of a good conscience. To this consequence an
objection has been made. Paul says, Rom 2:28-29, “He is not a Jew which is one
outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is
a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the
spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." And it
has been asked, will any one hence argue that the Jewish infants, for want of
this, were not to be admitted into covenant with God by circumcision? To this
question I answer, 1st, Paul is speaking of circumcision, and Peter of baptism.
These ordinances must be proved to be similar, before relevant conclusions can
be drawn from the one to the other. 2dly, It is true that circumcision, without
regeneration, could not save the Jew, and that baptism, if the conscience be not
good, will not save the baptized. 3dly, Baptism requires a profession of faith
in all its subjects, which circumcision did not.

I have now given six examples of qualifications required in baptism, of all
which infants are incapable. These are knowledge, faith, repentance, holiness,
putting on Christ, and the answer of a good conscience. It has been proved that
each of these stands connected with baptism, in the same way that
self-examination and discerning the Lord’s body stand connected with the supper.
It has been evinced that the objections to infants observing both ordinances are
similar, and similarly answered; and, in particular, that infants are not
excepted from the general rules. The presumption, then, is very strong; if the
want of qualifications represented in Scripture as essential to the observance
of the ordinance, exclude them from the Lord’s supper, must not the want of
similar qualifications exclude them from baptism? It is not easy to see that any
thing can be opposed to these remarks, without reflecting on the wisdom, or
care, or authority of Him who hath given us the Scriptures as the rule of our
worship. A fifth presumption against infant sprinkling arises from the duties
connected with baptism. For our present purpose, it will not be necessary to
enumerate, it is sufficient to exemplify these duties. If it prove true that
there are duties required in baptism which infants cannot perform, it will
follow that infants cannot be baptized. The following examples will satisfy the
inquirer that there are duties of this description.

I take the first example from a profession of the faith. The necessity of
professing the faith is often taught in the Scriptures. Mat 10:32, “Whosoever
therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father
which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny
before my Father which is in heaven." Rom 10:9, “If thou shalt confess with thy
mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto
righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.* The
connection between confessing the faith and baptism, appears likewise in many
ways: — 1st, From the circumstances in which the apostles propagated the gospel.
They preached to the Jews and heathen; such of their hearers as believed,
professed their faith and were baptized. Thus, at Corinth, Paul preached, and
many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized. 2dly, The
connection between professing the faith and baptism, is implied in the
commission to the apostles, and in similar Scriptures. The administrator could
only learn from a profession who they were who believed. The account which we
have of the Ethiopian’s baptism confirms all that has been said.

I take my next example from the concomitant duties — the duties required of the
baptized at the time of their immersion. In the supper, more is required than
the mere corporeal acts of eating bread and drinking wine. We must remember
Christ: without this worship of the mind, the bodily service is useless. The
case is similar in baptism. We are baptized for the remission of sins, into the
death of Christ, into Christ, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Our minds must go into the truth respecting these things, as our bodies go into
the water. The mere corporeal operation is as useless here as in the supper.
“God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in
truth." 1Ti 4:8, "Bodily exercise profiteth little." Peter expressly applies
these things to baptism, 1 Peter, h1:21; Acts 22:16. But it is not necessary to
quote particular Scriptures: the very design of baptism implies that the mind
must be exercised about what the ordinance represents.

3dly, I take my next example from the duties consequent upon baptism. I name but
two, church association, and the practice of the truth. In ordinary cases, it is
the duty of the baptized, without exception, to form themselves into churches,
or to unite themselves with churches already formed. Mat 28:19, “Teaching them
to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Amongst the things
commanded by Christ, church association holds a prominent place. And, it ought
to be observed, that there is to be no unnecessary interval. As soon as a man is
taught, he ought to believe; as soon as he believes, he ought to be baptized; as
soon as he is baptized, he ought to join the church. Acts 2:1-47. explains the
commission. Acts 2:41, “Then they that gladly received the word were baptized;
and the same day there were added unto them three thousand souls. And they
continued steadfastly in the apostle’s doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking
of bread, and in prayers." The three thousand were baptized, and added to the
church on the same day, 1:e. without delay. 1Co 12:13, “For by one Spirit are we
all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond
or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." All are baptized into
one body. The apostle is reasoning on the principle that the church of Corinth
represents the general assembly and church of the first born; that is, our
obligation to join a particular church is implied in our baptism. Agreeably to
these Scriptures, 1 find a church in Jerusalem, in Corinth, and in other cities;
but I find neither precept nor example for separating baptism from the supper.
Baptism is an ordinance of initiation. Amongst other things, it is designed to
signify that we profess ourselves Christians, and that others ought to treat us
accordingly. Without baptism we cannot, consistently with the rules of
Scripture, be admitted to church fellowship; but being baptized, if there be no
obstructions, we ought not to be kept from church communion, either by ourselves
or others. The case of the Ethiopian is, from its nature, extraordinary. The
collocation of baptized infants, has not a little puzzled both pedo-baptists and
sprinklers. Some of the first have admitted infants to the supper. The latter —
from the establishment of the doctrine of transubstantiation, — have excluded
them from the supper, but received them to a kind of equivocal church
membership.

2dly, The practice of the truth was my other example of duties consequent on
baptism. This example comprehends learning and practicing whatever Christ has
commanded. Of these things infants are incapable. To conclude this particular,
let us recollect, that, without exception of young or old, duties to which
infants are incompetent, are required in the baptized. By every class of these
duties, whether before, at, or after the ordinance, infants must be excluded
from baptism.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: 10. LECTURE IX; FARTHER PRESUMPTIONS
========================================================================

LECTURE IX.

FARTHER PRESUMPTIONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM.

Another presumption against infant baptism, arises from the Scriptures rejecting
the principles on which it rests. The right of the infant to baptism is derived
from different sources by Pedo-baptists. Some found it on the commission,
alleging that men are to be made disciples by means of baptism. The fallacy of
this appears by comparing the commission as recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Disciples or believers — for the terms are synonymous — can only be made by
instruction, and consequently our right to baptism is founded on our faith; in
other words, our knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus.

Others found the infant’s right to baptism on an imaginary grace supposed to be
common to all men. But this principle is disproved by the arguments which
disprove Arminianism. The most popular opinion is, that the right to baptism
runs in blood, — the title being derived from the parents or ancestors. Infants
descended more immediately or more remotely from believers, are considered as
infants of a privileged order. Some maintain that all infants ought to be
baptized or sprinkled, because of our common descent from believing Noah. Some
refer the right to the faith of the immediate father or mother; others take a
different view. But the very basis of the popular practice is the supposition
that the souls of infants derive benefit or injury from their carnal descent.
The Scriptures reject this principle; and if this assertion be proved, so far as
this principle is concerned, infant baptism must fall with its foundation. But I
must open the way for my proof by a few preliminary remarks.

1st, The chain of reasoning here will be short and strong; but, however strong,
I would never have opposed it to the slightest intimation of fact. Had God
taught us to baptize infants, either by precept, by example, or in any other
way, it would have been my duty to subject all my reasoning to revelation. But
if I am told, without any other intimation of the will of God, that the child by
its descent from a believing parent, is entitled to spiritual privileges,
because the Israelites, by their descent from Abraham, were entitled to typical
privileges, I am obliged to examine this principle; and if it appear that till
Christ came, descent, by Divine appointment, gave the descendant from Abraham a
right to circumcision, but that descent, by the same authority, now confers no
spiritual privilege, the principle must be rejected, and along with it the
consequent practice.

2dly, "We by no means assert that children may not be profited or hurt by means
of their parents. A child may inherit a constitution healthy or diseased; he may
be born to a great estate, or to personal labor; he may be trained to every
species of wickedness, or brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
The effects of education, good or bad, are universally allowed to be very great.
We assert, only, that the soul of a child is not immediately affected by carnal
descent.

3dly, We do not suppose that infant grace would prove infant baptism, any more
than infant communion. Though grace were possessed, yet the possessor could not
be admitted either to baptism or the Lord’s-supper, until he professed his
faith, and could exercise grace; so much at least as to answer the design of
these ordinances. It is a very common, though a very palpable mistake, to
confound grace, — and what is still more absurd, the mere possibility of having
grace — with the exercise and profession of it. Though grace did run in blood,
infants, or even children, could not be admitted either to baptism or the
supper, until they professed their faith, and gave evidence of understanding
these acts of worship. This is essential to its being a reasonable service.

4thly, It is not to be expected that the Scriptures should specify and refute
every particular error. Error is infinite. It is sufficient that the truth be
stated; whatever opposes truth is error. The duty of restricting baptism to
those who are capable of professing their faith, is fully and plainly revealed.
Infant baptism, if not specially enjoined, is opposed to truth, and must be
discontinued.

5thly, It is, however, not a little remarkable, that the kindness of the
prescient Spirit of our heavenly Father has put us on our guard here by more
than ordinary instruction. He has not only, by stating the truth, furnished us
with the means of detecting error, but particularly has taught us to reject it,
by rejecting the principle on which it rests.

Let us take some examples of the doctrine of Scripture on the subject of carnal
descent. Mat 3:7-12, “But when he (John the Baptist), saw many of the Pharisees
and Saducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who
hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits
meet for repentance; and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to
our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up
children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees:
therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast
into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that
cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: whose fan is in his hand,
and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner;
but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. In this passage, we may
observe the following things:— 1st, According to the Sinai covenant, a male
descendant from Abraham, when circumcised, became a member of the typical
community; grace was not necessary. The Pharisees and Saducees, though a
generation of vipers, were legitimate members of that community. John tells them
that the antitype differed from the type; that personal religion, fruits meet
for repentance, were requisite in the subjects of the kingdom of heaven. Repent,
he preached, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 2dly, He tells them, that
under the Gospel, carnal descent would profit them nothing. The subjects of the
kingdom of heaven were, in this respect, not like branches in a tree, but like
separate trees, each growing on its own root, to be preserved, or cut down,
according to its fruits. 3dly, He tells them, in particular, that their descent
from Abraham would profit them nothing, ver. 9. 4thly, He tells them that the
axe was now laid to the root of the trees; that Christ’s fan was in his hand;
that every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into
the fire; that the wheat must be gathered into the garner, but the chaff burned
up with unquenchable fire. The language is figurative, but the meaning is plain.
Christ will judge men according to their personal character; this judgment is
announced in his doctrine, and represented in his ordinances, and in the
constitution and discipline of his churches. From these observations, it appears
that the religion of the Gospel is personal, not hereditary. If their descent
from Abraham would not profit the Jews, much less can their descent from Noah,
or their immediate parents, profit the Gentiles. Grace does not run in blood;
and baptism cannot be administered on what does not exist.

Again, Mark 3:31-35, “There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing
without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they
said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he
answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round
about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister,
and mother." Mary was a saint, and is now in heaven, but she is saved, not by
her relation to our Lord as her son, but as her Savior. The word “ brethren" was
used amongst the Jews in a sense more extended than amongst us; it was
synonymous with the word “kindred." Some of our Lord’s kindred were believers. 1
Corinthians i10:5, “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as
other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"

Some of our Lord’s kindred did not believe. John 7:5, “For neither did his
brethren believe on him." Such of our Lord’s brethren as were saved, owe their
salvation, not to their birth, but to their Savior. The difference between those
who believed, and those who believed not, was not the effect of consanguinity.
The importance of attending to this is indicated by the repetition of the
narrative, which we find recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The truth which it
inculcates is frequently stated. Gal 5:6, “For in Jesus Christ neither
circumcision aveileth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by
love." Col 3:11, “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor
uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in
all. Again, Philip, 3:3, 4, "We are the circumcision, which worship God in the
spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh —
though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that
he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more."

It is not possible to state the doctrine in stronger or plainer language than it
is expressed by John 1:12-13, "But as many as received Him, to them gave he
power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which
were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man,
but of God." “That is, children by a generation spiritual and divine, which has
nothing in common with natural generation." — Campbell.

"They who thus believed on Him were possessed of these privileges, not in
consequence of their being born of blood, of their being descended from the
loins of the holy patriarchs, or sharing in circumcision, and the blood of the
sacrifices; nor could they ascribe it merety to the will of the flesh, or to
their own superior wisdom and goodness, as if by the power of corrupted nature
alone they had made themselves to differ; nor to the will of man, or to the
wisest advice and most powerful exhortations which their fellow-creatures might
address to them; but must humbly acknowledge that they were born of God, and
indebted to the efficacious influences of his regenerating grace, for all their
privileges, and for all their hopes." — Doddridge.

"We are born sons, not by virtue of the blood of circumcision, by which the Jews
entered into covenant with God, and became his sons; not by reason of that
carnal generation, which makes us sons by nature; not by the will of man,
adopting another for his son for want of natural issue; but this sonship ariseth
from the good pleasure of God, receiving us for his sons, through faith in
Christ Jesus." — Whitby.

Other expositors agree with those quoted in explaining the words as referring
our spiritual birth, not to our natural descent, but unto God.* To assert, in
the face of this testimony, that infants derive spiritual benefit from natural
descent, is rather to contradict than to explain the doctrines of revelation.
Again, John 3:5-6, “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a
man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit
is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." This
testimony to the spiritual inutility of natural descent, though more full and
more plain, exactly coincides with that of the baptist. Nicodemus, no doubt,
like the Pharisees and Saducees, founded his hope on his Abrahamic blood: out
Lord undeceives him. The expectant of the blessings of the kingdom of heaven (he
tells him) must have another and better birth than that derived from the
patriarchs. We must be born of the Spirit. Flesh, not spirit, is the product of
natural birth: what is spiritual must be derived from the Spirit, not from
carnal descent. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is
born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born
again." “In plain terms, whosoever would become a subject of the kingdom of God,
must not only be baptized, but must experience the renewing and sanctifying
influences of the Holy Spirit on his soul. For were it possible for a man to be
born again, by entering a second time into his mother’s womb, such a second
birth would do no more to qualify him for the kingdom of God than the first; for
that which is born of the flesh is only flesh, and what proceeds and is produced
from parents that are sinful and corrupt, is sinful and corrupt as they are; but
that which is born of the Spirit is formed to a resemblance of that blessed
Spirit, whose office it is to infuse a Divine life into the soul." — Doddridge.

Other expositors give precisely the same explanation of the passage. Children,
then, derive nothing spiritual from carnal descent. Again: Rom 9:7-8, "Neither,
because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children; but in Isaac shall
thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are
not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the
seed." Ver. 13, “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
Esau and Jacob had the same blood, but a different spirit: both were the
descendants of believing Isaac; and as descended from him, both were equally
corrupt. The difference arose, not from descent, but from the promise. The
apostle generalizes the doctrine, “They who are the children of the flesh, these
are not the children of God." We have already seen, and shall soon see more
fully, that the maxim is of universal application. This passage, then, bears
additional testimony to the truth, that nothing spiritual is derived from carnal
descent. Again, 2Co 5:16, “Wherefore, henceforth know we no man after the flesh;
yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him
no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." “For this
reason (that Christ died ’as the substitute of sinners of all nations,’ ver.
15), therefore we, the ministers of the gospel of reconciliation, think
ourselves bound to preach it to all nations, without regarding any man as better
or worse on account of his pedigree and external privileges, or of his being
circumcised in the flesh or not." — Cruise.

"Wherefore, since Christ died for all, we, the apostles of Christ, from this
time forth, in the exercise of our ministry, show respect to no man more than to
another, on account of his being a Jew, according to the flesh, and even if we
have formerly esteemed Christ on account of his being a Jew, yet now we esteem
him no more on that account." — Macknight. The sum of these comments is: — The
apostles made no difference between the Jew and the Gentile, because the
atonement was made for Gentiles as well as Jews. Judaism was founded in descent
from the patriarchs. Christianity is not founded in carnal relation of any kind.
It is not on carnal relation that its privileges depend; it is not on account of
carnal relation that men are admitted to its ordinances; it is not in
consequence of carnal relation that men are bound by its laws. There is no
exception. No man is respected for his carnal descent. This passage does not
indeed assert, in as many words, that children, infant or adult, are
inadmissible to baptism from their relationship to their parents; it is,
however, plainly implied. If we state the doctrine in an interrogatory form,
this immediately appears. To whom should we have respect on account of carnal
descent? A. To none; by consequence, not to children, whether infant or adult.
In what concerns of Christianity are we to have respect to carnal descent? A. In
none; by consequence, not in baptism.

I leave it to all to judge whether, in the passages now quoted, it be not
plainly implied, that children, whether infant or adult, cannot be baptized in
consequence of their relation to their parents. Again, Heb 8:8, "Behold, the
days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of
Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made
with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand, to lead them Out of
the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded
them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the
house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their
mind, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they
shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and
every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the
least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and
their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." The doctrine of this
passage is summary and conclusive. That this description belongs not to all the
infants of believers, the wicked lives of many of them give decisive proof. The
unavoidable consequence is, they are not introduced into the new covenant by
their carnal descent. All the infants of believers are not taught of God, — all
the subjects of this covenant are taught of God. It is not, therefore, on their
relation to believers, but on their spiritual relation to Christ, that they are
entitled to the benefits or ordinances of the Gospel.

Again, 1Pe 1:23-24, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all
flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass
wither eth, and the flower thereof falleth away: but the word of the Lord
endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto
vou." These verses, almost in as many words, teach the doctrine for which we
contend. Peter is treating of the cause of regeneration. He denies that it is by
corruptible seed; he asserts that it is by the incorruptible seed of the word.
The corruptible seed is carnal descent; it is corruptible, because all flesh is
grass. The incorruptible is the word of God or the Gospel; it is incorruptible,
because it liveth and endureth for ever. Repeat these words I may, but 1 cannot
make them plainer. Two or three quotations from friends of infant baptism may
satisfy the inquirer that there is nothing peculiar in this explanation. “The
temper and conduct which I recommend may justly be expected from you,
considering your relation to God and to each other: as having been regenerated,
not by corruptible seed, not by virtue of any descent from human parents, but by
incorruptible; not laying the stress of your confidence on your pedigree from
Abraham, if ye had the honor to descend from that illustrious patriarch, for
that descent could not entitle you to the important blessings of the Gospel. It
is by means of the efficacy of the word of God upon your hearts, even that
powerful word, which lives and endures for ever, that you are become entitled to
these glorious evangelical privileges." — Doddridge.

"In this expression, the apostle insinuated to the Jews, that they were not the
children of God and heirs of immortality, by their being begotten of Abraham,
nor by their obeying the law of Moses, but by their being begotten of the
incorruptible seed of the preached word of the living God." — Macknight. This
testimony, then, almost in words, proves that infants cannot be baptized on
account of their descent. Again, under the Old Dispensation, the temporal
interests of the child were judicially affected by the conduct of the patient.
Of this we have an example in Exo 20:5, “For I the Lord thy God am a jealous
God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and
fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them
that love me, and keep my commandments."

