Presbyterianism the truly primitive and apostolical constitution of the church of Christ

^ PRINCETON. N. J. <f^

Presented by Mr Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa.

Agjiezv Coll. on Baptism, No

foiiL

PRESBYTERIANISM

THE

TRULY PRIMITIVE

APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTION

OF THE

CHURCH OF CHRIST.

By SAMUEL-illLLER, D.D.

PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT IN THE
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AT PRINCETON', NEW JERSEY.

PHILADELPHIA:

PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION

JAMES RDSSELL, PUBLISHING AGENT.

1840.

ADVERTISEMENT.

THIS Manual has been prepared at the particular request of the Tract Society of
the Synod of Philadelphia. A polemical spirit in the Church of God is by no means
commendable. And even when different denominations of professing Christians are
compelled, either in public teaching, or in social intercourse, to recur to the points
in regard to which they differ, it ought ever to be done with as much mildness and
inoffensiveness as can be reconciled with fidelity. It is doing no more than justice
to Presbyterians to say, that they have ever been remarkable for their freedom from
a proselyting spirit. Assuredly, there is no denomination of Christians in the Uni-
ted Stales, from whose pulpits so little is heard of the nature of vaunting their own
claims, or impugning the peculiarities of others, as in those of the Presbyterian
Church. Seldom is a sentence uttered in their public assemblies adapted to invade
the tenets of any evangelical Christian ; almost never, indeed, unless in defending
themselves against the attacks of other denominations.

In the meanwhile, several other numerous and respectable denominations habitu-
ally act on a different policy. Their preaching, their ecclesiastical journals, and
their popular Tracts, are characteristically and strongly sectarian. Of this no
complaint is made. We live in a free country, where all denominations, in the eye
of the civil government, stand upon a level. May it ever continue to be so! ilut
there is a point, beyond which silence in respect to our peculiarities, may be cen-
surable. We are bound to defend ourselves against unscriptural attacks, not merely
for our own sakes, but for the sake of others. It is incumbent on us to show to those
within our pale, or who may be inclined to unite with us, that we " have not followed
cunningly devised fables."

This, and this only, is the design of the following Manual. It is not intended to
invade the precincts, or assail the members of other religious communities; but
solely for the instruction of Presbyterians ; and to satisfy them that the system by
which they are distinguished, is, throughout, truly primitive and apostolic. Inqui-
ries are frequently made by young people and others of our denomination, why we
differ, as to a variety of particulars, from some other churches. Is it wrong; can it
be deemed inconsistent with the most scrupulous Christian charity, and even deli-
cacy, to provide a manual adapted to answer these inquiries? Surely, this is a
debt which we owe to our children. And as Presbyterian ministers are seldom
heard to preach on the peculiarities by which our beloved and truly scriptural
Church is distinguished, there seems to be the more propriety in putting into the
hands of our youthful and less instructed members, a summary "of the arguments by
which they may be enabled to meet the attacks, and repel the insinuations, of those
unwearied worshippers of sect, who cease not to insist that they alone are entitled
to the character of true Churches.

Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1835, by Dr. A. W.
Mitchell, in the office of the Clerk of the District Court, of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

PRESBYTERIANISMr V

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

*^..r

The Church of God, in the days of the Apostles, as is
well known, was not divided into different denominations.
Even then, indeed, there were parties in the Church. The
restless and selfish spirit of depraved human nature s^oon
began, in different places to display its unhallowed influence,
either in the form of judaizing claims, philosophical specula-
tions, or turbulent opposition to regular ecclesiastical autho-
rity. In the Church of Corinth, though planted and nur-
tured by " the chiefest of the Apostles," there were factious
and troublesome members, who contended among themselves,
and said, one to another, " I am of Paul, and I of Apollos,
and I of Cephas, and I of Christ." Still the Church was
one. The names, " Presbyterian," "Episcopalian," " Con-
gregationalist," &;c. &c., were unknown. All professing
Christians, " though many, were considered as one body in
Christ, and every one members one of another.' The only
popular distinction then recognised, as far as the professed
followers of Christ were concerned, was between the Church
and the heretics.

Not long after the Apostolic age, when heresies had become
numerous, when each of them claimed to belong to the Church,
and when convenience demanded the adoption of some term
which might distinguish between the true or orthodox Church,
and the various sects of errorists — the title of Catholic (or ge-
neral, as the term Catholic signifies,) was applied to the
former ; while the latter were distinguished by various names,
derived either from the nature of their distinguishing opinions,

6 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

or from the original authors or promoters of those opinions.
It is well known, indeed, that the blinded and superstitious
followers of the Bishop of Rome claim the title of Catholic,
as exclusively apphcable to themselves. In their own estima-
tion, they are the Church, the only true Church, the Catholic,
or universal Church ; and all the other classes of nominal
Christians, throughout the world, are heretics, out of the way
of salvation. This claim, however, in the estimation of all
enlightened Christians, is as presumptuous as it is vain. That
department of nominal Christendom, instead of being the only
true Church, is considered by many as too far gone in cor-
ruption to be comprehended under the Christian name at all ;
and instead of there bemg no salvation out of her communion,
the danger of eternal perdition is rather to those who are
found within her pale. It is not doubted, indeed, that there
are many pious individuals within that pale ; but it is believed
that they are placed in circumstances deplorably unfavourable
to their growth in grace ; and that the multitudes around them,
in the same communion, are immersed in darkness, supersti-
tion, and dreadful error, which place them in the utmost
jeopardy of eternal perdition. This is that " Antichrist,"
that " Man of sin," and " Son of Perdition," who exalteth
himself above all that is called God, and who is yet to be " de-
stroyed with the breath of Jehovah's mouth, and with the
brightness of his coming."

No particular denomination of Christians is now entitled to
be called, by way of eminence, the Catholic, or universal
Church. There are Churches, indeed, which bear a nearer
resemblance to the Apostolical model than others ; and which
deserve to be favourably distinguished in the list of Christian
communities. But the visible Catholic Church is made up of all
those throughout the world, who profess the true religion, to-
gether with their children. The Presbyterian, the Congre-
gationahst, the Methodist, the Baptist, the Episcopalian, the
Independent, who hold the fundamentals of our holy rehgion,
in whatever part of the globe they may reside, are all mem-
bers of the same visible community ; and, if they be sincere
believers, will all finally be made partakers of its eternal
blessings. They cannot, indeed, all worship together in
the same solemn assembly, even if they were disposed to
do so. A physical impossibility forbids it; and, in many
cases, prejudice and folly widely separate those who ought to
be entirely united. Still, in spite of all the sects and names
by which professing Christians are divided, there is a visible
Church Catholic. There is a precious sense in which the

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 7

whole visible Church on earth is one. All who " hold the
Head," of course belong to the body of Christ. Those who
are united by a sound profession to the same divine Saviour ;
who embrace the same precious faith ; who are sanctified by
the same spirit ; who eat the same spiritual meat ; who drink
the same spiritual drink ; who repose and rejoice in the same
promises ; and who are travelling to the same eternal rest —
are surely one body : — one in a sense more richly significant
and valuable than can be ascribed to miUions who sustain and
boast a mere nominal relation.

But while we thus maintain the doctrine of the unity of
the visible Church CathoHc ; and while we rejoice in the
assured belief, that sectarian names, as they were unknown
in the Apostohc age, so they will be unknown among the
members of the Redeemer's glorified body ; still, in this mili-
tant state, there is a separation, not merely nominal, but real
and deplorable ; a separation which interferes most deeply
with the communion of saints, and which lamentably mars
those precious opportunities of proximity and intercourse,
which too often, alas ! become incentives to contention and
strife, rather than to Christian love.

Amidst this diversity of sects and names, it becomes, to
every intelligent and conscientious Christian, a most interesting
question — Which of the various denominations which bear the
name of Christian Churches, maybe considered as approaching
nearest to the New Testament model ? We freely acknowledge,
indeed, as Churches of Christ, all who hold the fundamentals
of our holy rehgion, and consider it as our duty to love and
honour them as such ; carefully avoiding all treatment of them
that tends to the increase of strife and division, and that is con-
trary to " godly edifying." Still, it cannot be doubted, by any
rational man, that some one of these denominations is nearer
to the Apostolic model, as a Church of Christ, than any of the
rest. Which of the whole number this is, is a most serious
question in the view of every one who wishes to know the.
will of Christ, and who desires to be found walking in that
way which was trod by inspired Apostles, and in which they
left the Church harmoniously walking, when they ceased
from their labours.

It is the sincere beUef of the writer of these pages, that
the Presbyterian Church, as it now exists in these United
States, entirely unconnected with the civil government, and
taking the word of God as its " only infallible rule of faith
and practice," is more truly primitive and apostohcal in its
whole constitution, of doctrine^ worship, and order, than any
1*

8 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

Other Church, now on earth. An humble attempt to evince
the truth of this position, will occupy the following pages.

For the fulfilment of the purpose in view, I shall endeavour,
very briefly, to consider the History of Presbyterianism ; its
doctrme, its order, ov form of government ; its worship ; and
its comparative advantages. In each of these respects, unless
I am deceived, it will be easy to show that it approaches
nearer than any other Christian denomination, to the Apos-
tolical model.

To prepare the way more fuhy for the ensuing discussion,
it may be proper to .state, that there are four distinct forms of
Church order, each of which claims a scriptural warrant ; the
Papal, or spiritual monarchy — ^the Episcopal, or spiritual ;}re-
lacy — Independency, or spiritual democracy — and Presbyte-
rianism, or spiritual republicanism. The first maintaining
the necessity of one supreme, universal, infallible Head of the
whole Christian body throughout the world, as the authorised
vicar of Christ. The second, contending for an order of cleri-
cal prelates, above the rank of ordinary ministers of the Gos-
pel, who are alone, in their view, empowered to ordain, and
without whose presiding agency, there can be no regular
Church. The third, holding that aU ecclesiastical power re-
sides in the mass of the Church members, and that all acts of
ecclesiastical authority are to be performed immediately by
them. While in the fourth and last place, Presbyterians be-
lieve, that Christ has made all ministers who are authorised
to dispense the word and sacraments, perfectly equal in official
rank and power : that in every Church the immediate exer-
cise of ecclesiastical power is deposited, not with the whole
mass of the people, but with a body of their representatives,
styled Elders ; and that the whole visible Church Catholic, so
far as their denomination is concerned, is not only one in name,
but so united by a series of assembUes of these representa-
tives, acting in the name, and by the authority of the whole,
as to bind the whole body together as one Church, walking
by the same principles of faith and order, and voluntarily, yet
authoritatively governed by the same system of rule and regu-
lation.

Presbyterianism, then, is a term which primarily refers to
the form of Church government. Tliat is a Presbyterian
Church, in which the Presbytery is the radical and leading
judicatory ; in which Teaching and Ruling Presbyters or El-
ders, have committed to them the watch and care of the whole

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 9

flock ; in which all ministers of the word and sacraments are
equal ; in which Ruling Elders, as the representatives of the
people, form a part of aU ecclesiastical assemblies, and par-
take, in all authoritative acts, equally with the Teaching El-
ders ; and ui which, by a series of judicatories, rising one
above another, each individual church is under the watch and
care of its appropriate judicatory, and the whole body, by a
system of review and control, is bound together as one homO'
geneous community. Wherever this system is found in ope
ration in the Church of God, there is Presbyterianism
Though there may be much diversity in the names of the seve
ral judicatories ; and though, in the minuter details of arrange
ment, some variety may exist, still it is essentially the same
Thus the Reformed Churches in France, Holland, Germany
Switzerland, Scotland, and Geneva, are all Presbyterian, not
withstanding some minor varieties in the names and regula^
tions of their judicatories. Wherever ministerial parity
the government of the church by Elders, instead of the mass
of the communicants ; and the authoritative union of churches
under courts of review and control, are found, there we have
that ecclesiastical system which it is the object of the follow-
ing pages to explain and recommend.

But although the term Presbyterian has a primary reference
to the form of Church government ; yet Presbyterian Churches
were originally agreed, and have been commonly, in all ages
agreed, in a variety of other matters, which we believe are all
warranted by the Holy Scriptures. It is to the whole system,
then, of doctrine, government, and mode of worship, which
now distinguishes the Presbyterian Church in the United
States, that the attention of the readers of these pages is re-
quested ; and which, it shall be my aim to show, is set forth
in the W^ord of God, "the only infallible rule of faith and
practice."

CHAPTER n.

HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM.

The essential principles of Presbyterian Church order were
of very early origin. Those principles are the authoritative
binding of the whole Church together as one body ; and con-
ducting this government, not by the entire ecclesiastical popu

10 HISTORY OF

lation, but by representatives, elected by, and acting on behal!
of the whole. That this mode of administering tJie affairs of
the visible Church was adopted long before the coming of
Christ, is certain, and can be doubted by none who intelligent-
ly and impartially read the Old Testament Scriptures. Even
before the institution of the ceremonial economy, while the
covenanted people of God were yet in bondage in Egypt, we
find that they had their Elders, that is, their men of gravity,
experience and wisdom, who were obeyed as heads of tribes,
and rulers among the people. Exodus iii. 16. The powers
committed to them, and exercised by them, are not particularly
specified ; but we may take for granted, with confidence, that
their office was to inspect and govern the people, and to ad-
just all disputes both of a civil and ecclesiastical nature. Be-
fore the publication of the law from Mount Sinai, and anterior
to the establishment of the ceremonial economy, Moses chose
wise and able men out of the tribes of Israel, made them rulers
over thousands, over hundreds, over fifties, and over tens. Ex-
odus xviii. These rulers are elsewhere, in almost every part
of the Old Testament, styled Elders. To them, as we are ex-
pressly informed, all the ordinary cases of government and dis-
cipline were committed. The same mode of dispensmg jus-
tice and order among the people, seems to have been employed
after the institution of the Aaronic priesthood ; during the
time of the Judges, and of the Kings ; during the Babylonish
captivity ; and after the return of the captives from Babylon.
At whatever time the Synagogue system was adopted, it is
evident that the plan of conducting government by means of
a body of Elders, was universal, through all the land of Judea,
up to the time of the Saviour's advent. The synagogues were
the parish churches of the Jews. There the ordinary worship
and mstruction of the Sabbath were conducted ; and the ex-
communication of an individual from the body of the profess-
ing people of God, was expressed by " putting him out of the
synagogue." In these synagogues the essential principles of
Presbyterianism were universally established. The similari-
ty, as to every important point, was exact. In short, during
the whole tract of time embraced in the history of the Mosaic
economy, we have complete evidence that the ecclesiastical
government, as well as the civil, was conducted, under God, the
Supreme Ruler, by boards of Elders, acting as the authorized
representatives of the people. To this mode of government, as
is notorious, every city, and every synagogue was accustomed.
In no instance, in either Church or State, is a case recollected
in which the population was called together to settle a dispute,

PRESBYTERIANISM. 1 1

or to dispense justice between persons at variance. The re-
presentative system was universally in use. The work of
administering justice was always done by a body of rulers or
officers, commonly styled, amidst all the changes of dispensa-
tion, " Elders of the people."

Nor was this all. As each particular synagogue was go-
verned by a bench of Elders, of which the Bishop or " Angel
of the Church," was the presiding officer ; so also, as the whole
Jewish body was one ; — one Catholic Church, — there were
always appeals admitted, in cases of alleged incorrectness of
judgment, to the " great synagogue" at Jerusalem, where an
opportunity was given for redressing what was done amiss.
Nothing like the independency of particular synagogues was
admitted or thought of. A system which bound the whole
community together as one visible professing body, was uni-
formly in operation.

The first converts to Christianity being all native Jews, who
had been always accustomed to the exercise of government
by benches of *' Elders," in the manner just specified ; and
this representative plan being so equitable, so wise, and so
convenient in itself; no wonder that the same plan was adopt-
ed by the apostles in organizing the primitive Church. Ac-
cordingly, as in the account which the inspired writers give
of the Jewish constitution, we read continually of the " Rulers
of the synagogue," and of the " Elders of the people," as a
body distinguished from the priests ; so, when they proceed
to give us an account of the organization and proceedings of
the New Testament Church, we find the same language used
in cases almost innumerable. We read of " Elders being or-
dained in every church ;" of an important question being re-
ferred to a synod, made up of " Apostles and Elders ;" of " El-
ders who ruled well, but did not labour in the word and doc-
trine ;" of the " Elders of the Church being called together"
to consider ecclesiastical questions ; of the " Elders of the
Church being called for to visit and pray over the sick," &c.

The question, whether the exact mode of conducting the
government and discipline of the Church, which we find de-
lineated in the New Testament, is obligatory on Christians
now, is one concerning which there is no small diversity of
opinion. That an entire confonnity to that model, in every
minute particular, is essential to the existence of the Church,
will be maintained by few ; and certainly by no Presbyterians.
None can doubt, however, that it is most expedient and safe
to keep as near as may be to that plan of Church order, which
inspired men approved and left in use, when they ceased from

12 HISTORY OF

their labours. As to what that plan was, it would reaUy seem
almost impossible that intelligent and impartial readers of the
New Testament should entertain different opinions. The
moment we open the inspired history of the apostolic age, we
find a style of speaking concerning the officers of the Church,
and a statement of facts, which evince, beyond all controversy,
that the model of the synagogue was that which was then
adopted, and which was left in universal use when inspired
men surrendered the Church to their successors. We find
preaching the Gospel, " feeding the sheep and the lambs" of
Christ, and administering the Christian sacraments, the high-
est offices entrusted to the Ministers of Christ. We find a
plurality of " Elders," by divine direction, ordained in every
church. In no instance, in the whole New Testament, do we
find an organized congregation under the Avatch and care of a
single officer. Further, we find " Bishop" and " Elder,"
titles given, interchangeably, to the same persons ; plainly
showing that the term " Bishop," in the apostolic age, was
the title which designated the pastor or " overseer," of a sin-
gle flock or church. We find in the New Testament history,
no trace of prelacy. All priority or pre-eminence among the
ministers of Christ is expressly rebuked and forbidden.
There is evidently but one commission given to the author-
ized ministers of the word and sacraments. When the Saviour
left the world he commissioned no higher officer in his
Church, speaks of no higher than he who was empowered to
go forth and " teach aU nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The
ordaining power is manifestly represented as possessed and
exercised by ordinary pastors, and as performed by the " lay-
ing on of the hands of the Presbytery." There is not a soli-
tary instance to be found in all the New Testament, of an or-
dination being performed by a single individual, whether an
ordinary, or extraordinary minister. In all the cases which
we find recorded, or hinted at, a plurality of ordainers offi-
ciated. When Paul and Barnabas were designated to a spe-
cial mission, it was by a plurality of " Prophets and Teachers
of the Church in Antioch," Acts xiii. When they went forth
to preach and organise churches, we are informed that they
together, " ordained Elders in every church." Timothy was
ordained by the " laying on of the hands of the Presbytery."
1 Tim. iv. 14. And even when the Deacons were set apart
to their office, it is plain, from the narrative, Acts vi. 1 — 6
that a plurahty laid hands upon them with prayer and fasting.
It is plain too, that the whole visible Church, in the apostolic

PRESBYTERIANISM. 13

•^.ge, whether in Jerusalem or in Antioch, in PhUippi or in
Ephesus, was regarded as one body., all governed by the same
laws, subject to the same authority, and regulated by the same
judicial decisions. Thus, when a question arose which in-
terested and affected the whole Christian community, it was
decided by a synod of the "Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem,"
and the " decrees" of that synod were sent down to " all the
churches," to be registered and obeyed. Here was evident-
ly an assembly of Ministers and Elders, acting as the repre-
sentatives of the whole Church, and pronouncing judicial de-
cisions, which were intended to bind the whole body. If this
be not Presbyterianism, then there is nothing of the kind in
Scotland or in the United States.

When we pass from the New Testament to the earliest
records of uninspired antiquity, the same form of church or-
der is every where apparent. The plan of ecclesiastical go-
vernment disclosed by the Epistles of Ignatius, as actually
existing in his day, is manifestly Presbyterian. He repre-
sents every particular church of which he speaks, as furnished
with a Bishop or Pastor, a bench of Elders and Deacons ; he
continually employs language which implies that these offi-
cers were present in every worshipping assembly ; and he
most evidently gives us to understand, that these Elders, with
the Pastor or Bishop at their head, conducted the govern-
ment and discipline of each church. Clemens Romanus,
contemporary with Ignatius, speaks in language of similar
import. He represents Bishops and Presbyters, — the Epis-
copate and the Presbyterate, as the same ; and expressly
states that the Presbyters were " set over the church" by the
choice of the Church ; and that to rise up m rebellion agaiiist
them, was considered as highly criminal. The testimony of
frenaeus, who lived in the second century, is no less decisive
in favour of our system. He continually applies the title of
Bishop and Presbyter to the same men ; speaks of " the suc-
cession of the Episcopate," through the Presbyters and
ihrough the Bishops, as the very same ; nay, represents the
apostolical succession, the Episcopal succession, and the
Presbyterial succession, as all identical. In short, he could
scarcely have kept a more scrupulous and exact balance, than
he does between the dignities, powers, and duties connected
with each title, and ascribed interchangeably to all. I might go
on to quote Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, and other
early fathers, as speaking a language of equivalent import.
But there is no need of going into farther detail. The truth
is, for the first two hundred years after Christ, it is certain

14 HISTOPY OF

that neither Prelacy nor Independency was known in the
Church of Christ. There is not a single record withm that
period, which either asserts or imphes it ; but every thing of
a contrary aspect. Every flock of professing Christians had
its Pastor or Bishop, with its bench of Elders, by whom the
government and discipline were conducted ; and its body of
Deacons, by whom the funds collected for the relief of the
poor, were received and disbursed.

In the third century after Christ the aspect of things began
to change. Some seasons, in this century, of exemption from
persecution and of comparative outward prosperity, were
marked by very sensible departure from the simplicity and
purity of the preceding times. Heresies and schisms began
to distract the congregations of God's professing people. The
Ministry and Eldership of the Church declined both in zeal
and faithfulness. The clergy became ambitious arid volup-
tuous, and, as a natural consequence, full of intrigue and con-
tention. The pictures given of their cupidity, mutual en-
croachments, and degrading strife, by Cyprian, by Origen,
and by Eusebius, as in full operation in the third century, are
truly of the most revolting character. Some have said, indeed,
that the Church, in the Cyprianic age presented, on the whole,
one of the most satisfactory models of ecclesiastical perfec-
tion. Those who can entertain this opinion must judge of
what is desirable in a Church, by a very different criterion
from that which the Bible furnishes. Let them impartially
read the statements given by the writers just mentioned, and
they will speedily alter their opinion. Among such a clergy,
an undue aspiring after preferment, titles and places might be
expected, as a matter of course. Indeed, in such circum-
stances, it would have required a constant succession of mira-
cles to prevent prelacy from arising. Nor was this all. As
the Church declined from her primitive simplicity and purity,
some of her more serious ministers thought themselves war-
ranted in resorting to other forms of attraction for drawing the
populace into the Church. For attracting the Jews they be-
gan to adopt some of the titles, ceremonies, and vestments
of the temple service. They began to call the Christian
ministry the "priesthood;" and, as a natural consequence, to
speak of " priests" and " high priests," and " altars," and
'' sacrifices," &c. &;c. ; for all which, in reference to the
Christian economy, there is not the smallest warrant in the
New Testament. Other ecclesiastical leaders, for the pur-
pose of conciliating and attracting the Pagans, introduced a
•^ariety of rites from the ceremonial of the heathen, intended

PRESBYTERIAXISM. 1 5

(0 make the Christian ritual more splendid, dazzHng, and
alluring to those who had been the votaries of dumb idols, and
whose chief objection to the religion of Christ was, that its
worship was too simple and unadorned. The consequence
was, that, toward the close of the third century, Prelacy was
gradually and insidiously introduced. All orders of ecclesias-
tical men partook of the spirit of ambitious encroachment.
The Deacons, whom the Apostles had appointed to be guar-
dians of the poor, and of the temporalities of the Church, be-
came too proud to discharge the appropriate duties of their
office, employed " sub-deacons" to perform their official work,
and, after a while, claimed, and had conceded to them, the
power of preaching and baptizing. The Presbyters or Elders
partook of the same spirit, and although the greater part of
them had been chosen and set apart for ruling only, yet as the
discipline of the Church became relaxed and unpopular, and
finally in a great measure abandoned, they aU aspired to be
public teachers, and turned away from their original work, to
what they deemed a more honourable employment. The
Bishops, who had been originally overseers or pastors of sin-
gle flocks, claimed authority over the congregations in their
neighbourhood, which had branched out from their original
charges ; so that, by little and little, tliey became prelates ; —
a new office covertly brought in under an old name. Nor
did the principle of ambitious encroachment stop here. Me-
tropolitans and Patriarchs began to " lord it" over Bishops.
And to crown the gradations of rank, the Bishop of Rome,
seduced by the imperial splendour which sun-ounded him., and
countenanced by imperial power and munificence, came to be
acknowledged as the supreme head, under Christ, of the
whole Church upon earth, and the infallible interpreter of the
Saviour's wiU.

This statement is confirmed by early Christian WTiters of
the highest character, and who were nearly contemporary
with the criminal innovation of which they speak. Thus
Ambrose, who wrote about the year 376 after Christ, in his
commentary on Ephesians iv. 2, has the following passage."
" After churches were planted in all places, and officers or-
dained, matters were setded otherwise than they were in the
beginning. And hence it is that the Apostles' writings do not,
in all things, agree with the present constitution of the Church ;
because they were written under the first rise of the Church ;
for he calls Timothy, who was created a Presbyter by him, a
Bishop, for so, at first, the Presbyters were called." This
passage is so plain, that it requires no comment. Still more
2

6 HISTORY OF

unequivocal and decisive is the language of Jerome. " Among
he ancients," says he, " Presbyters and Bishops were the
same. But by little nnd little, that all the seeds of dissension
might be plucked up, the whole care was devolved on one.
As, therefore, the Presbyters know, that by the custom ot
the Church, they are subject to him who is their president, so
let Bishops know, that they are above Presbyters more by the
custom of the Church, than by the true dispensation of Jesus
Christ !" And in order to establish his position, that, in the
apostolic age. Bishop and Presbyter were the same, he quotes
precisely those passages of Scripture which Presbyterians
have been accustomed, for three hundred years, to adduce in
attestation of the same fact. The testimony of Augustine,
Bishop of Hippo, is to the same amount. In writing to his
contemporary Jerome, who was a Presbyter, he expresses him-
self in the following language : "I entreat you to correct me
faithfully when you see I need it ; for, although, according to
the names of honour which the custom of the Church has
now brought into use, the office of Bishop is greater than that
of Presbyter, nevertheless, in many respects, Augustine is in-
ferior to Jerome." Oper. Tom. II. Epist. 19. ad Hieron. It
is worthy of notice, that Bishop Jewel, in his " Defence of his
Apology for the Church of England," produces this passage
from Augustine, for the express purpose of showing the origi-
nal identity of Bishop and Presbyter, and translates it thus :
" The office of Bishop is above the office of priest, not by au-
thority of Scripture, but after the names of honour which the
custom of the Church hath now obtained." Defence, 122, 123.
And, finally, to the same effect is the testimony of Chrysos-
tom, who wrote toward the close of the fourth century. In his
eleventh Homily on the Epistles to Timothy, he speaks thus :
*' Having spoken of Bishops, and described them, Paul passes
on to the Deacons. But why is this ? Because, between
Bishop and Presbyter there is not much difference ; for these
also, in hke manner, have committed to them both the in-
struction and the government of the Church ; and what things
he has said concerning Bishops, the same, also, he intended
for Presbyters ; for they have gained the ascendency only in
respect to ordination ; and of this they seem to have defraud-
ed the Presbyters." This passage of the eloquent father
needs no comment. If there be meaning in words, Chry-
sostom distinctly conveys the idea, not only that ordination
was the only point in respect to which Bishops, in his day,
had gained precedence over Presbyters, but that they had
gained even this by fraudulent means. This is the undoubted

PRESBYTERIANISM. t7

import of the word which he employs, and which we translate
defraud. The same word is employed in 1 Thessalonians iv,
6. " That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any
matter," &c. And again, 2 Cor. vii. 2. " We have wronged
no man, we have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no
man." And be it remembered, no individual in the fourth
century was more competent, in every respect, than Chrysos-
tom to say whether the pre-eminence which had been gained
by Bishops in his day, rested on a divine warrant, or had been
fraudulently obtained.

Thus it is evident — the ancients themselves being our wit-
nesses— that, in the apostolic age. Bishop and Presbyter were
the same ; that, the Bishops were parish ministers ; that, in
every parish, a body of Elders^ with their Pastor at their
head, conducted the government and discipline; that, of
course, Presbyterian parity in the Gospel ministry universally
prevailed ; that the rite of ordination was equally the prero-
gative of all who were empowered to preach the Gospel, and
administer the sacraments ; that it was habitually performed
" by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery;" that mat-
ters continued in this situation for more than a hundred years
after the close of the apostolic age ; that then clerical pride,
ambition, and cupidity began, more sensibly than in preceding
times, to disclose their native effects ; and that the pastors of
the more opulent towns claimed special pre-eminence and
powers, as peculiarly the successors of the Apostles, which,
by little and little, were admitted, and at length, permanently
established. Thus were parochial Bishops, or the pastors of
single congregations, gradually transformed into diocesan, or
prelatical Bishops, and, under an old and familiar title, a new
office artfully introduced ; until, in the fourth century, when
Christianity became the established religion of the empire,
when the clergy were pampered by imperial bounty, de-
fended by imperial authority, and their honours arranged ac-
cording to the gradations of rank v/hich were obtained in the
state ; all traces of primitive simplicity and purity were lost
in the plans and splendour of worldly policy. Bishops be-
came " lords over God's heritage," rather than " examples to
their flocks."

We are not to suppose, however, that this departure from
the apostolic model of church order was universal. There
were " witnesses of the truth," who, in humble retirement,
bore a faithful testimony to the original system of discipline
as well as doctrine. The simple-hearted Paulicians, in the
seventh century, testified against the encroachments of pre-

18 HISTORY OF

lacy. They were succeeded, not long afterwards, by the
Waldenses and Albigenses, who still more distinctly and
zealously protested against all encroachments on Presbyterian
simplicity. This is freely acknowledged by many of the
advocates of prelacy, as well as others. Mneas Sylvius,
afterwards Pope Fius the II., declares — " They, (the Wal-
denses,) deny the hierarchy ; maintaining that there is no
difference among the priests, by reason of dignity or office."
Medina, a learned prelatist in the council of Trent, asserted
that the doctrine of ministerial parity had been condemned
in Aerius, and in the Waldenses, as well as in others speci-
fied by him. Bellarmine acknowledges that the Waldenses
denied the divine right of prelacy. The Rev. Dr. Rainolds,
an eminently learned Episcopal divine, professor of Divinity
in the university of Oxford, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth,
in writing on this subject to Sir Francis Knollys, declares —
" All those who have, for 500 years past, endeavoured the
reformation of the Church, have taught, that all pastors,
whether they be called Bishops or Priests, are invested with
equal authority and power ; — as first, the Waldenses; next
Marcilius Petavinus; then Wickliffe and his disciples ; after-
wards Huss and the Hussites; and last of all, Luther, Cal-
vin, Bullinger, Musculus, &;c." Their own historians,
John Paul Perrin, and Sir Samuel Morland, make state-
ments, and exhibit documents which fully confirm this repre-
sentation. For although in some of the records of the Wal-
denses certain Seniors are mentioned who performed par-
ticular duties for the sake of order; yet we are explicitly
informed that they claimed no superiority by divine right.
Accordingly Peter Heylin, a bigoted Episcopalian, speaking
of the Bohemian Brethren, a branch of the same people, and
who are known to have received ministers from them — says,
that " they had fallen upon a way of ordaining ministers
among themselves, without ha\ing recourse unto the bishop,
or any such superior officer as a superintendent." — History
of Presbyterianism, pp. 409, 410. The Rev. John Scott,
the pious Episcopal continuator of Milner^s Ecclesiastical
History, in giving a particular statement of the tenets and
practices of the Waldenses, addressed by George Mauzel,
one of their most devoted ministers, to ^colampadius, the
celebrated Reformer, in 1530, represents that minister as
stating, in the most unequivocal manner, that the different or-
ders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, did not exist in their
ministry. Vol. I. 139. The Rev. Adam Blair, one of the
latest and most profound writers on the history of the Wal

PRESBYTERIANISM. 19

denses, asserts and shows, with the utmost confidence, that
their ecclesiastical government was not Episcopal. History
of the Waldenses, in two volumes octavo, 1833. " Like
Presbyterians and Independents," says this writer, " they
denied the establishment of the different orders of ministers
then received in the Western Church, such as Bishops, Arch-
bishops," &LQ. I. 176. Again he says — " No form of eccle-
siastical government in Great Britain, seems exactly the same
with the ancient Waldenses." Viewing them as having a
constant moderator. Episcopalians think him like a Bishop.
But in regard to Episcopal consecration, Mr. Acland, an
Episcopalian, informs us, that " this ornament of our church
establishment, as justly cherished by us, is unquestionably
no longer preserved among the Faudois.^' Viewing them as
having a Synod, and having a Consistory, or session, in each
congregation, they are Presbyterians ; yet with t?iis differ-
ence, that, in our country. Synods and Presbyteries have a
new moderator every year, and the lay-elders are sent by the
session in each congregation ; while the Waldensian congre-
gations meet and appoint the elder The visits of the mode-
rator to the different congregations, as appointed by the court,
have nothing in them inconsistent with Presbytery. Mr. Qil-
ly, (also an Episcopalian) admits that the present Vaudois
are nearer to Presbyterians, than to any other form of church
government, only not so rigid." Vol. I. 540, 541. But the
undoubted fact, which places this whole subject beyond all
question, is, that after the commencement of the Reformation
in Geneva^ the Waldenses not only held communion with
that Church, which we all know was strictly Presbyterian,
but also received ministers from her, and of course recognised
the validity of her ordinations in the strongest practical man-
ner. This they could never have done, had they been in the
habit of regarding the subject in the same light with modem
prelatists.

But the Waldenses were not merely Presbyterian as to the
point of ministerial parity. According to their own most au-
thentic writers, as well as the acknowledgment of their bit-
terest enemies — they resembled our beloved Church in almost
every thing. They rejected all human inventions in the wor-
ship of God, — such as the sign of the cross in baptism ; fast
and festival days ; the confirmation of children and youth ;
the consecration of edifices for public worship, &c. We are
also told that all their churches were bound together by Sy-
nods, which assembled once a year ; that these Synods were
composed of Ministers and Ruling Elders, as in the Presby-
2*

20 HISTORY OF

terian Church ; that their business was to examine and ordain
candidates for the ministry, and authoritatively to order every
thing respecting their whole body. We may say, then, with
strict regard to historical verity, that, in the darkest and most
corrupt periods of the Church, Presbyterianism was kept alive
in the purest, and indeed, in the only pure churches now-
known to have then existed.

When the Reformation from Popery occurred, it is at once
wonderful and edifyong to observe, with what almost entire
unanimity the leaders in that glorious enterprise, concurred in
proclaiming and sustaining Presbyterian principles. Luther,
Melancthon and Bucer, in Gennany; Farel, Viret and Calvm,
in France and Geneva; Zuingle and GEcolampadius, in Swit-
zerland : Peter Mart}T, in Italy; A. Lasco, in Hungary ; Junius
and others, in Holland ; Knox, in Scotland ; and a decided
majority of the most enlightened and pious friends of the Re-
formation, even in England, — all, without concert, concurred
in maintaining, that in the apostolical age there was no pre-
lacy. Bishop and Presbyter being the same ; that the govern-
ment of the Church by Ruhng as well as Teaching Elders,
was plainly warranted in Scripture ; and that individual con-
gregations were not to be considered as independent commu-
nities, but as so many members of the body to which they
belonged, and to be governed by representative assemblies, for
the benefit of the whole. It is true, these different leaders of
the Reformed Churches did not, all of them, actually establish
Presbyterian order in their respective ecclesiastical bodies ;
but while all the Refonned Churches in France, Germany,
Holland, Hungary, Geneva, and Scotland, were thorough
Presbyterians, not only in principle, but also in practice — even
the Lutherans universally acknowledged that ministerial parity
was the order of the apostolic Church, and also^ that in the
primitive times Ruling Elders conducted the government and
discipline in all the Churches. Still many of them holding,
as they did, that the Church was not bound to adhere, in every
respect, to the apostolic model of government and discipline,
but was at liberty to modify it according to exigencies, and
as they might deem, for edification ; they adopted forms of
regulation and discipline, differing from each other, and difier-
ing, as they did not hesitate to confess, from the plan actually
in use in the days of apostolic simplicity. The Church of
England was the only one in all Protestant Christendom^
which, at the Reformation, adopted the system of Prelacy.
Tliis was occasioned by the fact, that in that country the
Bishops, the court-clergy, and the monarchs, took the lead in

PRESBYTERIAMSM. 21

reforming the Church ; and, as might have been expected,
chose to retain the system of ecclesiastical pre-eminence which
had been so long established. It is notorious, however, that
this was done originally, without any claim of divine right ;
with a spirit of affectionate intercourse and communion with
all the non-episcopal Churches on the continent of Europe,
and after all, contrary to the judgment of large numbers of
the most eminently pious and learned friends of the Reforma-
tion in that kingdom.

It is very common for the more uninformed opponents of
Presbyterianism to assert, that this form of ecclesiastical order
was invented by Calvin, and first set in operation in the
Church of Geneva. The ignorance of those who can make
this allegation is indeed surprising I Passing by all that has
been said of the palpable existence of Presbyterian order in
the apostolic age ; of its plain delineation in the Epistles of
Ignatius, and in the writings of other fathers succeeding the
pastor of Antioch ; and waiving all remark on its acknow-
ledged estabhshment, as we have seen, among the pious
Waldenses ; it w^as undoubtedly in use in Switzerland and in
Geneva long before Calvin had appeared as a reformer, oi
-had set his foot in either of those countries. The Rev. ]Mr.
Scott, the Episcopal continuator of Milner's Ecclesiastical
History, before quoted, explicitly states, that as early as 1528,
when Calvin was but nineteen years of age, and was whoUy
miknown in the ecclesiastical world, "the Presbyterian form
of church government was introduced into Switzerland," and
that the doctrine of ministerial parity had been uniformly
taught by Zuingle, before the time of Calvin. In Geneva,
likewise, before Calvin ever saw that city, his countrymen,
Farel and Viret, had gone thither and commenced the Re-
formation upon Presbyterian principles. There, when he
consented to cast in his lot with them, he found a " Presby-
tery" established ; and all that he had to do was to complete
the system by adding the bench of Ruling Elders for conduct-
ing the discipUne of the Church ; and even this he did not
invent, but confessedly borrowed from that branch of the
Waldenses called the Bohemian Brethren ; although he evi-
dently considered, and represented it as distinctly warranted
by Scripture.

Presbyterianism, as it has long existed in Scotland, Hol-
land, France, Geneva, and Germany, is, in substance, the
same system, differing only in these several countries, in mi-
nor details, and chiefly in the names and arrangements of
their several ecclesiastical assemblies. As those who com

22 HISTORY OF

rnenced the Presbyterian Church in America, about the begin-
ning of the eighteenth century, were chiefly emigrants from
North Britain and Ireland, so the Church of Scotland was
more than any other, their model. Our whole arrangement
of judicatories, and our whole ecclesiastical nomenclature,
are with few exceptions borrowed from Scotland. What our
ecclesiastical Mother and we call the " Church Session,"
most of the Presbyterians on the continent of Europe call the
" Consistory ;" and what we call the " Presbytery," they
call the " Classis." But in general principles, we are all en-
tirely agreed.

Although it is well known that Presbyterianism, in some
parts of the old world, has been, and continues to be connected
with the State ; as in Scotland, Holland, Geneva, and some
parts of Germany ; yet this is by no means a necessary, or
even a natural connection. It is deeply to be lamented that
such a connection was ever formed in any case ; having proved,
it may be safely affirmed, in all cases essentially injurious.
This form of ecclesiastical order existed in the days of the
Apostles, not only without any alliance with the civil govern-
ment, but in the midst of its most unrelenting persecution :
and this continued to be the case for more than a hundred
years after the last Apostle had gone to his reward. The same
may be said of this form of ecclesiastical order, as it existed
among the pious Waldenses. It was the object, in no case,
of state-patronage, but of unceasing persecution. It is much
to be regretted, that any portion of the Church of Christ, un-
der any form of organization, has ever sought to be united
with the state, or consented to receive support from the civil
power. Such a union has never failed to be followed by dis-
astrous consequences to the best interests of religion. It is
undoubtedly better — far better for the spiritual welfare of the
Church that she should be persecuted, rather than supported
by the civil government.

Happily, the Presbyterian Church in the United States, has
never formed or sought any kind of connection with the state.
Nay, she has gone further. When, after the establishment of
our national independence, it became proper to revise and mo-
dify our ecclesiastical formularies, our fathers threw out of them
every thing relating to the interposition of the civil magistrate
in the affairs of the Church, and introduced, in place of what
was thus excluded, a solemn declaration against any particular
class or denomination of Christians receiving any species of
religious establishment, or preference from the civil govern-
ment. So that our public standards contain an open, solemn,

PRESBYTERIANISM. 23

and permanent Protest against any claim or attempt on the
part of our own, or any other Church, obtaining the least
patronage or pre-eminence from governmental favour. Nor is
there any point concerning which a more firm and deep-rooted
sentiment prevails, than on this point, throughout the Presby-
terian Church. It is universally regarded as a settled princi-
ple, that scarcely any greater calamity could happen to our
body, than that it should be, in any way, directly or indirect-
ly, connected with the state.

It would be doing gross injustice to Presbyterianism not to
state, before closing this historical sketch, that it has been
found, in all ages, friendly to "the rights of man;" conducive
to the advancement, rather than the destruction of civil and
religious liberty. In making this statement, it is not meant to
be maintained, that no Presbyterian has ever been chargeable
with the spirit or practice of persecution ; but simply to say,
that the general characteristic of the Presbyterian Church, as
a denomination, is, that it has ever shown itself friendly to the
diffusion of knowledge, to the rights of conscience, and to the
enjoyments of rational liberty. It has often, very often, been
a persecuted, hut never a persecuting Church. The few ex-
amples of a contrary aspect v/hich have appeared, were, in al-
most all cases, traceable, either to individual mistake and in-
firmity, or to a momentary impulse of retaliation on bloody
persecutors, when unexpectedly placed in the power of those
who had been recently the victims of the most cruel oppres-
sion. The death of Servetus (even allowing all the agency
in his death on the part of Calvin, which the enemies of that
illustrious man have been fond of ascribing to him, but Avhich
every well informed and impartial person knows cannot be
allowed) had no real connection with Presbyterianism. The
cases of undue severity exercised towards others, by Presby-
terians in Great Britain, in the course of the seventeenth cen-
tury were almost all referable to the maxim, that " oppression
makes even wise men mad;" and seldom rose much above
the point of self-defence.* And as to the fierce and unrelent-

* It is truly wonderful that intelligent and conscientious men, while
they make such a hideous outcry concerning' the affair of Servetus, and
study to place in so odious a light the severities indulged towards some
of the Episcopal clergy, by the Independents, in England, during the
period of the Commonwealth, should entirely forget the instances of
persecution, a hundredfold more frequent and more severe, practised by
Prelacy. Archbishop Cranmer was immediately active in dragging at
least /our persons to the flames, of whom two were women. Let the
flames which consumed the body of the amiable and pious Ann AskeWj
kindled through the misguided zeal of that prelate, confound those who
would represent Calvin as the prince of persecutors. More than this.

24 HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM.

ing oppression recently experienced by evangelical men in
Geneva, it is notoriously the spirit and the work of Unitarian-
ism ; the same spirit which, in the sixteenth century, prompted
the leading Socinians, when Francis David, one of their own
number, who believed with them the mere humanity of Christ,
and therefore thought that divine worship ought not to be paid
him, — to throw him into prison, where he died.

Especially may it be said that, in our own country, during
the one hundred and thirty years in which it has existed in
an organized form, Presb} terianism has uniformly proved her-
self the friend of civil and religious liberty ; and tho\igh often
herself persecuted, has never been, in a single instance, charge-
able with invading the rights of others. Nay, to the present
hour she is, on every side, bitterly reviled and calumniated,
as " narrow,'* " sectarian," " ambitious," " aspiring at a civil
establishment," &;c., when it is notorious, that there is not a sin-
gle denomination m our country so exempt from narrow secta-
rianism ; so free from a proselyting spirit ; so ready to unite with
all evangelical denominations in enterprises of benevolence ;
and which has been so signalized by the most solemn pro-
tests, public and private, against every species of connexion
between the Church and the civil government. When, with
these unquestionable facts before our eyes, we hear the ca-
lumnies before referred to proclaimed on every side, can the
most unbounded charity imagine that they are really believed,
or that the motive which actuates their propagators can be a
regard to truth ?

in the reign of Edward VI., he is also confessed by the historians of his
own church, to have " procured the death" of Joanna Bocher and George
Paris, labouring, and with success, to overcome the scruples of the young
king, in signing the warrant for burning them. Again : during the
reign of James I., about twenty-five persons were hanged, drawn, and
quartered for their religion, in England. (See Brookes History of Re-
ligious Liberty, Vol. II. p. 403.) During the same reign, (A. D. 1612,)
Bartholomew Legate, and Edward Wightman, were burnt to death for
the same cause ; the former under the immediate administration and
authority of Dr. King, Bishop of London, and the latter under the di-
rection of Neile, Bishop uf Litchfield and Coventry, who are acknow-
ledged to have had an immediate agency in bringing them to the stake.
One would think, that in more than half a century after the affair of
Servetns, the prelates of England might have become a little more en-
lightened wnth regard to the rights of conscience. But the miserable
oppressions and cruelty exercised by prelacy, and especially by Arch-
bishop Laud and his coadjutors; and the still more cruel ejections,
imprisonments, and massacres, both in North and South Britain, which
marked the reigns of Charles II. and James II., are enough to sicken
the heart, and ought for ever to impose silence on prelacy, with regard
to pernecution.

DOCTRINE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 25

CHAPTER III.

DOCTRINE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

The Presbyterian Church has been distinguished, in all
ages, for laying great stress on the maintenance of pure doc-
trine. Such was eminently the case in primitive times,
when it was enjoined upon them to " contend earnestly for the
faith once delivered to the saints." And such was no less re-
markably their characteristic when, under the name of Wal-
denses, for five or six hundred years before the Reformation,
they maintained a noble testimony m favour of the truth, in
the midst of the deplorable darkness and corruption of the Pa-
pacy. At the period of the Reformation, the same zeal for
the true doctrines of the Gospel of Christ, led the faithful ser-
vants of God, in different parts of the Church, to form an '
pubhsh their " Confessions of Faith," which remain to th
present day as monuments of their fidelity to their Master's will
The people of whom we speak, evidently regarded the pure
doctrines of the Gospel as lying at the foundation of Christian
character and hope ; and while they attached no small import-
ance to the government and discipline of the Church, they
regarded, as of far more vital importance, those great, funda-
mental principles of our common salvation, which enter es-
sentially into the character and life of Christian experience.

The system of doctrine of which the Presbyterian Church
has solemnly declared her acceptance and belief, is comprised
in the "Westminster Confession of Faith," and the "Larger
and Shorter Catechisms." These we believe contain a sum-
mary of the doctrines taught in the Holy Scriptures ; and, on
this account alone, we profess to receive them, and require a
solemn assent to the " Confession of Faith" on the part of all
who are admitted to the pastoral office, or that of spiritual
ruling in our body. This system of doctrine has received the
distinctive title of Calvinism. Not because Calvin invented it ;
but because, among all the modern advocates of it, he w^as,
undoubtedly, the most profound and able ; and because it has
suited the policy of some to endeavour to convey the idea that
the system in question was unknown until Calvin began to
propagate and defend it.

In the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church,
there are many doctrines in which we entirely agree with oui
brethren of other denominations. In regard to aU that is em-
braced in that formula concerning the being and perfections of

ZQ DOCTRINE OF THE

God ; tlie Trinity of persons in the Godhead ; the divinity,
incarnation, and atoning sacrifice of the Son of God, &c., we
may be said to hold, substantially in common with all sects
who deserve the Christian name. But with respect to the true
state of human nature before God ; the doctrine of sovereign
unconditional election to eternal life ; the doctrine that Christ
died in a special sense for his elect people ; the doctrine of
justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ alone ; of
sanctification by the special and invincible power of the Holy
Spirit, and of the perseverance of the saints in holiness, — we
differ very materially from many who bear the Christian
name. In short, with regard to what are commonly called
the *' five points," discussed and decided in the Synod of
Bort, our Confession is opposed to Arminianism, and coin-
cides with the Calvinistic system maintained by that body.

It may be safely said that no theological system was ever
more gi'ossly misrepresented, or more foully and unjustly vili-
fied than this. It has been by multitudes defamed, as an
abominable system, revolting to every dictate of reason ; dis-
honourable to God ; unfriendly to Christian comfort ; adapted
to beget discouragement and despair on the one hand, or pre-
sumption and licentiousness on the other. The gross misre-
presentations with which it has been assailed ; the disinge-
nuous attempts to fasten upon it consequences which its ad-
vocates disavow and abhor ; and the unsparing calumny which
is continually heaped upon it, and its friends, have scarcely
ever been equalled in any other case in the entire annals of
theological controversy. Those who have been accustomed
to hsten to this blind and unhallowed abuse, are respectfully
requested to weigh with serious impartiality the following
considerations :

1. It is but justice to ascertain what the real system is
which Presbyterians believe. The opponents of this system
are wont to give the most unjust and shocking pictures of it.
Whether this is done from ignorance or dishonesty, it would
be painful, as well as vain, at present, to inquire. They al-
lege, that it represents God as really the author of sin, and
man as laid under a physical necessity of sinning, and then as
damned for it, do what he can. They insist that our doctrine
of depravity, and the mode of inheriting it, if true, destroys
moral agency, reduces our race to the condition of mere ma-
chines, and, of course, makes all punishment of sin unjust and
absurd. In short, they contend that the view which we give
of the plan of salvation, makes it a system of heathenish fate,
or of refined Antinomianism, equally destructive of holiness

PRESBYTERIAN CHITRCH. 27

and of comfort ; and that, under the guise of free grace, we
build up a fabric of favouritism on the one hand, and of fixed
necessity on the other, at once making God a tj'rant, and man
a passive subject of his arbitrary will. But is it true that
Presbyterians embrace any such system as this ? Nothing
can be further from the truth. It is a shameful caricature,
which has no correspondence with any thing but the pervert-
ed pictures of prejudice and bigotry. We abhor such senti-
ments just as much as our uncandid accusers.

The truth is, it would be difficult to find a writer or speaker
who has distinguished himself by opposing Calvinism, who
has fairly represented the system, or who really appeared to
understand it. They are for ever fighting against a caricature.
Some of the most grave and venerable writers in our country,
who have appeared in the Arminian ranks, are, undoubtedly,
in this predicament. Whether this has arisen from the want
of knowledge, or the want of candour, the ejffect is the same,
and the conduct is worthy of severe censure. The writer of
these pages is fully persuaded that Arminian principles, M^hen
traced out to their natural and unavoidable consequences, lead
to an invasion of the essential attributes of God, and, of course,
to blank and cheerless atheism. Yet in making a statement
of the Arminian system, as actually held by its advocates, he
should consider himself as inexcusable, if he departed a hair's
breadth from the delineation made by its friends. The sys-
tem itself is one thing ; the consequences which may be drawn
from it, another.

Without pretending to go over all the points of Calvinism
in detail, let it suffice to say, that the system which Presbyte-
rians profess to receive, is of the following character and
amount : — That the Gospel finds all men by nature dead in
trespasses and sins, destitute alike of the image and favour of
God, and incapable of regaining either, in virtue of any
strength or resources Avithin themselves ; that the plan of man's
recovery from this state of rebellion, depravity, and ruin, is,
from beginning to end, a system of mere unmerited grace ;
that it was the wonderful, unprompted grace, or undeserved
love of God, which, in the eternal counsels of peace, contem-
plating man as fallen, devised a stupendous plan of redemp-
tion from the guilt and power of sin ; that in these eternal
counsels and purposes he regarded the whole human race as
equally fallen, and as equally undeserving on account of their
sins ; that, however, in his sovereign mercy, he resolved to
save a portion of them ; that he was prompted to this choice,
not by any foresight of faith and obedience on th« part of the
3

28 DOCTRINE OF THE

elect, because their faith and obedience are his own sovereign
gift; but by the mere good pleasure of his will, that they
might be to the praise of the glory of his grace ; that God was
under no obligation to provide deliverance for any of our race ;
that he might justly have left us all to perish in our iniquity,
as he did the fallen angels, toward whom he was, surely,
guilty of no injustice ; that he was pleased, however, in the
exercise of amazing mercy, to provide a plan of pardon, and
of restoration to life and blessedness ; that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever belie veth in him might not per-
ish, but obtain everlasting life. We believe further, that not
only the providing of this Saviour, but the disposition, in each
individual, to accept of him, is all of grace, that is, the free,
unmerited gift of God. We have no doubt that all mankind,
left to themselves, would reject this great salvation, and that
it is discriminating and all-conquering grace which inclines
any to receive it. We are persuaded, further, that, as salva-
tion is all of grace, and, as it is evident from Scripture and
from daily observation, that all men are not believers, and, of
course, that all are not saved, so it was not God's original in-
tention to save all ; for it is granted that he does not actually
save all ; and that which he now does, if he be such a God as
the Bible represents him, he always intended to do. We be-
lieve that known unto God are all his works and ways from
the beginning ; and that all the dispensations of his gi-ace, as
well as of his providence, and among the rest, the effectual
calling and salvation of every believer, entered into his plan
from all eternity; "yet so, (as our Confession of Faith de-
clares,) as that thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor
is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty
or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather esta-
blished." In short, the sum of our belief in reference to this
great economy, may be expressed in one sentence — " All that
is evil in man is of himself, and to him belongs the blame of
it ; and all that is good in him is of God, and to him belongs
the praise of it." We are aware that this system of belief
may be perverted, misrepresented, and made perfectly odious,
by drawing consequences from it which we utterly reject and
abhor. For such perversions and unjust inferences, the ad-
vocates of no creed are responsible. Let any one carefully
and dispassionately read over the Confession of Faith of the
Presbyterian Church, and he will soon perceive that the pro-
fessed representations of it which are daily proclaimed from
the pulpit and the press are wretched slanders, for which no
apology can be found but in the ignorance of their authors.

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 29

2. Consider the ample support of this system which is
found in the Word of God. The first question which every
sincere and devout inquirer after truth will ask, is, " what
saith the Scripture ?" Our own reasonings and cavils, when
thrown into the scale against revelation, are nothing. " Let
God be true and every man a liar." Now it is confidently
believed, that when we reverently open the book of God, and
impartially examioie what it teaches concerning the important
points which distinguish our doctrine from other forms of be-
lief, we shall find the divine authority clearly and strongly in
favour of that creed which Presbyterians profess to receive.

Those who doubt this, are requested seriously, and with
prayer, to ponder the following Scriptures :

By one man sin entered into the world. By the offence
of one judgment came upon aU men to condemnation. By
one man's disobedience many were made sinners, Romans v.
18, 19. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of
God, being justified freely by his grace, through the redemp-
tion that is in Christ Jesus. Therefore, we conclude that a
man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Do
we then make void the law through faith ? God forbid ; yea,
we establish the law, Romans iii. 24 — 30. By grace are ye
saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift
of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast. For if it
be of works, it is no more of grace, otherwise, grace is no
more grace, Ephes. ii. 5. Rom. xi. 6. Known unto God are
all his works from the beginning of the world, Acts xv. 18.
As many as were ordained to eternal life believed. Acts xiii.
48. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,
through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience, and sprin-
kling of the blood of Jesus Christ, 1 Peter i. 2. According as
he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world,
that we should be holy and without blame before him in love ;
having predestinated us unto the adoption of children, by Jesus
Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to
the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us
accepted in the beloved, Ephes. i. 4 — 7. Whom he did fore-
know, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image
of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many breth-
ren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called ;
and whom he called, them he also justified ; and whom he jus-
tified, them he also glorified. What shall we say, then, to
these things ? If God be for us, who can be against us ?
Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is
God that justifieth ; who is be that eondemneth ? It is Christ

so DOCTRINE 0? THE

that died, yea, rather that is risen again, who is even at the
right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who
shall separate us from the love of Christ ? Shall tribulation or
distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or
sword ? Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors
through him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither
death nor hfe, 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. Rom. viii. 29 — 39.
Be thou partaker of the afflictions of the Gospel, according to
the power of God; who hath saved us, and called us with an
holy caUing, not according to our works, but according to his
own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus be-
fore the world began, 2 Timothy i. 8, 9. Being confident of
this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you,
will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ, Philippians i. 6.
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, John x.
27, 28. The mountains shall depart, and the hills be re-
moved ; but my kindness shall not depart from thee ; neither
shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord,
that hath mercy on thee, Isa. liv. 10. Who maketh thee to
differ from another ? And what hast thou that thou hast not
received ? Now, if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory
as if thou hadst not received it ? 1 Cor. iv. 7. Holy Father,
keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me,
that they may be one, as we are. I pray not that thou shouldst
take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them
from the evil, John xvii. 11, 15. Father, I will that they also,
whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am, that they
may behold my glory which thou hast given me; for thou lovedst
me before the foundation of the world, John xvii. 24. Even
so, then at this present time, also, there is a remnant according
to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more
of works ; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of
works, then it is no more of grace, otherwise work is no more
work. What then ? Israel hath not obtained that which he
seeketh for ; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were
blinded. Rom. xi. 5 — 7. Thy people shall be Avilling in the
day of thy power, Psalm ex. 3. Then will I sprinkle clean
water upon you and ye shall be clean ; from all your filthiness
and fr0m all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart will I
give you, and a right spirit will I put within you ; and I will

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 31

take away the hard and stony heart out of your flesh, and will
give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within
you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shaU keep
my judgments and do them. Ezekiel xxxvi. 26-— -28.

The reader of these pages is eamesfly requested to ponder
seriously the foregoing Scriptures ; to examine them in their
connection ; to interpret them with the same candour and sim-
plicity with which he is wont to interpret other writings, and
then to say whether they do not manifestly support those pe-
culiar doctrines for which Presbyterians are so much re-
proached and vilified? The question is, not whether the inge-
nuity of biblical criticism may not torture these passages into
a different meaning ; but whether the plain, natural, and ob-
vious meaning be not that which will sustain the system in
support of which we are wont to quote them ? If it will, the
controversy is at an end ; for whatever is plainly contained
in Scripture, we are bound to receive.