It is perhaps implied in the words quoted, but certainly often and plainly
predicted by the prophets, that under the Gospel this constitution of things
should be altered. Under that dispensation, the temporal interests, and much
less the spiritual interests of the child, are in no judicial way affected by
the conduct of the parent. Both directly and indirectly, the prophecies confirm
the truth, that the child derives no spiritual privilege from his lineage. Jer
31:29-31, “In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour
grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his
own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on
edge. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah." Eze 18:2, “What mean ye,
that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have
eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith
the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any move to use this proverb in
Israel."

Thus it appears that the right to baptism does not run in blood, and we ought
also to be satisfied, that infants cannot be baptized in consequence of their
descent from their parents, whether more immediate or more remote.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: 11. LECTURE X. FUTHER PRESUMPTIONS
========================================================================

LECTURE X.

FURTHER PRESUMPTIONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM. A seventh presumption against
infant baptism arises from its incongruity with the analogy of faith,

Christianity is a system: its parts, adapted to one another, form a consistent
whole. To prove that any doctrine or practice agrees not with other doctrines
and duties of Christianity, is to prove that it is not a Christian doctrine or
practice at all. If I prove that Pedo-baptism accords not with the analogy of
the truth as it is in Jesus, I prove, or at least I bring a strong presumption,
that it is net a Christian institute.

1st, Infant baptism does not accord with the scripture doctrine of election. The
Scriptures teach us that election is the divine choice of persons to eternal
life, and not the choice of tribes or of families. Rom 8:29-30, “For whom he did
foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that
he might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did
predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified;
and whom he justified, them he also glorified." This is a description, not of
families and tribes, but of persons called and saved. John 6:37-39, “All that
the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will in no
wise cast out. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all
which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at
the last day." This election is personal and saving. John 17:2, “As thou hast
given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as
thou hast given him." John 17:5, “I pray for them; 1 pray not for the world, but
for them which thou hast given me, for they are thine." Ver. 24, “Father, I will
that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am, that they may
behold my glory." Luk 10:20, “Notwithstanding, in this rejoice not, that the
spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice because your names are written
in heaven." Rev 13:8, “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him,
whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world." Php 4:3, "And I entreat thee also, true yoke-fellow,
help those women which labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and
with other of my fellow-laborers, whose names are in the book of life." Romans
i10:11 — 13, “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good
or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, not of
works, but of him that calleth. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the
younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." On the
supposition that infants derive some spiritual and saving benefit from their
birth or baptism, they would be saved by families, by tribes, by nations:
whereas the election of the Bible is neither an election of nations, nor tribes,
nor families, but of persons only., to salvation. But the fact renders this
incongruity still more glaring. Every one of the scriptures just quoted connects
election with salvation. But who, that looks at their wicked lives and
impenitent deaths, is not painfully convinced that many of those baptized in
infancy are not finally saved? In the first passage quoted on this particular,
it is asserted, and in all the rest it is supposed, that saving grace is
inseparably connected with glory. If the infants of believers derive grace from
their birth or baptism, and lose it before they die, he must be very
inattentive, indeed, who observes not the incongruity referred to. Throughout
the world called Christian, the great body of the people are baptized, or
sprinkled, in infancy. On the supposition that birth and baptism convey saving
grace, the number of the elect greatly exceeds the number of the called. The
doctrine of the Scriptures is just the reverse. In Mat 20:16, and frequently
elsewhere, we are told that “many be called, but few chosen." These remarks more
immediately interest that numerous class of Pedo-baptists who suppose that grace
is conferred by blood, or by baptism; but they are uninteresting to none. They
must prove fatal, like those which follow, to pedo-baptism, until it be proved,
as it never will, that, like circumcision, it stands on scripture precept or
example, and, like it, has no personal respect to the subject. The inquirer may
examine for himself. Is it supposed that baptism imparts any temporal good? The
supposition is contradicted by fact; — the baptized are neither more healthy,
more wealthy, nor longer lived than others; nay, many of them die in infancy. Is
it supposed that infants derive spiritual good from their birth or baptism? The
supposition contradicts all the Scriptures quoted, and many more which might
have been quoted to the same purpose.

2dly, Infant baptism is inconsistent with the doctrine of representation. In the
popular worship, every parent is the representative of his children, immediate,
remote, or both; hence there are as many representatives as there are parents.
But is .this the Scripture doctrine of representation? It is very different.
Adam, the first man, represented all his posterity, descending from him by
ordinary generation. Christ, the second man, represents the election. Of these
two representatives we read in Scripture. It is as representatives that Adam is
called the first, and Christ the second man. Rom 5:19, “For as by one man’s
disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be
made righteous." Adam and Christ are meant. Of other representatives the
Scripture makes no mention, and by its silence excludes them. The exclusion of
all moral representatives, (Christ and Adam excepted,) is most explicitly taught
in the passage just quoted. Many men intervened between Adam and Christ; but
from Adam to Christ there was no moral representative. All parents, Abraham not
excepted, are excluded from this honor. By the obedience of one shall many be
made righteous: it is by the obedience of Christ, exclusive of the obedience of
others. If the child be justified at all, he is justified by the righteousness
of Christ exclusively; the righteousness of the parent is excluded. The
recollection of these things will dissipate the clouds which ignorance and
design have gathered around this subject, from the covenants with Abraham,
David, and others. They are expressly excluded from moral representation; they
were merely typical representatives. To assert that the moral condition of
infants depends on their blood, or their baptism, is to oppose the Scriptures,
as in many other respects, so particularly, in respect of representation. This
incongruity attaches to all Pedo-baptists who found baptism in parentage.

3dly, Infant baptism is inconsistent with the covenant of grace or covenant of
God. The Scripture doctrine on this topic is as follows: — All mankind
descending from Adam by ordinary generation, have fallen by the apostasy of
their representative, into an estate of sin and misery. Rom 5:18, "By the
offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation." God from eternity,
selected a number of our fallen race, and gave them to His Son, the Lord Jesus
Christ, to be redeemed by Him. Eph 1:4, “According as he hath chosen us in him
before the foundation of the world." In the time and manner appointed by God,
the redeemed become acquainted with the gospel, and are made to believe it. This
blessing flows from the grace of God, and is communicated by the regenerating
work of the Holy Ghost. Tit 3:5, "Not by works of righteousness which we have
done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration,
and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Eph 2:8, “For by grace are ye saved through
faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." By this faith they
are united to Christ, brought personally into covenant with God, and interested
in all His merits and benefits. 1Co 1:30, “But of him are ye in Christ Jesus,
who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and
redemption."

Such is the account we receive from the Scriptures of the covenant of grace. The
process by which infants are brought into the covenant of baptism or sprinkling,
is generally known, and need not be recapitulated. Let it only be recollected
that many, or most of the sprinkled come short of holiness, and happiness, and
the incongruity will immediately appear. In the covenant of grace all is ordered
and sure, as the purpose of God on which it rests. In the covenant of infant
baptism or of sprinkling, all is precarious. In the covenant of grace there is
one, and but one representative. In the covenant of baptism or sprinkling, there
are others — parents or sponsors, or both. Into the covenant of grace, men are
brought by the spirit. Parents or sponsors bring infants into the covenant of
baptism or sprinkling. Faith alone, is the medium of interest in the covenant of
grace. Infants are brought into the covenant of sprinkling by birth, baptism, or
by what is termed common grace. Men in covenant with God, have all the benefits
of the covenant of grace, justification, adoption, sanctification, with all
their consequences, here and hereafter. Many or most baptized or sprinkled
infants, enjoy none of these benefits. Every thing is personal in the covenant
of grace. In the covenant of sprinkling there is nothing personal whatever.
Before concluding this particular, permit me to press these remarks on the
attention of such as speak of bringing infants, by baptism or sprinkling, into
covenant with God. Such would do well to consider what covenant they mean. If
the covenant of grace be intended, the incongruities referred to demonstrate
that they are mistaken. Men are neither given to, nor interested in Christ by
baptism. The elect were given to Christ before the foundation of the world; and
the mystical union in time, is formed not by baptism, but by faith. If some
other covenant be intended, it ought to be recollected that, under the gospel,
no covenant exists but the covenant of grace. The typical covenants, with all
that concerns them, have answered their purposes, and ceased. Infants,
therefore, can be brought into no covenant by baptism. Should the inquirer ask
how elect infants are saved? — he must be reminded, that the Scriptures do not
furnish us with a positive answer; they do teach us, however, that they are not
saved by baptism or by immediate descent. The great proportion of those who die
in infancy are descended from Heathens or Mahommedans, and have no baptism. This
fact is not a little instructive in practice. The best interests of infants
sustain no loss, either by their descent, or their want of baptism.

4thly, Infant baptism is inconsistent with the perpetuity of saving grace. Some
found infant baptism on common grace, that is, communications supposed to be
made to all men, — they save whilst retained, but they may be forfeited and
lost. Though this fiction be avowed by Arminians only, it seems in some degree
to be adopted by many, if not all, who adhere to the popular practice. Baptism
is considered a privilege, and the want of it a prejudice to the souls of
infants. Hence, those who practice infant baptism are supposed to deal more
kindly with their children than those who maintain that it is a piece of
unauthorized will-worship. The mortifying fact must, however, be recollected,
that many or most baptized infants never attain to holiness or heaven. If they
be justified in baptism, the sentence is afterwards reversed, for eventually
they are condemned. If they were sanctified, their sanctifying grace has
perished — they live and die impenitent. But is this the doctrine of the Bible?
The apostle, in Rom 8:38, teaches us that the sentence of justification is
irrevocable. Ver. 38, “For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor
angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from
the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." The perseverance of the
sanctified is no less plainly asserted. Jer 32:40, “And I will make an
everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them
good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from
me." John 4:14, “But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him,
shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him, shall be in him a well
of water, springing up into everlasting life." John 10:27; “My sheep hear my
voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life;
and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand." 1Pe
1:5, Believers are “kept by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation,
ready to be revealed in the last time." 1Jn 3:9, “Whosoever is born of God doth
not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is
born of God." 1Jn 5:13, “These things have I written unto you that believe on
the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that
ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." So plain is the doctrine of the
Scriptures, that, as Paul tells us, Rom 11:29, “The gifts and calling of God are
without repentance;" and proportionably plain is the incongruity of infant
baptism with this doctrine.

It might be of much use to such as practise the ceremony to determine the exact
nature of the benefit received in it. If grace be received, it appears from the
fact, that in most cases it is afterwards lost. But this, we have seen, is
contrary to the analogy of Scripture. The Scriptures every where teach the
perpetuity of grace. If nothing be received, it cannot be an institution of God.
The service is illusory and vain; and it will not be easy to vindicate it from
the charge of profanity. The name of Jehovah is solemnly interposed about
nothing. “The Lord will not hold him guiltless who taketh his name in vain."

5thly, Infant baptism tends, in direct opposition to the Scriptures, to confound
the Church with the world. In national churches, the fact is notorious,
acknowledged, and unavoidable. In them, the Church is a geographical idea — all
within certain bounds are born, sprinkled, and reared within her pale.
Individuals in Established Churches, not aware of the restraints under which
they are placed, have often attempted to remedy the evil. Their attempts,
however, have uniformly failed, and by their failure have given experimental
evidence of the invincible repugnance of these institutions to the laws of
Christ. The case is similar in all societies of consistent Pedo-baptists; for
example, the Greek and Eastern Churches admit infants to the Lord’s supper. The
generality of infants, as appears from their lives, belong to the world. In
these communions, therefore, the Church and the world are systematically
confounded by means of baptizing infants. Some communions admit infants to
sprinkling, whilst they reject them from the supper. This conduct is
inconsistent; for if the faith of the parent give his child a right to the one
ordinance, it cannot fail to give him also a right to the other. In neither case
does the right depend on personal, but on relative qualifications. Personally,
the infant is qualified for neither; relatively, he is qualified for both.

I said those who make a distinction between infant baptism and infant communion
are inconsistent; but the evil of confounding the Church with the world is not
remedied by the inconsistency. Have we not good grounds to conclude, both from
reason and observation, that in societies which follow this practice,
applications for communion will be made and admitted more readily, than in those
churches in which each member is received, after being baptized on a credible
profession of repentance towards God, and of faith towards the Lord Jesus
Christ. Thus the first part of our assertion is proved, that infant baptism
tends to confound the Church with the world.

I now observe that this confusion is condemned by the Scriptures. The evidence
here is multiplied and strong. I shall quote but a few tests. All the members of
the primitive churches are described as called, elected, sanctified, adopted,
heirs of God and of glory. Men of a different character, if we are guided by
their example, are neither to be admitted into church communion, nor retained in
it, if admitted. Mat 18:15. “Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against
thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear
thee, thou hast sained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with
thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may
be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church;
but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and
a publican." 2Th 3:6, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh
disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." Compare these
and many like Scriptures, with the descriptions of positive goodness required in
the members of churches, and the care of Christ to keep and preserve the Church
in separation from the world will appear. No one, who is not born of water and
of the Spirit, can lawfully enter these holy societies, or continue in them. The
repugnance of infant baptism, both in spirit and effect, to the purity of church
communion, furnishes another incongruity with the analogy of the faith, so
strong, that if a positive appointment of the practice cannot be produced, we
must conclude that the popular system forms no part of the revelation of God. In
many particulars, infant baptism transgresses the analogy of Scripture. ’ I can
but name a few of them. Infant baptism accords not with the grand design of the
plan of redemption, to show the exceeding riches of his grace, in his kindness
towards his people, through Christ Jesus, Eph 2:7. In this ceremony, descent,
common grace, or the operation itself, either supplant or determine grace. The
religion of the New Testament is a personal thing. The believer owes his
privileges to no relative but Christ. Infant baptism, on the contrary, is
altogether relative; every thing personal is, from the nature of the case,
excluded.

Infant baptism accords not with faith as the medium of interest in the benefits
of redemption. In the Scriptures faith is every thing; in infant baptism it is
nothing — descent, common grace, or the mere act of sprinkling, is substituted
for faith. But we speak of infants, say some. Be it so. Infant sprinkling
accords as little with the manner in which Heathen and Mahommedan infants are
saved. In what manner, the merits of Christ are applied in cases like these, the
Scriptures do not inform us. But be it what it may, it is neither by descent nor
baptism; so that here, again, infant sprinkling does not accord with God’s
ordinary way of saving infants. Few, I apprehend, will be disposed to believe
that all Heathen, Mahommedan, and other unbaptized infants, are damned, because
they have not been sprinkled or baptized. Again, the common ceremony accords not
with the doctrine of original sin. At what age our race pass out of a state of
infancy into a state of personal responsibility, I cannot tell; but at what time
soever the transition be made, it is made, on the principles of Pedo-baptists,
with special advantages on the part of the sprinkled. They are supposed to
derive these advantages from descent or sprinkling. Heathen and Mahommedan
infants can derive nothing from these sources. Compare, on the principles of
Pedo-baptists, these two classes of infants. The sprinkled, and the descendants
of professors, become a privileged order. But what is the doctrine of the
Scriptures? Every one who has read them can judge for himself. Is original sin,
with its consequences, restricted to one class more than another? Did it ever
occur to us, that some infants passed into a state of personal responsibility
with greater inherent advantages than others? To conclude, the more closely we
examine the subject, the more evident does it appear that infant baptism is
inconsistent with Christianity. Had we proof, by precept, by example, or in any
other way, that infant baptism is the will of God, we submit our reasonings to
revelation; we sprinkle our infants. But if no proof to this effect can be
produced, and if infant baptism clash (as we have seen that it does), with most
of the fundamental doctrines of our holy religion, what should a candid and
conscientious man do, when the presumption appears so strong, that infant
baptism belongs not to that system, with which it is so palpably incongruous? An
eighth presumption against infant sprinkling arises from the personal interest
of the baptized in the things represented in baptism.

1st, The objects represented in baptism are facts, doctrines, duties,
privileges. For the present I speak of privileges, and shall attempt to prove
that the privileges represented are saving. Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." The
privilege here is salvation. This privilege is received by faith, and the
reception is represented by baptism. Acts 2:37; Acts 2:41, “Now when they heard
this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of
the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them,
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. — Then they
that gladly received his word were baptized." Acts 22:16, “And now why tarriest
thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the
Lord." Peter tells his hearers, and Ananias tells Paul, that remission of sins
is exhibited in baptism. But remission of sins is a saving benefit. Rom 8:30,
“Whom he justified, them he also glorified." Adoption is received by faith, and
represented in baptism. Gal 3:26-27, “For ye are all the children of God by
faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ,
have put on Christ." Sanctification is exhibited in baptism. Tit 3:6, “According
to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the
Holy Ghost." Regeneration is saving, and is represented in baptism. 1Pe 3:21,
“Baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away the filth of the flesh),
but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Christ."

These, and many other Scriptures, prove the truth of our first assertion, that
baptism exhibits saving benefits, and represents the believer’s participation of
these benefits. It, therefore, differs from circumcision, to which multitudes
were entitled, without partaking of any spiritual blessing. Salvation, on the
contrary, is the infallible portion of every individual who has obtained
precious faith in the righteousness of Christ; in other words, in the doctrine
into which he is baptized. A hypocrite may be baptized and perish; but this does
not affect the truth, that where the profession made in baptism is sincere, it
is inseparably connected with the salvation which it represents. It is the
profession of the believer’s faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of
Christ, and of his being by his resurrection begotten to a lively hope of an
inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and which fadeth not away. Nothing
external can secure salvation. The kingdom of God is righteousness, and peace,
and joy in the Holy Ghost: it is within us. But baptism is the appointed means
of putting on Christ; of assuming his livery; of going forth to him without the
gate; the sign of our having begun to look for a better country beyond the grave
— even an heavenly. The design of the ordinance, therefore, viz. to represent
the personal interest of the baptized in the salvation of Christ, must prevent
its being administered to infants. But ought not infants, for the same reason,
to have been kept from circumcision? I answer, no. The design of circumcision
was totally different from the design of baptism. Circumcision, except in the
case of Abraham, was never designed to represent saving benefits as the
privilege of the circumcised. It was the token of the covenant with Abraham that
Christ should spring from his loins, and that the promise in all its parts
should be fulfilled in the salvation of those who possessed the faith of
Abraham. Rom 4:11, “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: And the father of circumcision to
them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of
that faith of our father Abraham, which he had yet being uncircumcised. For the
promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham or to his
seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." The rite
represented no saving benefit to the infant. The infant’s body was like the
canvass on which the truths were painted. The sign was calculated to remind the
spectator, and the circumcised himself, when capable of observing it, of all the
precious promises of the covenant, and particularly of the history of the
patriarch, as the pattern of faith and hope. As soon as the circumcised
believed, he might, by the sign, be confirmed in his hope of salvation. Till
then he could have no such assurance. Circumcision was not a sign of
righteousness by descent; it was a sign of righteousness by faith. As to what
chiefly concerns us, I said that the infant’s body was merely the canvass, on
which the truths of the Gospel were drawn. Circumcision answered this purpose on
whomsoever the operation was performed. The correctness of these statements
appears from the facts. By the commandment of God, circumcision was administered
to Ishmael as well as to Isaac; to the sons of Keturah, whatever was their moral
character; to male Israelites and proselytes, believing and unbelieving, without
distinction. In every instance, circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of
faith, by which Abraham was justified in uncircumcision. Hence we may see that
in no instance, with the exception of Abraham, did it represent saving benefits
as the privilege of the circumcised, as baptism does to every baptized believer.
If I have made myself understood; the reason is plain why infants might be
circumcised under the law, whilst they may not be baptized under the Gospel
Dispensation.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: 12. LECTURE XI; CONCLUDING PRESUMPTIONS
========================================================================

LECTURE XI.

CONCLUDING PRESUMPTIONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM. A ninth presumption against
infant-baptism, arises from the greater certainty of believer-baptism.

Supposing, for a moment, that it were doubtful whether infants ought or ought
not to be baptized, yet, even on this supposition, believer-baptism would be our
duty. It is an established rule, in all doubtful cases, to take the safer side.
Let the following things be considered, and it will appear that it is more safe
to practice believer-baptism than infant-sprinkling.

1st, We must be baptized. This position needs no proof; it is confirmed by
doctrines, examples, and precepts. Rom 10:9, “If thou shalt confess with thy
mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto
righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Of this
profession, baptism is the symbol. John 3:5, “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I
say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God."

2nd, The same subject cannot be baptized in more ways than one. Suppose a parent
in deliberation whether his child is to be baptized on his descent or on his
faith, it would immediately occur to him that the one of these practices
excludes the other; whichever he prefers, the other is rejected. The doctrine of
the Scriptures on this head seems to be admitted by all. Baptism is not to be
repeated. It is because infant baptism is a nullity, that believers are immersed
on their faith.

3rd, The evidence for infant sprinkling is confessedly doubtful; there is
neither precept nor example in support of the practice. It must be allowed that
the inferences adduced in its support are all questionable. There is not one of
these inferences which has not, by one or other of its ablest abettors, been
rejected as inconclusive. Many observe the ceremony without scruple, and
possibly with great confidence, but in these cases, it is generally known, that
the subject has not been examined. Whoever pleases may make the experiment. Let
him name his reason for adopting the practice, he will find that his plea has
been rejected by some of the friends of sprinkling. Ingenuity has been
questioned on the rack; her answers are exhausted.

4th, The evidence for believer-baptism is unexceptionable: it has never been
rejected by any who did not reject the ordinance itself. The baptized assert,
and the abettors of sprinkling deny, that whether sprinkled in infancy or not,
every one, after believing, ought to be baptized: but neither deny, that adults
not sprinkled in infancy, ought to be sprinkled or baptized. All missionaries
baptize or sprinkle their adult converts, — so satisfactory is the evidence for
believer-baptism. The deliberation is now brought to an issue. If my child shall
be baptized on his faith, his baptism is scriptural and valid: if I shall
sprinkle him on account of his descent, the case is very different. The reality
of his baptism, as well as the morality of my own deed, must at best remain
doubtful. The safer side is to postpone this questionable ceremony. It need
hardly be mentioned, that these conclusions affect the man baptized in infancy
as much as the parent. If infant baptism be questionable (may he say), my own
baptism is questionable: respecting the validity of believer-baptism there can
be no doubt; and there can be as little that I must make sure of being baptized.
I must choose the safer side; and if I am a believer, it is my duty to be
baptized.

Another presumption against infant-sprinkling, arises from the inspired
description of the members of the New Dispensation. The members of the New
Dispensation are particularly described, both in the Old Testament and in the
New. I shall give two or three of these descriptions from the New Testament.
John 3:3 — 5, "Jesus answered and said unto Nicodemus, Verily, verily, I say
unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the
second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily,
I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God." It is generally allowed, that by the new birth,
regeneration is understood. In the context, our Lord describes this change by
the first actings of the new nature, viz. believing the record of God respecting
Ins Son. Ver. 16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life." The words are parallel to Mark 16:16, "Go preach the Gospel to every
creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned." It deserves particular notice, that regeneration
evidencing itself in faith, stands opposed to natural descent. Ver. 6, 7, “That
which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is
spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." Our Lord is
evidently speaking of the subjects of the Gospel Dispensation. He describes them
positively. They are born of the Spirit: they give evidence of the change, by
believing and professing the faith. He describes them negatively: “That which is
born of the flesh is flesh." Both directly and indirectly, infants are excluded.
In this respect, the kingdom of heaven differs from the Old Dispensation. In the
latter, men enjoyed all the privileges of the national covenant by birth; in the
former, those privileges are limited to those who are born again. The subjects
of the New Dispensation are described in terms both negative and positive. They
are all taught of God, from the least to the greatest. We have a third
description of the subjects of the Gospel Dispensation in the preaching of John
the Baptist, as recorded in Mat 3:8. He is evidently referring to the last
chapter of Malachi; and, comparing the words of the Prophet with the words of
the Baptist, we have another description of the visible subjects of the Gospel
Dispensation. “They must bring forth fruits becoming repentance." These
descriptions necessarily exclude infants. “Think not to say within yourselves,
We have Abraham to our father." The transaction recorded Mat 19:13; Mark 10:13;
Luk 18:15, in no way opposes this doctrine. The words are these: — “And they
brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples
saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer the
little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom
of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as
a little child, shall in no wise enter therein." The words, “of such is the
kingdom of God,’ may be referred either to the persons, or to the character of
these infants. If we refer the words to the character of the children, the
meaning will be this: — The subjects of the kingdom of heaven are, like these
little children, humble and teachable. It was the manner of our Lord to seize
such opportunities of conveying instruction: and the context favours this
exposition. Luk 18:17 : “Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the
kingdom of God as a little child, shall in no wise enter therein." If we refer
the words, “of such is the kingdom of God," to the persons of these infants, the
meaning will be this: — Infants, like these, shall go to heaven. Taken in this
sense, they do not warrant the admission of infants to baptism or the supper.
They intimate no more than the fact, that infants are saved. Infants may belong
to the kingdom of God, though they are neither admitted to baptism nor to the
supper. These infants were not brought to be baptized. “And they brought young
children to him, that he should touch them." They were not baptized. "And he
laid his hands on them, and departed thence," Mark 10:16. Whether they were, or
were not, the children of believers, we are not told; nor are we told by whom
they were brought. Not a word is spoken of infant baptism or sprinkling, though
the opportunity was most favorable. We conclude, therefore, that this
transaction furnishes no exception to the general rule; and as the inspired
descriptions of the members of the New Dispensation are inapplicable to infants,
the presumption is, that infants cannot be admitted to baptism or the supper.
The inutility of infant baptism furnishes another presumption against it.

Infant sprinkling is useless: it is useless to infants, and all others. Though
we could discover no advantage attending it, either to infants, parents, or
others, yet would it be our duty to practice it, if thereby God were glorified.
Obedience is, but will-worship is not honorable to God. Col 2:20, “Why are ye
subject to ordinances, — after the commandments and doctrines of men?" It is
useless to infants; they cannot enjoy any advantage communicated through the
exercise of the mind, being incapable of mental operation. The only good which
they can be supposed to derive from sprinkling, is that ascribed to baptism by
Papists and others, viz. regenerating grace. Their natures might, no doubt, be
sanctified as well at baptism as at death. But if two things be considered, all
must be satisfied that baptismal regeneration is a fiction.

Consider, first, the perpetuity of grace; and, secondly, the hopeless death of
many or most of those sprinkled in infancy. They die without grace. Grace,
therefore, they never had; that is, they were not regenerated in baptism. Now,
there is no other conceivable good which infants are capable of deriving from
baptism or sprinkling. I said that it is also useless to parents, and to all
others. But this must be proved; for it has been asserted that the utility of
infant sprinkling is obvious; that it illustrates certain doctrines; and that,
to parents in particular, it confirms the promises made in the Scriptures to
themselves and to their children. This assertion is plausible, but fallacious.
To detect the fallacy, it must be observed, that the design, as well as the
institution of ordinances, must be learned from revelation. I am no more at
liberty to assign to an ordinance an unscriptural use, than I am to use a
ceremony which God has not instituted. By misapplication to unwarranted ends, an
ordinance of God is profaned. The Bible itself is profaned when applied to
superstitious purposes. Let it be observed, that nowhere in the Scripture is
baptism represented as the symbol of the doctrines specified, nor once used to
confirm promises either to parents or children. All the uses assigned to infant
baptism are the creatures of imagination. Not a single text has been, or can be,
produced in support of them. All sober Christians justly reprobate the practice
of taking direction or comfort from texts of Scripture perverted or misapplied.
For’ the same reason must the judicious inquirer reprobate as enthusiastical the
idea of deriving instruction or comfort from the unsanctioned practice of infant
baptism. Thus, in every view of the subject, infant baptism is useless. Now, it
will require but little attention to be convinced that the ordinances of God are
of a very different character. Every doctrine, every precept, every ordinance of
God, is useful. The doctrines of Scripture are doctrines according to godliness.
“More to be desired are the statutes of the Lord than gold, yea, than much fine
gold." The ordinances are means of grace. Few need to be told the Scriptural use
of preaching or reading, of praying or communicating. In a word, what is said of
the Scriptures collectively, is in its measure true of every part of their
contents. 2Ti 3:16, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all
good works." This is obviously true of believer-baptism: its uses are revealed,
and often enforced.

Compare, now, what we have heard of divine ordinances, with what has been proved
of infant baptism, and the presumption against its divine origin strikingly
appears. Of every one of the ordinances of God, the scriptural use can be
stated: — on the use of infant baptism the Scriptures are totally silent. In
observing the former, God is honored and obeyed; the latter is will-worship. The
appointments of the one are suited to the faculties of the worshippers; the
mental faculties of unconscious infants are incapable of exercise. All the
ordinances of God are calculated for edification. Infant baptism is equally
useless to infants, to parents, to him who administers, and to those who witness
the ceremony. The presumption is confirmed; infant baptism is useless, and
consequently not an ordinance of God.

Another presumption against infant baptism is suggested by the design of
baptism. The design of baptism, though deeply interesting, has never been
exhibited according to its importance. My present object requires not a full
statement of that design: some of its parts come afterwards to be noticed; its
general design must at present be opened; because taking the revelation of its
history as we have it, that general design affords a presumption against infant
baptism. What, then, is the general design of baptism? A. Baptism is designed to
represent the truth as applied to, and as received by the baptized. It is
designed to distinguish the recipient of the truth from such as never heard it,
or who heard it without receiving it. Christ’s commission to his apostles, Mat
28:1-20 gives a statement of the general design of baptism. The words are,
“Baptize them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Into, not in,
is the literal translation of the word which is obviously intended to explain
the general design of baptism? The words, 1Co 11:24, “Do this in remembrance of
me," explain the design of the Lord’s Supper. I naturally expect to find a
similar statement of the design of baptism, in the institution of that
ordinance. Translate the words, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, and the expectation is answered. The disciple is baptized into the name,
that is, into the faith, respecting the different persons of the Trinity. The
ordinance is designed to represent the truth respecting the Trinity, that is,
the saving truth, and all other revealed truth in connection with it, as
actually received by the believer, together with his interest in all the blessed
consequences of his faith. It is taken for granted, that the person baptized
believes the Gospel. Baptism is the profession of his faith, his hope in the
promises made to believers, the ground of that hope, and his purpose of living
according to the Gospel. I need hardly add, that the authority by which baptism
is administered is implied. But that authority is but a part of the truth that
is intimated. The words of the commission clearly intimate the design of the
ordinance. The following Scriptures illustrate the same truth,— Rom 6:3-4; Gal
3:27; Col 2:12. Such is the general design of baptism. Allow me now to ask
whether infants be capable of answering this design? Need any be told that they
are equally incapable of the perception and reception of the truth. And, let me
ask farther, whether infants can be baptized, when it must be allowed that they
cannot answer the design of the ordinance? Personal profession of the truth is
essential to baptism. Where the truth is not professed, there can be no baptism;
for the very design of the ordinance is to represent the reception of the truth.
This design of baptism is recognized by Pedo-baptists the most cautious and
learned.

Let me ask, On what principle are infants excluded from the Lord’s Supper, and
the arguments for their admission repelled? The reply must be, Infants cannot
answer the design of the Supper, “do this in remembrance of me;" and must
therefore be excluded; notwithstanding their admission to the passover, and
notwithstanding their admission, by many professing Christians, to the Lord’s
table. The reason of rejection is valid, but not more so than the reason of
refusing to baptize infants. The truth cannot be professed by them; they cannot
answer the design of the ordinance. The presumption, therefore, remains valid;
the design of baptism precludes the baptism of infants. If we pass from the
general design of baptism, and attend to particulars, the truth will be still
more apparent. Various examples shall be produced; at present, I select
regeneration. A presumption against infant baptism arises from the impossibility
of ascertaining the regeneration of infants. One special design of baptism is to
represent the regeneration of the baptized; Tit 3:5, Eph 5:26. All infants are
not regenerated; multitudes live and die in impenitence. Final impenitence is
inconsistent with regeneration. Wherever the good work is begun, there God will
perfect it till the day of Christ. Whether baptized or not, the finally
impenitent were never regenerated. In the case of infants, it is impossible to
ascertain who are and who are not regenerated. Thus the presumption against
infant baptism appears. The operation says that the baptized person is
regenerated; the facts prove that he is not regenerated. A falsehood has been
exhibited, but the exhibition of falsehood can never be required by the God of
truth. I know of nothing that can, with the show of reason, be objected to this
presumption.

It may be said that the unregenerated were circumcised by the command of God. It
is true; but the fact proves that circumcision was never designed, like baptism,
to represent the regeneration of its subjects. It may be said that hypocrites
are baptized. It is answered, God commands men to be baptized on a credible
profession of their faith; but God has nowhere commanded hypocrites to be
baptized. On the contrary, their baptism is prohibited. Had a command been given
to baptize hypocrites, it would signify that hypocrites are regenerated, which
is absurd. Were it commanded to baptize infants, the ordinance would indicate
that baptized infants were regenerated, which is contrary to fact. Such
assertions cannot hang together without an impeachment of the Divine wisdom,
truth, and consistency. It is therefore as certain that infants cannot be
baptized, as it is certain that God has appointed baptism to represent the
regeneration of the baptized.

Another presumption against infant baptism arises from the unity of Christian
baptism. The Scriptures speak of one baptism exclusively; Eph 4:4. “There is one
body and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. One
Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all." In the same sense in
which there is but one Lord and one God, there is but one baptism. Such is the
doctrine of Scripture as to the unity of this ordinance. Admit, however, infant
baptism, and we have more baptisms than one.

Infant baptism, supposing it to be an ordinance, would be an ordinance totally
different from the baptism of the adult believer. Believer-baptism requires
duties, antecedent, concomitant, and consequent to the ordinance. Infant
sprinkling rejects all duties, for infants can perform none. In
believer-baptism, (excepting our union with Christ and its consequences), there
is nothing relative. In infant sprinkling, everything is relative; nothing is
personal. Believer baptism, in all ordinary cases, is connected with the
communion of saints; infant sprinkling in consistency requires, but in truth
rejects it.

Believer-baptism is a symbol happily expressive of the great truths which
baptism is designed to exhibit. Infant baptism is, as to the design of baptism,
totally unmeaning. In one word, these two operations agree in nothing except
that the element of water is used in both. Thus it is plain that infant baptism
introduces two initiatory ordinances; it is equally plain that the Scriptures
recognise one baptism, exclusive of every other. Hence it clearly follows that
infant baptism is a human invention; it is not one of the ordinances of
Christianity.

Before concluding the presumptions against infant sprinkling, it may be useful
to notice, that Christ’s ordinances must be observed. Whether I have been
sprinkled in infancy or not, it is my duty to be immersed after I have believed.
If Christ has ordained an institute, it must be observed, because Christ has
ordained it; and as the manner of observing the institute, as well as the
institute itself, is of God, it must not only be observed, but observed likewise
in the manner prescribed, 1Co 11:2, — “Now 1 praise you, brethren, that ye
remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you;"
2Th 2:15, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye
have been taught, whether by word or our epistle." Believer-baptism is one of
these ordinances, and therefore must be observed. Were it not for infant
sprinkling, this would not be questioned. But the obligation to obedience
remains, and infant sprinkling cannot supersede it. This assertion will perhaps
be denied. Many assign their having been sprinkled in infancy as their reason
for not attending to baptism after believing. The reason, however, is not valid.
Though I have been sprinkled in infancy, it is my duty, on believing, to be
immersed. This assertion is interesting to not a few, and the history of the
Acts of the Apostles puts its truth beyond a doubt. The Apostles baptized every
adult convert, whether Jew or Gentile. Now, supposing circumcision to be
baptism, and baptism circumcision, or, in other words, that the one comes in
place of the other, every Jewish convert was twice baptized — his
circumcision-baptism did not supersede his believer-baptism. The case must be
the same still. If infant sprinkling came in the room of circumcision, the man
sprinkled in infancy is in the same condition as the man circumcised in infancy.
If the one were baptized after believing, so must the other. Believer-baptism is
no more superseded by infant sprinkling than it was by infant circumcision.

Leave, however, these groundless suppositions, and all uncertainty vanishes.
Infant sprinkling is not revealed: believer-baptism is plainly revealed. The
question is practical. Am I to neglect what is incontestibly my duty on account
of what cannot be proved to be a duty at all?

Thus, whether infant sprinkling succeed to circumcision or not, it cannot
supersede baptism after believing.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: 13. LECTURE XII; THE BAPTISM OF JOHN
========================================================================

LECTURE XII. THE BAPTISM OF JOHN

Compare Mat 3:1-17; Mark 1:1-11; Mark 11:30-33; Luk 3:1-22; Luk 7:29-30; John
1:19-34; John 3:23; John 4:1; John 10:40; Acts 1:5; Acts 19:1-7.