3. It is worthy of notice that the system of doctrine main-
tained by the Presbyterian Church, is the same in substance
with that which was nudntained by the Witnesses for the
truth, andby the great body of the Reformers, andichichhas
generally been styled, " the doctrines of the Reformation.''''

There is probably no class of professing Christians more
remote than Presbyterians, from a disposition to appeal to
human authority as a test of truth. Our ecclesiastical formu-
laries, as well as our history, proclaim that we consider the
Scriptures as the infallible rule of faith and practice ; and
that we are distinguished from Prelatists and others, by con-
tending for this principle, in reference to every department of
the Christian system. Yet it is, undoubtedly, an interesting
fact, well worthy of being noticed, and adapted to confirm
our confidence in the system which we have embraced, that
all the great and good men who took the lead in bearing tes-
timony against en*or, and in reforming the Church from the
corruptions of the Papacy, however diverse in their views on
other points, — agreed, with scarcely an exception, in adopt-
ing and maintaining that system of doctrine which is popu-
larly denominated Calvinism, and which many of its bigoted
opponents are so ignorant as to imagine that Calvin invented.
The Waldenses, those far-famed witnesses of the truth,
whom all Protestants profess to venerate, but whom few,
alas ! appear to understand and follow; not only adopted in sub-
stance, the whole Presbyterian government and disciphne, as
we have seen in a former page ; but also, aU the leading
features of our system of doctrine. The following extract

32 DOCTRINE OF THE

from one of their confessions is conclusive. The eleventh
article is in these words : •' God saves from that corruption
and condemnation, into which all have fallen, those whom
he has chosen from the foundation of the world, not for any
disposition^ faith, or holiness which he foresaw in them,
but of his mere mercy in Jesus Christ his Son; passing by
all the rest, according to the irreprehensible reason of his
free will and justice^ And in one of their ancient Cate-
chisms, they tell us, that the real Church of Christ consists
of the elect of God, from the beginning to the end of the
world, by the grace of God, through the merit of Christ,
gathered together by the Holy Spirit, and foreordained to
eternal life''' (See Gilly's " Narrative of Researches
among the Waldenses," Appendix. See, also, Sir Samuel
Morland, p. 40, 48, &c. Milner, in. p. 440, 441.) The
same general system was undoubtedly adopted by John
Wickliffe, the " morning star of the Reformation;" by John
Huss and Jerome of Prague, his companion in faith, and in
martyrdom. " The distinguishing tenet of Wickliffe in re-
ligion," says Milner, "was, undoubtedly, the election of
grace." And the same writer gives an account of Huss and
Jerome, which precludes all doubt that, in their general sys-
tem, they followed Wickliffe, who was a disciple of Augus-
tine.

When we come down to the time of the Reformation, the
same general fact continues to be unquestionable. It is noto-
rious that Luther, long before Calvm was known as a Re-
former, or even as a theological writer, publicly maintamed
the doctrines of the divine decrees, and human impotence, as
thoroughly as Calvin ever did. The proof of this is so com-
plete, that no one well informed in the history of those times
Avill dare to deny it. Melancthon, the friend, coadjutor, and
survivor of Luther, also held in substance the ver}'' same sys-
tem. Those who read the statements, and the extracts from
his writings, which appear in the pages of the Rev. Mr.
Scott, the Episcopal continuator of Milner's Ecclesiastical
History, can no longer doubt of this. Melancthon assured
Calvin that he concurred with him in his creed; and Calvin,
in his Preface to Melancthon's book of " Common Places,"
recommends the work as one, in the doctrines of which he
concurred. Zuingle, the apostolic reformer of Svi^itzerland,
it is well known, adopted the same system. After all that
has been alleged to the contrary, nothing is more certain than
that he maintained the doctrines of the depravity and moral
impotence of hiunan nature, the sovereign election of grace,

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 3

and the perseverance of the saints in hoUness, as decisively,
and zealously as any of his contemporaries. Yet Zuingle
died before Calvin was ever heard of as a friend to the Re-
formation ; and before he had published a sentence in refer-
ence to it. Of course, the Swiss reformer was indebted for
no part of his creed, to the ministry or the writings of the il-
lustrious pastor of Geneva. The same may be said of Bucer,
of Peter Martyr, of Bullinger, of Bugenhagius, of Junius,
and, in general, of all the leaders of the Reformation on the
continent of Europe.

When we pass over to Great Britain precisely the same
fact appears. Hamilton, Wishart, Archbishop Cranmer,
Bishops Ridley, Hooper, and Xatimer, Archbishops Grindal
and Whitgift, John Knox, and, in short, all the Reformers of
any name, both in North and South Britain, were doctrinal
Calvinists. This fact, indeed, has been denied ; but not by
any candid, well informed man. The proof of it is com-
plete. Let any one read the Thirty-nine Articles of the
Church of England, especially the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and
seventeenth, — let him particularly, ponder well the last men-
tioned article, which treats directly of the doctrine of Pre-
destination, and ask, whether it is possible fairly to give it
any other than a Calvinistic interpretation. I am not, in-
deed, ignorant that prejudice and bigotry have sometimes
contended that this seventeenth article is decidedly Anti-cal-
vinistic in its import; and as proof of this, the qualifying
clause toward the end of it is cited as sufficient evidence.
Now, it so happens that that qualifying clause is nearly
copied from Calvins's Institutes ; and the latter part of it is a
literal translation of that Reformer's caution against the abuse
of this doctrine ! Again : let him who entertains a doubt on
this subject, read the celebrated Catechism of Dr. Nowell,
which was reviewed, corrected, formally approved, and or-
dered to be published, as containing a summary of true doc-
trine, by the same Convocation which formed and adopted
the Thirty-nine Articles", and which is acknowledged by the
bitterest enemies of Calvin to be decisively Calvinistic. Let
him read the Lambeth A.rticles, drawn up and signed by Arch-
bishop Whitgift, and also subscribed by the Archbishop of
York, and at least three other leading prelates, and by them
transmitted to the University of Cambridge, as containing
doctrines " corresponding with those professed in the Church
of England." Let him recollect, that for more than half a
century after the Reformation was established in England,
Calvin's Body of Divinity, commonly styled his "Institutes

34 DOCTRINE OF THE

of the Christian Religion," was publicly received and studied
as a standard of orthodoxy in both the Universities ; and that
by a Convocation held at Oxford, the work was recommended
to the general study of the nation.

Now, is it not remarkable that all the great and good men
who took the lead in the Reformation, men of different lan-
guages, habits, and prejudices ; m&ny of them absolute stran-
gers to each other, not merely m Geneva, but in Great Britain,
in France, in Germany, in Holland, in Switzerland — nay,
wherever the darkness of the Papacy was dissipated, and her
corruptions abandoned — all — all, with scarcely an exception,
should become advocates in substance, of that system, which
we denominate Calvinism ; that appealing to the Bible, as the
common repository and standard of Gospel truth, they should
with almost entire unanimity, without concert, and however
divided as to other points, be so harmoniously united in the
great doctrines of sovereign grace, that they have ever since
been styled emphatically, ' the doctrines of the Reformation?''
How shall v/e account for it, that brethren who claim to be
well informed, should represent this system as originating
with Calvin, and peculiar to him and his followers, when, to
say nothing of its Scriptural authority, every one knows it
was, in substance, espoused by Augustine, a thousand years
before Calvin was born ; by all the witnesses of the truth,
during the " dark ages," and by all those venerable men,
whose piety, wisdom, and devotedness, have been the theme
of gratitude and praise, for three hundred years ? Above all,
how shall we account for it, that brethren, who find no lan-
guage too strong by which to express their profound veneration
for the spirit, the opinions, and the services of Cranmer, Parker,
Whitgift, and other distinguished prelates, who, under God,
conducted and completed the Reformation in England ; while
they are never tired of vilifying the character, and denouncing
the creed of the venerable Calvin, whose name those very
Wded men never mentioned but with epithets of the highest
honour ; whose writings they made their text books for stu-
dents of theology, and whose person and ministry they re-
garded as among the most glorious lights of Christendom ?

4. As the system of doctrine taught in our Confession is
most in accordance with Scripture, and was common to all
the Reformers, so it has, to say the least, quite as few diffi-
culties attending it as any other system.

It is not pretended that the Calvinistic system is free from
all difficulties. When finite creatures are called to scan either
the works, or the revealed will of an Infinite Being, they

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 35

must be truly demented, if they expect to find nothing which
they cannot comprehend. Accordingly, when we undertake to
solve some of the difficulties which that system of Christian
doctiine, usually styled Calvinism, presents, it cannot be denied
that " such knowledge is too wonderful for us ; it is high, we
cannot attain unto it." How to reconcile what the Scriptures
plainly reveal, on the one hand, concerning the entire depen-
dence of man, and on the other, concerning his activity and
responsibility; how to explain the perfect foreknowledge and
predestination of God, in consistency with the perfect free-
dom and moral agency of his intelligent creatures, is a prob-
lem, which no thinking man expects fully to solve. But the
question is, are there fewer difficulties attending any other
system ? Especially, are there fewer difficulties attending the
Arminian or Pelagian systems, which are commonly the resort
of those who reject Calvinism ? There are not : nay, instead
of being less, they are greater, far greater, both in number and
-magnitude. The writer of these pages rests in the Calvinistic
system with a confidence daily increasing, not only because the
more- he examines it, the more clearly it appears to him to be
taught in the Holy Scriptures ; but also, because the more
frequently and impartially he compares the amount of the dif-
ficulties on both sides, the more heavily by far they seem to
him to press against the Arminian and Pelagian schemes.

It is easy, and in the estimation of the superficial and un-
reflecting, it is conclusive, to object, that Calvinism has a
tendency to cut the nerves of all spiritual exertion ; that if we
are elected, we shall be saved, do what we ivill ; and if not
elected, we shall be lost, do what w^e can. But is it not per-
fectly evident that this objection lies with quite as much force
against the Arminian or Pelagian hypothesis ? Arminians and
Pelagians grant that all men will not be actually saved ; that the
salvation or perdition of each individual is distinctly foreknown
by God ; and that the event will certainly happen as he foresees
that it will. May not a caviller then say, with quite as much
appearance of justice in this case, as in the other ; " the re-
sult as to my salvation is known and certain. If I am to be
saved, no anxiety about it is necessary; and if I am to perish,
all anxiety about it would be useless ?" But would Arminians
consider this objection as valid against their creed? Probably
not. Yet it is just as valid against theirs as against ours.
The truth is, Arminians and Pelagians, by resorting to their
respective schemes, do not really get rid of one particle of the
difficulty which they allege against the Calvinistic system ;
they only place it one step further hack, but must meet it in

36 DOCTRINE OF THE

unimpaired strength after all. If there be a God, who is en-
dowed with perfect foreknowledge, and who is, and always
has been, acting upon a plan, of which he knew the end from
the beginning; — and there is such a being, or there is no
God, — then all the difficulty which Hes against the doctrine
of sovereign, unconditional predetermination, lies equally and
. n all its unmitigated force, against the doctrine of foreknow-
.^edge, and certain futurition; and all the shocking conse-
quences with which they charge our system of belief, are
quite as legitimately chargeable on their own.

No other proof of this is needed than the subterfuges to
which Arminians and Pelagians have resorted in order to
avoid the difficulties which they have felt pressing on their
schemes. Some have denied the possibility of God's fore-
knowing future contingencies, alleging that such foreknow-
ledge cannot be conceived or admitted, any more than his
power of doing impossibilities, or doing what involves a con-
tradiction. Others have denied the plenary foreknowledge ot
God, alleging that there are many things v/hich he does not
choose to know; the latter making the divine ignorance of
many future things voluntary, while the former consider it as
necessary. Pelagians, to get rid of the same difficulties, take
refuge in the principle that the Most High is deficient in
power as well as in knowledge ; that he would be glad to
have less natural and moral evil in his kingdom than exists ;
v/ould be glad to have many more saved than will be ; but is
not able to fulfil his wishes, and is constantly restrained and
thwarted by his own inability.

Those who wish to see a specimen of the difficulties to
which good men feel themselves reduced in the course ot
their opposition to Calvinism, may see a remarkable one in
the Rev. Dr. Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Epistle to
the Romans. There they will find an amiable and pious man
driven to the necessity of borrowing from the Socinian camp,
a denied of the essential omniscience of God, because he saw
that this attribute, if admitted, would unavoidably land him
in the peculiarities of Calvinistic theology ! A more painful
example of prejudice, and of subserviency to the dictates of a
favourite system, can scarcely be produced in the annals of
Christian piety !

Are not these consequences even more shocking than the
worst which its adversaries charge on the Calvinistic system ?
Do not the allegations, that God is not omnipotent ; that he is
not omniscient ; that he is not acting upon an eternal plan ;
that his purposes, instead of being eternal, are all formed in

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 37

time ; and instead of being immutable, are all liable every day
to be altered, and are, in fact, altered, by the changing will of
his creatures ; that there is no certainty of his predictions and
promises ever being fulfilled, because he can neither foresee
nor control future contingencies ; that it is his express design
to save all men alike, while yet it is certain that all will not
be saved ; that he purposes as much, and does as much for
those who perish, as for those who are saved ; but is, after all,
baffled and disappointed in his hopes concerning them ; that
he is certain of nothing, because he has determined on nothing,
and is not able to do all his pleasure ; — I say, do not these
allegations shock every serious mind ? Are they not equally
contrary to Scripture, to reason, and to all the hopes of the
pious ? Yet they have all been either actually avowed by the
apponents of Calvinism, or they follow unavoidably from the
principles which they assume. The truth is, the moment we
abandon the ground that Jehovah is acting upon an infinitely
wise and eternal plan ; that he is ordering all things according
to the counsel of his own will ; and that his people are not
their own saviours, but indebted to his sovereign grace for
every real good which they possess or hope for ; the moment
we abandon this ground, we abandon all that is solid and
tenable, and if we would follow up unavoidable consequences,
must plunge into the gulf of Atheism.

The same train of remark may be applied to the difficulties
which attend the doctrine of original sin. The humiliating
fact, that all men are by nature sinners ; that their nature is
corrupt; that is, that there is such a tendency to sin in all the
children of men, that no mere man of all the human family
ever failed of falling into it ; — is not only taught in Scripture,
but is notorious to universal observation. Now the question
is, how shall we account for this fact? Presbyterians, speak-
ing the language of Calvinism, of their Confession of Faith,
and, above all, as they think, of the Bible, say that Adam was
constituted the covenant head of his posterity, that they were
to stand or fall with him ; that when he fell, all his posterity in
that first transgression, sinned in him, and fell with him ; in
other words, that the guilt of this sin, in virtue of a sovereign
and righteous constitution, was imputed to his posterity' — that
is, it was set to their account ; they incurred the same forfeit
as if they had themselves committed it. And hence, as Adam,
by that transgression, became mortal, lost the moral image ol
God, and incurred the penalty of a corrupt nature — so all his
posterity, in consequence of their covenant relation to him,
came into the world mort?1 deoraved, and guilty, and liable

38 DOCTRINE OF THE

to the same penalty, in all its extent, which fell upon him.
This, Presbyterians profess to believe, is the meaning of those
Scriptures which declare, "in Adam all die," 1 Cor. xv. 22.
" By one man's disobedience many were made sinners."
" By the offence of one judgment came upon all men to con-
demnation," Romans v. 18, 19. They do not suppose, in-
deed, that there is here any transfer of moral character, or any
transfusion of Adam's act into his posterity; but that, in con-
sequence of the covenant relation in which he and they stood,
th€y are treated as if they had themselves committed the sin
by which our race fell. This, and this only, is the imputation
of the sin of our first parents for which Presbyterians contend.

Pelagians, revolting at this view of the subject, hope to re-
move all difficulty by saying that man's nature is not corrupt;
that all men come into the world in the sa,me state of entire
innocence that Adam was when first created ; and that to sup-
pose men to be born with a corrupt nature, would be dishon-
ourable to God, and inconsistent with moral agency. They
acknowledge, however, that all men are in fact, sinners ; and
that all begin to sin as soon as they become capable of moral
action. But is any difficulty which is supposed to attend the
Calvinistic doctrine really removed, or even diminished, by
this hypothesis ? Is it more honourable to God, or less re-
volting to our sense of justice, to represent the whole human
family, without the adoption of any covenant arrangement, or
representative principle, as brought into being, and placed by
their Creator in circumstances in which not one of their num-
ber ever fails of falling into sin 1

Arminians, or semi-Pelagians, also rejecting the Calvinistic
doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, but
at the same time, perceiving that the Pelagian hypothesis is
utterly unscriptural, take another method of removing the dif-
ficulty. They tell us that Adam was not constituted the co-
venant head of his posterity, and that the guilt of his first sin
was not imputed to them ; but yet that, in virtue of their con-
nection with him, and descent from him, they come into the
world mortal, and infected with a sinful nature ; but that it is
on account of their own sin, and not that of Adam, that they
are guilty, and exposed to any penalty. Is it not plain, how-
ever, that this hypothesis, instead of removing the difficulty
vhich its advocates suppose to lie against the Calvinistic doc-
o-ine of original sin, rather increases it ? On what principle is
<t, according to them, that mortality, and a depraved nature
descend from Adam to his posterity ? Not, it seems, in virtue
of any covenant relation between them ; not on the principle

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. W

«f representative headship ; but of an arbitrary constitution,
ordering it so by a mere act of authority. And while they re-
ject the doctrine of imputation, they are constrained to confess
that in consequence, somehow, of Adam's sin, all his posterity
coine into the world with a depraved nature, which, if not re-
moved, must lead to everlasting destruction. And is this no
evil, no penalty ? But if being born in this condition be a
penalty, and a heavy penalty too, why was this penalty in-
flicted upon them ? It cannot be said that it was on account
of their depravity ; for this would be to make their depravity
the procuring cause of itself. No imputation of our first
father's sin! and yet acknowledge that in consequence of that
sin, isome of the most awful inflictions are sent upon us that
can aflect moral and immortal beings ! No imputation !
Whence, then, the fact, that all the posterity of Adam are
born depraved, and liable to death ? How came this calamity
upon them? Surely, while the term is rejected, we have
here the essence of aU the imputation for which we contend!
Alas ! we never fail to augment difficulties, and introduce
additional perj^lexity, Avhenever we deviate from the simple
statements of God's word !

5. The very same objections were made in .Apostolic times
to the doctrines of grace, as taught by the inspired Paul. In
the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, the doctrine of
sovereign, distinguishing grace, is discussed professedly and
at length. The Apostle boldly announces the language ot
God to be, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,
but of God that showeth mercy." He then asks, " Is there
unrighteousness with God ? God forbid." Still the Apostle
is aware that a blind caviller may continue to object. He
therefore adds — " Thou wilt say, then, unto me, why doth
he yet find fault ? for who hath resisted his will ?" The very
language and scope of this objection show that the Apostle
meant that his doctrine should be understood in a Calvinistic
sense, for upon any other ground, the objection would be
irrelevant. How does he reply to it ? Does he retract or
disavow that view of the subject on which the cavil is evidently
founded ? Not at all. He attempts no mitigation or softening
His 1-eply is — " Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest
against God ? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed
it, why hast thou made me thus ? Hath not the potter power
over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto
honour, and another unio dishonour i' What if God, willing
4

40 DOCTRINE OF THE

to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured
with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to de-
struction : and that he might make known the riches of his
glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared
unto glory ?" Here the Apostle has anticipated the whole
force of the Arminian objection. It cannot be pushed further
than he has carried it in a single sentence. No addition has
ever been made to its force by the most ingenious gainsayer.
Yet the Apostle answers it, not by an attempt to explain, to
bring down 'to human comprehension, or to show that his
statements had been misconstrued. Nothing like it. He
resolves the whole into the supremacy, the sovereignty and the
incomprehensibleness of God and his counsels, and calls upon
all to yield to this great and all governing principle ; closing
as he does in another place, when on the same subject, with
that memorable exclamation — " O the depth of the riches both
of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! how unsearchable are
his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"

6. It is a strong' argument in favour of that creed which
the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church exhibits,
that every serious, devout professor of religion, however de-
cided as an Arminian or Semi-Pelagian he may be, in preach-
ing, or in conversation, never fails to be a Calvinist in prayer.
So far as my observation has gone, the most zealous advocates
of Arminianism almost always lay aside their favourite opin-
ions, when they pour out their hearts in prayer, under a feel-
ing sense of their dependence and their un worthiness. How
many examples have we of this in thousands of pulpits, and
in thousands of published volumes, in which the preaching is
decidedly semi-Pelagian, while the prayers are quite as deci-
dedly Calvinistic ! The reason of this inconsistency is per-
fectly evident. In preaching and conversation, errorists argue
to maintain a point ; in prayer, they supplicate grace. In the
former, they are actuated by the spirit of controvertists ; in
the latter, they feel their entire dependence as creatures, and
their lost and perishing conditions as sinners. *' A prayer,"
says one, " upon Arminian principles, and into which the pe-
culiarities of that system were introduced, we have never seen,
and never have heard. It would be a theological curiosity suffi-
ciently daring in its structure ; but we venture to say, no man
of Christian humility and devotion will be found to carry it
into the presence of his God." There, — there the sinner ever
acknowledges his weakness and depravity; disclaims all
merit ; confesses his multiplied sins ; adores the sovereign un-
merited mercy of God ; ascribes to his grace every good de-

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 4a

fihe and hope ; glorifies his universal government over aU his
creatures and all their actions; and ascribes the plan, the
execution, and the consummation of that deliverance for which
he hopes, to the sovereign undeserved grace of God abound-
ing through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Now
here is the very essence of Calvinism. Not, indeed, of those
monstrous absurdities and impieties in which its adversaries
are ever fond of dressing it up ; but of that sober and scriptural
system which is found in our formularies, and for which all
whom we acknowledge as Calvinists, have ever contended.

7. Finally, it is worthy of serious inquiry, whether the
moral influence of the Calvinistic system has not been found
in all ages, more pure and happy, than that of any other.
For this appeal no apology is necessary. That system
which is ever found connected with larger measures of the
spirit of prayer, and of humble, habitual, deep devotion; that
system which is ever productive of more holy living, and more
active Christian benevolence than any other, we may confi-
dently say, without presumption, is most agreeable to Scrip-
ture, and, of course, most worthy of being embraced. This
allegation, it is presumed, will not be denied. For, although
the opponents of this system, at one time, charge it with hav-
ing a tendency to promote licentiousness ; yet much more
frequently and unanimously they charge it with being austere,
over strict in its abstinence from worldly pleasures, and stand-
ing unnecessarily aloof from the various forms of public
amusement. Is it not notorious that the followers of Augus-
tine, of the Paulicians, of Claudius of Turin, of the Wal-
denses, and of Wickliffe, Huss, and Jerome, in the dark ages,
were far more pure in their morals, devout in their habits, and
separated from a corrupt and idolatrous world, than any ot
their contemporaries ? Will it not be granted by every intel-
ligent reader that, during the first half century after the Refor-
mation was established in England, when no one doubts that
nineteen twentieths of the Protestant clergy in that kingdom,
were avowed Calvinists, the state both of piety and of morals
was unspeakably better, than during the latter half of the
seventeenth century, when Arminianism had, among the
majority, taken its place ? What was the character of the
two thousand " ejected ministers," in the reign of Charles II.
who were almost to a man Calvinists ? Were they not, char-
acteristically, as a body, the most pious, pure, dihgent, and
exemplary servants of Christ, that England ever saw ? Is it
not universally admitted, that the state of piety and of morals

42 DOCTRINE OF THE

has ever been far more pure in Scotland, than m England, and
pre-eminently, in those districts and congregations in Scotland,
in which Calvinism has maintained a steady reign ? And can
any part of the world be named, in which, for nearly a hun-
dred years after its settlement, purer morals reigned than in
New England, in which, as every one knows, during the
greater part of that period, a Calvinistic creed almost univer-
sally prevailed ?

The following remarks by a distinguished divine of the
Church of England, who professes not to be a Calvinist, are
as just as they are striking.

" Does not this opinion (of the immoral tendency of Cal-
vinism,) in a great measure originate from a mistaken concep-
tion of what Calvinism is ? Those who would impute all
these practical evils to the operation of Calvinism, appear to
suppose that the belief of the Calvinist, by which he admits
the doctrine of personal election, necessarily includes also an
assumption of his own election. The Calvinist, properly so
called^ is no enthusiast. He believes, indeed, in the eternal
purposes of God, as to the salvation of the elect ; but as to
the hopes of his own salvation, and of his individual interest
in those purposes, he professes to obtain it by the evidences
which he possesses of his being himself in a renewed and
justified state. He knows from the word of God that the
saints are ' chosen to salvation through sanctification of the
Spirit,' no less than ' the belief of the truth,' that they are
' predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ,' and
' created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath
before ordained that they should walk in them.' And hence
he feels that it is only so long as he experiences the sanctify-
ing influences of the Spirit in his own heart, so long as he
himself in some degree reflects the image of Christ, and walks
imperfectly indeed, but yet sincerely, in good works, that he
can have any scriptural grounds for concluding that he is one
of God's elect, and will have his portion with the saints.
This is true Calvinism. And where is the tendency of this
doctrine to make its followers slothful or confident, negli-
gent of the means of grace, or inattentive to moral and rela-
tive duties ? While the practical evils which Calvinism is
charged with producing, are so prominently and studiously
exhibited to view by many of its opponents ; let us not omit,
on the other hand, to do justice to this calumniated system,
nor forget the abundant good Avhich it is not only capable of
accomplishing, but which it actually does accomplish. I
have no doubt, but that some of the subhmesi feelings of

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 43

pure and spiritual delight which are ever experienced on
earth, are those of which the Calvinist partakes, when in his
secret retirement with his God, " the Spirit bearing witness
with his spirit," and shining on his own gracious operation
on the heart, he meditates on the wonderful and unspeakable
privileges to which, through Christ, he sees himself entitled ;
and resolving all the blessings which have been already re-
ceived, or are prepared for him hereafter, into the eternal pur-
pose, and electing love of God, his Father, and absorbed in a
holy contemplation of the divine counsels and perfections, he
lies prostrate before the throne of grace, in deep humiliation,
and with overwhelming joy. I do not say that others have
not their peculiar feelings of spiritual delight ; but these are
his. And does he rise from such communion wdth his God,
without enlarged desires and resolutions of more seriously
devoting himself to the divine favour, of more decidedly
overcoming the flesh and the world, and of more faithfully
doing the will, and advancing the glory of his Lord and
Saviour? Facts and experience reply to this inquiry.
Among no denomination or description of professing Chris-
tians, is there to be found a larger portion of humble, pious,
and devoted servants of God, persons of a truly Christian
spirit, zealous of good works, and exemplary in every duty
and relation of life, than among those who hold the Cal-
vinistic tenets. I am sure that your observation and your
candour will fully justify this statement. And, therefore, so
far as this system is to be judged of by its actual eflects, I
think that, on a candid reconsideration of the subject, you
will be induced to abandon your objection, and to admit that
it was founded on an erroneous and partial view of the sub-
ject."*

In the same general strain. Bishop Burnet, who was
avowedly, a moderate Arminian, expresses the following
opinion as to the practical advantages of Calvinism. " A
Calvinist is taught by his opinions to think meanly of him-
self, and to ascribe the honour of aU to God ; which lays in
him a deep foundation for humility : he is also much inclined
to secret prayer, and to a fixed dependence on God."

A very able and learned foreign lawyer, the author of the
article Predestination, in the Encyclopaedia Britanica, though
he is evidently no friend to Calvinism, makes the following
declaration: " there is one remark which we feel ourselves

* " Letters addressed to a Serious and Humble Inquirer, &c," by
the Rev. Edward Cooper. Rector of Hamstall Ridware.
4*

44 GOVERNMENT OF THE

bound in justice to make, although it appears to us somewhat
shigular. It is this : that, from the earUest ages down to our
own days, if we consider the character of the ancient Stoics,
the Jewish Essenes, the modern Calvinists and Jansenists,
when compared with that of their antagonists, the Epicureans,
the Sadducees, the Arminians, and the Jesuists, we shall find
that they have excelled in no small degree, in the practice of
the most rigid and respectable virtues ; and have been the
highest honour of their own ages, and the best models for
imitation to every age succeeding. At the same time, it must
be confessed, that their virtues have in general been rendered
unaraiable by a tinge of gloomy and severe austerity."

After all, however, that can be said in favour of that doc-
trinal system which it is our happiness and honour, as a
Church, to receive ; however demonstrative its scriptural sup-
port, and however manifest its deduction from the character
of an infinitely great, wise, and good Governor of the uni-
verse ; it will never cease, while human nature remains as
it is, to be hated, reviled, caricatured, ridiculed, and rejected
by a large majority of the professedly religious world. It is
too humbling to human pride ; it calls for too much self-
denial, self-renunciation, and submission of the mind and the
heart to heavenly teaching ; demands too much spirituality
and withdrawment from worldly pleasures and amusements,
not to be opposed by the mass of mankind, and even by
the mass of professing Christians, who have little taste for
the Spirit of the Gospel. These very doctrines were thus
treated in the days of the inspired Apostles, who first taught
them in their fulness ; and, even in our own communion,
those of our members who are most tinctured with the
worldly spirit, are ever found most apt to quarrel with the
peculiarities of our creed. The most deeply humble, en-
lightened and spiritual Christians are, in all ages and churches,
ever found to be those to whom the doctrines of free and
sovereign grace, for substance, as collected in our Standards
from the Scriptures of truth, are most precious, and in whose
view they are most glorious.

CHAPTER IV.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

The Church, being a social body, called out of the world,

and constituted by the authority of Jesus Christ, indispen-

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 45

sably needs a form of government. No Society can exist in
j)m*ity and peace without order. And no order can be main-
tained without authority, laws, and a set of officers to apply
the laws, and administer the form of order which may have
been adopted. Our Master in heaven has commanded " his
body, the Church," to preserve within her borders purity of
doctrine, and holiness of conversation ; and for this purpose
to " warn the unruly;" to admonish the careless ; reclaim the
wandering ; and to cut off those who are obstinately corrupt,
either in faith or practice. All this she was commanded to
do, and actually did perform, while all the civil governments
of the world were leagued against her, and the fires of mar-
tyrdom were kindled on every side. Christ's kingdom is not
of this world. It has nothing to do with earthly governments,
and ought to be maintained in entire disconnexion and inde-
pendence of them all.

Now, it is obviously impossible for the Church to fulfil
these obligations, without such an ecclesiastical constitution,
such a system of laws, and such a body of officers, as will
enable her to apply to her members that authority v/hich her
Master has vested in her, " for edification and not for destruc-
tion." Hence, the necessity of organizing the Church under
some distinct and definite form. It is not asserted, or believed
by us, that any one form of government is essential to the ex-
istence of the Church ; but, simply, that if purity and peace
be maintained, there must be some form adopted ; and that that
form which is derived from the word of God is, undoubtedly,
the best, and binding on all.

The Presbyterian Church claims to derive her form of
government from the Holy Scriptures. She is persuaded
that the New Testament most distinctly presents, as existing
in the Apostolic Church, all the three features which consti-
tute the peculiarities of her ecclesiastical polity, viz : the
parity of her ministers ; the government of the Church by
Ruling Elders ; and the attaimnent of unity and cooperation
by courts of review and control. She aims to avoid the un-
authorised pretensions of Prelacy on the one hand, and the
lax, inadequate scheme of Independency on the other ; and
to adopt that system of ministerial equality, and efficient re-
presentation in the government of the Church, which at once
guards, as far as possible, against the encroachments of clerical
ambition ; secures the rights of the people, and provides for
the exercise of pure and wholesome discipline in the most
edifying manner.

I. In the first place, we reject the claim of Prelacy.

46 GOVERNMENT OF THE

Our Episcopal brethren contend that in the Christian Church
there are three orders of clergy, — Bishops, Presbyters, and
Deacons ; that the first only have power to ordain, and the
last to preach, and administer the sacrament of baptism alone.
We maintain, that all ministers of the Gospel who are em-
powered to administer the word and sacraments, are officially
equal, and authorized to perform the highest acts of ecclesias-
tical power. We believe, in a word, that there is but one
order of Gospel ministers authorized in the New Testament ;
that the title of Bishop was constantly applied in the apostolic
age, and for a considerable time afterwards, to the ordinary
pastors of particular churches ; and that setting up a superior
under this title, as exclusively possessed of the power of
ordaining, is a departure from the primitive model ; a usurpa-
tion for which there is not the smallest warrant in the word
of God.

Our Episcopal brethren, indeed, freely acknowledge, that
the title of " Bishop" is never employed in the New Testa-
ment, in a single instance, to designate that class of officers
to which they now exclusively apply it. They, with one
voice, grant, that all that we read in the apostolical writings
concerning Bishops, is to be regarded as pertaining to Pres-
byters, or the ordinary pastors of churches ; in other words,
to what they call the " second grade" of ministers. They
allege, however, that the Apostles occupied a place of eccle-
siastical pre-eminence in the primitive Church ; that they
alone, while they lived, were endowed with the power of or-
dination; that, as they deceased, their pre-eminence was
transmitted to certain successors ; that to these successors of
the Apostles, the title of Bishop, which had before, while the
Apostles lived, been given to Presbyters, began to be appro-
priated ; and that ever since the apostolic age, this title has
been confined to Prelates ;* to those who succeeded to the
apostolic pre-eminence, and who, like the Apostles, exclusive-
ly possess the power of ordination.

But, to no part of this claim does the New Testament af-
ford the least countenance. It is manifest, that ordination was
not confined to the Apostles, officially, and technically so
called ; for nothing can be plainer, than that Barnabas, Timo-
thy, and Titus, who were not Apostles in the appropriated
sense, were invested with the ordaining power, and actually
and abundantly exercised it. It is equally manifest, that
when the Apostles ceased from the Church, they left no suc-

* See Bishop Onderdonk's " Episcopacy tested by Scripture." p. 12.

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 47

cessors, in that peculiar and pre-eminent office, which they
filled during their lives. " The apostolical office," says Dr.
Barrow, an eminent Episcopal divine, — " The apostolical of-
fice, as such, was personal and temporary; and, therefore,
according to its nature and design, not successive, nor commu-
nicable to others, in perpetual descendence from them. It
was, as such, in all respects extraordinary, conferred in a
special manner, designed for special purposes, discharged by
special aids, endowed with special privileges, as was needful
for the propagation of Christianity, and founding of churches.
To that office, it was requisite that the person should have
an immediate designation and commission from God ; thai
he should be endowed with miraculous gifts and graces ;
that he should be able, according to his discretion, to impart
spiritual gifts ; and that he should govern in an absolute
manner, as being guided by infallible assistance, to which he
might appeal. Now such an office, consisting of so many
extraordinary privileges, and miraculous powers, which were
requisite for the foundation of the Church, was not designed
to continue by derivation, for it contained in it divers things,
which apparently were not communicated, and which no
man, without gross imposture and hypocrisy, could challenge
to himself.*

Such is the judgment of this learned and able Prelatist,
concerning the foundation of the whole argument before us.
There is not the semblance of support, then, to be found in
Scripture for the alleged transmission of the pre-eminent and
peculiar powers of the Apostles to a set of ecclesiastical suc-
cessors. As men endowed with the gifts of miracles and
inspiration, who were, prior to the completion of the New
Testament canon, constituted the infallible guides of the
Church : they had no successors ; nor can the remotest hint
be found in Scripture, that they had, or were ever intended
to have, any such successors. But as ministers of Christ,
empowered to go forth preaching the Gospel and administer-
ing Christian sacraments, they had successors, and these suc-
cessors were, manifestly, all those who were empowered to
preach the Gospel, and administer the sacramental seals of
discipleship : for, in the final commission which the Saviour
gave to the Apostles, and which must be considered as em-
bracing their final and highest functions, they are sent forth
to disciple all nations, and to baptize them " in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;" and i^

* Pope's Supremacy, p. 79 .

48 GOVERNMENT OF THE

was in immediate connexion with the command to discharge
these ordinary duties, that the promise which is considered
as pointing to the ministerial succession, was given : — " Lo,
I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." If
the friends of Prelacy could produce even the semblance of
testimony from Scripture, that the ordaining power is some-
thing more sacred and elevated than that of dispensing the
Gospel, and administering sacraments ; if they could produce
the least hint from the New Testament, that the powers pos-
sessed by the Apostles were afterwards divided, and that one
class of ministers succeeded them in certain pre-eminent
powers, not mentioned in their final commission, while
another class succeeded them only in respect to lower and
more ordinary functions ; their cause would rest on some
plausible ground; but there is not a syllable in Scripture
which gives the most distant intimation of either of these al-
leged facts. It is not so much as pretended, that a passage
is to be found, which gives a hint of this kind. Accordingly,
when we ask the advocates of Episcopacy whence they de-
rive their favourite doctrine, that diocesan Bishops succeed
the Aposdes in the appropriate powers and pre-eminence of
their apostolical character, they refer us to no passages of
Scripture, asserting or even hinting it ; but to some equivocal
suggestions and allusions of several Fathers, who wrote within
the first four or five hundred years after Christ. The writer
most frequently quoted by our Episcopal brethren for this
purpose, is Theodoret, who flourished about the middle of
the fifth century, and who speaks thus : " The same persons
were anciently called Bishops and Presbyters ; and those
whom we now call Bishops, were then called Apostles. But
in process of time, the title of Apostle was appropriated to
those who were called Apostles in the strict sense, and the
rest, who had formerly the name of Apostles, were styled
Bishops. In this sense Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of
the Phihppians ; Titus was the Apostle of the Cretians, and
Timothy of Asia." On this testimony, several remarks may
be made: 1. It is not the testimony of Scripture, but the
dream of a writer four centuries after the apostolic age, in
whose time the Church had become very corrupt, and in
whose works much superstition and error are found.

2. No one doubts that in Theodore t's time. Prelacy had
obtained a complete establishment, and that he alleges princi-
ples and facts in relation to the priesthood in his day, which
none but Papists are prepared to sanction.

3. It is very certain that the Fathers who flourished nearest

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 49

to the apostolic age, generally represent Presbyters, and not
Prelates, as the successors of the Apostles. Ignatius, in par-
ticular, who was contemporary with the last of the Apostles,
expresses himself again and again in the following language :
" The Presbyters succeed in the place of the bench of the
Apostles ;" and again, " in like manner, let all reverence the
Presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and college of the Apos-
tles ;" and again, " Be subject to your Presbyters, as to the
Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope." And once more, " Fol-
low the Presbyters as the Apostles." Which shall we believe,
Ignatius or Theodoret ? Beyond all doubt, neither is to be
trusted in relation to a matter which receives no countenance
from Scripture. It is notorious, too, that Irenaeus, a Christian
father, who flourished toward the latter part of the second
century, repeatedly speaks of Presbyters as being the succes-
sors of the Apostles. In other places he speaks of the same
persons as Bishops, and under that title also represents them
as the successors of the Apostles. And this he does, not once
only, but several times, as if his object were to show that,
according to the representation of the New Testament, Bishop
and Presbyter were the same.

4. Augustine, a writer earlier than Theodoret, more learned,
and of higher authority, expressly declares, that the apostolical
office was above that of any Bishop. De Baptis. contra Do-
natis. ii. 1.

5. And after all, to what does Theodoret's statement
amount 1 Why, only that in the fifth century, such claims
and such language as he presents, were common. Who
doubts this ? But does he say that the New Testament au-
thorizes any such statement ? He does not. Nor, if he had,
could we possibly believe him with the Bible in our hands.
The truth is, no such fact as this argument supposes, is stated
or hinted at in Scripture. It every where represents the
Apostles as extraordinary officers, who, in their peculiar qua-
lifications and authority, had no successors ; but who, in re-
spect to that office which is perpetual, are succeeded by all
regularly authorized ministers of the Gospel. And to give
any other view of the subject, is an imposition on popular
credulity. Accordingly, this whole argument for the supe-
riority of Bishops, drawn from the plea, that they are the pe-
culiar and exclusive successors of the Apostles in their offi-
cial pre-eminence, has been wholly abandoned by a numbei
of the most distinguished divines of the Church of England,
as invalid and untenable.

The next argument commonly urged by our Episcopal

50 GOVERNMENT OF THE

brethren in support of Prelacy is, that Timothy was evidently,
in fact, Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete ; and that this
furnishes, of course, a plain example of an order of ministers
superior to common pastors. This alleged fact is a corner
stone of the Episcopal fabric, and unless it can be supported,
the whole edifice must fall to the ground.

But for this alleged Prelacy of Timothy and Titus, there
is not only no positive proof, but there is not even a shadow
of it, in the whole New Testament. There is no evidence
whatever, that either of them ever had a fixed pastoral charge
at Ephesus or Crete. There is no evidence that either of
them ever performed the work of ordination alone. One of
them, while at Ephesus, was expressly directed to " do the
work of an evangelist," and there is not the slightest intima-
tion that either acted in any higher character. There is no
hint that they performed any act, to which any regular minis-
ter of the Gospel is not fully competent. In short, the whole
Episcopal argument drawn from the charge to Timothy and
Titus, is destitute of the semblance of proof from Scripture.
All the premises on which it is founded, are taken for granted
without evidence. All that appears to have been done by
these evangelists, is done every day by evangelists authorized
and sent forth by the Presbyterian Church ; and no reason can
be assigned for ascribing to the missionaries to Ephesus and
Crete any higher character, than that the Episcopal cause de-
mands it. In truth, when thrown into the form of a regular
syllogism, its amount is neither more nor less than the fol-
lowing : " None but diocesan Bishops can ordain ministers,
and ' set in order' churches ; but Timothy and Titus, dis-
charged these offices; therefore, Timothy and Titus were
diocesan Bishops." But is not the very thing to be proved,
viz : that diocesan Bishops alone can ordain, &c., here taken
for granted? Can there be a more gross begging of the
whole question than this argument exemplifies ?

It is hardly necessary to inform any intelligent reader ot
the Bible, that the postscripts, at the close of the second
epistle to Timothy, and of the epistle to Titus, and which
speaks of the former as " the first Bishop of Ephesus," and
the latter as " the first Bishop of Crete," are of no authority.
1: is acknowledged by aU learned men, that they make no
part of the sacred text. They were, no doubt, interpolated
by officious transcribers, more than four hundred years after
the date of the epistles. They are not found at all in the most
authentic copies of the original. They are not the same in
the copies in which they are found. They were excluded

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 51

irom all the earliest English translations. And for a lor 5
lime after their introduction, they were printed in a differ*-jit
type from the received text, to indicate that they formed no
part of the authentic Scriptures. But when our present trans-
lation of the Bible, in the reign of James I., was executed, as
the translators were all Episcopalians, they, very improperly,
suffered these postscripts to occupy the place in which we
now, find them, without any mark to distinguish them from
the authorized text.

Such is the amount of the argument drawn from the alleged
Episcopal character of Timothy and Titus. It finds no coun-
tenance whatever in the New Testament. Every fact which
is stated in the inspired history concerning those pious evan-
gelists, is not only perfectly reconcileable with the Presbyte-
rian doctrine, but agrees far better with it than with the Epis-
copal hypothesis. Accordingly, the eminent Episcopal di-
vine, Dr. Whitby, with all his zeal for Prelacy, speaks in his
commentary in the following language : " The great contro-
versy concerning this, and the epistles to Timothy is, whether
Timothy and Titus were indeed made Bishops, the one of
Ephesus, and the proconsular Asia ; the other of Crete.
Now, of this matter, I confess / can find nothing in any
writer of the first three centuries, nor any intimation that
they bore that name.'''' And afterwards he adds, concerning
the whole argument ; " I confess that these two instances,
absolutely taken, afford us no convincing arguments in favour
of a settled diocesan Episcopacy, because there is nothing
which proves they did, or were to exercise these acts of go-
vernment rather as Bishops than evangelists." It is true,
this learned writer, while he acknowledges that no evidence
in favour of the Episcopal character of these missionaries, is
to be found within the first three centuries, expresses an
opinion, that there is testimony enough to establish it in
writers of the fourth and fifth centuries. This, however, is
not Scriptural testimony ; and what is not found in the Bible,
is surely not binding on the Church. Besides ; this testi-
mony of the fourth and fifth centuries, when impartially
examined, and compared with other contemporaneous testi-
mony, will be found perfectly worthless, and, of course,
unavailing to the cause in support of which it is adduced,
because it is not consistent either with itself, or with the New
Testament.

Another argument from Scripture, commonly urged by oui
Episcopal brethren, is derived from the " Angels" addressed
in the Epistles to the Seven Churches of the Lesser Asia.
5

52 GOVERNMENT OF THE

" In each of those Churches," say the advocates of Prelacy,
" an individual is addressed under the title of ' Angel,' which
is a very strong argument against ministerial parity, and in
favour of Episcopacy." But this argument is just as powerless
}is any of the preceding, or rather, it is destitute even of their
degree of plausibility. The term "Angel" signifies messenger.
As an ecclesiastical title, it is derived from the Old Testament.
In every Jewish Synagogue, or worshipping congregation,
there was an "Angel of the Church," whose duty it was to
preside and take the lead in public worship. This title was
evidently transferred from the Synagogue to the Christian
Church. And if we suppose each of these "Angels" to be
the ordinary pastor of a single church or congregation, it will
perfectly accord with every representation concerning them
found in the epistles in question. But he who looks carefully
into the addresses to the several churches contained in these
epistles, will find much reason to doubt whether individual
ministers are at all designated by the title of " Angel." Some
have supposed that collective bodies of pastors were intended.
Of this opinion a number of the most eminent Episcopal
writers have been the advocates. There is absolutely not a
shadow of proof that prelates or any thing like them, are re-
ferred to. Some of the most learned and zealous advocates
of prelacy have acknowledged this ; and the whole argument
really amounts to nothing more than a mere gratuitous as-
sumption of the point to be proved.

One more argument may be briefly adverted to, which our
Episcopal brethren sometimes urge in support of their cause.
They say that the Apostle James was evidently the Bishop
of Jerusalem. This they attempt to prove by telling us that
he spoke last, and gave a very pointed sentence, or opinion, in
the Synod of Jerusalem ; that Peter, after his release from
prison, said to certain persons, go show these things unto
James and to the brethren ; and that when Paul visited Jeru-
salem, it is said concerning him — and the day foUowmg, Paul
went in with us unto James, and all the Elders were present.
On these, and other occasions, the advocates of Episcopal
claims tell us, James was spoken of as a distinguished man,
and treated with marked respect ; and from this circumstance
it is inferred that he was the Bishop of Jerusalem.

This argument, when stripped of all its decorations, stands
thus : " James was the last speaker, and gave a decisive opi-
nion in an ecclesiastical assembly; therefore, he was superior
to all others present, and, of course, the Bishop of Jerusalem !
Peter requested an account of his release from prison to be

PRE6BYTERIAN CHURCH. 53

sent to James ; therefore, James was the Bishop of Jerusalem !
Paul and his company went to the house of James in J erusa-
lem, and there found the Elders convened ; therefore, James
was the ecclesiastical governor of that city !" This is absolutely
the whole of the scriptural argument drawn from the character
of James ! Surely, a more singular instance of the gratuitous
assumption of what ought to be proved, was never exhibited!

So utterly groundless, then, do we find the claim of our
Episcopal brethren, when brought to the test of Scripture.
Their claim, it will be observed, is positive and explicit. It
is, that the New Testament holds forth, as existing in the
Apostolic Church, and intended to be perpetual, an order of
men superior to ministers of the word and sacraments ; that
this order is alone empowered to ordain ; and, of course, that
without ordination by this order of men, there can be no minis-
try, no Church, no valid ordinances, no " covenanted mercy,"
to any of the children of men. In short, they would persuade
us, not only that the New Testament bears them out in main-
taining the actual existence of such an order in the apostolic
Church ; but also that it warrants them in contending for it as
perpetually and indispensably necessary. The burden of
proof lies on them. They have not proved and cannot prove
either. That the power of ordaining was not confined to the
Apostles while they lived, is manifest to all who read the Bible
without prejudice. That the extraordinary powers of the
Apostles were to be transmitted to successors, can no more be
proved from the word of God, than that inspiration and miracles
are still continued, and transmitted from man to man in the
Church. That Timothy and Titus were prelates, because they
were appointed to " ordain Elders," and " set in order the
things that were wanting" in Ephesus and Crete, when it is
utterly uncertain whether either of them performed a single
ordination alone — is no more proved, or even probable, than
that modern Presbyterian missionaries to frontier settlements
are prelates, because they are commissioned to perform simi-
lar work. And so of all the other alleged sources of proof
from Scripture. They are just as destitute of force, and just
as delusive as the Popish doctrine, that the primacy of St.
Peter, and the transmission of that primacy to the Bishops ot
Rome, may be proved from the word of God.

Some of the most learned advocates of Episcopacy, how-
ever, while they have freely confessed that their favourite sys-
tem could not be established from Scripture, have confidently
asserted, that it is abundantly and unquestionably supported by

54 GOVERNMENT OF THE

the testimony of the Fathers. Into this field it is not judgevl
proper here to enter, for the following reasons :

1. The Bible contains the religion of Protestants. It is
the only infallible, and the sufiicient rule of faith and practice.
Even if Prelacy were found unequivocally represented as ex-
isting, by the Fathers, in fifty years after the last Apostle, yet
if it be not found in the Bible, as it assuredly is not, such tes-
timony would by no means establish its apostolic appoint-
ment. It would only prove that the Church ^vas very early
corrupted. We know, indeed, that no such testimony exists ;
but if it did, as long as we have the Bible, we ought to reject it.

2. We know that human inventions, and various forms of
corruption did in fact very early obtain currency in the Chris-
tian Church ; and that several practices, quite as likely to be
opposed as the encroachments of Prelacy, were introduced
and established within the first three hundred years.

3. This is a kind of testimony very difiicult to be brought
within a narrow compass. For, while some detached pas-
sages from the early Fathers have the appearance at first
view of favouring Prelacy; yet, when carefully examined,
and compared with other passages from the same Fathers,
and others of equal credibility — their testimony will be found
utterly unfavourable to Prelatical claims. He who reads what
the learned Jerome, in the fourth century, declares concern-
ing Prelacy, as having no foundation in Divine appointment,
and as gradually brought in by human ambition, will begin to
see that the testimony of the Fathers on this subject is very
different from what sanguine and ardent Prelatists are accus-
tomed to represent it. So the testimony of Jerome was under-
stood by bishop Jewel, by bishop Morton, by archbishop
Whitgift, by bishop Bilson, by bishop Stillmgfleet, and by a
number of other divines as learned and able, as ever adorned
the Church of England. And with respect to the testimony
of Ignatius, early in the second century, who is commonly re-
garded and resorted to as the sheet-anchor of the Episcopal
claim ; we could scarcely wish for a more distinct and graphic
description of Presbyterianism than his Epistles represent as
existing in all the churches which he addressed. Ignatius
speaks expressly of a Bishop, Elders, and Deacons existing
in every worshipping assembly which he addressed. Is this
the language of Prelacy? So far from it, nothing can be
plainer than that this language can be reconciled with the
Presbyterian system alone. Presbyterians are the only de-
nomination who have, in every worshipping assembly, a
Bishop, Presbyters, or Elders, and Deacons.

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 55

But it cannot be too often repeated, or too constantly kept
in view, that whatever the Fathe.^ :uay say on this subject, is
not to decide respecting it. If Episcopacy, when brought to
the test of Scripture, cannot stand, we may very willingly leave
its support from other sources to those who may feel inclined
to "receive for doctrines the commandments of men." This
principle formed one of the great dividing lines between our
lathers, the Puritans of England, and the Prelates and others
by whom the Reformed Church was organized in that land.
The Puritans contended that the Bible was the only infallible
rule of faith and practice ; that it ought to be regarded as the
standard of church government and discipline as well as of
doctrine ; and that the Church, as it stood in the days of the
Apostles, is the proper model for our imitation. But the
bishops and the court clergy openly maintained that the
Scriptures were not to be considered as the only standard of
church government and discipline ; that the Fathers and the
early Councils were to be united with them as the rule ; that
the Saviour and his Apostles left the whole matter of church
order to be accommodated to the discretion of the civil magis-
trate, and to the form of polity in the state ; and that the form
Df church government adopted in the third and fourth centu-
ries, and especially in the civil establishment under Constan-
tine, was really to be preferred to that which existed in the
days of the Apostle?., which they considered as peculiarly fitted
to the infant state of the Church, while depressed by persecu-
tion. And upon this plan it is notorious that the men, who
<ook the lead in reforming and organizing the Church of Eng-
and avowedly proceeded.

But we can not only prove a negative ; that is, we can not
only establish that there is no evidence in favour of diocesan
Episcopacy to be found in Scripture ; but we can go further,
and show that the testimony in favour of ministerial parity
found in the New Testament, is clear and strong. Nothing
is plainer than that our blessed Lord severely rebuked, and
explicitly condemned all contests among his ministering ser-
vants about rank and pre-eminence. It is acknowledged, by
the great mass of learned and pious men, of all Protestant de-
nominations, that it is plain, from the apostolical writings, that
the ecclesiastical order of the Synagogue was transferred by
inspired men to the Christian Church. It is evident, on the
slightest inspection of the New Testament history, that the"
names and functions of the church officers appointed, l^y the
Apostles, were derived, not from the Temple, but from tlie
Synagogue. It is explicitly granted by our Episcopal breth-
5*

56 GOVERNMENT OF THE

ren themselves, that in the New Testament the titles, Bishop
and Presbyter were used interchangeably to designate the same
office, and that the names were then common. Nothing is
plainer than that the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, are
spoken of as its Bishops, Acts xx., and, of course, that there
were a plurality of Bishops in the same Church, which is
wholly inconsistent with the doctrine of Prelacy. It is mani-
fest, that Timothy received his designation to the sacred of-
fice " by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.''''
We find that such men as Barnabas, and Simeon, and L\icius,
and Manaen, none of whom, it is evident were Prelates, —
were commanded to lay their hands on Paul, and one of their
own number, and "separate them" to a special ministry, on
which they were about to depart ; " and when they had fasted
and prayed, they laid their hands on them and sent them
away." But it is contrary to all order, human and divine, foi
an official inferior, authoritatively to bless, and by imposition
of hands, to send forth an official superior. And, finally, ii
is evident, that the mere silence of Scripture, as to the claim
of our Episcopal brethren, affiDrds positive and conclusive
proof that it cannot be well founded. The advocates of Pre-
lacy, especially the more zealous and determined of their
number, make their claim a fundamental one. According to
them, as before said, there can be no covenanted Church, no
valid ministry or sacraments, without ordination to the sacred
office by Prelates. Now, can it be believed, that a matter so
important, nay, vital, should not be laid down in Scripture in
explicit terms, and with incontrovertible evidence ? Surely,
if the claim were well founded, whatever else was left in
doubt,the prerogative of the Bishop might be expected to be
set forth with reiterated and unquestionable evidence. But
our Episcopal brethren themselves acknowledge, that this is
not the case. Their scriptural testimony is, in no one in-
stance, direct and explicit, but all indirect, and remotely in-
ferentitd. They do not pretend to quote a single passage
of Scripture which declares, in so many words, or any thing
like it, in favour of their claim ; but their whole reliance, in
regard to scriptural testimony, is placed on facts, and deduc-
tions from those facts, which many of the most learned of
their own denomination pronounce utterly unavailing for
their purpose. Now, can any rational man beheve, that
our blessed Lord and his Apostles could possibly have re-
garded the doctrine of Prelacy in the same light, and laid
equal stress upon it with our Episcopal brethren, and yet
have left the whole subject, to say the least, in so >inex-

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 57

plicit and dubious a posture ? He, who can believe this,
is prepared to believe any thing that his prejudices may
dictate.

In conformity with the foregoing statements, it is well
known that, at the era of the Reformation, the leaders of the
Church of England stood alone in reforming their Church
upon Prelatical principles. Luther, Melancthon, Zuingle,
Bucer, and Peter Martyr, as well as Calvin and Knox, as
stated in a preceding chapter — all — all — scattered throughout
every part of Europe, without concert, interpreted the New
Testament as plainly teaching the doctrine of ministerial pari-
ty, and regarded every kind of imparity in the Gospel minis-
try as the result of human contrivance, and not of Divine ap-
pointment. In short, in every part of Protestant Christen-
dom, out of England — however the leaders of the Reformation
differed, and differed sometimes with ardour on other subjects,
here they, with scarcely a single exception, were aU agreed,
that, in the i^postles' days. Bishop and Presbyter were the
same, in fact as well as in name ; and that, even when it was
thought proper to allow to any ministers a degree of pre-emi
nence, it was to be defended on the ground of human prudence
alone. How shall Ave account for this fact, but by supposing
that the plain and obvious constmction of the word of God on
this subject, is favourable to Presbyterian parity, and un-
friendly to Prelatical claims ?

But while our Episcopal brethren depart from the primitive
and apostolic model in regard to Bishops, so they equally de-
part from that model in respect to the Deacon's office. They
contend that Deacons are one of the orders of clergy, and are
authorized, by Divine appointment, to preach and baptize.
Let any one impartially read the first six verses of the sixth
chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, and then say whether there
is the smallest warrant for this opinion. The Apostles say to
the people, " It is not meet that we should leave the word of
God, and serve tables. Wherefore, look ye out among you seven
men of honest report, whom we may appoint over this busi-
ness ; but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the
ministry of the word." Can it be supposed, in direct opposition
to this v/hole statement, that these very Deacons were appoint-
ed, after all, not to take care of the poor, but to labour in "the
ministry of the word ?" This were an inconsistency, nay, an
absurdity so glaring, that the only wonder is, how any one can
possibly adopt it after reading the inspired statement. The
circumstance of Philip, sometime after liis appointment as
Deacon, being ^ound prtaching and baptizing in Samaria and

58 GOVERNiVIExNT OF THE

Other places, does not afford the smallest presumptive evidence
against this conclusion. Are not cases frequently occurring in
the Presbyterian Church, in which young men, after serving
a year or tvi^o as Ruling Elders or Deacons, are set apart as
ministers of the Gospel ? Soon after Philip's appointment to
the deaconship in Jerusalem, the members of the Church in
that city were chiefly " scattered abroad by persecution." He
was, of course, driven from his residence. Now, the proba-
bility is, that about this time, — seeing he was " a man full of
the Holy Ghost and of wisdom," and, therefore, eminently
qualified to be useful in preaching the Gospel, he received a
new ordination as an Evangelist, and in this character went
forth to preach and baptize. He is expressly called an
"" Evangelist," by the same inspired writer who gives us the
account just recited of his appointment as Deacon. Acts xxi.
8. Until it can be proved, then, that he preached and bap-
tized as a Deacon, and not as an Evangelist, the supposition is
utterly improbable, and wholly unworthy of credit.