1st, The subjects of John’s baptism were adults. Mat 3:5-6, “Then went out to
him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were
baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." Verse 11, "I indeed baptize
you with water unto repentance," &c. Mark 1:4-5, “John did baptize in the
wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And
there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were
all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins." Luk 3:3,
“And he (John) came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of
repentance for the remission of sins." Ver. 7, “And he said to the multitude
that came forth to be baptized of him," "Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of
repentance." Ver. 21, “Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass,
that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy
Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from
heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased." John
4:1, “When, therefore, the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made
and baptized more disciples than John"

These last words show that both our Lord and the Baptist, his forerunner,
baptized adults. Both made disciples, and then baptized them. They made
disciples; that is, they instructed the applicants for baptism, and after these
applicants were instructed, they baptized them. Jesus himself began to be about
thirty years of age when he was baptized. All the other scriptures respecting
John’s baptism prove, that the subjects of John’s baptism were adults.

2dly, We find no account of the baptism or sprinkling of infants in any part of
the record of John’s ministry. From the complexion of the narrative we are led
to believe that infants were not baptized by John Mat 3:5-6, "Then went out to
him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were
baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." This event is recorded by all
the Evangelists; each of them amplifies the description. Their object required,
and this amplification particularly required, the mention of children, had
children been brought to John’s baptism, or been baptized by him. To such as
went out to him, John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of
sins. This circumstance is likewise repeatedly recorded. From this service
infants are excluded; they could not profit by the Baptist’s preaching.

Again, such as were baptized by him are repeatedly said to confess their sins.
Infants cannot confess sin. Once more, the Evangelist John tells us how baptism
was administered both by Christ and his forerunner, John 4:1. Thus, from the
tenor of the narrative, we are led to believe that infants were not baptized by
John

3dly, Qualifications incompetent to infants, were required of such as were
baptized by John Of this description is repentance. John preached the baptism of
repentance for the remission of sins; he urged his hearers to bring forth fruits
meet for repentance; and such as were baptized of him were baptized in Jordan,
confessing their sins. I need not remark that infants are incapable of this
qualification. Faith in Christ is another of the qualifications for baptism as
administered by John Acts 19:4, “Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the
baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him
which should come after him, — that is, on Christ Jesus. There is no exception
in favor of infants. A third qualification is knowledge. John preached to the
candidates for his baptism, and by his preaching made disciples of them previous
to baptism, Mark 1:4, John 4:1. Infants cannot be made disciples in this way.

4thly, Duties Summary as is the account of the Baptist’s labors, yet in it we
find the duties of the baptized, antecedent and consequent. Previous to baptism,
a confession of sin was made. After baptism, John exhorted his hearers to bring
forth fruits meet for repentance, or, as it is in the margin, answerable to
amendment of life. It is evident that none of these duties could be performed by
infants.

5thly, The privileges of the baptized, as represented in the history of John’s
baptism, are remission of sins and its consequences. Mark tells us, John did
baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the
remission of sins. It must be recollected that all the benefits of the covenant
of grace are connected by an indissoluble tie. Whoever, therefore, receives the
remission of sins, receives along with it all the benefits of Christianity —
grace, glory, and all subservient good. I make the remark, now, that the harmony
between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ may not be overlooked or
mistaken. Infants cannot receive the symbol of these benefits, because they
cannot give evidence that they believe.

6thly, The design of the ordinance, according to the record of John’s baptism,
was to represent the truth which he preached, as applied to his hearers. He
preached the same truth to all; but many rejected it, whilst many professed to
receive it. These classes were distinguished by their submission to baptism, or
by their rejecting it. Luk 7:29, “And all the people that heard him, and the
publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John But the
Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not
baptized of him." Did John call them to repentance? by submitting to baptism,
they professed to repent. Did John say unto the people that they should believe
on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus? by submitting to
his baptism, they professed to believe that the kingdom was about to appear. Did
John teach them to expect the remission of sins in this course? by submitting to
baptism, they professed their hope of this privilege. Did John teach them to
bring forth fruits becoming repentance? by submitting to baptism, they professed
their purpose of acting accordingly. These things throw much light on a branch
of this subject highly interesting, but apparently little understood. I need
hardly add, that infants were incapable of answering this design, because they
were unconscious of what was taking place.

Finally, The principle on which infant sprinkling rests is rejected. This
principle is descent. Infants are generally sprinkled on the supposed grace of
their parents, one or both, more immediate or more remote. But the plea of
descent is expressly rejected in this history. Mat 3:9, “And think not to say
within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God
is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe
is laid unto the root of the trees; therefore every tree which bringeth not
forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." This truth is repeated
in the same connection, and almost in the same words by the Evangelist Luke. The
meaning is, that the evangelical differs from the legal dispensation. Though
descent, under the law, entitled children to certain external privileges, under
the Gospel it was unavailing. The religion of the Gospel is a thing altogether
personal. The child cannot be baptized on the faith of his parent. The ordinance
of baptism was corrupted, first, by admitting infants to baptism, instead of
believers; and afterwards, by substituting sprinkling instead of immersion. We
have adverted to the record of John’s baptism, and we now come to examine the
mode of baptism, as exhibited in that record. On examination, we shall find all
the satisfaction that can reasonably be desired, that John administered this
ordinance by immersion.

Let us first attend to the primary meaning of the word “baptize." The
translators of the Bible have not translated this word at all — for what reason
may easily be guessed. The word “immerse" would have condemned the general
practice; the word “sprinkle" would not have given the sense of the word
“baptize;" they left it, therefore, as they found it in the original. The
abettors of sprinkling have availed themselves of this circumstance, and tell us
that though baptism be immersion, and although those who are immersed are
rightly baptized, that yet to baptize may likewise signify to sprinkle; and,
therefore, those who are sprinkled are rightly baptized, as well as those who
are immersed. We must, therefore, notice first, what cannot be denied, that the
first and primary meaning of the word “baptize," is to immerse. Of this the
learned can satisfy themselves when they please by consulting their Greek
lexicon; and the unlearned may satisfy themselves by desiring any scholar, on
whose truth they can depend, to read to them, from the dictionary, the first and
natural meaning of the word “baptize."*

Knowing the result, I shall hereafter take it for granted that the word “baptize
“in the record, means immerse. When John is said to baptize, we are taught that
he immersed.

2dly, You will recollect the place where John administered the ordinance — it
was the river Jordan. Mat 3:5, “Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea,
and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Ver.
13, “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him."
Mark 1:5, “And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of
Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan.’’ John 10:40,
“And (Jesus) went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first
baptized." Had John administered the ordinance by sprinkling, there was no
necessity for putting himself and such multitudes out of Jerusalem and all
Judea, to the expense and trouble of repairing to the river Jordan. And I must
add, had immersion been a matter of indifference, the Spirit of God would not
have repeated so often, what we have heard of the place where John baptized.
This single consideration is sufficient to determine the practice of all, who
like little children, learn the mind of Christ from the Scriptures. The
Evangelist John has, however, in as many words, determined the matter. He tells
us that much water was needed, and that this necessity determined the place of
administration. John 3:23, “And John was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim,
because there was much water there; and they came and were baptized." The
inquirer will observe that the Holy Ghost has acquainted us with the reason why
John baptized in Aenon — “there was much water there." If John administered the
ordinance by immersion, the reason is good, but if by sprinkling, it is absurd.
So plainly is the mode of baptism determined by the place selected by John for
its administration.

3dly, The prepositions in, into, out, out of, &c, prove that John administered
the ordinance by immersion. Mat 3:5-6; Mat 3:16, “And Jesus, when he was
baptized, went up straightway out of the water; and, lo, the heavens were opened
unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon
him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am
well pleased." It is natural to inquire, — When was this voice heard? The answer
is explicit: As soon as Christ went up out of the water. Suppose it had been
translated, from the water, the time of this very interesting event, would be
left undetermined; we should not know whether it took place in the wilderness,
or on the road; we should not know whether it took place on the day of the
baptism, or on some other day. The correctness of the translation is ascertained
both by the words and the circumstances. Christ’s coming up out of the water,
after baptism, shows that he went into the river Jordan, and was immersed there.
Mark 1:5 — 10. The inquirer will mark the similarity of language used by the
different Evangelists, and the reason of it. In the whole record of John’s
baptism, nothing whatever occurs in favor of sprinkling.

Whether we are bound to obey the Bible or not, 1 am not at present inquiring —
that question has been fully discussed and determined. I take it for granted
that we are bound to obey the Scriptures; and now, from the whole record, it
appears that John administered the ordinance by immersion. To baptize is to
immerse. Much water is necessary to immersion, but not to sprinkling. For the
purpose of sprinkling, it was worse than useless to go into a river.

Add to all this, that immersion is, and sprinkling is not, a symbol significant
of the design, duties, and privileges of the ordinance.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: 14. LECTURE XIII; BAPTISM OF THE DISCIPLES
========================================================================

LECTURE XIII.

BAPTISM OF THE DISCIPLES DURING CHRIST’S HUMILIATION.

John 3:22, “After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of
Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing
in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there; and they came and
were baptized. Ver. 26, And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he
that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same
baptizeth, and all men come to him. John answered and said, A man can receive
nothing, except it be given him from heaven." John 4:1, “When, therefore, the
Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more
disciples than John, (’though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples), He
left Judea, and departed again into Galilee."

Such is the record of the baptism by the disciples of Christ during his
humiliation; but however summary, it leads to the same conclusions with the
record of the baptism of John To be satisfied of the justice of this remark, we
must attend to the import of the words quoted, and the connection in which they
stand.

1st, As to the import of the words, we are told that Christ made and baptized
disciples. To make disciples is, by teaching, to persuade men to be farther
taught. Those who were made disciples, were afterwards baptized. Such is the
import of the words, and from them we learn the character of the subjects of
Christ’s baptism; they were neither infants nor ignorant, but taught, and
capable of farther teaching. They were first made disciples and afterwards
baptized.

2dly, As to the connection of the words, we find the baptism of Christ and of
John reported in one continued narrative. The narrative of Christ’s baptism is
continued in the same strain with the narrative of John’s baptism: there is no
hint that the character of the one is different from the character of the other,
— the inference is, that their leading character was the same. Suppose, that
instead of Christ’s baptism, an account of John’s had been continued, it would
be natural to infer, that John continued to preach and baptize as before. The
record of Christ’s baptism must be explained on the same principle; we are bound
to suppose that Christ’s disciples taught and baptized in the same manner in
which John taught and baptized. Some may need to be reminded, that we are not
now speaking of the disciples baptizing after the general commission, recorded
in Mat 28:1-20 and Mark 16:1-20, but of their baptizing previous to that
commission. We call it Christ’s baptism, because it was administered by his
orders, during his humiliation.

Previous to the general commission, we learn from the connection and strain of
the words, that Christ’s disciples taught and baptized in the same manner with
John Observe, now, the consequence — all that we have heard of John’s baptism
must, for substance, be applied to the baptism administered by the disciples of
Christ. 1st, The design of John’s baptism was to represent the application to
his hearers of the truth which he preached, and which they professed to believe.
The design of Christ’s baptism was the same; the great object of John’s baptism
was the manifestation to Israel of the Son of God, John 1:31; and this
manifestation was made by a figurative death, burial, and resurrection,
shadowing forth what was afterwards to take place, 1Co 15:3-4.; and to this
Jesus referred, when he said, “I have a baptism to be baptized with," Luk 12:50.
He had been buried and raised in a figure at Jordan, but he was to descend into
the lower parts of the earth that he might ascend up far above all heavens.

All the subjects of the kingdom which John was sent to announce, were to have
fellowship with the King in his death and resurrection, Col 2:12; for flesh and
blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God. All, therefore, who professed
repentance, and their readiness to receive Him whose coming John announced, were
buried in Jordan, and raised again. When Jesus came to be baptized, John forbade
him, for he knew the purity of his life and conversation (being his near
kinsman), although he did not know he was the Messiah, till the voice from
heaven, and the Holy Spirit resting upon him in the form of a dove, made and as
this design refers to professing disciples exclusively, so professing disciples
exclusively were baptized by both. 2dly, The qualifications for John’s baptism
were knowledge, faith, and repentance. The qualifications for Christ’s baptism
were the same. Infants do not possess these qualifications. 3dly, The duties
connected with John’s baptism were confession of sins, and fruits meet for
repentance. The duties connected with Christ’s baptism were the same. Infants
can perform none of these duties. 4thly, The privileges represented in John’s
baptism were remission of sins and its consequences. The privileges represented
by Christ’s baptism were similar. These privileges belong to believers
exclusively; and consequently the symbol belongs only to such as profess to
believe. 5thly, The subjects of John’s baptism were adults. The words of the
historian, and the connection in which they stand, prove that the subjects of
Christ’s baptism were adults also. 6thly, John administered the ordinance by
immersion. The words, and the connection in which they stand, prove that the
disciples administered the ordinance in the same way; they baptized, that is,
they immersed the disciples whom they had made. The commission, as recorded by
Matthew, we have in Mat 28:18-20, “And Jesus came and spake unto them saying,
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Mark
16:15-16, "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the
Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but
he that believeth not shall be damned." Compare .Luk 24:45-49; John 20:21-23.
Such is the commission which Christ gave to the Apostles; let us now attend to
its import.

1st, Respecting the perpetuity of baptism. It is baptism with water of which the
commission speaks, Acts 10:47. Peter teaches us that baptism with water is not
superseded by the reception of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius and his friends were
baptized with water because they had already received the Holy Ghost. That the
ordinance of water baptism was to continue to the end of the world, appears in
various ways, particularly from the connection in which it stands. It stands
connected with teaching, preaching, and believing. Go teach all nations,
baptizing them, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you. Go preach the Gospel to every creature; he that believes and is baptized
shall be saved. Teaching, preaching, and believing are permanent duties, and the
connection of baptism with permanent duties proves its own permanency. When
Christ promises to be with the Apostles always to the end of the world, he
teaches us that the commission shall remain in force to the end of the world.

2dly, Observe the import of the commission in respect of the design of baptism,
which is to represent the truth as applied to the baptized. The Gospel is to be
preached, the Gospel is to be believed, and the believer is to be baptized, that
his reception of the Gospel may be exhibited. The same thing appears from the
expression, — Baptizing them into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost. The name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost means what the
Scriptures teach concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and to be baptized
in or into this truth is to represent its application to the baptized. This
doctrine comprehends what we are to believe, what we are to expect, and what we
have to do. The symbol represents the faith, the hope, the duty of the baptized,
corresponding to whatever is revealed respecting the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost.

3dly, Observe the import of the commission respecting the qualifications of the
baptized. These qualifications are knowledge, faith, and repentance. Knowledge
is a necessary qualification: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them." Faith is a requisite qualification: "He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved." Repentance is a requisite qualification. Accordingly,
Peter said to his hearers, "Repent and be baptized every one of you."

Observe, 4thly, The doctrine of the commission respecting the privileges of the
baptized. These privileges, in general, comprehend all that the believer is
taught to expect from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; particularly, his
baptism represents to the believer that he is “dead, and that his life is hid
with Christ in God." His baptism represents to the believer that he shall be
saved: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." His baptism
represents to the believer the remission of his sins. Hence Ananias said to
Saul, “And now, why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy
sins;" and Peter tells us that baptism saves us — through the resurrection of
Jesus Christ.

5thly, Observe the import of the commission in respect of the duties connected
with baptism. These are all the duties connected with our holy religion.
Previous to baptism, we arc bound to believe and profess our faith. The
administrator must have evidence of that belief. Hence the words of Philip to
the Ethiopian, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest" be
baptized. During the administration, the baptized are bound to meet the truth
represented in the ordinance with corresponding regard. “Baptism does 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." After
baptism, the believer is bound to justify his profession by his subsequent
conduct. Hence these words in the commission, “teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you."

6thly, Observe the import of the commission in respect of the subjects of
baptism. These are believers: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved." Every man who hears the Gospel is bound to believe it; and every one who
believes it is bound to profess it, by being baptized; and every one who is
baptized, is bound to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded. If
there be any exception to this rule, the exception must be produced; if it
cannot be produced, it becomes the duty of every one after believing to be
baptized. This part of the commission calls for the most serious attention of
every man of principle.

7thly, Observe the bearing of the commission on infant baptism. We have just
seen that the commission respects adults exclusively. Infants are as incapable
of answering the design of baptism, as they are of answering the design of the
supper. Infants cannot exhibit the requisite qualifications of knowledge, faith,
and repentance. The wicked lives of many who survive the age of infancy, prove
that all infants, even the infants of believers, have no right to the privileges
represented in baptism. Infants cannot perform the duties connected with
baptism. The consequence is, they cannot be baptized. The commission cannot be
altered. It is not a little surprising, that a conclusion so plain should be
resisted by reference to abrogated institutions, or to the plainly predicted
corruptions of Christianity.

8thly, Observe the import of the commission in respect of the mode of
administering this ordinance. The mode of administration is intimated — 1st, By
the word baptize, which signifies to immerse. 2dly, The symbol of immersion in
water is very significant. We are reminded by the disciple of Christ being
immersed in the name of the Trinity, that he is a mere recipient, and that
salvation from first to last is altogether of the mercy and grace of God; we are
reminded of his translation out of the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of
Christ; of his being brought out of the world into the church. Particularly, we
see represented the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and our union
with him in each of these. Hence the apostle tells us, Rom 6:3, “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." The consequences of union with Christ are
represented. We are by nature guilty, but our guilt is washed away in the blood
of Christ. We are by nature corrupt; but we are sanctified, purified, or washed,
by the Spirit of Christ. We are by nature miserable; but we are refreshed by the
Holy Spirit. Total immersion is peculiarly significant of that entire subjection
by which genuine religion is distinguished. As the disciple of Christ goes into
the water, he goes into Christianity, without reserve; he is immersed into the
name; that is, into whatever is revealed respecting the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost; he goes into the truth as to faith, hope, and practice — with Christ
he dies, and is buried; he becomes dead to sin through the death of Christ. He
emerges out of the water; he rises with Christ to newness of life, and to share
in all the consequences of his Savior’s resurrection. He puts off the old man,
and puts on the new; he repairs to the church, and there with his
fellow-Christians, learns to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded
him; and with them enjoys the presence of his Lord.

I need hardly observe, that little or nothing of all this is exhibited in the
baptism of an unconscious infant.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: 15. LECTURE XIV; BAPTISM ON PENTECOST
========================================================================

LECTURE XIV.

BAPTISM ON PENTECOST.

Acts 2:5; Acts 2:22-32; Acts 2:36-41.

"And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation
under heaven, — (Parthians, Medes, &c.) — Ye men of Israel, hear these words;
Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles, and wonders, and
signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye
have taken, and by wicked hands, have crucified and slain: whom God hath raised
up, having loosed the pains of death; because it was not possible that he should
be holden of it This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the
Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see
and hear. — Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath
made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when
they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to
the rest of the apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said
unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ,
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For
the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off,
even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he
testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then
they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were
added unto them about three thousand souls."