The truth is, the primitive and apostolical office of Deacon
was to take care of the poor and " serve tables." By little
and little, several centuries after the apostolic age, the occu-
pants of this office usurped the functions of a higher one ;
which usurpation was afterwards confirmed by ecclesiastical
custom. So a number of the most respectable of the early
Fathers clearly understood the matter. Thus Origen, in his
commentary on the 21st chapter of Matthew, speaking of the
corruption which prevailed among the Deacons in his day, re-
presents them — not as neglecting to preach or baptize — but as
" neglecting the poor, and converting to their own use the
Church's charitable funds." Again, the same Father tells us,
Tract IG, in Matt. " The Deacons preside over the money-
tables of the church." And again, " The Deacons were ap-
pointed to preside over the tables of the church, as we are
taught in the Acts of the Apostles." Ambrose, in the fourth
century, in his commentary on Ephesians, expressly declares,
that, in his day, " the Deacons ordinarily were not authorized
to preach." Chrysostom, in the same century, in his com-
mentary on Acts vi. Homil. 14, tells us, that in his time " there
were no such Deacons in the Church as the Apostles ordain-
ed," and, in the same connection, gives it as his opinion, that
it ought to have been then as it was in the Apostles' days.
Jerome, in his famous letter to Evagrius, expressly calls the
Deacon, " a minister of tables and widows." The "Aposto-
lical Constitutions," commonly referred to the fourth or fifth
century, contain (book H. chapter 27,) the following passage •

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 59

♦' Let the Deacon give nothing to any poor man without the
Bishop's knowledge and consent." And in the sixth general
council of Constantinople, Can. 16, it is declared, that " the
Scriptural Deacons were no other than overseers of the poor,
and that such was the opinion of the ancient Fathers."

But parity among her ministers is not the only feature
which distinguishes the government of the Presbyterian
Church. Her mode of conducting discipline in each church
by a bench of Elders, acting as the representatives of the
members at large ; and by courts of review and control, ad-
mitting of appeals, where parties feel aggrieved, and binding
all the particular churches together as one body, walking by
the same rules of truth and order, and subject to the same uni-
form constitutional authority, are among her peculiar advan-
tages. In regard to both these points, Presbyterians differ
from Independents and Congregationalists, as well as from
Episcopalians, and, indeed, from most other denominations
of Christians. To these, our attention will next be directed.

Independents and Congregationalists commit the whole go-
vernment and discipline of their churches immediately to the
body of the communicants. In some of their churches all the
communicants, male and female, have an equal vote ; in
others, the males only take a part in discipline. In the esti-
mation of Presbyterians this mode of conducting ecclesiastical
discipHne is liable to most serious objections. They consider
it as wholly unsupported by Scripture ; as " setting those to
judge, in many cases, who are least esteemed in the church ;"
as extremely unfavourable to the calm and wise administra-
tion of justice ; nay, as, of all the forms of ecclesiastical
discipline, most exposed to the sway of ignorance, prejudice,
passion, and artful intrigue : that, under the guise of liberty,
it often leads to the most grievous tyranny; and is adapted to
exert an injurious influence on the characters both of the pas-
tor and the people.

. In the Presbyterian Church, the government and discipline
in each congregation is committed to a bench of Elders, con-
sisting of eight or ten of the most pious, enlightened, wise,
prudent, and grave members of the church. They constitute,
with the pastor at their head, a judicial body, who maintam
an official inspection over the members of the church, and
deliberately sit in judgment on all those delicate, and yet mo-
mentous cases which are connected with receiving, admon-
ishing, rebuking, suspending, excommunicating, and dismiss-
ing the members of the flock committed to their care. Our

60 GOVERNMENT OF THE

reasons foi conducting in this manner the government and
discipUne of the Church, are the following:

1. It is certain, that in the system of the Jewish Syna-
gogue, according to the model of which the Christian Church
was undoubtedly organized, the whole government and disci-
pline was conducted by a bench of Elders, and not by the
body of the people.

2. It is manifest that government and discipline were so
conducted in the Apostolic Church. We read that, in every
church under the direction of the Apostles, a plurality ot
Elders were ordained ; and we find a class of Elders distinctly
spoken of, who " ruled well," but did not "labour in the
word and doctrine," 1 Tim. v. 17.

3. We find tliis class of Elders, as bearing rule in each
Church, very distinctly and frequently alluded to in several
of the earliest Christian Fathers, and by none more clearly
than by Ignatius, the pious pastor of Antioch.*

4. The pious witnesses of the truth, who kept alive the
true doctrine and order of the Church during the dark ages,
more especially the Waldenses and the Bohemian brethren,
uniformly governed their churches by means of Ruling, as
well as Teaching Elders, as we have before seen.

5. All the leading Reformers on the continent of Europe,
with scarcely an exception, though separated from each other
by different names, and strong prejudices, agreed, without
concert, in teaching the Divine authority of Ruling Elders,
and in proof of it, referred to the same Scriptures which we
are accustomed to cite for establishing the same thing. The
Reformers in England stood alone, in excluding this class ol
officers from their Church ; and even some of their number,
among the rest, Archbishop Whitgift, as we have seen, ac-
knowledged that there were such officers in the primitive
Church ; but that, in the then existing circumstances, it was
not necessary or expedient to retain them.

6. Such officers are indispensably necessary to the mainte-
nance of sound and edifying discipline. Without them, dis-
cipline will either be wholly neglected, or carried on with

* This is explicitly acknowledged by a number of learned Episcopa-
lians. Among the rest, Archbishop Whitgift expresses himself thus : —
" I know that in the primitive Church, they had in every church certain
seniors, to whom the government of the congregation was committed;
but that was before there was any Christian prince or magistrate that
openly professed the Gospel, and before there was any Church by pub-
lic authority established." Defence against Cartwright, p. 638. 651.

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 61

popular noise and confusion; or conducted by the pastor
himself — thus often placing him in circumstances adapted to
make him either a tyrant, partial to favourites, or a political
temporizer. This has appeared so manifest to many Inde-
pendent and Congregational churches, that they have appoint-
ed each a committee, consisting of six or eight of their most
pious, enlightened, and grave members, on whom was de-
volved the whole business of preparing, arranging, and man-
aging every case of discipline, so that the body of the com-
municants might have nothing more to do tlian to give their
public sanction, by a vote, to what had been virtually done
already by this judicious committee. Could there be a more
emphatic acknowledgment of the importance and necessity oi
this class of officers ?

Finally : Independents and Congregationalists consider
each particular church as entirely independent of every other
church. They suppose that the authority exercised by the
communicants of each church, is supreme and final ; and that
no courts of review and control, formed by the representatives
of a number of co-ordinate churches, and invested with judi-
cial power over the whole, ought to be admitted. Hence,
when any member of an Independent, or of a strictly Con-
gregational Church, is considered by himself, or by his friends,
as unjustly cast out, or as in any way injuriously treated, he
has no remedy. The system of Independency furnishes no
tribunal to which he can appeal. He must sit down, while
he lives, under the oppressive sentence, unless the body, ori-
ginally pronouncing it, should choose to remove it. The
same essential defect in this system also, appears in a variety
of other cases. If a controversy arise between a pastor and
his flock, acting on strict Congregational principles ; or if a
contest occur between two Independent or Congregational
churches in the vicinity of each other, their ecclesiastical
constitution furnishes no means of relief. The controversy
may be subjected to the decision of a civil court, or to the
judgment of selected arbitrators, just as may be done when
controversies occur among secular men. But their system of
Church order affords no remedy. Recourse must be had for
relief to those worldly instrumentalities, which are equally
painful to the pious heart, and dishonourable to tlie cause of
Christ.

But, for all these difficulties, Presbyterianism, in her essen-
tial constitution furnishes appropriate, prompt, and for the
most part, adequate relief. Her system of government and
discipline contains, within its own bosom, the means of ad-

62 GOVERNMENT OF THE

justment and of peace. Every species of controversy is com
mitted for settlement, to a grave and enlightened judicial body,
made up of the representatives of all the churches in a given
district ; a body, not the creature of a day, which, when its
work is done, ceases to exist ; but organized, permanent, and
responsible; whose decisions are not merely advisory, but
authoritative ; and from whose sentences, if they be consider-
e iS erroneous, an appeal may be taken to a higher tribunal,
enioracing a larger portion of the Church, and far removed
from the excitement of the original contest.

We find the principle on which these courts of review and
control are founded, strikingly exemplified in the New Tes-
tament history, and our practice abundantly warranted by
New Testament facts. When a question arose at Antioch,
respecting the obligation of Jewisli observances, the church
in that place did not attempt, as a body of Independents
would, of course, have done, to decide the matter for them-
selves, leaving the other churches to do as they pleased.
But they felt that, as it was a question which concerned the
whole Christian body, so a general and authoritative decision
of the question, binding on the whole body, ought to be made.
They, therefore, empowered special delegates to carry up the
question to " the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem," to be by
them conclusively settled. There, accordingly, it was debated
and decided upon in full Synod ; and that decision, in the
form of " decrees," (Soy^ua-fa) that is, authoritative adjudica-
tions,— sent down to all the churches to be registered and
obeyed. Can any one conceive of a more perfect example
of a Presbyterian Synod, convened as a judicial body, and
pronouncing a decision, not as a mere advisory council, but
as a judicatory of Christ, invested with judicial power to de-
clare the path of duty in a given case ; not for a single con-
gregation merely, but for the whole visible Church?

There is no doubt, indeed, that this system of authoritative
decision, not for one congregation only, but for a number of
churches belonging to the same visible body, may be weakly
or wickedly managed. Like every thing in the hands of
man, and even like the Gospel itself, it may be unskilfully
administered, and sometimes even perverted into means of
oppression and mischief. So may the most perfect system
in the world, civil or ecclesiastical. So may Independency
and Congregationalism. For, as an eminent Independent,
(the Rev. Robert Hall,) remarked, in speaking on this very
subject, " While power is dangerous in the hands of a few,
wisdom is seldom with the multitude." The fault, however,
is not in the system, but in the administration. Here is a form

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 63

of ecclesiastical polity, complete in all its parts ; fitted to ob-
viate every difficulty; not indeed armed with civil power ; not
permitted to enforce its decisions by civil penalties, (in which
every friend of genuine Christianity must rejoice) ; a polity
to which folly, caprice, or rebellion may refuse to bow ; but,
so far as happy adjustment, and moral power can go, better
adapted to promote the union, and the harmonious counsel
and cooperation of all the churches which are willing to avail
themselves of its advantages, assuredly, than any other that
Christendom presents.

Such is a cursory view of the argument in favour of Pres-
byterian church government, and of the peculiar advantages
attending that form of ecclesiastical order. It is better adapt
ed than any other to repress clerical ambition; to prevent
clerical encroachments and tyranny; to guard against the
reign of popular effervescence and violence ; to secure the
calm, enlightened, and edifying exercise of discipline ; to
maintain the religious rights of the people against all sinister
influence ; and to afford relief in all cases in which a single
church, or an inferior judicatory, may have passed an impro-
per sentence, from either mistake, prejudice, or passion. It
establishes, in all our ecclesiastical borders, that strict, repub-
lican, representative system of government, which has been
"ever found to lie at the foundation of all practical freedom,
both political and religious ;" and which, under God, affords
the best pledge of justice and stability in the administration.
It affords that inspection over the lives and conversation of
church members, which is ever indispensably needed, and
which is at once vigilant, parental, and judicious ; and when
faithfully carried into execution, is better fitted than any other
to bring the whole Church to act together, and to unite all
hearts and hands in Christian beneficence. And, finally, it
is better fitted than any other to maintain a wise, impartial,
and faithful inspection over the lives and ministrations of the
body of the clergy. How much better is a venerable Pres-
bytery adapted to discharge this duty to edification, than a
single Bishop, who, to say nothing of other faults, may in-
dulge in the grossest favouriteism or tyranny, without the
possibility of adequate control ! This form of church go-
vernment cannot, indeed, of itself, infuse life and activity intc
an ecclesiastical body; but where vitality, and zeal, and re-
sources exist, there is, undoubtedly, no form of ecclesiastical
organization so well adapted to bind together a body consist-
ing of many parts ; to unite counsels ; to invigorate efforts ;
and to cause a large and extended mass of professing Chris-
tians to walk by the same rules ; to mind the same tjjings : to

64 GOVERNMENT OF THE

Speak the same language ; and to feel that they are in fact, as
well as in name, one body in Christ, and every "one mem-
bers one of another."

Our Methodist brethren refuse to admit any representation
from the laymen of their churches, into their Conferences, to
which the exercise of ecclesiastical authority is committed :
and by this refusal, as well as on account of some other things
of a similar nature, they have occasioned a serious schism in
their body. Our Episcopal brethren, yielding to what ap-
peared to them the necessity and importance of introducing a
lay representation into their ecclesiastical assemblies, have
" lay deputies" in the lower house of all their " Conventions."
For this feature, however, in their organization in this coun-
try, they do not pretend to offer any divine warrant. It is
well known that there is no such feature in the Church from
which they derive their origin ; and it is without the shadow
of support from any other principle in their system than that
which grows out of the supposed right of the Church to insti-
tute, at her pleasure, both rites and offices which the Master
never sanctioned. On the contrary, for every part of her sys-
tem, the Presbyterian Church claims a scriptural warrant.
She maintains, that no Church is at liberty to appoint officers,
or to exercise authority which cannot be found in Scripture.
She vests Ruling Elders with the function of overseeing and
governing in the Church — not because they are convenient
and useful, or even necessary; but because she finds ample
evidence of their institution in the Apostolic Church. She
commits to appropriate judicial assemblies the authoritative
regulation of all her affairs, under the laws of Christ; not
merely because she sees many human advantages resulting
from this system ; but also, and chiefly because she finds in
the Scriptural principles of the essential unity of the visible
Church, and in the decisive example of the Synod of Jerusa-
lem, the fullest inspired warrant for this plan of ecclesiastical
polity. Let Presbyterians rejoice, that even those denomina-
tions which reject, in theory, her scriptural representative
system, are compelled, after all, to resort to it in fact, and
cannot without it preserve either unity or order.

CHAPTER V.

THE WORSHIP OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

A fundamental principle of the Presbyterian Church, in
forming her " Directory for the Worship of God," is, that

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 65

here, as in every thing else, Holy Scripture is the only safe
guide. One of the earliest practical errors which gained ground
in the Christian community, was the adoption of the principle
that the ministers of religion might lawfully add, at their
pleasure, to the rites and ceremonies of the Church. In con-
sequence of the admission of this error, Augustine complained,
as early as the beginning of the fifth century, that for one ap-
pointment of God's, ten of man's had crept into the Church,
and formed a burden greater, in some respects, than was the
ceremonial economy of the Jews. The fact is, for the sake ot
drawing both Jews and Pagans into the Church, many rites
and ceremonies were adopted from both, that they might feel
more at home in the Christian assemblies. This evil in-
creased, until, before the Reformation, it had reached that re-
volting amount of superstition which now distinguishes the
Church of Rome.

It was in reference to this point, that our Fathers, both in
Scotland and England, had many conflicts, when their respec-
tive Churches, in those countries were organized and settled
in the sixteenth century. On the one hand, the Prelates, and
other court clergy were in favour of a splendid ritual, and
were disposed to retain a large number of the ceremonies
which had been so long in use in the Church of Rome. On
the other, the Puritans in England, and the corresponding
body in Scotland, contended that the Scriptures being the only
infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought
to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not
warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example,
or by good and sufficient inference. In Scotland the advocates
of primitive simplicity prevailed, and established in their na-
tional Church the same mode of worship which we believe
existed in the apostolic age, and which now obtains in the
Presbyterian Church in that country, and in the United States.
In England, our Fathers, the Puritans, were not so happy as
to succeed in establishmg the same scriptural system. Under
the influence of the monarch and the court clergy, they were
outvoted. Still it is undoubtedly certain that a large portion
of the most pious and devoted of the clergy of the Church of
England, during the reign of queen Elizabeth, and some of
her most worthy dignitaries, when the character of that Church,
under its reformed regimen, was finally fixed, did importu-
nately plead for laying aside in public worship, every thing
to which Presbyterians, at the present day, object, as having
no warrant in Scripture. And although they failed of securing
their object in the national Church, yet the descendants of

66 WORSHIP OF THE

the Puritans, botli in that country and our own, have oeen
permitted to realize their wishes as to most of the particulars
on which they then insisted. On some of the principal of
these particulars it is proposed now to dwell, and to assign,
with regard to each, our reasons for adhering to them in our
system of worship.

But before we proceed to this detail, it may be useful to
offer a general remark or two, which will serve to show why
we object to all human inventions and additions in the wor-
ship of God.

1. Christ is the only King and Head of the Church. His
word is the law of his house. Of course the Church ought
not to consider herself as possessing any power which that
word does not warrant. If, therefore, she cannot find in
Scripture, authority, either direct, or fairly implied, to the
amount contended for, she does not possess that authority.

2. We think that such inventions and additions are ex-
pressly forbidden in Scripture. The significant question
asked by God of his ancient people, when speaking on this
very subject, Isaiah i. 12, " Who hath required this at your
hands ?" seems to be decisive. " Teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men," is spoken of. Matt. xv. 9. by our
blessed Saviour as highly offensive to him. It would seem
tacitly to imply, that we are wiser than God, and understand
the interests of the Church better than her Head and Lord.

3. If we once open this door, how or when shall it be closed ^
The Church, we are told, has power to decree rites and cere-
monies ; that is, a majority of the ruling powers of the Church
have power at any time, as caprice, or a love of show, or su-
perstition, or any other motive may prompt, to add rite after
rite, and ceremony after ceremony, at pleasure, to the worship
of God. Now if this power be really inherent in the Church,
what limit shall we put to its exercise ? If she have power to
add ten or twenty new ordinances to her ritual, has she not
equal power to add a hundred, or five hundred, if a majority
of her ministers should feel inclined to do so ? And was it
not precisely in this way, and upon this very principle, that
the enormous mass of superstition which characterizes the
Papacy, gradually accumulated? Surely, a power which
carries with it no limit but human caprice, and which has
been so manifestly and shockingly abused in past ages, ought
by no means to be claimed or exercised in the Church of God.
But to be more particular.

Section \.— -Presbyterians reject prescribed Liturgies.

We do not, indeed, consider the use of forms of prayer as

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. . 67

in all cases unlawful. We do not doubt that they have been
often useful, and that to many this mode of conducting public
devotions is highly edifying. If any minister of our Church
should think proper to compose a form of prayer, or a variety
of forms, for his own use, or to borrow those which have been
prepared by others, he ought to be considered as at perfect
liberty so to do. But we object to being confined to forms ot
prayer. We contend that it is of great importance to the edi-
fication of the Church, that every minister be left at liberty to
conduct the devotions of the sanctuary as his circumstances,
and the dispensations of Providence, may demand. Our rea-
sons for adopting this judgment, and a corresponding practice,
are the following :

1. We think it perfectly evident that no forms of prayer —
no prescribed Liturgies Avere used in the apostolic age of the
Church. We read of none ; nor do we find the smallest hint
that any thing of the kind was then employed in either public
or social worship. Will the most zealous advocates of Litur-
gies point out even a probable example of the use of one in
the New Testament? Can any one believe that Paul used a
prescribed form of prayer when he took leave of the Elders .
of Ephesus, after giving them a solemn charge ? Acts xx. 37.
Can it be imagined that he used a Liturg)? when, in bidding
farewell to a circle of friends in the city of Tyre, who had
treated him with kindness, he kneeled down on the sea shore
and prayed with them ? Or can we suppose that he and Silas
read from a book, when, at midnight, in the prison at Philip-
pi, they prayed and sang praises unto God ? Again ; when
Paul exhorted Timothy to see that "kings and all in authori-
ty" were remembered in public prayer, is it not evident that
the Church had no Liturgy ? If she had been furnished with
one, and confined to it, such direction would have been un-
necessary, or rather absurd ; for they would have had their
prayers all prepared to their hand. In short, when we find
prayer spoken of in the New Testament on a great variety ot
occasions, and in a great variety of language, is it not passing
strange, if Liturgies were then used, that no turn of expres-
sion, giving the remotest hint of it, should be employed ?
Surely, if forms of prayer had been regarded in the days of
the Apostles, as not only obligatory, but so highly important
as some Protestants now profess to regard them ; who can
believe that the inspired writers would have passed over
them in entire silence ? The very least that we can infer
from this circumstance is, that the use of them is not binding
on the Church. The primitive Christians had indeed, pre-
6 *

1

68 WORSHIP OF THE

composed Psalms and Hymns, which they united in singing,
and probably, a miiform method, derived from the example
and letters of the first ministers, of administering the sacra-
ments, and blessing the people ; but so have Presbyterians,
and various other ecclesiastical bodies, who yet are not consi-
dered as using a Liturgy. These, of course, have no appli-
cation to the present inquiry.

2. The Lord's Prayer, given at the request of the disciples,
forms no objection to this conclusion. It was, evidently, not
intended to be used as an exact, and far less as an exclusive
form. It is not given in the same words by any two of the
Evangelists. As it was given before the New Testament
Church was set up, so it is stiictly adapted to the old rather
than the new economy. It contains no clause, asking for
blessings in the name of Christ, which the Saviour himself
afterwards solemnly enjoined as indispensable. After the
resurrection and ascension of Christ, when the New Testa-
ment Church was set up, we read nothing more in the in-
spired history concerning the use of this form. And it is not
until several centuries after the apostolic age, that we find this
prayer statedly introduced into public worship. Accordingly,
it is remarkable, that Augustine, in the fourth century, ex-
presses the decisive opinion, " that Christ intended this prayer
as a model rather than a form ; that he did not mean to teach
his disciples what words they should use in prayer, but what
things they should pray for."

3. No such thing as a prescribed form of prayer appears
to have been known in the Christian Church, for several hun-
dred years after Christ. The contrary is, indeed, often as-
serted by the friends of Liturgies, but wholly without evidence ;
nay, against the most conclusive evidence. The most respecta-
ble early writers who undertake to give an account of the
worship of the early Christians, make use of language which
is utterly irreconcilcable with the practice of reading prayers.
They tell us, that the minister, or person who led in prayer,
" poured out prayers according to his ability;" that he prayed,
" closing his bodily eyes, and lifting up the eyes of his mind,
and streti hing forth his hands toward heaven." Surely, in
this posture, it was impossible to " read prayers." Socrates
and Sozomen, respectable ecclesiastical historians, who wrote
in the fifth century, both concur in declaring, that, in their
day, " no two persons were found to use the same words in
public worship." And Augustine, who was nearly their
contemporary, declares, in relation to this subject,—" There
is freedom to use different words, provided the same things

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 69

are mentioned in prayer." Basil, in the fourth century,
giving directions about prayer, remarks, that there were two
parts of this service; first, thanksgiving and praise, with
self-abasement; and, secondly, petition. He advises to be-
gin with the former, and, in doing it, to make choice of the
language of Scripture. After giving an example of his mean-
ing, he adds, " When thou hast praised him out of the Scrip-
tures, as thou art able, (a strange clause, truly, if all had been
prepared before hand, and read out of a book,) then proceea
to petition."' — Clarkson on Liturgies, p. 120. Would not
all this be manifestly absurd, if public prayer had been by a
prescribed Liturgy in Basil's days? The truth is, it is evi-
dent that extemporary or free prayer was generally used in
the primitive Church, and continued to be used until ortho-
doxy and piety declined, and the grace as well as the gift of
prayer greatly diminished. Then ministers began to seek the
best aid that they could procure. The Church, however, at
large, even then, provided no Liturgies ; but each pastor, who
felt unable to pray extemporaneously, procured prayers com-
posed by other individuals, which he used in public. Accord-
ingly, Augustine tells us, that some ministers in his day, (a
period in which we have complete evidence that many of the
sacred order were so uneducated as to be unable to write their
own names) " lighted upon prayers which were composed
not only by ignorant babblers, but also by heretics ; and
through the simplicity of their ignorance, having no proper
discernment, they made use of them, supposing them to be
good." Surely, this could never have happened, if the Church
had been accustomed at that time to the use of prescribed
Liturgies. In short, the very first document in the form of a
prayer-book, of which we read, is a Libellus Officialis, men-
tioned in the proceedings of the council of Toledo, in the year
633 after Christ; and that was, evidently, rather a "Directo-
ry for the worship of God," than a complete Liturgy. There
is, indeed, evidence that, before this time, mini-sters, deficient
in talents and piety, either wrote prayers for themselves, or
procured them from others, as before stated ; but the first hint
to be found of an ecclesiastical body interposing to regulate
the business of public prayer, appears about the middle of the
fifth century.

With respect to the boasted Liturgies of St. Mark, St.
James, &c., of which we often hear, all enlightened Protes-
tants, it is believed, agree that they are manifestly forgeries ;
and as to the Liturgies attributed to Chrysostom, Basil, and
several otheis of the early Christian Fathers, bishop White,

WORSHIP OF THE

an English prelate, who lived in the seventeenth century, de-
livers the following opinion: — '*The Liturgies," says he,
" fathered upon St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, have a known
mother, (to wit, the Church of Rome ;) but there is (besides
many other just exceptions) so great a dissimilitude between
the supposed fathers of the children, that they rather argue
the dishonest dealings of their mother, than serve as lawful
witnesses of that which the adversary intended to prove by
them." — Tracts against Fisher, the Jesuit, p. 377.

4. If the Apostles, or any apostolic men, had prepared
and given to the Church any thing like a Liturgy, we should,
doubtless, have had it preserved, and transmitted with care to
posterity. The Church, in this case, would have had one uni-
form book of prayers, which would have been in use, and held
precious, throughout the whole Christian community. But
nothing of this kind has ever been pretended to exist. For let it
be remembered, that the prayers, in the Romish and English
Liturgies, ascribed to some of the early Fathers of the Church,
and even to apostolical men, supposing them to be genuine,
which, by good judges, as we have just seen, is more than
doubted, — were not Liturgies, but short prayers, or " col-
lects," just such as thousands of Presbyterian ministers, who
never thought of using a Liturgy, have composed, in their
moments of devout retirement, and left among their private
papers. Who doubts that devotional composition is made by
multitudes who reject the use of prescribed forms of prayer
in public worship ? Accordingly, when Liturgies were gra-
dually introduced into general use, in the sixth and subsequent
centuries, on account of the decline of piety and learning
among the clergy, there was no uniformity even among the
churches of the same state or kingdom. Every Bishop, in
his own diocese, appointed what prayers he pleased, and even
indulged his taste for variety. Accordingly, it is a notorious
fact, which confirms this statement, that when the Reforma-
tion commenced in England, the established Romish Church
in that country had no single uniform Liturgy for the whole
kingdom ; but there seems to have been a different one for the
diocese of every Bishop. And when, in the second year of
king Edward's reign, the principal ecclesiastical dignitaries
of the kingdom were directed to digest and report one uniform
plan for the public service of the whole Church, they collated
and compared the five Romish missals of the several dioceses
of Sarum, York, Hereford, Bangor, and Lincoln, and out of
these formed a Liturgy for the Protestant Episcopal Church
of England. So that the Prayer-books which had been used

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 71

in five Popish bishoprics, constituted the basis of the first
Liturgy of king Edward, and consequently of the book of
Common Prayer, as now used in Great Britain and the United
States. This Liturgy, at first, contained a number of things
so grossly Popish, that, when it was read by Calvin and
others, on the continent of Europe, to whom copies were sent
for obtaining their opinion, their severe criticisms led to ano
ther review, and a considerable purgation. Still a number oi
articles were left, acknowledged on all hands to have been
adopted from the missals of the Church of Rome, which, as
stated in various parts of this chapter, exceedingly grieved th6
more pious and evangehcal part of the Church ; but which
the queen, and the ecclesiastics more immediately around her
person, refused to exclude. Their antiquity was plead as an
argument in their favour.

5. Confining ministers to forms of prayer in public wor-
ship, tends to restrain and discourage the spirit of prayer
We cannot help thinking, that the constant repetition of the
same words, from year to year, tends to produce, at least with
very many persons, dullness, and a loss of interest. We are
sure it is so with not a few. Bishop Wilkins, though a friend
to the use of fonns of prayer, when needed, argues strongly
against binding ourselves entirely to such "leading strings,"
as he emphatically calls them, and expresses the opinion, that
giving vent to the desires and affections of the heart in extem-
porary prayer, is highly favourable to growth in grace. — Gift
of Prayer, chap. IL p. 10, 11. Accordingly, it is remarka-
ble that, when those who were once distinguished for praying
extemporaneously, with fluency and unction, lay aside this
habit, and confine themselves to stinted forms for many years,
they are apt to manifest a striking decline in the spirit of de-
votion, and are no longer able to engage in free prayer with-
out much hesitation and embarrassment.

6. No form of prayer, however ample or diversified, can
be accommodated to all the circumstances, exigencies, and
wants of either individual Christians, or of the Church in
general. Now, when cases occur which are not provided for
in the prescribed forms, what is to be done ? Either extem-
porary prayer must be ventured upon, or the cases in question
cannot be carried before the throne of grace, in words, at all.
Is this alternative desirable ? Cases of this kind have occurred,
approaching the ludicrous, in which ministers have declined
engaging in social prayer in situations of the deepest interest,
because they could find nothing in their Prayer-book adapted
to the occasion ! Nay, so common and so interesting a ser-

72 WORSHIP OF THE

vice as tne monthly concert in prayer, on the first Monday
evening of every month, can never be attended upon by an
Episcopal pastor, in an appropriate and seasonable manner,
without indulging in extemporary prayer. This has been,
more than once, confessed and lamented by ministers of that
denomination.

7. It is no small argument against confining ministers and
people to a prescribed form, that whenever rehgion is in a
lively state in the heart of a minister accustomed to use a
Liturgy, and especially when it is powerfully revived among
the members of his church, his form of prayer will seldom
fail to be deemed an undesirable restraint ; and this feeling
will commonly either vent itself in fervent extemporary prayer,
or result in languor and decline under restriction to his form.
The more rigorous and exclusive the confinement to a pre-
scribed form, the more cold and lifeless will the prevailing
formality generally be found. The excellent Mr. Baxter ex-
presses the same idea with more unqualified strength : — " A
constant form," says he, *'is a certain way to bring the soul
to a cold, insensible, formal worship." — Five Disputations,
^c. p. 385.

8. Once more : prescribed Liturgies, which remain in use
from age to age, have a tendency to fix, to perpetuate, and
even to coerce the adoption and propagation of error. It is
not forgotten, that the advocates of Liturgies urge, as an argu-
ment in their favour, a consideration directly the converse of
this, viz., that they tend, by their scriptural and pious charac-
ter, to extend and perpetuate the reign of truth in a Church.
Where their character is really thus thoroughly scriptural,
they may, no doubt, exert, in this respect, a favourable influ-
ence ; but where they teach or insinuate error, the mischief
can scarcely fail to be deep, deplorable, and transmitted from
generation to generation. Of this, painfuL examples might
be given, if it were consistent with the brevity of this sketch,
to enter on such a field.

On the whole, after carefiiUy comparing the advantages and
lisadvantages of free and prescribed prayer, the argument,
whether drawn from Scripture, from ecclesiastical history, or
from daily experience, is clearly in favour of free or extem-
porary prayer. Its generally edifying character may, indeed,
sometimes be marred by weak and ignorant men ; but we
have no hesitation in saying that the balance is manifestly in
its favour. For, after all, the difficulty which S!?metimes oc-
curs in rendering extemporary prayer impressive and edifying,
is by no means obviated, in all cases, by the use of a Prayer-

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 73

book. Who has not witnessed the recitation of devotional
forms conducted in such a manner as to disgust every hearer
of taste, and to banish all seriousness from the mind ? As
long as ministers of the Gospel are pious men ; " workmen
that need not be ashamed ;" qualified " rightly to divide the
word of truth," and "mighty in the Scriptures," they will
find no difficulty in conducting free prayer to the honour of
religion, and to the edification of the Church. When they
cease to possess this character^they must have forms, they
ought to have forms of devotion provided for them. It was
precisely in such a state of things that the use of Liturgies
gradually crept into the Christian Church in the fifth and sixth
centuries. But it is manifestly the fault of ministers, if ex-
temporary prayer be not made, what it may, and ought ever
to be, — among the most tender, touching, and deeply impres-
sive of all the services of the public sanctuary.

Section II. — Presbyterians do not observe Holy-days

We believe, and teach, in our public formularies, that
" there is no day, under the Gospel dispensation, commanded
to be kept holy, except the Lord's day, which is the Chris-
tian Sabbath."

We believe, indeed, and declare, in the same formula, that
it is both scriptural and rational, to observe special days of
Fasting and Thanksgiving, as the extraordinary dispensations
of Divine Providence may direct. But we are persuaded,
that even the keeping of these days, >vhen they are made
stated observances, recurring, of course, at particular times,
whatever the aspect of Providence may be, is calculated to
promote formality and superstition, rather than the edification
of the body of Christ.

Our reasons for entertaining this opinion, are the follow-
ing:

1 . We are persuaded that there is no scriptural warrant for
such observances, either from precept or example. There is
no hint in the New Testament that such days were either
observed or recommended by the Apostles, or by any of the
churches in their time. The mention of Easter, in Acts xii.
4, has no application to this subject. Herod was a Jew, not
a Christian ; and, of course, had no desire to honour a Chris-
tian solemnity. The real meaning of the passage is, — as the
slightest inspection of the original will satisfy every intelligent
reader ; " intending after the passover to bring him forth to
the people."

2. We believe that the Scriptures not only do not warrant

74 WORSHIP 01 THE

the observance of such days, but that they positively discoun
tenance it. Let any one impartially weigh Colossians ii. 16
and also, Galatians iv. 9, 10, 11 ; and then say whether these
passages do not evidently indicate, that the inspired Apostle
disapproved of the observance of such days,

3. The observance of Fasts and Festivals, by divine direc-
tion, under the Old Testament economy, makes nothing in
favour of such observances under the New Testament dis-
pensation. That economy was no longer binding, or even
lawful, after the New Testament Church was set up. It were
just as reasonable to plead for the present use of the Passover,
the incense, and the burnt offerings of the Old economy,
which were confessedly done away by the coming of Christ,
as to argue in favour of human inventions, bearing some re-
semblance to them, as binding in the Christian Church.

4. The history of the introduction of stated Fasts and Fes-
tivals by the early Christians, speaks much against both their
obligation, and their edifying character. Their origin was
ignoble. They were chiefly brought in, by carnal policy, for
the purpose of drawing into the Church Jews and Gentiles,
who had both been accustomed to festivals and holy-days.
And from the moment of their introduction, they became the
signal for strife, or the monuments of worldly expedient, and
degrading superstition.

As there were no holy-days, excepting the Lord's day,
observed in the Christian Church while the Apostles lived ;
and nb hint given, that they thought any other expedient or
desirable ; so we find no hint of any such observance having
been adopted until towards the close of the second century.
Then, the celebration of Easter gave rise to a controversy ;
the Asiatic Christians pleading for its observance at the same
time which was prescribed for the Jewish Passover, and con-
tending that they were supported in this by apostolic tradi-
tion ; while the Western Church contended for its stated cele-
bration on a certain Sunday, and urged, with equal confidence,
apostolic tradition in favour of their scheme. Concerning this
fierce and unhallowed controversy, Socrates, the ecclesiastical
historian, who wrote soon after the time of Eusebius, and be-
gins his history where the latter closes his narrative ; speak-
ing on the controversy concerning Easter, expresses himself
thus: " Neither the ancients, nor the fathers of later times, I
mean such as favoured the Jewish custom, had sufficient cause
to contend so eagerly about the feast of Easter ; for they con-
sidered not within themselves, that when the Jewish rehgion
was changed into Christianity, the literal observance of the

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 75

Mosaic law, and the types of things to come, wholly ceased.
And this canies with it its own evidence. For no one of
Christ's laws permits Christians to observe the rites of the
Jews. Nay, the Aposde hath in plain words forbidden ,it,
where he abrogates circumcision, and exhorts us not to con
tend about feasts and holy-days. For, writing to the Gala-
tians, he admonishes them not to observe days, and months,
and times, and years. And unto the Colossians, he is as
plain as may be, declaring, that the observance of such things
was but a shadow. Neither the Apostles nor the Evangelists
have enjoined on Christians the observance of Easter; but
have left the remembrance of it to the free choice and discre-
tion of those who have been benefited by such days. Men
keep holy-days, because thereon they enjoy rest from toil and
labour. Therefore, it comes to pass, that in every place they
do celebrate, of their own accord, the remembrance of the
Lord's passion. But neither our Saviour nor his Apostles
have any where commanded us to observe it." Socrates, Lib.
5, cap. 21.

Here, then, is an eminent Christian writer who flourished
early in the fifth century, who had made the history of the
Church his particular study; who explicitly declares, that
neither Christ nor his Apostles gave any command, or even
countenance to the observance of festival days ; that it was
brought into the Church by custom; and that in diflerent
parts of the Church there was diversity of practice in regard
to this matter. With respect to Easter, in particular, this
diversity was striking. We no sooner hear of its observance
at all, than we begin to hear of contest, and interruption of
Christian fellowship on account of it ; some quoting the au-
thority of some of the Aposdes for keeping this festival on
one day ; and others, with equal confidence, quoting the au-
thority of other Apostles for the selection of a diff"erent day :
thereby clearly demonstrating, that there was error some-
where, and rendering it highly probable that all parties were
wrong, and that no such observances at all, were binding on
Christians.

The festival of Easter, no doubt, was introduced in the
second century, in place of the Passover, and in accommo-
dation to the same Jewish prejudice which had said, even
during the apostolic age, "Except ye be circumcised, after
the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." Hence, it was
generally called pascha, and pasch, in conformity with the
name of the Jewish festival, whose place it took. It seems
to have received the title of Easter in Great Britain, froui the

7

76 WORSHIP OF THE

circumstance, that, when Christianity was introduced into
that country, a great Pagan festival, celebrated at the same
season of the year, in honour of the Pagan goddess Eostre,
yielded its place to the Christian festival, which received,
substantially, the name of the Pagan deity. The title of
Easter, it is believed, is seldom used but by Britons and their
descendants.

Few festivals are celebrated in the Romish Church, and in
some Protestant Churches, with more interest and zeal tlian
Christmas. Yet when Origen, about the middle of the third
century, professes to give a list of the fasts and festivals which
were observed in his day, he makes no mention of Christmas.
From this fact. Sir Peter King, in his " Inquiry into the Con-
stitution and worship, (fee. of the Primitive Church," &:c., in-
fers, that no such festival was then observed; and adds, "It
seems improbable that they should celebrate Christ's nativity,
when they disagreed about the month and the day when
Christ was born." Every month in the year has been as-
signed by different portions and writers of the Christian Church
as the time of our Lord's nativity ; and the final location of
this, as well as other holy-days, in the ecclesiastical calendar,
was adjusted rather upon astronomical and mathematical
principles, than on any solid calculations of history.

5. But the motives and manner of introducing Christmas
into the Christian Church, speak more strongly against it. Its
real origin was this. Like many other observances, it was
borrowed from the heathen. The well known Pagan festival
among the Romans, distinguished by the title of Saturnalia,
because instituted in honour of their fabled deity, Saturn, was
celebrated by them with the greatest splendour, extravagance,
and debauchery. It was, during its continuance, a season of
freedom and equality ; the master ceased to rule, and the slave
to obey ; the former waiting at his own table upon the latter,
and submitting to the suspension of all order, and the reign of
universal frolic. The ceremonial of this festival was opened
on the 19th of December, by lighting a profusion of waxen
candles in the temple of Saturn ; and by suspending in their
temple, and in all their habitations, boughs of laurel, and va-
rious kinds of evergreen. The Christian Church, seeing the
unhappy moral influence of this festival ; perceiving her own
members too often partaking in its licentiousness ; and desi-
rous, if possible, of effecting its abolition, appointed a festival,
in honour of her Master's birth, nearly about the same time,
for the purpose of superseding it. In doing this, the policy
was to retain us many of these habits which had prevailed in

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 77

the Saturnalia as could in any way be reconciled with the pu-
rity of Christianity. They made their new festival, therefore,
a season of relaxation and mirth, of cheerful visiting, and mu-
tual presents. They lighted candles in their places of wor-
ship, rnd adorned them with a profusion of evergreen boughs.
Thus did the Romish Church borrow from the Pagans some
of her most prominent observances ; and thus have some ob-
servances of this origin been adopted and continued by Pro-
testants.

6. It being evident, then, that stated fasts and festivals have
no divine warrant, and that their use under the New Testa-
ment economy is a mere human invention ; we may ask those
who are friendly to their observance, what Umits ought to be
set to their adoption and use in the Christian Church? If it
be lawful to introduce five such days for stated observance,
why not ten, twenty, or five score ? A small number were, at
an early period, brought into use by serious men, who thought
they were thereby rendering God service, and extending the
reign of religion. But one after another was added, as super-
stition increased, until the calendar became burdened with be-
tween two and three hundred fasts and festivals, or saint's days,
in each year ; thus materially interfering with the claims of
secular industry, and loading the worship of God with a mass
of superstitious observances, equally unfriendly to the tempo-
ral and the eternal interests of men. Let the principle once
be admitted, that stated days of religious observance, which
God has no where commanded, may properly be introduced
into the Christian ritual, and, by parity of reasoning, every
one who, from good motives, can effect the introduction of a
new religious festival, is at liberty to do so. Upon this prin-
ciple was built up the enormous mass of superstition which
now distinguishes and corrupts the Romish Church.

7. The observance of uncommanded holy-days is ever found
to interfere with the due sanctification of the Lord's day.
Adding to the appointments of God is superstition. And su-
perstition has ever been found unfriendly to genuine obedience.
Its votaries, like the Jews of old, have ever been found more
tenacious of their own inventions, of traditionary dreams, than
of God's revealed code of duty. Accordingly, there is, per-
haps, no fact more universal and unquestionable, than that the
zealous observers of stated fasts and festivals are characteris-
tically lax in the observance ^f that one day which God has
eminently set apart for himself, and on the sanctification of
which all the vital interests of practical religion are suspended.
So it was among the Israelites of old. As early as the fifth

7S WORSHIP OF THE

century, Augustine complains that the superstitious observance
of unconimanded rites, betrayed many in his time, into a spirit
of irreverence and neglect towards those which were divinely
appointed. So it is, notoriously, among the Romanists at the
present day. And so, without any breach of charity, it may
be said to be in every religious community in which zeal for
the observance of uncommanded holy-days prevails. It is
true, many in those communities tell us, that the observance
of holy-days, devoted to particular persons and events in the
history of the Church, has a manifest and strong tendency to
increase the spirit of piety. But if this be so, we might ex-
pect to find much more scriptural piety in the Romish Church
than in any other, since holy-days are ten times more numer-
ous in that denommation than in the system of any Protestant
Church. But is it so ? Let those who have eyes to see, and
ears to hear, decide.

If the foregoing allegations be in any measure well founded ;
if there be no warrant in God's word for any observances of
this kind ; if, on the contrary, the Scriptures positively dis-
courage them ; if the history of their introduction and increase
mark an unhallowed origin ; if, when we once open the door
to such human inventions, no one can say how or when it may
be closed ; and if the observance of days, not appointed of God,
has ever been found to exert an unfriendly influence on the
sanctification of that holy-day which God has appointed, surely
we need no further proof that it is wise to discard them from
our ecclesiastical system.

Section III. — We reject God-fathers and God-mothers in
Baptism.

It is well known that the Presbyterian Church differs from
Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, in regard to sponsors in
baptism. We differ in two respects. First, in not requiring
or encouraging the appearance of any other sponsors, in the
baptism of children, than the parents, when they are living,
and qualified to present themselves in this character ; and,
secondly, in not requiring, or even admitting any sponsors at
all in cases of adult baptism. And we adopt this principle
and practice for the following reasons :

1. There is not a shadow of evidence in the New Testa-
ment, that any other sponsors than parents were ever admit-
ted to answer for their children in baptism in the apostolic
Church ; nor is any text of Scripture attempted to be adduced
m its support, by the warmest friends of this practice. When
the jailor at Philippi was baptized, " he and all his straight-

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 79

way;" and when Lydia and "her household" were baptized,
we read of no sponsors but the heads of these families, whose
faith entitled them to present their households to receive the
appropriate seal of faith.

2. We find no trace of any other sponsors than parents
during the first 500 years after Christ. When some persons,
in the time of Augustine, who flourished toward the close of
the fourth, and the beginning of the fifth century, contended
that it was not lawful, in any case, for any, excepting their
natural parents to ofifer children in baptism, that learned and
pious Father opposed them, and gave it as his opinion, that,
in extraordinary cases, as, for example, when the parents were
dead ; when they were not professing Christians ; when they
cruelly forsook and exposed their offspring ; and when Chris-
tian masters had young slaves committed to their charge ; in
these cases, (and the pious Father mentions no others,) he
maintains that any professing Christians, who should be will-
ing to undertake the charge, might, with propriety, take such
children, offer them in baptism, and become responsible for
their Christian education. In this principle and practice, all
intelligent and consistent Presbyterians are agTced. The
learned Bingham, an Episcopal divine of great industry and
erudition, seems to have taken unwearied pains, in his "Ec-
clesiastical Antiquities," to collect every scrap of testimony
within his reach, in favour of the early origin of sponsors.
But he utterly fails of producing even plausible evidence to
this amount; and at length candidly acknowledges, that in
the early ages, parents were, in all ordinary cases, the pre-
senters and sureties of their own children ; and that children
were presented by others only in extraordinary cases, such as
those already stated, when their parents could not present
them. It was not until the council of Mentz, in the ninth
century, that the Church of Rome forbade the appearance of
parents as sponsors for their own children, and required this
service to be surrendered to other hands.

3. The subsequent history of this practice marks the pro-
gress of superstition. Mention is made by Cyril, in the fifth
century, and by Fulgentius, in the sixth, of sponsors in some
peculiar cases of adult baptism. When adults, about to be
baptized, were dumb, or under the power of delirium, through
disease, and, of course, unable to speak for themselves, or to
make the usual profession ; in such cases, it was customary
for some friend, or friends, to answer for them, and to bear
testimony to their good character, and to the fact of their hav-
ing sufficient knowledge, and having before expressed a desire

7*

80 WORSHIP OF THE

to be baptized. For this, there was, undoubtedly, at least
some colour of reason ; and the same thing might, perhaps,
be done without impropriety, in some conceivable circum-
stances now. From this, however, there was a transition
soon made to the use of sponsors in all cases of adult baptism.
This latter, however, was upon a different principle from the
former. When adults had the use of speech and reason, and
were able to answer for themselves, the sponsors provided for
such never answered or professed for them. This was inva-
riably done by the adult himself. Their only business, as it
would appear, was to be a kind of curators or guardians of the
spiritual life of the persons baptized. This office was gene-
rally fulfilled, in each church, by the Deacons, when adult
males were baptized; and by the Deaconesses, when females
came forward to receive this ordinance. Hence, in the Ro-
man Catholic, and some Protestant sects, the practice was ul-
timately established of providing god-fathers and god-mothers
in all cases of adult baptism.

4. Among the pious Waldenses and Albigenses, in the
middle ages, no other sponsors than parents were in common
use. But where the parents were dead, or absent, or unable,
on any account, to act, other professors of religion who were
benevolent enough to undertake the charge, were allowed to
appear in their place, and answer and act in their stead.

5. If, then, the use of god-fathers and god-mothers, as dis-
tinct from parents, in baptism, has no countenance in the word
of God ; if it was unknown in the Church during the first 500
years after Christ; and if it was superstitious in its origin, and
connected with other superstitions in its progress ; we have,
undoubtedly, sufficient reason for rejecting the practice.
When the system is to set aside parents in this solemn trans-
action ; to require others to take their places, and make en-
gagements which they alone, for the most part, are qualified
to make ; and when, in pursuance of this system, thousands
are daily making engagements which they never think of ful-
filling, and, in most cases, notoriously ha^'e it not in their
power to fulfil, and, indeed, appear to feel no special obliga-
tion to fulfil, we are constrained to regard it as a human in-
vention, altogether unwarranted, and adapted, on a variety of
accounts, to generate evil rather than good.

According to one of the canons of the Church of England,
" Parents are not to be urged to be present when their chil-
dren are baptized, nor to be permitted to stand as sponsors for
their own children." That is, the parents, to whom God and
nature have committed the education of children ; in whose

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 8 I

families they are to grew up ; under whose eye and imme-
diate care their principles, manners, and character are to be
formed, shall not be allowed to take even a part in their dedi-
cation to God, nor encouraged even to be present at the solemn
transaction ! In the Protestant Episcopal Church in this coun-
try, " parents shall be admitted as sponsors, if it be desired."
But in both countries, it is required that there be sponsors for
all adults, as well as for infants.

Section IV. — The Sign of the Cross in Baptism.

This is one of the additions to the baptismal rite which
Protestant Episcopalians have adopted from the Romanists,
and which Presbyterians have always rejected. A large body
of the most pious and learned divines of the established
Church of England, in an early part of the reign of Queen
Elizabeth, when the Reformation of that Church was about
to be conclusively settled, earnestly petitioned that the sign ot
the cross in baptism, as well as stated fasts and festivals, god-
fathers and god-mothers in baptism, kneeling at the Lord's
Supper, bowing at the name of Jesus, &c., might be abolished.
When their petitions to this amount were read, and their ar-
guments heard, in the lower house of Convocation, the vote
was taken, and passed by a majority of those present; forty-
three voting in favour of granting the prayer of the petition-
ers,—-in other words, in favour of abolishing the rites com-
plained of, and thirty-five against it. But when the proxies
were called for and counted, the scale was turned ; those in
favour of the abolition being fifty-eight, and those against it
fifty-nine. So that, by a solemn vote of the Convocation, the
several rites regarded and complained of, as Popish supersti-
tions, and the sign of the cross among the rest, were retained
in the Church only by a majority of one.

In the objections at that time urged against the sign of the
cross in baptism, by those learned and venerable Episcopal
divines, Presbyterians have ever concurred. These objections
are the following :

1. Not the smallest countenance is to be found in Scrip-
ture for any such addition to the baptismal rite. Nothing of
this kind is pretended to be produced by its most zealous ad-
vocates. All acknowledge it to be a human invention.

2. In the records of the earliest writers by whom it is men-
tioned, it appears associated with so much superstition as can-
not fail to discredit it in the view of all intelligent Christians.
From the very same sources from which we gather the in
formation that, in the second and third centuries, the sign of

82 WORSHIP OF THE

the cross was added to the rite of baptism, we also learn that
there were added to the same ordinance a number of other
human inventions — such as " exorcising" the candidate for
baptism, to drive away evil spirits ; putting into his mouth a
mixture of milk and honey, as a symbol of his childhood in
a new life ; anointing with spittle and with oil , and the lay-
ing on of hands for tlie purpose of imparting the Holy Spirit.
These are all deemed, by Protestants, unwarranted additions
to Christ's simple appointment ; and in what respect does the
sign of the cross stand upon better ground ?

3. Tertullian, one of the earhest writers in whom we find
any mention made of the sign of the cross as a religious rite,
represents it as used in his day with a degree of superstition
scarcely credible in such an early age, and which ought to
operate as a permanent warning to all succeeding ages.
"Every step," says he, "that we take, when we come in,
and when we go out ; when we put on our clothes or our
shoes ; when we bathe, eat, light up candles, go to bed, or sit
down, — we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross.
If for these, and other acts of discipline of the same kind,
you demand a text of Scripture, you will find none ; but tra-
dition will be alleged as the prescriber of them."— /)e Corona.
cap. iii. The sign of the cross was thought, by those deluded
votaries of superstition, a sure preservative against all sorts ot
malignity, poisons, or fascination, and efiectual to drive away
evil spirits. The principal fathers of the fourth century affirm
that it was the constant and undoubted means of working many
miracles. " This sign," says Chrysostom, "both in the days
of our forefathers and our own, has thrown open gates that
were shut ; destroyed the effect of poisonous drugs ; disarmed
the force of hemlock; and cured the bites of venomous
beasts." — Tom. vii. p. 552. A.

4. When we consider the miserable superstition with which
the use of the sign of the cross is constantly marked by Ro-
man Catholics ; that they regard it as essential to the validity
of the ordinance of baptism ; that they adore it ; that they
apply It in every step and act of religious life ; that many of
them consider no oath as binding which is taken on the Bible
without the figure of the cross upon it ; and that they rely
upon it as a kind of talisman, connected with every blessing ;
■—surely, when we see this degrading system of superstition
connected with this sign, — acknowledged on all hands to be
a mere human invention, — it is no wonder that enlightened
and conscientious Christians should feel constrained to lay it
aside.

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 83

Section V. — We reject the Rite of Confirmation.

In the Apostolic Church, there was no such rite as that
which, under this name, has been long established in the
Romish communion as a sacrament, and adopted in some
Protestant Churches as a solemnity, in their view, if not com-
manded, yet as both expressive and edifying. In giving the
views of Presbyterians on this subject, it is not at all intended
to condemn those who think proper to employ the rite in
question ; but only to state with brevity some of the reasons
why the venerated fathers of our Church thought proper to
exclude it from our truly primitive and apostolical ritual ; and
why their sons, to the present hour, have persisted in the
same course.

1. We find no warrant for this rite in the word of God.
Indeed, its most intelligent and zealous advocates do not pre-
tend to adduce any testimony from Scripture in its behalf.

2. Quite as little support for it is to be found in the purest
and best ages of uninspired antiquity. Toward the close of
the second century, indeed, and the beginning of the third,
among several human additions to the rite of baptism which
had crept into the Church — such as exorcising the infant, to
drive away evil spirits — putting a mixture of milk and honey
into his mouth — -anointing him with spittle and with oil, in the
form of a cross ; it became customary to lay on hands, for the
purpose of imparting the gifts of the Holy Spirit. This lay-
ing on of hands, however, was always done immediately after
the application of water, and always by the same minister
who performed the baptism. Of course, every one who was
authorized to baptize, was also authorized to lay on hands
upon the baptized individual. As this was a mere human in-
vention, so it took the course which human inventions are apt
to take. It was modified as the pride and the selfishness of
ecclesiastics prompted. When Prelacy arose, it became cus-
tomary to reserve this solemn imposition of hands to Prelates,
as a part of their official prerogative. As soon as convenient
after baptism, the infant was presented to the bishop, to re-
ceive from him the imposition of hands, for conveying the
gift of the Spirit. Jerome, in the fourth century, bears wit-
ness, however, that this was done rather for the sake of hon-
ouring their office, than in obedience to any Divine warrant.
But, in process of time, another modification of the rite was
introduced. The imposition of the bishop's hands did not
take place immediately after baptism, nor even in the infancy
of the baptized individual, but was postponed for a number of

84 WORSHIP OF THE

years, according to circumstances, and sometimes even till
adult age. Then the young person, or ^dult, was presented
with great formality tO the bishop for his peculiar benediction.
Among many proofs that this was not the original nature of
the rite, is the notorious fact, that throughout the whole Greek
Church, at the present time, the laying on of hands is admi-
nistered, for the most part, in close connection with baptism,
and is dispensed by any priest who is empowered to baptize,
as was done in the third and fourth centuries, before the
Greek Church was separated from the Latin. In like man-
ner, in the Lutheran and other German Churches, where a
sort of confirmation is retained ; although they have ecclesias-
tical superintendents or seniors, the act of laying on hands is
not reserved to them, but is performed by each pastor for the
children of his parochial charge.

3. The rite of confirmation is not only altogether destitute
of Divine warrant, but it is also superfluous. As it was plain-
ly, at first, a human invention, founded on the superstitious
belief that, by the laying on of hands, the special gifts of the
Holy Spirit were to be continued in the Church ; so it is un-
necessary. It answers no practical purpose which is not pro-
vided for quite as well, to say the least, in the Presbyterian
Church, which rejects it. It is said to be desirable that there
should be some transaction or solemnity by which young peo-
ple, who have been baptized in their infancy, may be called
to recognize their religious obligations, and as it were, to take
upon themselves the profession and the vows made on their
behalf in baptism. Granted. There can be no doubt that
such a solemnity is both reasonable in itself, and edifying in
its tendency. But have we not just such a solemnity in the
Lord's Supper; an ordinance divinely instituted ; an ordinance
on which all are qualified to attend, and ought to attend, who
are qualified to take on themselves, in any scriptural or ra-
tional sense, their baptismal obligations ; an ordinance, in fact,
specifically intended, among other things, to answer this very
purpose, viz. the purpose of making a personal acknowledg-
ment and profession of the truth, the service, and the hopes of
Christ; — have we not in the Sacramental Suppei just such a
solemnity as we need for the purpose in question simple, ra-
tional, scriptural, and to which all our children may come just
so soon as they are prepared, in any suitable manner, to con-
fess Christ before men ? We do not need confirmation, then,
for the purpose for which it is proposed. We liave some-
thing better, because appointed of God ; quite as expressive ;
more solemn; and free from certain objectionable features
which are next to be mentioned.

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 85

4. Finally ; we reject the rite of confirmation in our Church,
because, in addition to all the reasons which have been men-
tioned, we consider the formulary prescribed for its adminis-
tration in the Church of England, and substantially adopted
in the Episcopal Church in this country, as liable to the most
serious objections. We do not think it a duty to administer,
in any form, a rite which the Saviour never appointed ; but
our repugnance is greatly increased by the language in which
the rite in question is dispensed by those who employ it. In
the " Order of Confirmation," as prescribed and used in the
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, the follow-
ing language occurs. Before the act of laying on hands, the
officiating bishop, in his prayer, repeats the following sen-
tence : " Almighty and ever living God, who hast vouchsafed
to regenerate these thy servants, by water, and the Holy
Ghost, and hast given unto them forgiveness of all their sins,"
&c. &c. And again, in another prayer after the imposition
of hands, he speaks to the Searcher of hearts thus: "We
make our humble supphcations unto thee for these thy ser-
vants, upon whom, after the example of thy holy Apostles, we
have now laid our hands ; to certify them by this sign of thy
favour and gracious goodness toward them," (fee. And also,
in the act of laying on hands, assuming that all who are kneel-
ing before him already have the holy sanctifying Spirit of
Christ, he prays that they "may all daily increase in this
Holy Spirit more and more."

Such is the language addressed to large circles of young
people of both sexes, many of whom there is every reason to
fear are very far from having been " born of the Spirit," in the
scriptural sense of that phrase ; nay, some of whom manifest
so little seriousness, that any pastor of enlightened piety
would be pained to see them at a communion table ; yet the
bishop pronounces them all, and he appeals to heaven for the
truth of his sentence — he pronounces them all regenerate, not
only by water, but also by the Holy Ghost; certifies to them,
in the name of God, that they -are objects of the divine
" favour ;" and declares that, being already in a state of grace,
and reconciliation with God, they are called to " grow in
grace," and to "increase in the Holy Spirit more and more."