Such is the record of the first example of the manner in which the Apostles
executed the commission which they had received from their Lord. Let us now
attend to its import.

1st, The example harmonizes with the commission on the perpetuity of baptism.
There is nothing in the narrative suggesting the temporary character of baptism.
On the contrary, the question proposed by the Jews, and answered by Peter, is
common to all convinced sinners in every age. Every mouth is stopped: the whole
world is become guilty before God. Every one must put the question, What shall I
do to be saved? And to every convinced sinner we must answer with Peter,
“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, and ye
shall receive the gift of the Hoi}’ Ghost." The more particularly the answer is
examined, the perpetuity of the ordinance is the more clearly evinced. The
promise is not to be restricted to the Jews who first believed, but must be
extended to their descendants to the end of time. —

"The promise is to you, and to your children." The promise is not to be limited
to the Jews, or to the descendants of Jews, it must to the end of time be
extended to all that are afar off, to every Jew and Gentile whom God shall call.
“Make disciples, baptize, and teach, and lo, I am with you always, even to the
end of the world."

2dly, The example harmonises with the commission as to the design of baptism.
There is a small difference in the preposition rendered in. In the commission,
the preposition rendered in, signifies to, or into. In the example, a different
preposition is used. The translators have rendered it in also; but, literally,
it signifies on. Both, however, express the application of the truth to the
mind. The English reader will, without the original, observe that, in the name,
here, though it implies, does not, in the first instance, signify, by the
command of. When Peter directs them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ,
he means that, by their baptism, they must signify that their minds have fixed
on the doctrine respecting Jesus Christ. There is a small difference, also, in
the adjunct to the word name. In the commission it is, — into the name of the
Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. In the example it is, — upon the name
of Jesus Christ. But the name of Jesus Christ is the Gospel; and the name of the
Trinity is the same Gospel.

Thus, from the words of the commission, and from the example, we learn that the
design of baptism is to represent the effectual application of the truth to the
mind of the baptized. The matter leads to the same conclusion as the words.
Peter charged his hearers with guilt. The truth took effect, — they were pricked
in their heart. Peter told them that the miracle which they witnessed was the
seal of God appended to the apostles’ commission. They believed him, — they
acknowledged him and his colleagues as ambassadors of God. Hence, they said unto
Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Peter
preached to them the glad tidings of salvation through Christ. They gladly
received his word; and of this effectual application of the truth to their
minds, baptism was the symbol.

3dly, The commission and the example are in harmony, as to the qualifications of
the baptized. According to the commission, the apostles were commanded to teach,
to preach the Gospel. Peter and his colleagues faithfully executed their
commission. To men out of every nation .under heaven, Peter preached, or
proclaimed, the name of Christ, — the truth concerning Christ; in particular, he
preached repentance and the remission of sins. The qualifications of the
baptized must correspond to this preaching. These qualifications are, knowledge,
faith, and repentance. The description of Peter’s hearers exemplifies these
qualifications.

4thly, The commission and the example harmonise as to the privileges of the
baptized. The privileges of the baptized specified in the commission are,
salvation, and the remission of sins. The specification in the example is of the
same import, viz. the remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. The
first Christians, when necessary, received and exercised the miraculous gifts of
the Holy Ghost. These have ceased. The promise does not mean that they should
continue, or even that all the first Christians possessed them. The promise
refers especially to the Holy Ghost, as the common privilege of all believers.
If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his. This is salvation.
It is through the spirit that the salvation of Christ is received. The remission
of sins, the other privilege specified by Peter, leads to the same hope. The
remission of sins is, by an indissoluble tie, connected with salvation in all
its parts — Rom 8:30. The privileges of the baptized, though differently
expressed in the commission and the example, are the same for substance in both.

5thly, The duties connected with baptism are the same in the commission and the
example. Those baptized on Pentecost previous to their baptism, professed their
faith, otherwise the apostles could not have known who did, and who did not,
gladly receive their word. Of their duties after baptism, we have a very
particular and interesting account. Acts 2:41, “Then they that gladly received
his (Peter’s) word were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them
about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’
doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Ver. 44, And
all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their
possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And
they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from
house to house, did eat their meat with gladness, and singleness of heart,
praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the
Church daily such as should be saved." These words need no exposition. Those who
gladly received Peter’s word were baptized, — were added to the Church
immediately on their baptism, — and attended, without exception, to the duties
of their ecclesiastical relation. 6thly, The subjects baptized are the same in
the commission and in the example. In the commission, the subjects of baptism
are described as capable of attending to and believing the Gospel. They are
commanded, after their baptism, to observe all things whatsoever Christ has
required of them. In the example, this teaching and obedience are exhibited. The
example on Pentecost ascertains the import of the commission, as recorded by
Matthew. Thus, from the execution of the commission by the inspired apostles, we
learn its unquestionable meaning. It has been quaintly said, that if infants be
not in the Apostles’ commission, they are out of it; meaning, that if infants
are not included, they must be excluded, for the commission cannot be altered.

Infant baptism or sprinkling has been supposed to be countenanced by these words
in the narrative, “For the promise is unto you and to your children." But the
supposition is unfounded. That the word children does not, in this place,
signify infants, but adult descendants, appears from two considerations. 1st,
The prophet, quoted by Peter, speaks of the sons and daughters of the children
of Israel, as capable of prophesying; that is, as adult. Verse 16, “But this is
that which was spoken by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass in the last
days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and
your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your
old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour
out in those days of my Spirit, and they shall prophesy." The promise, in the
words of the prophet, is this, — “I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy." The words of Peter are,
“Repent, and be baptized every one of 3’ou, in the name of Jesus Christ, and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; for the promise (of the Holy Ghost) is
(by the prophet Joel, made) to you and to your children;" — you, your sons and
your daughters, shall prophesy. What Peter calls children, therefore, the
prophet calls sons and daughters, capable of prophesying.

It has been alleged, that by the promise here we are to understand the general
promise of the Messiah, and not the particular promise of the Holy Ghost. But
this is alleged without proof; and not only without proof, but in the face of
very decisive evidence to the contrary. Let the inquirer compare the prophecy,
Joe 2:1-32, with the quotation and application of it, in Acts 2:1-47, and he
will, without assistance, perceive that what Peter calls the promise, is the
promise of the Spirit, as given by the prophet. He will observe, that the
Apostle expressly quotes the prophet Joel as predicting the effusion of the Holy
Ghost which they witnessed, Acts 2:16, “For this is that which was spoken by the
prophet Joel." And the inquirer will observe that Peter tells his hearers, that
they themselves, as well as the apostles, might receive the Holy Ghost. “Repent,
and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, and ye shall
receive the Holy Ghost." He proves his assertion from the prophet. The promise
is not to us apostles only, but to all flesh, particularly to you and to your
children; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy. The inquirer will
observe, farther, how the promise concludes in Joel, and how that conclusion is
quoted by the apostle. The concluding words of the prophet are these: Joe 2:32,
“And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord
shall be delivered: for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as
the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call." The words of
Peter are, Acts 2:21, "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on
the name of the Lord shall be saved. Ye men of Israel, hear these words." And
after proving from Psa 16:1-11 the death and resurrection of Christ, he adds,
vs. 18, “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 (quoted from Joel), is unto you, and to your children (your sons and
daughters), and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall
call"

"The remnant," means the Israelites remaining after their captivity, whether
near Jerusalem or far off from it, and also the Gentiles (all flesh), even as
many as the Lord our God shall call. "The remnant whom the Lord shall call." So
evident is it, that the prophecy of Joel respecting the Holy Ghost and salvation
is the promise of remission of sins, and the Holy Ghost, mentioned by Peter.
But, 2dly, Independently of the prophecy, it is certain, from the words of Peter
himself, that by children he means adult descendants. These children, to whom
the promise is made, are twice described, ver. 21, "And it shall come to pass,
that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." And they are
again described as those "whom the Lord should call." Infants may be sanctified,
but they cannot be called: — calling supposes that the Gospel is preached and
heard: — effectual calling supposes that the Gospel is preached, heard, and
obeyed.

Having sufficiently exposed the vulgar perversion of this Scripture, I am at
liberty to observe, that, in so far as this example is concerned, infant baptism
must be rejected.

7thly, The commission and the example agree in the mode of baptism. In the
history of the example we have these words, “And the same day there were added
unto them about three thousand souls-" This fact is supposed to be inconsistent
with immersion. Where, it is asked, was there water sufficient for immersing
three thousand? And supposing that water is found, it is asked farther, how
twelve men could, during the part of the day that remained after Peter’s sermon,
examine, baptize, and admit to the church a number so great? But the answer is
easy. An inspired record must be credited, though we cannot explain the things
recorded. Besides, the words of the history do not bear that the three thousand
were baptized on the day of their conversion. The words are, “Then they that
gladly received his word were baptized." Neither does the historian say, that
all the converts were baptized by the apostles in person. The other disciples,
as in the case of Cornelius, might share the labor with the apostles. As to
water, there was abundance in and about Jerusalem. But whether we can, or cannot
explain it, we have full assurance of the fact. The historian tells us that they
that gladly received the apostle’s word were baptized; that is, they were
immersed. Should it be asked, whether we are obliged to understand the word
“baptize" in the sense of immersion? I answer, — assuredly we are, for the
following reasons: — 1st, Immerse is the natural and primary meaning of the word
baptize. 2dly, We must understand the word in the same sense in which the same
writer uses it elsewhere. In his history of the baptism of the Ethiopian, the
word, beyond all reasonable doubt, is used in the sense of immersion, Acts 8:35.
The New Testament has but one Author. The Holy Spirit dictated the whole, though
he employed different amanuenses. When any author explains his own words,
according to that explanation we must understand them, when used without
explanation. By three of the evangelists, in the history of John’s baptism, we
have seen that the Spirit uses the word baptize in the sense of immersion. How,
then, are we to understand Him when using the pen of the other evangelist? In
the same sense, assuredly, in which he uses it when explained. This, we have
seen, is immersion; therefore, in the record before us, we must understand it in
the sense of immersion also. The more learned abettors of sprinkling, aware of
the primary meaning of the word “baptize," and that the Holy Spirit uses it in
the sense of immersion, have strained every nerve to show that, in some
instances, the word is used in the New Testament in the sense of sprinkling.
They have quoted the baptism of the Holy Ghost, the divers washings mentioned in
the Hebrews, and particularly Mark 7:4. But to no purpose. The primary meaning
of words, in a plain narrative, is not to be learned from figures of speech. It
has never yet been proved that the word baptize is used in the sense of
sprinkling. Suppositions prove nothing. As to Mark, the words are, “For the
Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding
the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they
wash, they eat not. And many other things there be which they have received to
hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables" — in the
margin it is beds. The word rendered wash, is, in the original, baptize, and how
can these pieces of furniture be immersed? But the question recurs, and to what
end should they be sprinkled % We are not acquainted with the nature of the
articles specified; whatever they were, the historian tells us that they were
purified by immersion; and what an inspired writer tells me, it is my duty to
believe, whether I can explain the matter recorded or not.

I shall conclude this lecture by remarking, that this first illustrious example
is a pattern in all the concerns of baptism, to be imitated by all churches in
all ages. I have, therefore, particularly marked these concerns, and in each of
them pointed out the . harmony of the example with the commission. It has been
fully proved, that the Acts of the Apostles are recorded for the regulation of
the churches. The conclusion is plain — this pattern must be imitated. By it, in
connection with the commission and other examples, we must regulate our judgment
and practice as to the perpetuity, design, qualifications, privileges, duties,
subjects, and mode of this ordinance.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 15: 16. LECTURE XVI; BAPTISM OF THE SAMARITANS AND ETHIOPIAN
========================================================================

LECTURE XVI.

BAPTISM OF THE SAMARITANS AND OF THE ETHIOPIAN.

Acts 8:5-24.

"Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake,
hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. For unclean spirits, crying with
loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with
palsies, and that were lame, were healed. And there was great joy in that city.
But there was a certain man, called Simon, which before-time in the same city
used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was
some great one: to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest,
saying. This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because
that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. But when they believed
Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus
Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed
also; and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered,
beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Now when the apostles which
were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent
unto them Peter and John; who, when they were come down, prayed for them that
they might receive the Holy Ghost: for as yet he was fallen upon none of them:
only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their
hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through
laying on of the apostle’s hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them
money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may
receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee,
because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou
hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the
sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps
the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in
the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Then answered Simon, and
said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken
come upon me."

1st, The commission and the example here harmonise as to the design of baptism.
The design of the ordinance is to represent the personal application of the
truth to the baptized. The apostles, in their commission, are commanded to begin
with teaching, as it is in Matthew; or preaching, as it is in Mark. The matter
to be preached is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — the Gospel —
repentance and remission of sins, according to the commission. Philip preaches
the same things. The Apostles, in the commission, are next commanded to baptize
the disciples into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In obedience to
the commission, Philip baptizes the believing Samaritans in — literally, to or
into — the name of the Lord Jesus. The preposition here is the same as in the
commission. Both the preposition and the adjunct lead to the same conclusion.

2dly, The qualifications for baptism are the same in the commission and in the
example at Samaria, viz. knowledge, faith, and repentance. Verse 6, “And the
people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake." They
understood and rejoiced in what Philip preached respecting Christ. The
Samaritans had faith. Ver. 12, “But when they believed Philip preaching the
things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were
baptized." Ver. 13, w Then Simon himself believed also." We are particularly
acquainted with the evidence on which they believed; Ver. 6, "And the people
with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and
seeing the miracles which he did. For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice,
came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and
that were lame, were healed." Their repentance is intimated in their turning
from Simon to Philip, ver. 10—12.

3dly, The example before us is in harmony with the commission as to the
privileges and duties connected with baptism. These privileges comprehend
salvation; and these duties comprehend whatever Christ has commanded. Both are
implied in the Samaritans being baptized in the name of Christ. The name of
Christ means every thing said in the Scriptures concerning him. It implies all
the promises that are made to believers, and all the duties that are required of
them.

4thly, The example obliges us to reject the practice of pedo-baptism and
sprinkling. Without precept or pattern, nothing can be observed as an ordinance
of Christ. If the subjects of baptism are to be determined by the persons
baptized in Samaria, infants must be excluded; they are not mentioned in the
record. And how is this omission to be accounted for, if the infants of
Samaritan believers were baptized? The omission is not to be accounted for on
Luke’s manner of writing. It is not his manner to omit the concerns of children:
We may refer to Luk 18:15, and Acts 21:5. If infants were baptized in Samaria,
the historian has altered his usual mode of writing. The omission cannot be
accounted for on the supposition that it was a matter of small moment; the
baptist controversy proves the contrary. The passages just quoted prove the
contrary. The baptism of the Samaritan infants was, without doubt, a matter of
unspeakably greater moment than Christ’s touching infants, or children
accompanying Paul to his ship. The omission cannot be accounted for, on the
supposition of the prevalence of the practice; for, however prevalent
pedo-baptism may be supposed to be, the practice of adult baptism must have been
still more prevalent in the day’s of the apostles. On this supposition, we had
never heard any thing of baptism at all. The omission cannot be accounted for,
on the principle that every thing is not recorded in every place; because here,
had infants been baptized, their baptism could not be omitted. The historian
gives us a particular account of the persons baptized. They who believed were
baptized, both men and women; if infants were baptized, the enumeration is
incomplete. The omission cannot be accounted for, on the supposition that the
historian’s design did not require the mention of infants. His design is
intimated in the title of his work, “The Acts of the Apostles." Had infant
baptism or sprinkling belonged to these acts, fidelity required its insertion.
The omission cannot be accounted for, on the supposition of oversight.
Inspiration is, in every instance, inconsistent with error. Let the inquirer
consider these things, and he will feel the consequence. The Holy Spirit
directed Luke to a special enumeration, that, to the end of time, men’s
attention might be turned to the instruction to be gathered from his silence
respecting infants. This corruption of Christianity was foreseen, and a
sufficient caution against it was provided. othly, From this example, as from
the commission, we learn that men and women, after believing, are bound to be
baptized. If, then, apostolical practice is a rule of duty, we ourselves, like
the Samaritans, must after believing, observe this ordinance.

6thly, The commission and the example are in harmony as to the mode of baptism.
The language is the same in both. I hope it is unnecessary to repeat the remarks
already made on the word baptize, either respecting its primary meaning, or use
in the sacred writings; and as there is nothing peculiar in this example, I
shall proceed to the next. Allow me, however, previously to observe two things:

1st, That the whole Scripture, as far as we have advanced, speaks the same
language, and leads to the same conclusion. The commission requires the baptism
of believers exclusively. The apostles, first at Jerusalem, and next at Samaria,
taught and baptized their converts, and they baptized none other.

2dly, On reducing these principles to practice, a distinction must be made
between the sincerity and credibility of a Christian profession. Some of the
abettors of impure communion have confounded these things, and by the confusion
misled the unwary. You cannot judge the heart, say they, and therefore the
pursuit of pure communion is illusory. The answer is easy. The churches pretend
not to judge the heart; they can, however, judge the external conduct. Where the
profession is belied by action, it cannot be admitted, though the professor may
be a believer. On the contrary, where a profession is distinctly made, and not
contradicted by practice, it ought to be admitted; though, in the sight of God,
the professor is not accepted, because, in fact, he does not believe. All this
is illustrated and confirmed by the example before us. The profession of Simon
was credible, and therefore rightly admitted by Philip; it was insincere, and
therefore rejected by God. The fact is recorded as a warning to professors, and
a rule for the churches.

Acts 8:26-40," And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and
go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which
is desert. And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of
great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of
all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, was returning, and
sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. Then the Spirit said unto
Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to
him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said unto him, Understandest
thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me?
And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the
Scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and
like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his
humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation?
for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said,
1 pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other
man? Then Philip opened his month, and began at the same Scripture, and preached
unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water:
and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And
Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he
answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he
commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down both into the water,
both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out
of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him
no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus: and
passing through, he preached in all the cities, till he came to Cesarea." This
example teaches us nothing, directly, of the perpetuity or design of baptism, or
of the privileges represented by it. On these things, therefore, I shall make
only two summary remarks:

1st, Though nothing be, directly, taught of the design and privileges of
baptism, yet, indirectly, we are taught the same doctrine as before. The design
is implied in the transaction, and the privileges in Philip’s doctrine
respecting Jesus. The subject is of the same character as the subjects in the
preceding examples. On the head of perpetuity, we have nothing opposed to the
former evidence.

2dly, This, and other examples of baptism, recorded in the New Testament,
mutually explain and throw light on each other. Inattention to this principle of
exposition has led to consequences very unhappy. The Scriptures, (such as 1
Corinthians chap v.) often and imperiously require the exclusion of bad men from
the churches; but because in some instances, — such as the Asiatic churches, —
the command is not repeated, impure communion has been vindicated. The
vindication is inadmissible. The character of the materials of churches must be
learned from all the Scriptures on the subject taken together. A disciplined
Christian must apply the principle to every topic of inquiry, and every
particular of practice; and, amongst the rest, to the subject of baptism. On the
other branches of the baptist question, we have, in the example, additional
information.

1st, We are informed that faith is a qualification indispensable for this
ordinance. Ver. 37, “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart,
thou mayest" (be baptized.) The translation is correct; but there is an emphasis
in the word rendered “thou mayest," which ought to be noticed. Literally, it
signifies, it is permitted— it is lawful; meaning, that if he did not believe
with all his heart, it was not permitted — it was not lawful. There is an
universality in the declaration which ought likewise to be noticed. It is not
restricted to the Ethiopian; the declaration is general, it is allowed — it is
lawful; meaning, that in no case would it be lawful without faith. This emphasis
is confirmed by the connection. The Ethiopian had asked what hindered him to be
baptized? Philip answers that nothing hindered him, if he believed; but that if
he did not believe, there was an insurmountable hinderance, viz. the want of
this qualification. It is implied, that, in every instance, the want of faith
would disqualify for baptism. Thus additional light is thrown on the commission,
"He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not, can
neither be saved nor baptized."

2ndly, We have additional information respecting one of the duties connected
with baptism, viz. a profession of faith. A profession of faith previous to
baptism is supposed in every example we have hitherto examined. That our
exposition of the record, in each of these instances, has been correct, is fully
confirmed by the history of the Ethiopian’s baptism. In this example the matter
is expressly stated, — the Evangelist requires, and the candidate for baptism
gives, an explicit confession of faith. Farther, the character of the baptismal
confession is fully ascertained, “If thou believest with, from, or out of, all
thine heart, thou mayest." If it be inquired, To what end does Philip say, “If
thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest?" — for answer, let it be
observed, that the expression, Jesus Christ is the Son of God, signifies,
amongst other things, that Jesus is a Prophet, Priest, and King. The Ethiopian
says that he believes this. But does he believe in a theoretical, or a practical
sense? Does he believe on Him as the rulers, who did not confess Him? Or, does
he intend to take his instructions from Him as a Prophet, — to depend on His
merits as a Priest, — to submit to Him, and obey Him as a King? Does he believe
to practice? Does he believe with the heart? Philip’s question includes the
practical purposes of the man; and the Ethiopian’s answer in this connection,
bears that in a practical sense, he believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of
God. Thus we find that a Scriptural profession of the faith must comprehend both
the theoretical opinions and the practical purposes of the persons to be
baptized.

3rdly, We have information as satisfactory as we could reasonably desire,
respecting the mode of baptism. The words are these, ver. 36, “And as they went
on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is
water; what doth hinder me to be baptized." Ver. 38, 39, “And he commanded the
chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and
the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water,
the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip." The meaning of the words is plainly
this: they came to a certain water; Philip and the Ethiopian went both down into
the water; when both were in the water, Philip immersed the Ethiopian; and then
both Philip and the Ethiopian came up out of the water. It has been objected,
that, according to this argument, Philip was baptized as well as the Ethiopian.
I answer, that this objection is founded either on a mistake, or a palpable
misrepresentation of the argument. The argument does not suppose that going down
into the water, and being baptized is the same. It supposes that these are
different, and that, after both Philip and the Ethiopian had gone down into the
water, Philip immersed the Ethiopian. The argument proceeds on three points:
1st, That the primary meaning of the word baptize is to immerse; 2ndly, That the
sacred writers use the word in the sense of immersion, without ever using it in
any other sense; 3rdly, That the circumstances of the case lead us, in this
example, to understand the word in the sense of immersion. What made Philip and
the Ethiopian both go down into the water, unless the immersion of the Ethiopian
had been necessary? It is highly probable, from the route by which they were
travelling, that they had along with them a quantity of water sufficient for the
purpose of sprinkling. They needed not, unless for immersion, to wait till they
came to tins water. Had sprinkling been all that was necessary, the servants,
from the state observed in the East, would, no doubt, have handed up to Philip
the water which he needed. If Philip must himself take up the water in the palm
of his hand, what necessity was there for the Ethiopian wetting himself in the
water? He might have been sprinkled in the chariot. But if both of them go down,
why does Philip go into the water? He could, had not immersion been necessary,
with more convenience to himself, have administered sprinkling by the side of
the water; and, lastly, if Philip go into the water, what, excepting immersion,
made it necessary for the Ethiopian to go into the water? The question is not to
be evaded, by saying that when the chariot came to the water, they went down to
the side of it, and again came up. The prepositions are changed, and each of
them is emphatical. When the chariot is said to come to the water, the
preposition used signifies close upon, — when the chariot came close upon the
water, — when they went down, the preposition signifies to or into; but the
translators have preferred into, and for good reason, because the next
preposition expresses that they were in it; — after the baptism, they came both
up out of the water. Connect with each of these remarks the fact, that the word
baptize signifies to immerse. As to the objection, it is not said that Philip
was immersed; it is only said that Philip immersed the Ethiopian. As to the
evasion, Philip did not go from the water into the chariot, — as soon as they
came out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried him away. So satisfactory,
in every way, is the evidence that the Ethiopian was immersed.

4thly, According to this example, infant baptism must be rejected. According to
it, knowledge, faith, and a profession of faith, are requisite to baptism. It
need hardly be added, that these things are incompetent to infants.

5thly, The baptism of the Ethiopian is an example of baptism after believing,
commanded, approved, and recorded by the Holy Ghost; and if infant sprinkling be
a nullity, as assuredly it is, it becomes the duty of every man and woman, after
believing, to be immersed. 1 conclude with noticing, what must be obvious to
all. that the baptism of the Ethiopian is in perfect harmony with the Apostle’s
commission, and with the other examples at Jerusalem and Samaria.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 16: 17. LECTURE XVI; BAPTISM OF SAUL AND THE CENTURION
========================================================================

LECTURE XVI.

BAPTISM OF SAUL, AND OF THE CENTURION.

Acts 9:10-22.

"And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said
the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the
Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and
inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus: for, behold, he
prayeth, and hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting
his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. Then Ananias answered, Lord, I
have heard hy many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at
Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that
call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen
vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children
of Israel: For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name’s
sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his
hands on him, said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee
in the way as thou earnest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight,
and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as
it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was
baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul
certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he
preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard
him were amazed, and said, Is not this he that destroyed’ them which called on
this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring
them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength , and
confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ."

"And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all
the Jews which dwelt there, came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother
Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. And he said,
The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldst know his will, and
see that Just One, and shouldst hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be
his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest
thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the
Lord." On the perpetuity and design of baptism, nothing occurs in this example
inconsistent with the preceding examples, or with the commission. 1st, The
qualifications of knowledge, faith, and repentance are implied in the narrative.
2dly, Respecting the privileges connected with baptism, we have something very
specific. The privilege specified is the remission of sins. “Arise, and wash
away thy sins." As remission of sins is indissolubly connected with the other
benefits of the covenant of grace, this is in harmony with the preceding
example. But it is still more specific. I refer to the explicit application of
the privilege to the person baptized. Baptism represents our guilt: washing
supposes pollution. Baptism represents the atonement, — the fountain opened for
sin and for uncleanness. But it represents more; the removal of the guilt of the
individual baptized. This design of baptism is implied in the commission, and in
every example hitherto considered. It is particularly noticed in the baptism at
Pentecost, Acts 2:38. The meaning is the same with the words under
consideration, but not so explicit. The words before us explicitly apply the
privilege to Saul. “Arise, and wash away thy sins." This is the unquestionable
meaning of Ananias’s language, and it is a matter of consequence. It
distinguishes baptism from circumcision. Circumcision was a seal of the
righteousness of faith; but it was not a seal of the application of that
righteousness to the individual circumcised Hence, it was administered to
unbelievers, infants, and such as were never saved; to Ishmael, Esau, and all
the descendants of Abraham, whether believers or unbelievers. It was a seal of
the covenant made with Abraham. It represented the certainty of Messiah’s advent
in his family; the salvation of such as imitated the faith of the patriarch; and
the assurance of the other promises of that covenant. But, directly, it sealed
nothing to the individual circumcised. From the example before us, we find that
the design of baptism is different. The privilege is confirmed to the
individual, provided the profession upon which he is baptized be sincere. Paul’s
sins were not washed away by the water of baptism, but the water of baptism
represented the removal of his sins: “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy
sins."

It is of consequence to mark and recollect this fact. It proves that the
subjects of baptism must be believers; for without faith there is no
forgiveness. It proves that infants cannot be baptized; because, though some
shall be saved, yet none can give evidence of faith. The words of Ananias cannot
be applied to an infant. The difference between hypocrites and infants, was
formerly noticed, and need not be repeated.

3dly, Two of the duties connected with baptism are here particularly specified —
calling on the name of the Lord, and church-association. So closely is the first
of these duties connected with Christianity in general, that it is employed to
designate its professors. Acts i10:13, 14, “Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have
heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at
Jerusalem; and here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that
call on thy name." It is the Lord Jesus Christ whom Ananias is addressing. He
designates Christians by their duty, “calling on the name of the Lord Jesus." It
is to be expected, that they who are baptized into the name of the Lord, should
call on that name. But we are not left to inference. Saul is expressly commanded
to connect this duty with his baptism, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away
thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

There is no reason for restricting the performance of this duty to the time
occupied in immersion, neither is there any reason for excluding it from that
time.

All for which we contend, is, without doubt, implied in the form of expression
made use of, I mean, that calling on the name of the Lord, is a duty connected
with baptism. There is a striking analogy between the forms of expression,
“calling on the name of the Lord," and “discerning the Lord’s body." Discerning
the Lord’s body is essential to the right observance of the ordinance of the
supper; and incapacity for discerning the Lord’s body, is sufficient to
disqualify for that ordinance. The impartial inquirer, will, in the case of
baptism, draw the same conclusion from the same premises. Calling on the name of
the Lord is essential to baptism, and incapacity for calling on the name of the
Lord is a sufficient disqualification for that ordinance. The cases are
parallel. Bodily service profits as little in the one case as in the other. If
there be any difference, it is this: — in the case of the supper, the conclusion
follows from the premises; but in the case of baptism, it is expressly asserted
that it follows, 1Pe 3:21. The other duty mentioned — church-association, is
likewise, though perhaps, not so particularly intimated. We have the words Acts
9:19, “And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain
days with the disciples which were at Damascus." Saul is no sooner baptized than
he connects himself with the church: qualified for baptism, he is qualified for
church association. It is in the face of consistency, in the face of scripture,
here and elsewhere, that the abettors of sprinkling, plead that infants are
qualified for baptism, but not for church communion in all its parts.

4thly, The bearing of Saul’s baptism on the case of infants has been noticed. We
have seen that the spirit of the record is anti-pedo-baptist. Allow me to
remark, that by this and similar scriptures, every conscientious inquirer must
be determined. These scriptures shine in their own light. To attempt to explain
them by scriptures more obscure, is worse than absurd; and worse still, to
contradict them by imaginary inferences from abrogated institutions. So far as
we have examined, not one vestige of infant sprinkling has appeared; on the
contrary, the farther we advance, the condemnatory evidence is multiplied and
strengthened. Let us persevere in the investigation, until we have examined
every scripture on the subject.

5thly, From the baptism of Saul, we have additional evidence that every man,
after believing, ought to be baptized. That Saul’s is an example of
believer-baptism needs no farther illustration or proof. But does infant
sprinkling absolve us from the duty of imitating the example? The nature of the
ceremony, and the history of Saul, oblige us to answer in the negative. He tells
us himself, that he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and circumcised the eighth day,
in consequence of his descent. It has been proved that baptism is neither
circumcision nor a substitute for it. But, suppose it were, suppose infant
baptism to be circumcision, and circumcision infant baptism in another form, —
on this supposition, Saul was both baptized in infancy, and baptized after
believing. He tells us, that he was circumcised, that is, on the supposition,
baptized on the eighth day, and the history before us, declares that he was
baptized after believing. The conclusion is, that circumcision-baptism does not
supersede believer-baptism. On this topic, there is one thing more, and that of
practical consequence, to which our attention is directed by the words of the
narrative. They occur, Acts 22:16, “And now, why tarriest thou? arise, and be
baptized." What in Saul’s conduct gives occasion to this question, we can only
conjecture; but the doctrine which it taught him, and through him teaches
ourselves, we know for certain. After a man believes, he ought to be baptized
without unnecessary delay. He must not tarry. The doctrine, I said, is of
practical consequence. If report speak true, there are not a few who
acknowledge, and, at the same time, neglect, the duty of being immersed. There
may be cases, like that of the thief on the cross, in which the enjoyment of the
ordinance is impracticable. But of all the causes of this evil, alleged or
suspected, by much the most prevalent appears to be that very common, and very
criminal error, — that the institutions of Christ may be dispensed with. I
readily allow, that the candidate for baptism ought to understand, as distinctly
as possible, both the nature, the evidence, and the bearings of the ordinance.
Precipitation has been attended with very serious consequences. By attending to
baptism, whilst other doctrines, duties, or ordinances have been neglected,
professors of religion have dishonored their profession. Precipitation is one
extreme; but procrastination is another. “Whosoever shall deny me before men,
him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven; and whosoever shall
confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in
heaven." Why tarriest thou? — death may prevent your professing your faith.
6thly, A few words respecting the mode of baptism, and I take leave of tins
instructive example. The testimony is short, but not doubtful. Baptism must be
administered, not by sprinkling, but by immersion. What is baptism? It is not
sprinkling, it is washing. “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." How
is the person of Saul to be washed? By immersion. “Arise, be immersed, and, by
immersion, wash away thy sins." Thus we have seen, that the baptism of Saul is
in perfect harmony with the commission, and with the practice of the Apostles.
Acts 10:23-24. “And on the morrow Peter went away with them, (the three
messengers of Cornelius), and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him. And
the morrow after they entered into Cesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and
had called together his kinsmen and near friends. Verse 33" Now therefore, (said
Cornelius), are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are
commanded thee of God. Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, — Of a truth I
perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that
feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which God
sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord
of all:) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea,
and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; how God anointed
Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power; who went about doing
good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews,
and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him God raised up the
third day, and showed him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses
chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose
from the dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify
that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To
him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in
him, shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the
Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision
which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the
Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them
speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, can any man forbid
water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as
well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then
prayed they him to tarry certain days."

Acts 11:14 — 18. “Who (Peter) shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy
house shall be saved. And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as
on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he
said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy
Ghost. Forasmuch, then, as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who
believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When
they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then
hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."

1st, In this example, we have additional evidence of the perpetuity of
water-baptism. Some perhaps need to be informed that the perpetuity of this
ordinance has been denied. The gift of the Holy Ghost, it is alleged, supersedes
the necessity of water-baptism. But the opinion is erroneous. The facts in this
history prove, beyond a doubt, that water-baptism is not superseded by the gift
of the Holy Ghost. In this case, the gift of the Spirit preceded the
administration of water-baptism. According to the opinion under refutation, the
centurion and his relatives should not have been baptized with water, for
already they had received the Spirit. But the gift of the Spirit is the very
reason assigned by Peter for immersing them in water. Instead of saying that
water was unnecessary, because the Gentiles had been baptized with the Holy
Ghost, lie says the very reverse. The words speak for themselves. Acts 10:47,
“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have
received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Acts 11:15, “And as I began to speak,
the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning." Ver. 17, “Forasmuch,
then, as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord
Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?" The inconsistency of this
error with the doctrine of the example is sufficiently manifest.

2dly, The design of baptism is illustrated, as well as confirmed, by this
example. It was when the Holy Ghost fell on his hearers, that Peter commanded
them to be baptized. They had received the truth. The descent of the Holy Ghost
was the proof, and baptism was the symbol of that reception.

3dly, The qualifications of the baptized are, according to the example,
knowledge and faith. In obedience to his commission, Peter teaches or preaches
before he administers baptism. Cornelius and his relatives were instructed
before they were baptized. Farther, previous to their baptism they believed what
they were taught. Their faith is implied in the angel’s words to the centurion:
“Peter shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall he saved;" and
still more emphatically in the Holy Ghost falling on them. Salvation by the
Gospel implies faith: “He who believes it shall be saved."

4thly, The privileges and duties connected with baptism are summarily
comprehended in the formula, “being baptized in the name of the Lord."

5thly, By this example, infants are excluded from the ordinance of baptism. This
assertion has been denied, and the baptism of Cornelius has been adduced as a
plea for infant sprinkling. It is not alleged that we have express notice either
of infants or of their sprinkling. It is the words of the angel that are
insisted on. Acts 11:14, “Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname
is Peter; who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be
saved." The house of Cornelius is supposed to contain infants, and that these
infants were baptized along with himself. The diligent inquirer is prepared,
without assistance, to give the answer. The plea rests on two suppositions, both
equally groundless. The first is, that there are infants in every house; the
second, that infants were baptized. The supposition that there must have been
infants in the house of the centurion is groundless. Every where there are some
families without infants. The second supposition is not better supported than
the first. There is no evidence that the infants (supposing that there were
infants in the family), were baptized. No conclusion can be drawn from
groundless suppositions. No conscientious worshipper will observe, as an
institution of God, that of which he cannot be fully satisfied in his own mind.
Here the matter might safely be left; but there are two sentences in the
history, which, separately, and much more together, determine the question for
the opposite side. The house referred to by the angel consisted of adults. The
first sentence occurs Acts 10:24, “And Cornelius waited for them, and had called
together his kinsmen and near friends.’ And when Peter arrived, the centurion
addressed him as follows: “Now, therefore, are we all here present before God,
to hear all things that are commanded thee of God." This, then, is the house of
Cornelius — his kinsmen and near friends; all present before God, to hear all
things that were commanded the apostle of God. The other sentence is still more
decisive. It occurs Acts 11:14, “Peter shall tell thee words, whereby thou and
all thy house shall be saved." How was the centurion to be saved? In the use of
what means? By the words, (the angel answers), which he should hear from Peter.
And how was his house to be saved? By hearing the same words. Infants cannot be
saved by hearing words. Yet all the centurion’s house were saved in this way.
The case is rendered, if possible, still more evident by the history of the
actual administration of the ordinance. Acts 10:44, "While Peter yet spake these
words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word" — all the
centurion’s kinsmen and near friends." And who, in fact, were baptized? Peter
gives the answer, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized,
which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we." These, and none else, were
baptized. They spoke with tongues, and magnified God, and prayed Peter to tarry
certain days.