An enlightened Presbyterian minister w^ould consider him-
self, if he were to use such language, to such a circle, as en-
couraging radical misapprehensions of the nature of true reli-
gion ; as perverting the doctrine of regeneration by the Holy
Spirit ; and as speaking a language adapted fatally to deceive
the souls of those whom he addressed. Surely, with such

86 WORSHIP OF THE

views, we should be highly criminal were we to adopt such a
rite, and dispense it after such an example.

Section VI. — We reject Kneeling at the Lord's Supper,

This is another part of the Romish rituals, which a large
body of the most pious and learned divines of the Church of
England, at the period of the Reformation, were earnestly de-
sirous of having laid aside ; but they were overruled by the
Queen, and the court clergy, who chose to retain it ; and it
has ever since found a place in the Protestant Episcopal
Church. It is well known, that Presbyterians differ, in this
respect, from their Episcopal neighbours. They prefer what
has been commonly called "the table posture," for such rea-
sons as the following :

1. It is granted, on all hands, that the posture in which the
Lord's Supper was first administered by the Saviour himself,
was that in which it was customary to receive ordinary meals.
It is not known that any one denies or doubts this. The
Evangelists are too explicit in their statement of this fact to
admit of doubt. The Evangelist Matthew declares ; " Now
when the evening was come, he sat down with the twelve.
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it,
and brake it, and gave it to his disciples," &lc. But if the
Saviour himself chose this posture, as most agreeable to his
will, may we not conclude, that it is, on the whole, the wisest
and best?

2. It is very certain that kneeling at the Lord's table was
unknown in the Christian Church for a number of centuries
after the apostoUc age. Indeed, in the second, third, and fol-
lowing centuries, it was accounted unlawful even to kneel on
the Lord's day ; this posture being reserved for days of fast-
ing and humiliation. This is asserted by TertuUian ; and the
Council of Nice passed a solemn decree to the same amount,
because on that day is celebrated the joyful remembrance of
our Lord's resurrection. This posture, both of public prayer
on the Lord's day, and of receiving the communion, was in-
variably standing. The proof of this is so complete as to pre-
clude the possibility of doubt. The most ardent friends of
kneeling do not pretend, so far as is now recollected, to find
any example of this posture, in the whole history of the
Church, prior to the thirteenth century. That is, not until
the Papacy had reached the summit of its system of corrup-
tion. And, accordingly, in the Greek Church, which sepa-
rated from the Latin, before the doctrine of Transubstantiation
arose, kneeling at the communion is unknown. In short,

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 87

kneeling at the Lord's table was not introduced until Tran-
substantiation arose; and witli Transubstantiation it ought,
by Protestants, to have been laid aside. When men began
to believe that the sacramental elements were really trans-
muted into the body and blood of the Redeemer, there was
some colour of apology for kneeling and adoring them. But
when this error was abandoned, that which had grown out of
it ought to have been abandoned also.

The essential nature of the Eucharist renders the attend-
ance upon it in a kneeling posture incongruous, and, of course,
unsuitable. This ordinance is a feast, a feast of love, joy,
and thanksgiving. The very name, Eucharist, implies as
much. It is intended to be a sign of love, confidence, and
affectionate fellowship, between each communicant and the
master of the feast, and between all the members of his body.
It is also intended to be an emblem, and a means of that spi-
ritual nourishment which is found in feeding by faith, and, in
a spiritual sense, on the body and blood of the Redeemer, set
forth in this ordinance as crucified for us. Now, it has been
often asked — " In what nation is it thought suitable to kneel
at banquets ?" Where do men eat and drink upon their ki^^es ?
True, indeed, humility and penitence become us in every ap-
proach to God; and certainly in no case more peculiarly than
when we celebrate the wonders of grace and love manifested
in the Saviour's dying for us. Yet it is equally true, that, as
the ordinance is, characteristically, a feast of confidence, fel-
lowship, joy, and thanksgiving, so the exercises and the pos-
ture most becoming the attendance on it, are those which in-
dicate gladness, gratitude, and affectionate intercourse. He
must be strangely prejudiced in favour of a superstitious pre-
cedent, who can persuade himself that kneeling is the most
suitable expression of those exercises.

4. Finally ; the abuse and the misapprehension of the prac
tice of kneeling at the Lord's Supper, are considerations of no
small weight in the minds of those who reject this practice
As it originated in gross error, so it is adapted to nourish er
ror and superstition ; and however understood by intelHgent
Christians, it has been misapprehended, and will be, as long
as it shall be used, misapprehended by many ignorant minds
Accordingly, as before stated, when the English Liturgy was
revised, and about to be ultimately settled, in the reign of
Queen Elizabeth, some of the most pious and learned divines
of that Church entreated that kneeling at the Eucharist might
either be abolished altogether, or, at least, left optional or in-
different. When the divines, appointed to report on the sub-

8

88 WORSHIi OF THE

ject, brought in a report which left it indifferent, the Queen
drew her pen over the Knes which represented it, and made
the practice binding. And all that the friends of abolishing
the practice could obtain, was a rubric, or marginal advertise-
ment, declaring that by communing in this posture, no wor-
ship of the elements was intended. This obstinate adherence
to the practice in question, greatly grieved the foreign Pro-
testants, and the learned Beza wTOte to Archbishop Grindal
on the subject, in a style of respectful, but firm remonstrance.
"If," says Beza, "you have rejected the doctrine of Tran-
substantiation, and the practice of adoring the host, why do
you symbolize with Popery, and seem to hold both by kneel-
ing at the Sacrament ? Kneeling had never been thought of
had it not been for Transubstantiation." The archbishop re-
plied, " That though the Sacrament was to be received kneel-
ing, yet the rubric accompanied the service-book, and informed
the people that no adoration of the elements was intended."
"O! I understand you," said Beza; "there was a certain
great lord who repaired his house, and having finished it, left
before his gate a great stone, for which he had no occasion.
This stone caused many people in the dark to stumble and fall.
Complaint was made to his lordship, and many an humble
petition was presented, praying for the removal of the stone ;
but he remained long obstinate. At length he condescended
to order a larithorn to be hung over it. ' My lord,' said one,
' if you would be pleased to rid yourself of further solicitation,
and to quiet all parties, order the stone and the candle to be
both removed.' "

Section VII. — TVe do not Mniinisfer the Lord^s Supper in
Private.

Few ordinances have been more misapprehended and per-
verted than the Lord's Supper. Before the close of the third
century, superstitious views of its efficacy, and its necessity
to salvation, began to be adopted, and led to a corresponding
practice. Entirely mistaking the meaning of John vi. 53,
many Christians of that day supposed that no one could die
safely without having participated of this ordinance. Accord-
ingly, it was not only administered to all adult persons, w^ho
professed to be the disciples of Christ ; but also to infants,
soon after their baptism. Nay, to such an extravagant height
was this phrensy of superstition carried, that when any one
had died suddenly, without having partaken of this sacrament,
the consecrated elements were, in many instances, thrust into
the mouth of the lifeless corpse, in hope that it might yet not

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 89

be too late to impart a saving benefit to the deceased. This
delusion soon produced, or rather strongly implied the Popish
doctrine, that this sacrament, as well as baptism, carried with
it an inherent efficacy, (an opus operatum, as they expressed
it,) which insured a saving operation in all cases in which it
was regularly administered. From this, the transition was
easy to the notion, that the consecrated elements, when exhi-
bited, cured diseases, and accomplished many other wonder-
ful miracles. Hence, these elements, before the commence-
ment of the third century, after being dispensed in the public
assembly, were sent, generally by deacons, to those who, on
any account, were absent. Not long afterwards, the sick, the
dying, and those who were confined, on any account, to their
dwelling, had a portion of the elements despatched to them,
either by ecclesiastics, or, if more convenient, by the hands
of laymen, and even children. Some, on receiving the ele-
ments in church, contrived to carry away with them a portion,
and were in the habit of taking a small part of this portion
every day, for thirty or forty days together. Nay, some car-
ried a portion of the sacrament (as they expressed it,) with
them on long journies and voyages ; had recourse to it as a
defence in cases of danger ; and inserted some portion of it in
plaisters for healing wounds and ulcers. All this under the
impression that these sacramental elements had an inherent
energy of the most potent and beneficial kind. No wonder,
that wherever these sentiments prevailed, private communion,
if such an expression may be allowed, was universal. The
sacrament, in a great measure, lost its character as a social
ordinance ; and the symbols of the Redeemer's broken body
and shed blood were considered as invested with a sort of
magical influence, wherever they appeared; to be carried
about the person as an amulet, for defence ; and resorted to as
a medicine of sovereign power.

It is true, some of these views and habits were checked by
the rise of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. When the ele-
ments were believed, by the consecrating prayer, to have
been transmuted into the real body and blood of Christ, it was
thought indecent to carry them home, to deposit them in a
chest or cupboard, and to swallow a small portion every day.
Still the most humiliating superstitions, as to the consecrated
elements, continued to prevail.

When the Reformation took place in the land of our fathers,
many of these views and habits, and especially the more gross
of them, were happily corrected. Still it is to be lamented,
that the Reformation in the Church of England, m respect to

90 WORSHIP OF THE

this ordinance, as well as some others, was not more thorough ;
and that after all the remonstrances and importunity of the
most venerable and pious divines of that Church, a number ol
things were left in use, which it were to be wished had been
laid aside. Of these the habit of private communion is one.

The Eucharist is administered, by the clergy of that Church,
every day, to the sick and the dying, with scarcely any scru-
ple, whenever it is requested. To the worldly, the careless,
and even the most profligate, it is freely carried, when they
come to die, if they desire it ; indeed, some have supposed
that any minister who should publicly refuse to administer
this ordinance to a sick person, when requested, would be
liable, in that country, to a civil prosecution. Suffice it to
say, that such a refusal is very seldom given. Even crimi-
nals of the most profligate character, just before their execu-
tion, always have this sacrament administered to them, if they
are willing to receive it, and that when no appearance what-
ever of genuine penitence is manifested.*

Presbyterian ministers, in all ordinary cases, decline ad-
ministering the Lord's Supper to the sick and the dying, and
generally in private houses, for reasons which appear to them
conclusive. They are such as these :

1 . They consider this ordinance as social and ecclesiastical
in its very nature. It is a communion, in which the idea of a
*' solitary mass," as admitted among Papists, would seem to
be an absurdity.

2. We find no warrant for private communion in the New
Testament. It is true, we read of Christians, in the apos-
tolic age, "breaking bread from house to house ;" but that is,
evidently, a mode of expressing their ordinary worshipping
assemblies. They had no ecclesiastical buildings. They
worshipped altogether in private houses, in " upper cham-
bers," &c. There, of course, they administered the commu-
nion to as many as could come together. And, as they could
not occupy the same apartment statedly, or, at any rate, long
together, on account of the vigilance of their persecutors, they
went " from house to house" to worship, as circumstances
invited ; or in a number of houses at the same time, where
Christians were too numerous for a single dwelling. We
read of no instance of the sacramental symbols being carried
to an individual on a sick bed. On the contrary, when the
in&pired Apostle gives directions that the sick be visited and

• See the cases of the hardened Despard and Bellingham, mentioned
in the Christian Observer, vol. xiii. p. 6.

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 91

prayed with by the " Elders of the Church," James v. 14,
he says not a word of administering to them the commmiion.

3. If persons, on their dying beds, earnestly desire this or-
dinance to be administered to them, as a viaticum, or prepa-
ration for death, and as a kind of pledge of the divine favour
and acceptance, we believe that, on this very account, it ought
to be refused them. To comply with their wishes, at least
in many cases, is to encourage them to rely on the power of
an external sign, rather than on the merit of the Saviour him-
self. Such views being, manifestly, unscriptural, false, and
adapted to deceive and destroy the soul, ought by no means to
be countenanced. But what can tend more directly to favour,
and even nurture these views, than to hasten with the sacra-
mental memorials to the bed-side of every dying person who
desires them ? Ought the evident propensity of careless and
ungodly men to fly to this ordinance as the last refuge of a
guilty conscience, to be deliberately promoted by the minis-
ters of religion ?

4. If this practice be once begun,/ where is it to end ? All
men are serious when they come to die. Even the most pro-
fane and licentious, in that crisis, are commonly in no small
degree anxious and alarmed, and disposed to lay hold of every
thing that seems favourable to the smallest hope. Yet every
wise man, who has lived long, and observed much, is deeply
suspicious of the sincerity of death-bed penitents. What is a
conscientious minister to do in such cases ? How is he to
draw the line between those who are, and those who are not,
in his judgment, fit subjects for this ordinance ? Is it not un-
seasonable, as well as distressing to have any thing like ar-
guing or disputing with the sick and the dying on such a
subject ? On the one hand, if we faithfully refuse to adminis-
ter the ordinance where the dying man gives no evidence of
either knowledge or faith — shall we not agitate the patient,
distress his friends, and give against him a kind of public
sentence, so far as our judgment goes, of his reprobation ?
And, on the other hand, if we strain conscience, and, in com-
pliance with earnest wishes, administer the ordinance to those
who give no evidence whatever of fitness for it — shall we not
run the risk of deceiving and destroying souls, by lulling them
asleep in sin, and encouraging reliance on an external sign of
grace ? Will not by-standers be likely to be fatally injured ?
And shall we not, by every such act, incur great guilt in the
sight of God ?

5. By declining, in all ordinary cases, to administer this
ordinance on sick beds, either to saints or sinners, we avoid
8*

92 WORSHIP OF THE

these embarrassments so deep and trying to a conscientious
man. We avoid multiplied evils, both to the dying them-
selves, and their surviving friends. And we shall take a
course better adapted than any other to impress upon the minds
of men that great and vital truth, that the atoning sacrifice and
perfect righteousness of the Redeemer, imputed to us, and re-
ceived by faith alone, are the only scriptural foundation of
hope toward God : — that, without this faith, ordinances are
jnavailing ; and with it, though we may be deprived, by the
providence of God, of an opportunity of attending on outward
ordinances in their prescribed order of administration, all is
safe, for time and eternity. The more solemnly and unceas-
ingly these sentiments are inculcated, the more we shall be
likely to benefit the souls of men ; and the more frequently
we countenance any practice which seems to encourage a re-
liance on any external rite as a refuge in the hour of death,
we contribute to the prevalence of a system most unscriptural,
deceptive, and fatal in its tendency.

It was remarked, that Presbyterians take this ground, and
act upon these principles in all ordinary cases. It has some-
times happened, however, that a devout and exemplary com-
municant of our Church, after long enjoying the privileges ot
the sanctuary, has been confined for several, perhaps for many
years, to a bed of sickness, and been, of course, wholly una-
ble to enjoy a communion season in the ordinary form. In
such cases, Presbyterian ministers have sometimes taken the
Elders of the Church with them, and also invited half a dozen
other friends of the sick person — thus making, in reality, a
"church," meeting by its representatives — and administered
the communion in the sick chamber. To this no solid objec-
tion is perceived. But the moment we t)pen the door — un-
less in very extraordinary cases indeed — to the practice of
carrying this sacrament to those who have wholly neglected
it during their lives, but importimately call for it as a passport
to heaven, in the hour of nature's extremity; we countenance
superstition ; we deceive souls ; and we pave the way for
abuses and temptations, of which no one can calculate the
consequences, or see the end.

Section VIII. — We reject bowing at the name of Jesus,

Those who have frequently witnessed the worship of the
Protestant Episcopal Church, have no doubt observed, that
when the name Jesus occurs, in repeating the Apostle's
Creed, there is a sensible obeisance, or bowing of the knee,
which occurs in pronouncing no other name in the public ser-

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 93

vice. This obeisance is, in many cases, confined to the
pronunciation of the name as it occurs in the Creed. The
same name may be pronounced in the other parts of the Litur-
gy, or in the sermon, without being accompanied with any
such act of reverence. Presbyterians have never adopted this
practice, for the following reasons :

1. We find no semblance of a warrant for it in Scripture.
Some Episcopal apologists, indeed, for this practice, of the
inferior and less intelligent class, have cited in its defence
Philippians ii. 10 ; but this plea has been abandoned, it is be-
lieved, by all truly learned and judicious friends of that deno-
mination. Dr. Nichols, one of the most able and zealous
advocates of the ritual of the Church of England, expressly
says — " We are not so dull as to think that these words can
be rigorously applied to this purpose."

2. It seems unaccountable that the obeisance in question
should be so pointedly made at this name of the Saviour, and
not at all when his other titles are pronounced. When his
titles of God, Redeemer, Saviour, Christ, Immanuel, and even
Jehovah, are pronounced, no such testimonial of reverence is
manifested. Can any good reason, either in the Bible or out
of it, be assigned for this difference? We feel as if, with our
views of the subject, it would be superstition in us to adopt
or countenance such a practice.

3. Is not the habit of such observances, without warrant,
and, as would seem, without reason, plainly adapted to beget
a spirit of superstition, and to occupy our minds with the
commandments of men, rather than with the ordinances of
Heaven? It will, perhaps, be said in reply, that we surely
cannot pronounce the name of Jesus, our adorable Saviour,
with too much reverence ; why, then, find fault with an act
of obeisance at his glorious name ? True ; every possible
degree of reverence is his due. But why not manifest the
same at the pronunciation of all his adorable and official names ?
Suppose any one were to single out a particular verse of Holy
Scripture, and whenever he read that verse were to bow his
head, or bend his knees, in token of reverence ; but wholly
to omit this act of obeisance in reading all other parts of
Scripture, even those of exactly the same import as the verse
thus distinguished ? ShouW we not consider his conduct as
an example of strange caprice, or of still more strange super-
stition ? Such, however, precisely, is the case before us.
And if this mode of reading the Scriptures were enjoined by
ecclesiastical authority, we should, doubtless, consider it as
still more strange. Even this, however, is done in the case

94 WORSHIP OF THE

now under consideration. For the eighteenth canon of the
Church of England contains the following injunction: —
" When in the time of divine service the Lord Jesus shall be
mentioned, due and lowly reverence shall be done by all per-
sons present, as it hath been accustomed."

This practice of bowing at the name of Jesus, was never
heard of in the Christian Church, so far as is now recollected,
until ihe fifteenth century. Some trace it to the Papal reign
of Gregory X., in the thirteenth century. It may possibly
have existed then ; but the earliest authoritative injunction of
it that is remembered, is that of the council of Basil, in 1435.
The deplorable state of the Church at that time, both in re-
spect to superstition and profligacy, will not furnish, it is pre-
sumed, a very strong recommendation of a rite which then
took its rise. A more worthy origin of it is unknown.

As to the practice of praying toward the east, and that of
wearing in the reading desk, or during the prayers, a white
surplice, they are too inconsiderable to be made the subjects
of particular discussion. Nevertheless, as this manual is in-
tended to give a comprehensive view of the points in which
we differ from surrounding denominations, it may not be
amiss to say, in passing, that both the practices last mentioned
were borrowed from the Pagans. And although plausible
reasons soon began to be urged in their favour ; reasons which
were made to wear a Christian aspect, yet their heathen ori-
gin is unquestionable. True, there is no sin in them. They
are little things ; too little to be formally animadverted upon.
Yet they are among the things which we think it our duty to
reject. And when asked, as Ave sometimes are, why we do
not adopt them 1 we have only to say, that our desire is to
keep as closely as we can to " the simplicity that is in Christ;"
that to indulge superstition in trivial things, is as really cen-
surable, in principle, as in things of more importance ; and
that " the beginning of evil is like the letting out of water."
And especially when we recollect, that three centuries have
not elapsed, since some of these very things were made terms
of communion in the land of our fathers ; and some of the
most pious and venerable men that ever lived in that land,
were fined, imprisoned, and ejected from office, because, ac-
cording to the popular language of that day, they " scrupled
the habits," or the prescribed dress, we shall see the evil of
tampering with uncommanded rites.

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 95

Section IX. — We reject the reading of Apocryphal Books
in public worship.

The Church of Rome considers a number of the books of
the Apocrypha as canonical ; that is, as belonging to the in-
spired canon, and as of equal authority with any of the booKs
of the Old or New Testament ; and accordingly orders them
to be read in her public asserabhes, just as the inspired Scrip-
tures. Protestants, with one voice, deny that the Apocry-
phal books make any part of the sacred canon, or form any
part of the infallible rule of faith and practice.

In the Church of England, however, large portions of the
Apocryphal books are read in her public assembhes, and ap-
pealed to as if they were canonical books. It is true, the
Church, in her sixth article, declares that these books are not
appealed to as any part of the rule of faith ; and they are
not read on Sundays. But on holy-days they are read con-
tinually.

The Episcopal Church in this country has adopted the
same practice, under the same restrictions.

Presbyterians object to this practice, and refuse to adopt it
for the following reasons.

1. Because they are persuaded that nothing ought to be
read under the name of Holy Scripture, but that which is re-
garded as the inspired word of God. To do this, is to depart
from an important Protestant principle, and open the door for
endless abuse.

2. Because those Apocryphal books, out of which the les-
sons referred to are taken, evidently contain some false doc-
trines, some misstatements, and not a few things adapted to
promote ridicule rather than edification.

3. Notwithstanding, in the 6th Article of the Church of
England, it is expressly stated, that these Apocryphal books
are not read as any part of the rule of faith, still in her
Homihes they are spoken of in language of a very different
aspect. Baruch is cited as the Prophet Baruch, and his
writing is called the word of the Lord to the Jews. The
Book of Tobit is expressly ascribed to the Holy Ghost, in
the most unequivocal terms, as follows : " The same lesson
doth the Holy Ghost also teach in sundry places of the Scrip-
tures, saying ; mercifulness and almsgiving purge th from all
sins, and delivereth from death, and suffereth not the soul to
come into darkness," &c. (See Homily against Disobedience
and Wilful Rebellion, part i. p. 475 ; and Homily on Alms-
deeds, part ii. p. 328.) Surely, if " the Holy Ghost teach-

96 WORSHIP OF THE

eth" what is written in tliis book, it is an inspired book, and
ought to be considered as a part of " the rule of faith." It is
worthy of notice here, that the Article and Homilies here
quoted, make a part of the formularies of the Episcopal
Church in the United States, as well as in that of England.

4. The practice of reading these lessons in public worship,
from writings acknowledged not to be canonical, and from
writings which contain much exceptionable matter, was early
j>rotested against by many of the most learned and pious dig-
nitaries, and other divines of the Church of England, and has
been, at different times, ever since, matter of regret and com-
plaint among the most valuable members of that body; but in
spite of these remonstrances and petitions, it has been main-
tained to the present day. This fact shows, in a strong light,
the mischief of commencing an erroneous practice : and how
difficult it is to get rid of any thing of this kind, when it is
able to plead established custom in its support.

CHAPTER VI.

CONCLUSION.

Such are the considerations which satisfy Presbyterians
that their Doctrine, their Ecclesiastical Order, and their Wor-
ship, are truly primitive and scriptural. We condemn not
our neighbours. To their own Master they stand or fall.
Our only object, in what has been said, is to " render a rea-
son" for our own belief and practice. The names of other
denominations would not have been so much as mentioned,
or alluded to, in the foregoing statements, had it been possi-
ble, without doing so, to exhibit our own peculiarities, and to
show wherein and why we differ from some of our sister
churches. But firmly believing that all the leading features
ftf the Presbyterian system are more in accordance with the
word of God, and with the usage of the purest and best ages
of the Christian Church, than any other, we feel bound to
.naintain them ; to teach them to our childi en, and to bear
.estimony in their favour before the world. We deny to none,
ivho hold fast the essentials of our holy religioi">, the name ot
Christian Churches. It is enough for us to know that we
adhere to "the simplicity that is in Christ;" that we walk
in the footsteps of the primitive Christians. We forbid none
who profess to cast out devils, " because they follow not with

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 97

US." Let them do all the good they can in their own way.
We claim the same privilege ; and only beg to be permitted,
with the Bible in our hands, to ascertain "what saith the
Scripture;" and how Apostles and martyrs glorified God.
We " call no man master ; one is our Master, even Christ."
And, therefore, throughout the foregoing pages, our primary
appeal has been to his Word, the great statute book of his
kingdom. However plausible in theory, or attractive in prac-
tice, any rite or ceremony may appear, we dare not adopt it,
unless we find some warrant for it in the only infallible guide
of the Church. If, then, Presbyterianism, in all its essential
features,' is plainly found in the word of God; if it maintains,
throughout, the great representative principle which pervades
the kingdom of God ; if it guards more perfectly than any
other system, against clerical assumption and tyranny, on the
one hand, and against popular excitement and violence on the
other ; if it provides, in itself, for complete concert in action,
without the necessity of resorting to extra voluntary associa-
tions ; if it furnishes the best means for maintaining pure and
energetic discipline, and bringing the whole Church in doubt-
ful and difficult cases, to give a cahn and equitable judgment;
and if it presents the most effectual means of purging out
error, and correcting abuses ; then, surely, we have no small
evidence that it is from the God of truth and order, and ought
to be maintained in all the Churches.

Let it never be forgotten, however, that, as Presbyterianism,
in all its leading features, was, undoubtedly, the 'primitive
and apostolic model of the Church; so, in order to the main-
tenance and execution of this system to the best advantage,
there must be a large portion of the primitive and apostolic
spirit reigning in tlie Church, No sooner did Christians
lose the spirit of the first and purest age, than they began to
depart from the simplicity of Christ's institutions. Having less
spirituality to present, they thought to compensate for this de-
fect by outward show and ceremonial. Uncommanded rites
and forms were multiplied, for the purpose of attracting both
Jews and Pagans into the Church. Purity of doctrine gave
way to the speculations of philosophy. Purity of discipUne
became unpopular, and yielded to the laxity of luxurious and
fashionable life. Prelacy, as we have seen in a former chap-
ter, gradually crept into the Church ; and with it many in-
ventions of men to allure and beguile those who had lost all
relish for primitive simplicity.

Now, just so far as we retain the simple devoted spirit of
the apostolic age, we shall love, retain, and honour Presbyte-

98 WORSHIP &c.

rianism. Those who possess most of this spirit, will be most
friendly to this system. But just in proportion as that spirit
declines, Presbyterian doctrines will be thought too rigid;
Presbyterian worship will appear too simple and naked ; and
Presbyterian discipline will be regarded as too unaccommo-
dating and austere. Let Presbyterians, then, learn a lesson
of wisdom from this consideration. Let them remember that
their system will never appear so well, or work so well, as in
the midst of simple, primitive, and devoted piety. This is its
genial soil. As long as such a soil is furnished, it will grow.
When such a soil is not furnished, it will stiU live, and do
better than any other system, on the whole ; but its highest
glory will have departed, and something else will begin to be
thought desirable by the votaries of worldly indulgence, and
worldly splendour. The friends of our beloved Church
ought to know, and lay to heart, that their happiness and
their strength consist in cordial and diligent adherence to that
vital principle, the language of which is, " None of us liveth
to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we
live, we live unto the Lord, or whether we die, we die unto
the Lord; whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the

THE END.

INFANT BAPTISM

SCRIPTURAL AND REASONABLE

BAPTISM

SPRINKLING OR AFFUSION,

THE MOST SUITABLE AND EDIFYING MODE

By SAMUEL MILLER, D.D.

PROFESSOR OP ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT IN THB
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AT PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY.

PHILADELPHIA:

PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF TUELICATIOIV.

JAMES RDSSELL, PUBLISHING AGENT.

1840.

ADVERTISEMENT.

The substance of the following discourses was delivered, in two sermons, in the
church in Freehold, Monmouth county, New Jersey, on the 29th of September,
1 834. A desii-e for their publication having been expressed by some who heard
them, I have thought proper to revise and enlarge the whole, and jiresent it in
the present forni. The subject is one which has given rise to much warm discus-
sion, and it would seem, at first view, to be a worK of supererogation, if not of
still more unfavourable character, to trouble the Christian community with an-
other treatise upon it. But our Antiposdobaptist brethren appear to be resolved
that it shall never cease to be agitated ; and as. indeed, the constant stirring of
this controversy seems to furnish no small share of the very aliment on which they
depend for subj^istence as a denomination, they cannot be expected to let it rest.
The great importance of the subject, in my estimation ; and the hope that this
little volume may reach and benefit some, who are in danger of being drawn into
the toils of error, and have no opportunity of perusing larger works, have induced
me to undergo the labour of preparing it for the press.

My object is not to write for the learned, but to present the subject in that
brief, plain, popular manner which is adapted to the case of those who read but
little, I have, therefore, designedly avoided the introduction of much matter
which properly belongs to the subject, and which is to be found in larger trea-
tises ; and have especially refrained from entering further into the field of philo*
logical discussion, than was absolutely necessary for the accomplishment of my
plan.

If I know my own heart, my purpose is, not to wound the feelings of a hiiman
being; not to stir up strife; but to provide a little manual, better adapted than
any of this class that I have seen, for the use of those Presbyterians who are con-
tinually assaulted, and sometimes perplexed, by their Baptist neighbours. May the
Divine benediction rest upon the humble offering 1 S. M.

Priucelon, July, 1834.

Entered accm-ding to Act of Congress in the year 1835, by Dr. A. W. Mitchell,
in the office of the Clerk of the District Court for the Eastem District of
Pennsylvania.

INFANT BAPTISM.

DISCOURSE I.

And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us say-
ing, if ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into
mine house and abide there. — Acts xvi. 15.

As MAN has a body as well as a soul, it has pleased infi-
nite wisdom to appoint something in religion adapted to both
parts of our nature. Something to strike the senses, as well
as to impress the conscience and the heart ; or rather, some-
thing which might through the medium of the senses, reach
and benefit the spiritual part of our constitution. For, as
our bodies in this world of sin and death, often become sour-
ces of moral mischief and pain, so, by the grace of God, they
are made inlets to the most refined moral pleasures, and
means of advancement in the divine life.