We learn, from this example, that infants cannot be baptized, because infants
cannot answer the design, possess the qualifications, discharge the duties, or
enjoy the privileges connected with baptism. The Cesarean baptism is an example
of believer-baptism; and all who acknowledge the obligation of Scripture
example, must acknowledge the obligation of believers to be baptized on their
faith. Is it objected, that if men believe, they shall be saved, whether they be
or be not baptized? This example makes answer, that the possession of grace is a
reason for observing, not for neglecting baptism. Though Cornelius and his
relatives had received the Holy Ghost, yet are they commanded to be baptized,
nay, for this very reason, because they had received the Holy Ghost. This
example, with those which precede, is in harmony as to the mode of baptism. The
ground of this assertion is the primary, and in the Scriptures, the exclusive
meaning of the word “baptize.’’ The historian says they were baptized, that is,
they were immersed in the name of the Lord.

I am called here, as in some other examples, to take notice of a very common
objection. We are said to be baptized with the Holy Ghost; and in this place the
Spirit is said to fall, to be poured out, to be received, to be given, in the
same way in which He is said to be poured out on the day of Pentecost. Now, say
the advocates for sprinkling, is there not some resemblance supposed (when we
are said to be baptized with the Holy Ghost), between these expressions and the
mode of baptism? I answer, 1st, When it is said by the Baptist and by our Lord
that he (Christ) should baptize with the Holy Ghost, the contrast is between the
sign and the thing signified. John gave the sign; Christ gave the thing
signified. 2dly, The expressions falling, sending, coming, resting, pouring of
the Spirit, and the like, are all figurative, and cannot be used to explain the
material act of baptism. Indeed, there is no resemblance between speaking
different languages, healing the sick, knowing mysteries, faith, hope, charity,
and the other gifts and graces of the Spirit, and either sprinkling, pouring, or
immersion. The Holy Ghost, the Author of these gifts and graces, is God, and can
neither be poured nor sprinkled. 3dly, The figures, pouring, falling, and the
like, are obviously borrowed from the fine oil, water, and the other types of
the Old Dispensation. They must be explained accordingly. 4thly, The preposition
with literally signifies in. Thus, Jobn baptized in Jordan in water, but ye
shall be baptized in the Holy Ghost. Immersion is meant. 5thly, The mode of
baptism cannot be learned from figures, but from the language and facts in the
simple narratives, all of which lead us to immersion. This example calls our
attention to a topic not yet touched, viz. the administrators of baptism. Till
now no administrator has been expressly mentioned excepting John, the disciples
of Christ, the apostles, and Ananias. The words are, Acts 10:48, “And he
commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Invert the order of the
words, and they intimate that the apostle, by commandment of the Lord to
himself, ordered the Cesareans to be baptized. But the inversion is both
unnatural and unnecessary. The most natural meaning is, that the apostle gave
orders that they should be baptized in the name of the Lord, and that he did not
intend in person to baptize them, or at least all of them. On examining the
context, we find that there were at Cesarea other disciples besides Peter. Acts
10:23, “And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from
Joppa accompanied him." Acts 11:12, “Moreover, these six brethren accompanied
me, and we (viz. Peter and these brethren) entered into the man’s house." These
brethren, therefore, from Joppa were, it is probable, the administrators. This
is a hint from the Spirit which ought not to be overlooked. Amongst other
practical purposes, it serves to throw light on some passages comparatively
obscure. These administrators are designated neither as apostles nor elders, but
as brethren, simply; and if, by orders of the apostle, brethren baptized at
Cesarea, they might, by the same authority, baptize at Pentecost; and they may
baptize still.

Farther, if men not in office may baptize, it deserves to be considered, whether
we are at liberty to find fault with brethren who, in some extraordinary cases,
dispense the supper, though not invested with official authority. Something of
the same kind seems to be hinted by Paul, 1Co 1:13, “Were ye baptized in the
name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also
the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." The meaning seems
to be, that Paul was chiefly employed in preaching j that the baptisms were
administered, most generally, by his attendants, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Mark,
and others, whether in office or not. Ananias, who administered baptism to Paul
himself, was, for any thing we know, a disciple not in office. The historian
describes him merely as a disciple. It ought to be observed, that all these
descriptions are given by the Spirit for practical purposes. The designation is
this: "And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and the Lord
said unto him, Arise," &c. Acts 22:12, “And one Ananias, a devout man according
to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, came unto
me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight." The evidence
is not exhausted, but enough has been said for my present purpose. Baptism is
usually administered by official men; but it may also be administered by others.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 17: 18. LECTURE XVII; BAPTISM OF LYDIA AND THE JAILOR.
========================================================================

LECTURE XVII.

BAPTISM OF LYDIA, AND OF THE JAILOR.

Acts 16:13-15; Acts 16:40.

" And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was
wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted
thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of
Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she
attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized,
and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful
to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. And
they went out of the prison, and entered into the house of Lydia: and when they
had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed." In this example,
nothing peculiar occurs on the privileges, design, perpetuity, or mode of
baptism. On these topics, I remark only, that the history of Lydia’s baptism
contains nothing contrary to the doctrine of the commission, or of the preceding
examples; and that the truths omitted here must be supplied from these and other
Scriptures. On the qualifications, duties, and subjects of the ordinance, this
example is very explicit; and on the previous profession no less instructive
than the case of the Ethiopian. Lydia was instructed, believed, and professed
her faith, previous to baptism. In obedience to his commission, Paul begins with
teaching. Lydia received his doctrine; the Lord opened her heart, that she
attended unto the things which were spoken by Paul.

There is indirect, but very satisfactory evidence, that a credible profession of
faith preceded her baptism. 1 refer to the argument by which Lydia enforces her
request that the apostle and his companions should become her guests. “And when
she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged
me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there." When a
profession of faith was made, the apostles judged of its credibility. They had
heard Lydia’s profession, and judged her to be faithful, and by that judgment
she enforces her request: “If, <or since), ye have judged me to be faithful."
The rule of receiving a Christian profession ought to be observed. Not only must
a profession of faith be made and heard previous to baptism, but its credibility
must be judged of and approved. Words must be employed; but, if they be not
credible, they are not to be regarded. The case of this woman is equally
explicit as to the subjects of baptism. After Lydia was judged faithful, she was
baptized; and every one who believes should, after her example, be baptized on
his profession of faith. It ought likewise to be observed, that there was no
unnecessary interval between her profession of faith and her baptism.

There is not the least evidence that infants were baptized on this occasion.
There is no mention in the narrative of infants, but only of the baptism of
Lydia and her household; and until it be proved that there were infants in this
household, and that these infants were baptized, the cause of infant baptism is
no way supported by the narrative. A moment’s attention to the facts will
convince us that there is no evidence that Lydia had infants, and none, of
course, that her infants were baptized. If she had infants, she would, if
possible, on a journey of traffic, leave them at home; her children, if she had
any, might be adult; if married, she might be childless; her household might
consist of adult friends, or of her servants who assisted her in the manufacture
of purple. Her whole language inclines one to believe, especially if acquainted
with the manners of the East, that she was not married.

I said, therefore, that in this example there is no mention of infants, or of
their baptism. Unproved suppositions must never be mistaken for facts.

Acts 16:23 — 36, “And when they had laid many stripes upon them (Taul and
Silas), they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely: who
having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their
feet fast in the stocks. And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises
unto God: and the prisoners heard them. And suddenly there was a great
earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately
all the doors were opened, and every one’s bands were loosed. And the keeper of
the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew
out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had
been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we
are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and
fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what
must. I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and
thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the
Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the
night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and
rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. And when it was day, the
magistrates sent the Serjeants, saying, Let those men go. And the keeper of the
prison told this saying to Paul, The magistrates have sent to let you go: now,
therefore, depart, and go in peace."

Nothing peculiar occurs in this history on the perpetuity, design, privileges,
duties, or mode of baptism: but it confirms the doctrine of the preceding
examples respecting the qualifications and subjects of the ordinance; and
teaches us what ideas we ought to attach to the expression, “baptized
household."

What are the qualifications for baptism? If we are to take the answer from this
approved pattern, these qualifications are, knowledge and faith. Ver. 30-33,
“And he (the jailor) said, What must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake
unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And (he) was
baptized, he and all his, straightway, and rejoiced, believing in God with all
his house." He was convicted, he was instructed, he believed, and was baptized.
Is it the duty of every believer to be baptized? The narrative answers in the
affirmative, and confirms the doctrine of the immediate connection between
baptism and faith. No interval of time, without necessity, must intervene
between believing and being baptized. The language here is very expressive of
this doctrine. Straightway, the same hour of the night, without any interval, he
was baptized. The friends of religion who are tempted to procrastination, will
do well to consider this language. To the expression, “baptized household," what
ideas are we to attach? The narrative answers explicitly: Not the idea of
infancy, but of grace, and of grace exercised and professed, ver. 30-34.

Farther, the apostles say, in verse 31, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and
thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Do they mean that the jailor’s wife, and
infants, and adult children, and servants, and their infants, should all be
saved, whether they themselves had faith or had it not, provided only that he,
the head of the family, believed? Are we thus to understand the apostles? Or are
we to understand them as saying that, if he believed, he should be saved, and
that if any, or all of his household should believe, they should be saved in the
same way with himself? In the first sense, say the abettors of infant
sprinkling; the Anti-pedo-baptists say, in the latter. The historian gives the
answer, and by his answer teaches us how we are to understand similar words
whereever they occur in the sacred history. The words of the historian, in verse
32, are, "And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in
his house." The word of the Lord was spoken to all that were in his house; of
course, they could hear and understand it; then they were not’ infants. The
historian proceeds, verse 34, “And he rejoiced, believing in God with all his
house." All his house rejoiced in God, all his house believed in God; they were
neither graceless, nor unbelievers, nor infants, but sanctified persons,
believing and professing their faith. Thus the Holy Spirit has taught us how he
wishes to be understood, when he speaks of “baptized households" — of men
believing, and being saved with their houses; and, in particular, how we are to
understand the account of the baptism of the household of Lydia. The remarks
formerly made on the subject of households confirm this conclusion. Households
were baptized when they believed, and not otherwise. The cause of infant baptism
is not supported by the case of the jailor. The words of the narrative speak
nothing of infants. They record the conversion, and consequent baptism of the
jailor and his house. The whole is an example and proof, that, after faith, the
believer ought to be baptized; but, in no way, does it give any sanction to the
baptism of infants. A text of like import is quoted from 1Co 1:16, "And I
baptized also the household of Stephanas." These words speak nothing of infants,
and consequently can furnish no proof of their baptism. Allow me to read 1Co
16:16, "I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the
firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of
the saints), that ye submit yourselves unto such." The household of Stephanas,
you see, were not only believers, but believers of distinction, ministering to
the saints, and entitled to their submission. I need not repeat the consequence;
this evidence, like the rest, subverts the cause which it is adduced to support.
Under the head of households, some other passages have been mentioned; but the
inquirer, on reading them, will, without assistance, perceive, that, if
possible, they are even less to the point for infant baptism than the histories
of Stephanas and the jailor. But before leaving this topic; two or three remarks
may be of use.

First, the word household, in connection with baptism, must signify the
believing part of the household. The reasons are such as follow: — 1st, The
commission and consequent practice of the apostles, limit baptism to a
profession of faith. 2dly, Two of the three baptized houses are expressly adult,
and oblige us to understand the house of Lydia as adult also. 3dly, The
households saluted by the apostles are adults, for they are supposed to be
capable of receiving the salutations. Take the word household in connection with
baptism, as restricted to believers, and all is scriptural and plain; but take
the word in the Pedo-baptist sense, that is unrestricted, and, mark the
consequence. The household is baptized on the faith of its head; that is, the
infant part of the children, the adult part of the children, the relative
inmates, the slaves, the servants; the whole household, like the infants, are
baptized or sprinkled on the faith of the parent or master. Shall we admit all
these, or reject part of them? If the Pedo-baptist answer, Admit; his practice
refutes his answer. If he say, Reject; his plea is gone; its force lies in the
unlimited sense of the word. In a word, if the household is to be baptized on
the faith of its head, how are we to dispose of the part of it that is
unbelieving, but willing to be baptized or sprinkled on the call of their
superior?

Farther, The sacred historians have nowhere said that the apostles baptized
believers with their households. They say, indeed, that the houses of Lydia,
Stephanas, and the jailor, were baptized; but this is a thing very different
from a general assertion, both in itself and its consequences. The general
assertion would have indicated, that to baptize believers and their households,
was the usual practice of the apostles. But the general assertion does not
occur; it is studiously avoided, and the reason must be, that this was not their
practice. The house of the jailor is mentioned, and perhaps the other two,
because they were extraordinary cases; had they been ordinary, or had the
general assertion been used, it is not probable that particulars would have been
recorded; and it is still less likely that they would have been recorded,
without some intimation that they were instances of a general practice. Take an
example of the historian’s language in a similar case. The apostle went into the
synagogue, "as his manner was." This remark detects the fallacy of one of the
most plausible pleas for pedo-baptism. It is alleged, that multitudes of
households were baptized by the Apostles, and that it is altogether improbable
that there were infants in none of them. But the reverse of this is the doctrine
of the sacred historians. They avoid the general assertion that the apostles
baptized households; they mention three extraordinary cases; two of the three
are declared to be adult. Instead of a multitude of households, we have the
house of Lydia only, and to it I must apply a common rule of interpretation:
“The more obscure must be explained by the more clear Scriptures." Judging by
the houses of Stephanas and the jailor, I conclude that the house of Lydia
believed. The conclusion is strengthened by a degree of positive evidence. Acts
16:40, “And they (the apostles) went out of the prison, and entered into the
house of Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and
departed." Whether these brethren consisted of Lydia and her household only, or
of others along with them, they are all described as comforted, that is, as
believers. Our last remark here is that a believing household may be restricted
to two or three of its members. A whole, in the language of Scripture is often
used for a part; thus, all Judea is said to be baptized of John, and yet Christ
is said to make more disciples than John The whole is used for a part of Judea.
On this principle, the believer’s household is that part of it, whether great or
small, partaking of like precious faith with the head. It must be restricted to
believers, and it need not be extended beyond the lowest plurality. The sum of
these remarks is, that the apostles did not usually baptize households; that the
households baptized were few; that, without perhaps a single exception, the
baptized households are described as believers. In a word, the sacred record of
baptized households furnishes no proof of pedo-baptism.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 18: 19. LECTURE XVIII; BAPTISMS AT CORINTH, EPHESUS, AND ROME.
========================================================================

LECTURE XVIII.

BAPTISMS AT CORINTH, UNTO MOSES, AT EPHESUS, AND AT ROME.

"And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man’s house, named Justus,
one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. And Crispus,
the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and
many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized." — Acts 18:7-8.

"For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the
house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every
one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of
Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in
the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and
Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized
also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any
other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel."— 1Co
1:11-17.

"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."— 1Co 10:1-2.

"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not
at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"— 1Co 15:29.

“I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first
fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the
saints,) that ye submit yourselves unto such." — 1Co 16:15. The record here
harmonises with the commission and the preceding examples. It both illustrates
and confirms the doctrine of the design of baptism. The historian tells us “that
Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, with all his
house; and that many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized."
The baptism of the Corinthians signified that they believed what they had heard;
and although the baptism of the household of Crispus be not mentioned, yet there
is no doubt that they also were special examples of the design of baptism, as a
symbol of the application of the truth to the individuals baptized. The same
doctrine is illustrated and confirmed in the account of the divisions or schisms
at Corinth. “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized
in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and
Gaius: lest any should say, that I had baptized in mine own name." The words,
“in the name," are the same here as in the commission. Their import is plainly
this, that had the Corinthians been baptized into the name of A polios or
Cephas, their being so baptized would have signified that they were to take
their instructions from Apollos or Cephas. Had the Corinthians been baptized
into the name of Paul, their being so baptized would have signified that they
acknowledged Paul for their ruler, and that they purposed to take their
instructions from him. On the same principle, their being baptized into the name
of Christ, signified that they acknowledged Christ as their teacher, and
purposed to take all their instructions from him.

We have another striking illustration of the design of baptism in the account of
the Israelites passing through the Red Sea: “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." The preposition is the same as in the passage last quoted, and in the
commission. This baptism in, into, or unto Moses, plainly implies, that they
followed Moses under the cloud and through the Red Sea, in the faith that he was
a leader sent them from God, and that they intended to be guided by his
authority. The words in the Old Testament history are these: Exo 14:30, “Thus
the Lord saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw
the Egyptians dead upon the sea-shore. And Israel saw that great work which the
Lord did upon the Egyptians; and the people feared the Lord, and believed the
Lord, and his servant Moses." This they did before; but their faith was
confirmed by this event. Their passing through the sea, under the cloud, was the
symbol of their faith. It was their baptism unto Moses:" they acknowledged him
to be the servant appointed by the Lord to instruct and lead them. Our baptism
into Christ is of the same import. It is the symbol that we receive him as our
Prophet, Priest, and King.

2ndly, The qualifications of the baptized, according to the narrative of the
baptisms at Corinth, are knowledge and faith. In obedience to his commission,
Paul commenced his labors by preaching at Corinth. “After these things Paul
departed from Athens, and came to Corinth. And he reasoned in the synagogue
every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and Greeks, and testified to the Jews that
Jesus was the Christ.’’ His labors were blessed, and many believed. “And
Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, with all his
house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized."

3dly, The privileges of the baptized, also, are illustrated by the example. 1Co
15:17-18, “If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins.
Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If Christ be not
raised, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, (for Christ), if the
dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead — which Christ
must be, if there be no resurrection? Their baptism into Christ represents their
deliverance from sin and all its consequences. Their baptism, for one for ever
dead, would have been vain. If they were baptized for the dead, they were yet in
their sins. But if Christ were risen, their baptism represented that they were
no longer in their sins; their hopes of salvation were not in vain. Such are the
privileges of the baptized, according to this example, and these privileges are
also illustrated by the Israelites’ baptism unto Moses. The deliverance of the
literal Israel typified and prefigured the deliverance of such as are Israelites
indeed. On the duties of the baptized this example contains nothing peculiar,
except that the baptism of the Israelites unto Moses represented their
obligations to obey him; as our baptism into Christ represents our obligations
to follow and obey him.

4thly, This example confirms the doctrine of the necessity of being baptized,
without unnecessary delay after we have believed. Between our faith and our
baptism no unnecessary delay ought to intervene. Like the Corinthians, hearing,
we should believe; and believing, we should be baptized. The passage quoted from
the 10th of First Corinthians has been urged in support of infant sprinkling.
The children passed through the sea, along with their parents, and neither the
one nor the other were plunged in it; they were sprinkled by the cloud, but not
immersed in the sea. Supposing that this assertion were true, it will not follow
that, under the Gospel, infants ought to be sprinkled. Corporeal acts suited a
carnal dispensation, and prefigured a dispensation that requires the worship of
God in spirit and in truth. The fact, however, is misrepresented. The
Scriptures, neither by Moses nor by Paul, speak of the Israelites being
sprinkled. Paul says they were immerged in the sea and in the cloud. As to the
children passing through the sea with their parents, it no more proves that
children ought to he baptized, than the passage of the mixed multitude and the
cattle with the Israelites, proves an absurdity too gross to be mentioned. As to
the mode, Paul everywhere uses the word “baptize," which signifies to immerse.
As to the subjects, the narrative is particular, it is even minute; but it makes
no mention of infants or of their baptism. “And Crispus, the chief ruler of the
synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house, and many of the Corinthians
hearing, believed, and were baptized" — why not add — with their infants? Every
thing repaired the addition, had infants been baptized. It is, however, not
made. There can be but one reason. No infants were baptized at Corinth.

Before I conclude these remarks, allow me to add, that by the words, “baptized
households," we must understand the believing part of the household. The
household of Crispus was, I have no doubt, baptized; but the household of
Crispus believed. “And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on
the Lord, with all his house." The conversion of whole households was, even
under the preaching of the apostles, no ordinary occurrence. When it did occur,
it is recorded; sometimes, as here, under the head of faith; and sometimes under
the head of baptism. The Spirit has thus taught us, by circumstantial
description, how we are to understand his more summary and general expressions.

Acts 19:1 — 7, “And it came to pass, that, while A polios was at Corinth, Paul,
having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus; and finding certain
disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?
And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy
Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said,
Unto John’s baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of
repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should
come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon
them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
And all the men were about twelve."

Eph 4:4, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope
of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism." The design of baptism, both
as to matter and expression, is here exhibited nearly as in the commission. They
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. These Ephesians were baptized into
the faith, hope, and obedience of the Gospel. Their baptism was a symbol of the
application of the truth to themselves. As John taught that men should believe
in Christ when he should come; so the Apostles taught that men should believe in
him as having actually come. The qualifications for baptism, according to this
example, are the knowledge and belief of this truth. “Then said Paul, John
verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that
they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ
Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
They heard and believed what Paul told them; and in evidence that they believed,
they were baptized. Respecting the privileges of the baptized, it is stated that
the Ephesians received the Holy Ghost. This narrative increases the evidence,
that men after believing ought to be baptized without unnecessary delay. As soon
as these disciples heard Paul’s discourse, they believed, and were baptized.
“When they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." The
mode of administering the ordinance is the same as before. These disciples were
baptized, that is, according to the meaning of the word, they were immersed into
the name of the Lord Jesus.

There are two peculiarities in this case, and before we leave it, their bearings
on practice must be noticed. 1st, These twelve men were twice baptized, once
into John’s baptism; and afterwards, into the name of the Lord Jesus. The
difference between these baptisms has been marked; and though it was
comparatively small, the one baptism did not supersede the necessity of the
other. Let it be recollected that infant sprinkling is no baptism, and we have
satisfactory evidence, that although sprinkled in infancy, we are bound, like
these Ephesians, to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. The unity of
baptism forms the other peculiarity. The apostle says “There is one Lord, one
faith, one baptism." According to this doctrine, either the baptism of
believers, or of infants, must be rejected. The immersion of believers is
scriptural baptism, and as there is but one baptism, that of infants must be
rejected.

We have an account of twelve men baptized at Ephesus, but none of infant
sprinkling.

Rom 6:1-4; Rom 6:11, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that
grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any
longer therein? 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 — Likewise reckon
ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus
Christ our Lord." This passage harmonizes with the commission as to the design
of baptism. It is the symbol of the application of the truth to the individual
baptized. To be baptized into the death of Christ is by our baptism, to signify
that we receive the truth concerning His death for practical purposes. On this
design of their baptism, accordingly, Paul founds Ins exhortations to the
baptized Romans. Had not the application of the truth to the baptized been
represented by their baptism, the exhortations would be misapplied. The
qualifications for baptism, according to this passage, are understanding and
faith. To be baptized into the death of Christ implies, that the truth
respecting Christ, in general, and his death and resurrection, in particular, is
understood and believed.

Both the privileges and duties connected with baptism are strongly marked. The
privilege is implied in the words read, and expressed in the 14th verse, “For
sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under
grace." The duties are repeatedly expressed in the context. Ver. 4, “Therefore
Ave 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." Ver. 12, “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye
should obey it in the lusts thereof; neither yield ye your members as
instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto .God, as
those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of
righteousness unto God." On both the privileges and duties connected with
baptism, the context is full and explicit.

Infant sprinkling receives no countenance from this passage. The apostle is
guarding the Romans against abusing the doctrine of justification by free grace:
“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" He
urges their baptism as a motive to the contrary: “Let not sin, therefore, reign
in your mortal body." Infants are incapable of using or abusing the doctrines of
grace, and equally incapable of being influenced by motives taken from baptism.
The words read contain a clause which goes directly to exclude infants “Know ye
not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into
his death?" Not a person, therefore, had been baptized at Rome, who was not
capable of listening to the exhortations in this chapter. But this is not all.
Paul classes himself with these Romans; he classes himself with all the baptized
throughout the world: “Know ye not, that as many of us," (us baptized
Christians.) There was not a baptized individual throughout the world who was
not concerned in these things; no infant, of course, had, when this epistle was
written, been admitted to baptism. In Rom 15:19, the apostle tells us how many
had become disciples: “So that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I
have fully preached the Gospel of Christ." Yet throughout all this extent of the
world, and during the thirty years that had elapsed since Christ entered on his
public ministry, not a single infant had been baptized: “Know ye not, that so
many of us as have been baptized into Jesus Christ, have been baptized into his
death." The language of this passage is so descriptive of immersion, that it has
attracted general attention. To baptize, is to immerse. “Know ye not, that so
many of us as were immersed into Jesus Christ were immersed into his death;
therefore we are buried with him by immersion 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; for if we have been planted together in the likeness of
his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." There are two
objections, but neither of them of consequence. As to that drawn from the
matter, it may be asked, why this language was used? the matter could have been
expressed in different language. As to that drawn from the 5th verse, — “That a
similar use of figures frequently occurs in the Scriptures;" the] figure in the
5th verse is obviously employed to strengthen the idea in the 4th verse, — our
union with Christ, and conformity to him in his death, burial, and resurrection,
represented by immersion in water, and rising out of it. It has been well said,
that had not baptism been administered by immersion, we had never heard of these
expressions, being buried with him by immersion into death, and rising with him
to newness of life. The language is in harmony with all that has hitherto
occurred on the mode of baptism. The symbol graphically describes the truths
which it is employed to represent. The words and the facts of Scripture prove
that baptism was, in the time of the apostles, administered by immersion, and
such allusions as these in the passage before us, tend not a little to
strengthen the proof.

I have only to add, that if our conduct is to be determined by the examples in
Scripture, we must be baptized after believing. The Romans believed, and were
baptized in testimony of their faith and its consequences.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 19: 20. LECTURE XIX; BAPTISMS IN GALATIA, COLOSSE, AND 1PE_3:1-22.
========================================================================

LECTURE XIX.

BAPTISMS IN GALATIA, AT COLOSSE, AND 1Pe 3:18-21.

Gal 3:25-29, “But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a
schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For
as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor
female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye
Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." The design of baptism, to
represent the application of the truth to the baptized, is graphically described
in these words, “putting on Christ." The righteousness of Christ is a robe. This
robe is held out to all who hear the Gospel, and is received and put on by
believers. Rom 3:21, “But now the righteousness of God without the law is
manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. Even the righteousness
of God which is by faith of Christ Jesus, unto all and upon all them that
believe." Rev 3:18, “I counsel thee to buy of me — white raiment, that thou may
est be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear." The Lord’s
people are all comely through His comeliness put upon them; being clothed, they
are not found naked. They put on Christ, and baptism is the symbol of this
clothing: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on
Christ." There is no difference of nation, of sex, of Gentile, or Jew; so
plainly is the mystical union and its consequences exhibited in baptism. How do
men put on the righteousness of Christ? By what is the union formed? The answer
is, By faith: “By grace are ye saved, through faith." This faith is represented
in baptism, and is accordingly the qualification for the ordinance. This
qualification is both implied and expressed: “But after that faith is come, we
are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith
in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put
on Christ." By faith the Galatians were qualified for baptism. The privileges of
the baptized are clearly exhibited. For instance, adoption: “For ye are all the
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye
Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." All the benefits of the
covenant of grace are inseparably connected; whoever, therefore, is adopted,
enjoys all the benefits of the covenant. On this head, the passage accords with
the commission, and with all the preceding examples. The same must be said of
the duties. “Christ" signifies the things concerning Christ; not some, but all
of them; not the things respecting imputed righteousness merely, but the things
of duty also — all things whatsoever Christ has commanded us. To put on Christ,
therefore, is, in consequence of union to him, to imitate his holy example. Rom
13:12-14, “The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off
the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. Let us walk
honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and
wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and
make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof." These duties are
incumbent on the baptized: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ
have put on Christ."

Infant baptism cannot be inferred from this passage, or from the context;
nothing is said of infants or of their baptism. On the contrary, this passage
directly excludes infants from baptism. The apostle tells us that every
individual who had been baptized in the regions of Galatia, had put on Christ —
none else were baptized. It is worthy of being remarked, that the very same
language is employed to describe the baptisms at Rome. The procedure of the
first administrators was uniform; what they did in the city of Rome, the
metropolis of the world, and what they did in the extensive regions of Galatia,
they did everywhere. They baptized none who had not put on Christ. The
consequence is plain; none ought to be baptized who have not put on Christ.
Infants cannot, therefore, be baptized. It is not a little presumptuous to
oppose to these striking conclusions imaginary inferences from abrogated
institutions. On the mode of baptism there is nothing peculiar; but what we
have, favors immersion. Expressions, similar to those under consideration,
frequently occur. Thus we read of “putting off the body of the sins of the
flesh;" “of putting off the old man, and putting on the new man;" of “putting on
the Lord Jesus Christ." These figures appear to be very bold; but, when we view
them as borrowed from immersion, their meaning becomes very plain. Baptism is
the symbol of the practical reception of the truth by the baptized. The
rejection of evil, and the purpose and practice of good, are therefore naturally
expressed by putting off the one, and putting on the other. A very early and
general corruption of this ordinance confirms the presumption, The baptized,
after immersion, were clothed with change of raiment, expressive of the moral
revolution experienced and purposed. But, be these things as they may, the word
baptize signifies to immerse, and the language before us is fully descriptive of
the mode of administering the ordinance.

Before quitting the case of the Galatians, I must not omit a very important
purpose to which these remarks ought to be applied; to answer, I mean, some
objections drawn from the context, ver. 13, 14, 17, “Christ has redeemed us from
the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is
every one that hangeth on a tree. That the blessing of Abraham might come on the
Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit
through faith. And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of
God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot
disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." From these words, by
a process of ratiocination not to be understood, infant baptism has been
inferred. But the fact that those, and those only, were baptized, who had put on
Christ, proves that the inference must be false, and supersedes the necessity of
quoting and confuting the visionary speculations of Pedo-baptists.

Col 2:10 — 14, “And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all
principality and power: 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 Avith 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. And you, being dead in your sins, and the uncircurncision of your flesh,
hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.
Blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was
contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." The design
of baptism is implied in these words. Whoever receives the truth, is, by faith,
united to Christ, who thus takes up his abode in the heart, Eph 3:17. The symbol
of this is baptism. United to Christ by faith, believers become interested in
his death, burial, and resurrection. By baptism into death, they are buried, and
raised to walk with Christ in newness of life. In substance, this is the same as
being baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The
qualifications for baptism here specified are regeneration and faith. The
Colossians had the Christian circumcision, the circumcision which Christ
requires, and which He effects, not by the hands of men, but by the influences
of His own Spirit. The Colossians believed; they had risen with Christ through
the faith of the operation of God. The Colossians, therefore, were qualified
according to the commission, and, being so qualified, were baptized. The
privileges connected with baptism are the same as in the preceding examples:
forgiveness, sanctification, and protection are specified. “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. And you, being dead in your sins and
the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having
forgiven you all trespasses. Blotting out the handwriting of Ordinances that was
against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to
his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them
openly, triumphing over them in it." The duties of mortification and
vivification, or dying to sin and living to righteousness, are implied in being
buried with Christ and rising with Him. These Colossians are examples of men
being baptized after believing. The passage speaks nothing of the baptism of
infants. As to the mode of baptism, the words imply immersion. Immersion does,
and sprinkling does not, represent our burial and resurrection with Christ.
Being put under the water gives a striking representation of death and burial;
rising out of the water gives a striking representation of resurrection, whether
to newness of life, or to glory. Whoever considers these things, and compares
the language in this epistle with the language in the epistle to the Romans,
(Rom 6:3.) can hardly fail to perceive that the figure in both is taken from the
mode of baptism, by immersion.

Before quitting this passage, it will be expected by such as are acquainted with
the Baptist Controversy, that I take notice of the inference that has been drawn
from it in favor of pedo-baptism. It has been supposed that by the “circumcision
of Christ," baptism is meant. On this supposition it is argued, “If baptism be
circumcision, and circumcision baptism, infants must be baptized now, as they
were circumcised under the law. On the circumcision question, I am not here to
enter, except so far as this passage is concerned. In reply, I observe, 1st,
That the example is not in harmony with the inference. According to the
inference, infants must be baptized; according to the example, they ought not to
be baptized. Every one baptized at Colosse, was a believer. They were
circumcised with the circumcision made without hands; they had risen with Christ
through the faith of the operation of God. There is no exception made in case of
infancy.

I observe, 2ndly, It is not baptism that is called the circumcision of Christ.
The words are “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." That is, you Colossians need not be circumcised, for
you have already received the circumcision of Christ, when you received the
circumcision made without hands, when you were regenerated, when you put off the
body of the sins of the flesh. The place is parallel to Rom 2:28-29, “For he is
not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is
outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision
is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not
of men, but of God." It is this spiritual circumcision, this regeneration, this
putting off the body of the sins of the flesh; it is this, — it is not baptism,
— which is the circumcision of Christ. Baptism is the symbol of this
regeneration, and therefore it follows in the next verse. "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." The words, “the circumcision of
Christ," belong to the 11th verse. The word "baptism," belongs to the 12th
verse. The words “circumcision of Christ, are connected with what goes before,
not with what follows after. We are not therefore taught here, (nor indeed any
where else,) that baptism is circumcision, or circumcision baptism. The
Colossians are taught that they did not need the Jewish circumcision, because in
their regeneration they had the antitype of circumcision, the circumcision of
Christ.

I observe, 3rdly, That although we were to suppose that baptism were called
circumcision, yet it would be so called only in the way of allusion, as praise
is called sacrifice, and Christians called Jews, or the circumcision. Though
Christians are called Jews, none are so foolish as to imagine that therefore
Christians are under the law of Moses; though praise is called sacrifice, none
are so foolish as to imagine that our praises are under the rules of the ancient
sacrifices; and although, in this way of allusion, baptism were called
circumcision, it would be equally foolish to suppose that baptism is to be
regulated by the laws of circumcision.

I observe, 4thly, That although baptism really were circumcision, and
circumcision baptism, it does not follow that baptism is to be regulated by the
laws of circumcision. In some things the rule is certainly altered; females, for
example, are to be baptized. In how many more particulars it is altered, we must
learn from the New Testament. In other words, Ave must take all our information
respecting baptism from the record of the New Dispensation, and not from the law
of Moses.

1Pe 3:18—21, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the
unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but
quickened by the Spirit. By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in
prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God
waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a 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."

One qualification for baptism is here expressly stated, viz. the answer of a
good conscience towards God; tins therefore is a qualification for baptism
universally necessary. The privileges connected with baptism are explicitly
stated under the term salvation. Eight souls were saved by water; the like
figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, — by the resurrection of
Jesus Christ; that is, baptism is the symbol of salvation to every one who is
baptized, with the answer of a good conscience. There is no exception. The
exclusion of infants from baptism is as decisively intimated here, as their
exclusion from the supper is in 1Co 11:1-34. Why are infants debarred from the
Lord’s Supper? Because, it is answered, they cannot discern the Lord’s body, or
examine themselves. And why are infants debarred from baptism? Because they
cannot have the answer of a good conscience. Whatever is urged in answer to
objections in the one case, may be urged in answer to objections in the other.
The necessity of baptism is implied in the words under consideration. The
language is very strong — “Baptism doth also now save us." The words are
parallel, in this respect, to John 3:5. The same truth is implied in Mark 16:16;
Rom 10:10. A man in certain circumstances, like the thief on the cross, may be
saved without baptism; but the circumstances must be peculiar which render
baptism unnecessary. Were any man willingly and obstinately to contemn the
ordinance, there could be no scriptural hope of his salvation. The consequence
leads us to the uniform doctrine of the New Testament — after believing we must
be baptized. The question is practical, and must, by conscientious men, be
considered with a view to practice.

Baptism in ordinary cases is connected with salvation. Every believer therefore
must be baptized on his faith.

Farther, the ordinance of baptism is permanent; there is no limitation either
here or any where else. It is an error, therefore, to limit the ordinance to
proselytism or men converted from amongst heathens or Jews. Since baptism is a
permanent ordinance, and connected with salvation, the connection must continue
to the end of the world. The mode of baptism is immersion. “The like figure
whereunto (the ark in the deluge) even baptism, doth also now save us; not the
putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience
towards God." The word baptism signifies immersion, and that we are so to
understand it in this place, appears from the effect, viz. the putting away of
the filth of the flesh. The meaning of the words, and the history of baptisms,
teach immersion; and the doctrine receives confirmation from such texts as that
before us. There is a peculiarity in this text which renders each of these
remarks more emphatic. I refer to the general or comprehensive mode in which the
truth is expressed, 1Pe 3:21. Apply tills peculiarity to the qualifications of
the baptized, and it teaches us that every one must have the qualifications;
there is no exception of infants, or any one else. It is baptism in every
instance; it is the very nature of the ordinance: the answer of a good
conscience is universally required. The same principle is recognized in Rom 6:4,
and in Gal 3:27; and all of them exclude the distinction between infants and
adults. There is but ONE BAPTISM: THE BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS.

END


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/lectures-on-baptism/
========================================================================