But while the outward senses are to be consulted in reli-
gion, they are not to be invested with unlimited dominion.
Accordingly the external rites and ceremonies of Christi-
anity are few and simple, but exceedingly appropriate and
significant. We have but two sacraments, the one emble-
matical of that spiritual cleansing, and the other of that spiri-
tual nourishment, which we need both for enjoyment and
for duty. To one of these sacramental ordinances there is a
pointed reference in the original commission given by their
Master to the apostles: "Go ye into all the world, and
preach the Gospel to every creature, — 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 com-
manded you, and lo, I am with you always, even unto the
end of the world.^' (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.) And, accord-
ingly, wherever the Gospel was received, we find holy
baptism reverently administered as a sign and seal of mem-
bership in the family of Christ. Thus on the occasion to
which our text refers, "a certain woman," we are told,
*' named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira,
heard Paul and Silas preach in the city of Philippi ; and the
Lord opened her heart, so 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

1* 17

6 INFANT BAPTISM

judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into mine house
and abide there."

I propose, my friends, from these words, to address you
on the subject of Christian Baptism. You are sensible
that this is a subject on which much controversy has exist-
ed, in modern times, among professing Christians. It shall
be my endeavour, by the grace of God, with all candour and
impartiality, to inquire what the Scriptures teach concerning
this ordinance, and what appears to have been the practice in
regard to it in the purest and best ages of the Christian
church, as well as in later times. May I be enabled to
speak, and you to hear as becomes those who expect in a
little while, to stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

There are two questions concerning baptism to which I
request your special attention at this time, viz : Who are the
proper subjects of this ordinance ? And in what manner
ought it to be administered ? To the first of these questions
our attention will be directed in the present, and the en-
suing discourse.

I. Who are to be considered as the proper subjects of
Christian Baptism?

- That baptism ought to be adminstered to all adult persons,
who profess faith in Christ, and obedience to him, and who
have not been baptized in their infancy, is not doubted by
any. In this all who consider baptism as an ordinance at
present obhgatory are agreed. But it is well known that
there is a large and respectable body of professing Christians
among us who believe, and confidently assert, that baptism
ought to be confined to adults ; who insist, that when pro-
fessing Christians bring their infant offspring, and dedicate
them to God, and receive for them the washing of sacra-
mental water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost, they entirely pervert and misapply an
important Christian ordinance. We highly respect the sin-
cerity and piety of many who entertain these opinions ; but
we are perfectly persuaded that they are in error, nay in
great and mischievous error ; in error which cannot fail of
exerting a most unhappy influence on the best interests of the
Church of God. We have no doubt that the visible church
is made up, not only of those who personally profess the true
religion, but also of their children ; and that we are bound not
only to confess Christ before men for ourselves, but also to
bring our infant seed in the arms of faith and love, and pre-
sent them before the Lord, in that ordinance which is at once
a seal of God's covenant with his people, and an emblem of

INFANT BAPTISM. 7

those spiritual blessings which, as sinners, we and our chil-
dren equally and indispensably need.

Our reasons for entertaining this opinion, with entire con-
fidence are the following :

1. Because in all Jehovah^ s covenants ivith his -profes-
sing people, from the earliest ages, and in all stales of so-
ciety, their infant seed have been included. That this was
the case with regard to the first covenant made with Adam
in paradise, is granted by all ; certainly by aU with whom
we have any controversy concerning infant baptism. And
indeed the consequences of the violation of that covenant to
all his posterity, furnish a standing and a mournful testimony
that it embraced them all. The covenant made with Noah,
after the deluge, was, as to this point, of the same character.
Its language was, " Behold, I establish my covenant with
thee and with thy seerf." The covenant with Abraham was
equally comprehensive. " Behold," says Jehovah, " my
covenant is with thee. Behold, I establish my covenant
with thee, and with thy seed, after thee." The Covenants
of Sinai and of Moab, it is evident, also comprehended the
children of the immediate actors in the passing scenes, and
attached to them, as well as to their fathers, an interest in the
blessings or the curses, the promises or the threatenings
which those covenants respectively included. Accordingly
when Moses was about to take leave of the people, he ad-
dressed them as "standing before the Lord their God, with
their little ones, and their wives, to enter into covenant with
the Lord their God." (Deut. xxix. 10 — 12.) And when
we come to the New Testament economy, still we find the
same interesting feature not only retained, but more stri-
kingly and strongly displayed. Still the promise, it is de-
clared, is "to us and our children, even as many as the Lord
our God shall call."

Now, has this been a feature in all Jehovah's covenants
with his people in every age ? And shall we admit the idea
of its failing in that New Testament or Christian covenant,
which, though the same in substance with those which pre-
ceded it, excels them, all in the extent of its privileges, and
in the glory of its promises ? It cannot be. The thought
is inadmissible. But farther,

2. The close and endearing connection between parents
and children affords a strong argument in favour of the
church-membership of the infant seed of believers. The
voice of nature is lifted up, and pleads most powerfully in
behalf of our cause. The thought of severing parents from

8 INFANT BAPTISM.

their oifspring, in regard to the most interesting relations in
which it has pleased God in his adorable providence to
place them, is equally repugnant to Christian feeling, and
to natural law. Can it be, my friends, that when the stem
is in the church, the branch is out of it? Can it be that
when the parent is within the visible kingdom of the Re-
deemer, his offspring, bone of his bone, and flesh of his
flesh, have no connection with it ? It is not so in any other
society that the great moral Governor of the world ever
formed. It is not so in civil society. Children are born
citizens of the State in which their parents resided at the
time of their birth. In virtue of their birth they are plenary
citizens, bound by all the duties, and entitled to all the pri-
vileges of that relation, whenever they become capable of ex-
ercising them. From these duties they cannot be liberated.
Of these privileges they cannot be deprived, but by the
commission of crime. But why should this great principle
be set aside in the church of God ? Surely it is not less
obvious or less powerful in grace than in nature. The ana-
logies which pervade all the works and dispensations of God
are too uniform and striking to be disregarded in an inquiry
like the present. But we hasten to facts and considerations
still more explicitly laid down in Holy Scripture.

3. The actual and acknoivledged church-membership of
infants under the Old Testament economy is a decisive
index of the divine will in r^ard to this matter.

Whatever else may be doubtful, it is certain that infants
were, in fact, members of the church under the former dis-
pensation ; and as such, were the regular subjects of a cove-
nant seal. When God called Abraham, and established his
covenant with him, he not only embraced his infant seed, in
the most express terms, in that covenant, but he also appoint-
ed an ordinance by which this relation of his children to the
visible church was publicly ratified and sealed, and that
when they were only eight days old. If Jewish adults
were members of the church of God, under that economy,
then, assuredly, their infant seed were equally members, for
they were brought into the same covenant relation, and had
the same covenant seal impressed upon their flesh as their
adult parents. This covenant, moreover, had a respect to
spiritual as well as temporal blessings. Circumcision is ex-
pressly declared, by the inspired apostle, to have been " a
seal of the righteousness of faith." (Rom. iv. 11.) So far
was it from being a mere pledge of the possession of Canaan,
and the enjoyment of temporal prosperity there, that it rati

INFANT BAPTISM. 9

fied and sealed a covenant in which " all the families of the
earth were to be blessed." And yet this covenant seal was
solemnly appointed by God to be administered, and was
actually administered, fdr nearly two thousand years, to in-
fants of the tenderest age, in token of their relation to God's
covenanted family, and of their right to the privileges of that
covenant. Here then, is a fact, — a fact incapable of being
disguised or denied, — nay, a fact acknowledged by all — on
which the advocates of infant baptism may stand as upon an
immoveable rock. For if infinite wisdom once saw that it
was right and fit that infants should be made the subjects of
*' a seal of the righteousness of faith," before they were capa-
ble of exercising faith, surely a transaction the same in sub-
stance may be right and fit now. Baptism, which is, in like
manner, a seal of the righteousness of faith, may, without
impropriety, be applied equally early. What once, un-
doubtedly, existed in the church, and that by divine ap-
pointment, may exist still, without any impeachment of
either the wisdom or benevolence of Him who appointed it.
But,

4. As the infant seed of the people of God are acknow-
ledged on all hands to have been members of the church,
equally with their parents under tho Old Testament dispen-
sation, so it is equally certain that the church of God is the
same in substance now that it was then ; and, of course, it
is just as reasonable and proper, on principle, that the infant
offspring of professed believers should be members of the
church now, as it was that they should be members of the
ancient church. I am aware that our Baptist brethren
warmly object to this statement, and assert that the church
of God under the Old Testament economy and the New, is
not the same, but so essentially different, that the same prin-
ciples can by no means apply to each. They contend that
the Old Testament dispensation was a kind of political eco-
nomy, rather national than spiritual in its character ; and, of
course, that when the Jews ceased to be a people, the cove-
nant under which they had been placed, was altogether laid
aside, and a covenant of an entirely new character introduced.
But nothing can be more evident than that this view of the
subject is entirely erroneous. The perpetuity of the Abra
hamic covenant, and, of consequence the identity of the
church under both dispensations, is so plainly taught in
Scripture, and follows so unavoidably from the radical scrip-
tural principles concerning the church of God, that it is
indeed wonderful how any believer in the Bible can call ir*

17*

10 INFANT BAPTISM.

question the fact. Every thing essential to ecclesiastical
identity is evidently found here. The same Divine Head ;
the same precious covenant ; the same great spiritual design ;
the same atoning blood ; the same sanctifying Spirit, in
which we rejoice, as the life and the glory of the New Tes-
tament church, we know, from the testimony of Scripture,
were also the life and the glory of the church before the
coming of the Messiah. It is not more certain that a man,
arrived at mature age, is the same individual that he was
when an infant on his mother's lap, than it is that the
church, in the plenitude of her light and privileges, after the
coming of Christ, is the same church which, many centuries
before, though with a much smaller amount of light and pri-
vilege, yet, as we are expressly told in the New Testament,
(Acts vii. 38,) enjoyed the presence and guidance of her
Divine Head " in the wilderness." The truth is, the inspired
apostle, in writing to the Galatians, (iv. I — 6,) formally com-
pares the covenanted people of God, under the Old Testa-
ment economy, to an heir under age. "Now I say, that
the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a
servant, though he be lord of all ; but is under tutors and
governors, until the time appointed of the father. Even so
we, when we were children, were in bondage under the
elements of the world. But when the fulness of the time
was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made
under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that
we might receive the adoption of sons."

Hence, the inspired apostle, in writing to the Hebrews,
(iv. 2,) referring to the children of Israel, says — '' Unto us
was the Gospel preached, as well as unto them." Again in
writing unto the Corinthians, (x. 1—4,) he declares, "They
did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same
spiritual drink ; for they drank it of that spiritual rock which
followed them, and that rock was Christ." " Abraham,"
we are told, (John viii. 56,) "rejoiced to see Christ's day
he saw it, and was glad." And, of the patriarchs generally,
we are assured that they saw Gospel promises afar off, and
embraced them. The church under the old economy, then,
was not only a church — a true church — a divinely consti-
tuted church— but it was a Gospel church, a church of Christ
— a church built upon the " same foundation as that of the
apostles."

But what places the identity of the church, under both dis-
pensations, in the clearest and strongest light, is that memo-
rable and decisive passage, in the 11th chapter of the Epistle

INFANT BAPTISM. 11

to the Romans, in which the church of God is held forth to
us under the emblem of an olive tree. Under the same
figure had the Lord designated the church by the pen of Je-
remiah the prophet, in the 11th chapter of his prophecy.
The prophet speaking of God's covenanted people under
that economy, says — " The Lord called thy name a green
olive tree, fair and of goodly fruit." But concerning this
olive tree, on account of the sin of the people in forsaking
the Lord, the prophet declares : " With the noise of a great
tumult he hath kindled a fire upon it, and the branches of it
are broken." Let me request you to compare with this, the
language of the apostle in the 11th chapter of the Epistle to
the Romans : " For if the casting away of them be the recon-
ciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but
life from the dead ? For if the first fruit be holy, the lump
is also holy ; and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a
wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them
partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree ; boast not
against the branches ; but if thou boast, thou bearest not the
root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say, then, the branches
were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well, because
of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.
Be not high-minded, but fear. For if God spared not the natu-
ral branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold,
therefore, the goodness and severity of God ! on them which
fell severity ; but toward thee goodness, if thou continue in
his goodness. Otherwise thou also shalt be broken off.
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be
grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if
thou wert cut out of the olive tree, which is wild by nature,
and wert grafted, contrary to nature, into a good olive tree,
how much more shall these, which be the natural branches,
be grafted into their own olive tree ?"

That the apostle is here speaking of the Old Testament
church, under the figure of a good olive tree, cannot be
doubted, and is, indeed, acknowledged by all; by our Bap-
tist brethren as well as others. Now the inspired apostle
says concerning this olive tree, that the natural branches,
that is the Jews, were broken off because of unbelief. But
what was the consequence of this excision 1 Was the tree
destroyed? By no means. The apostle teaches directly
the contrary. It is evident, from his language, that the root
and trunk, in all their "fatness," remained; and Gentiles,
branches of an olive tree "wild by nature," were "grafted

12 INFANT BAPTISM.

into the good olive tree;" — the same tree from which the
natural branches had been broken off. Can any thing be
more pointedly descriptive of identity than inis ? But this
is not all. The apostle apprizes us that the Jews are to be
brought back from their rebellion and wanderings and to be
incorporated with the Christian church. And how is this
restoration described? It is called " grafting them in again
into their own olive tree^ In other words, the "tree" into
which the Gentile Christians at the coming of Christ were
"grafted," was the "old olive tree," of which the ancient
covenant people of God were the "natural branches;" and,
of course, when the Jews shall be brought in, with the ful-
ness of the Gentiles, into the Christian church, the apostle
expressly tells us they shall be ^'grafted again into their
own olive tree.^^ Surely, if the church of God before the
coming of Christ, and the church of God after the advent,
were altogether distinct and separate bodies, and not the
same in their essential characters, it would be an abuse of
terms to represent the Jews, when converted to Christianity,
as grafted again into their ovjn olive tree.

5. Having seen that the infant seed of the professing peo-
ple of God were members of the church under the Old Tes-
tament economy; and having seen also that the church
under that dispensation and the present is the same; we are
evidently prepared to take another step, and to infer, that if
infants were once members, and if the church remains the
same, they undoubtedly are still members, unless some posi-
tive divine enactment excluding them, can be found. As it
was a positive divine enactment which brought them in, and
gave them a place in the church, so it is evident that a divine
enactment as direct and positive, repealing u:*iir old privilege,
and excluding them from the covenanted faniily, must be
found, or they are still in the church. But can such an act
of repeal and exclusion, I ask, be produced ? It cannot. It
never has been, and it never can be. The introduction of
infants into the church by divine appointment, is undoubted.
The identity of the church, under both dispensations, is
undoubted. The perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant, in
which not merely the lineal descendants of Abraham, but
"«// the nations of the earth were to be blessed,''^ is un-
doubted. And we find no hint in the New Testament of
the high privileges granted to the infant seed of believers
being withdrawn. Only concede that it has not been for-
mally withdrawn, and it remains of course. The advocates
of infant baptism are not bound to produce from the New

INFANT BAPTISM. 13

Testament an express warrant for the membership of the
children ot believers. The warrant was given most ex-
pressly and formally, two thousand years before the New
Testament was written; and having never been revoked,
remains firmly and indisputably in force.

It is deeply to be lamented that our Baptist brethren can-
not be prevailed upon to recognise the length and breadth,
and bearing of this great ecclesiastical fact. Here were lit-
tle children eight days old, acknowledged as members of a
covenanted society — a society consecrated to God for spi-
ritual as well as temporal benefits — and stamped with a cove-
nant seal, by which they were formally bound, as the seed
of believers, to be entirely and forever the Lord's. Can in-
fant membership be ridiculed, as it often is, without lifting
the puny arm against Him who was with "his church in
the wilderness, and whose ways are all wise and right-
eous?"

6. Our next step is to show that baptism has come in the
room, of circumcision, and therefore, that the former is
rightfully and properly applied to the same subjects as the
latter. When we say this, we mean, not merely that cir-
cumcision is laid aside in the church of Christ, and that
baptism has been brought in, but that baptism occupies the
same place, as the appointed initiatory ordinance in the
church, and that, as a moral emblem, it means the same
thing. The meaning and design of circumcision was
chiefly spiritual. It was a seal of a covenant which had not
solely, or even mainly, a respect to the possession of Ca-
naan, and to the temporal promises which were connected
with a residence in that land; but which chiefly regarded
higher and more important blessings, even those which are
conveyed through the Messiah, in whom " all the families
of the earth" are to be blessed. So it is with baptism.
While it marks an external relation, and seals outward
privileges, it is, as circumcision was, a " seal of the right-
eousness of faith," and has a primary reference to the bene-
fits of the Messiah's mission and reign. Circumcision was. a
token of visible membership in the family of God, and of
covenant obligation to him. So is baptism. Circumcision
was the ordinance which marked, or publicly ratified, en-
trance into that visible family. So does baptism. Cir-
cumcision was an emblem of moral cleansing and purity.
So is baptism. It refers to the remission of sins by the
blood of Christ, and regeneration by his Spirit ; and teaches
us that we are by nature guilty and depraved, and stand in

2

14 OFANT BAPTISM.

need of the pardoning and sanctifying grace of God by a
crucified Redeemer. Surely, then, there is the best founda-
tion for asserting that baptism has come in the place of cir-
cumcision. The latter, as all grant, has been discontinued ;
and now baptism occupies the same place, means the same
thing, seals the same covenant, and is a pledge of the same
spiritual blessings. Who can doubt, then, that there is the
utmost propriety, upon principle, in applying it to the same
infant subjects?

Yet, though baptism manifestly comes in the place of cir-
cumcision, there are points in regard to which the former
differs materially from the latter. And it differs precisely as
to those points in regard to which the New Testament econ-
omy differs from the Old, in being more enlarged, and less
ceremonial. Baptism is not ceremonially restricted to the
eighth day, but may be administered at any time and place.
It is not confined to one sex ; but, like the glorious dispensa-
tion of which it is a seal, it marks an enlarged privilege, and
is administered in a way which reminds us that " there is nei-
ther Greek nor Jew, neither bond nor free, neither male nor
female, in the Christian economy ; but that we are all one in
Christ Jesus."

7. Again ; it' is a strong argument in favour of infant bap-
tism, that we find the principle of family baptism again and
again adopted in the apostolic age. We are told, by men
learned in Jewish antiquities, that, under the Old Testament
economy, it was customary, when proselytes to Judaism
were gained from the surrounding nations, that all the chil-
dren of a family were invariably admitted to membership in
the church with their parents ; and on the faith of their
parents ; that all the males, children and adults, were circum-
cised, and the whole family, male and female, baptized, and
incorporated with the community of God's covenanted peo-
ple.* Accordingly, when we examine the New Testament

* I consider the Jewish baptism of proselytes as a historical fact
well established. I am aware that some Pedobaptists, whose judgment
and learning I greatly respect, have expressed doubts in reference to
this matter. But when I find the Jews asking John the Baptist, " Why
baptizest thou, then, if thou be not the Christ?" &c., I can only ac-
count for their language by supposing that they had been accustomed
to that rite, and expected the Messiah, when he came, to practice it.
We have the best evidence that they baptized their proselytes as early
as the second century ; and it is altogether incredible that they should
copy it from the Christians. And a great majority of the most com-
petent judges in this case, both Jewish and Christian, from Selden and
Lightfoot down to Dr. Adam Clarke, have considered the testimony to
the fact as abundant and conclusive.

INFANT BAPTISM. 15

history, we find that under the ministry of the apostles, who
were all native Jews, and had, of course, been long accus-
tomed to this practice, the same principle of receiving and
baptizing families on the faith of the parents, was most evi-
dently adopted and acted upon in a very striking manner.
When " the heart of Lydia was opened, so that she attended
to the things which were spoken by Paul," we are told that
" she was baptized and her household." When the jailor at
Philippi believed, " he was baptized, he and all liis, straight-
way." Thus also we read of " the household of Stephanas"
being baptized. Now, though we are not certain that there
were young children in any of these families, it is highly
probable there were. At any rate, .the great principle of
family baptism, of receiving all the younger members of
households on the faith of their domestic head, seems to be
plainly and decisively established. This furnishes ground on
which the advocate of infant baptism may stand with unwa-
vering confidence.

And here let me ask, was it ever known that a case of
family baptism occurred under the direction of a Baptist min-
ister? Was it ever known to be recorded, or to have hap-
pened, that when, under the influence of Baptist ministra-
tions, the parents of large families were hopefully converted,
they were baptized, they and aU their's straightway ? There
is no risk in asserting that such a case was never heard of.
And why ? Evidently, because our Baptist brethren do not
act in this matter upon the principles laid down in the New
Testament, and which regulated the primitive Christians.

8. Another consideration possesses much weight here.
We cannot imagine that the privileges and the sign of infant
membership, to which all the first Christians had been so
long accustomed, could have been abruptly withdrawn, with-
out luounding the hearts of parents, and producing in them
feelings of revolt and complaint against the new economy.
Yet we find no hint of this recorded in the history of the
apostolic age. Upon our principles, this entire silence pre-
sents no difficulty. The old principle and practice of infant
membership, so long consecrated by time, and so dear to all
the feelings of parental affection, went on as before. The
identity of the church under the new dispensation with that
of the old, being well understood, the early Christians need-
ed no new warrant for the inclusion of their infant seed in
the covenanted family. As the privilege had not been re-
voked, it, of course, continued. A new and formal enact-
ment in favour of the privilege would have been altogether

16 mFANT BAPTISM.

superfluous, not to say out of place ; especially as it was well
understood, from the whole aspect of the new economy, that,
instead of withdrawing or narrowing the privileges, its whole
character was that it rather multiplied and extended them.

But our Baptist brethren are under the necessity of sup-
posing, that such of the first Christians as had been Jews,
and who had ever been in the habit of considering their be-
loved offspring as included, with themselves, in the privileges
and promises of God's covenant, were given to understand,
when the New Testament church was set up, that these
covenant privileges and promises were no longer to be enjoy-
ed by their children ; that they were, henceforth, to be no
more connected with the church than the children of the sur-
rounding heathen ; and tliis under an economy distinguished,
in every other respect, by greater light, and more enlarged
privilege : — I say, our Baptist brethren are under the neces-
sity of supposing that the first Christians were met on the
organization of the New Testament church, with an an-
nouncement of this kind, and that they acquiesced in it with-
out a feeling of surprise, or a word of murmur ! Nay, that
this whole retrograde change passed with so little feeling of
interest, that it was never so much as mentioned or hinted at
in any of the epistles to the churches. But can this suppo-
sition be for a moment admitted ? It is impossible. We may
conclude, then, that the acknowledged silence of the New
Testament as to any retraction of the old privileges, or any
complaint of its recall, is so far from warranting a conclusion
unfavourable to the church membership of infants, that it
furnishes a weighty argument of an import directly the re-
verse.

9. Although the New Testament does not contain any
specific texts, which, in so many words, declare that the in-
fant seed of believers are members of the church in virtue of
their birth ; yet it abounds in passages which cannot reason-
ably be explained but in harmony with this doctrine. The
following are a specimen of the passages to which I refer.

The prophet Isaiah, though not a New Testament writer,
speaks much, and in the most interesting manner, of the New
Testament times. Speaking of the " latter day glory," of
that day when "the wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock, and when there
shall be nothing to hurt or destroy in all God's holy moun-
tain ;" speaking of that day, the inspired prophet declares,
*' Behold, I create new heavens, and a new earth, and the
former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. F

INFANT BAPTISM. 17

as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine
elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall
not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble ; for they are
the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with
them:' Isaiah Ixv. 17, 22, 23.

The language of our Lord concerning little children can be
reconciled with no other doctrine than that which I am now
endeavouring to establish, " Then were there brought unto
him little children, that he should put his hands on them and
pray; and his disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said,
" Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not,
for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands
upon them, and departed thence." Matt. xix. 13 — 15. On
examining the language used by the several EvangeUsts in
regard to this occurrence, it is evident that the children here
spoken of were young children, infants, such as the Saviour
could " take in his arms." The language which our Lord
himself employs concerning them is remarkable. " Of such
is the kingdom of heaven." That is, theirs is the kingdom
of heaven, or, to them belongs the kingdom of heaven. It is
precisely the same form of expression, in the original, which
our Lord uses in the commencement of his sermon on the
mount, when he says, " Blessed are the poor in spirit, for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven ;" " Blessed are they that are
persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom
of heaven." This form of expression, of course, precludes
the construction which some have been disposed to put on
the passage, in order to evade its force, viz. that it implies,
that the kingdom of heaven is made up of such as resemble
little children in spirit. We might just as well say, that the
kingdom of heaven does not belong to those who are " poor
in spirit," but only to those who resemble them ; or, that it
does not belong to those who are *' persecuted for righteous-
ness sake," but only to those who manifest a similar temper.
Our Lord's language undoubtedly meant that the kingdom of
heaven was really theirs of whom he spake ; that it belonged
to them; that they are the heirs of it, just as the "poor in
spirit," and the " persecuted for righteousness sake," are
themselves connected in spirit and in promise with that king-
dom.

But what are we to understand by the phrase " the king-
dom of heaven," as employed in this place? Most mani-
festly, we are to understand by it, the visible Church, or the
visible kingdom of Christ, as distinguished both from the
world, and the old economy. Let any one impartially ex-

3 18

18 INFANT BAPTISM.

amine the Evangelists throughout, and he will find this to be
the general import of the phrase in question. If this be the
meaning, then our Saviour asserts, in the most direct and
])ointed terms, the reality and the Divine warrant of mfant
church membership. But even if the kingdom of glory be
intended, still our argument is not weakened, but rather for-
tified. For if the kingdom of glory belong to the infant seed
of believers, much more have they a title to the privileges of
the church on earth.

Another passage of Scripture strongly speaks the same
language. I refer to the declaration which we find in the
sermon of the apostle Peter, on the day of Pentecost. —
When a large number of the hearers, on that solemn day,
were " pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter, and to the
rest of the apostles, men and brethren what shall we do ?"
The reply of the inspired minister of Christ was, " 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." The apostle is here evidently
speaking of the promise of God to his covenant people ;
that promise in which he engages to be their God, and to
constitute them his covenanted family. Now this promise,
he declared to those whom he addressed, extended to their
children as well as to themselves, and, of course, gave those
children a covenant right to the privileges of the family. But
if they have a covenant title to a place in this family, we
need no formal argument to show that they are entitled to the
outward token and seal of that family.

I shall adduce only one more passage of Scripture, at pre-
sent, in support of the doctrine for which I contend. I refer
to that remarkable, and, as it appears to me, conclusive dec-
laration of the apostle Paul, concerning children, which is
found in the seventh chapter of the first Epistle to the Co-
rinthians, in reply to a query addressed to him by the mem-
bers of that church respecting the Ciiristian law of marriage :
" The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife ; and the
unbelieving v/ife is sanctified by the husband ; else were your
children unclean, but now are they holy." The great ques-
tion in relation to this passage is, in what sense does abehev-
ing parent " sanctify" an unbelieving one, so that their chil-
dren are " holy ?" It certainly cannot mean, that every pious
husband or wife that is allied to an unbelieving partner, is
always instrumental in conferring on that partner true spiritual

INFANT BAPTISM. 19

purity, or, in other words, regeneration and sanctiiication of
heart ; nor that every child born of parents of whom one is
a believer, is, of course the subject of gospel holiness, or of
internal sanctification. No one who intelligently reads the
Bible, or who has eyes to see what daily passes around him,
can possibly put such a construction on the passage. Neither
can it be understood to mean, as some have strangely imagin-
ed, that where one of the parents is a believer, the children
are legitimate ; that is, the offspring of parents, one of whom
is pious, are no longer bastards, but are to be considered as
begotten in lawful wedlock! The word *'holy" is no where
applied in Scripture to legitimacy of birth. The advocates
of this construction may be challenged to produce a single
example of such an appUcation of the term. And as to the
suggestion of piety in one party being necessary to render a
marriage covenant valid, nothing can be more absurd. Were
the marriages of the heathen in the days of Paul all illicit
connexions ? Are the matrimonial contracts which take place
every day, among us, where neither of the parties are pious,
all illegitimate and invaUd ? Surely it is not easy to conceive
of a subterfuge more completely preposterous, or more adapt-
ed to discredit a cause which finds it necessary to resort to
such aid.

The terms " holy" and unclean," as is well known to aU
attentive readers of Scripture, have not only a spiritual, but
also an ecclesiastical sense in the word of God. While in
some cases, they express that which is internally and spiritu-
ally conformed to the divine image ; in others, they quite as
plainly designate something set apart to a holy or sacred use ;
that is, separated from a common or profane, to a holy pur-
pose. Thus, under the Old Testament economy, the pecu-
liar people of God, are said to be a " holy people," and to
be " severed from all other people, that they might be the
Lord's ;" not because they were all, or even a majority of
them, really consecrated in heart to God ; but because they
were all his professing people, — his covenanted people ; they
all belonged to that external body which he had called out of
the world, and established as the depository of his truth, and
the conservator of his glory. In these two senses, the terms
"holy" and "unclean" are used in both Testaments, times
almost innumerable. And what their meaning is, in any par-
ticular case, must be gathered from the scope of the passage.
In the case before us, the latter of these two senses is evi-
dently required by the whole spirit of the apostle's reasoning.

It appears that among the Corinthians, to whom the apos-

INFANT BAPTISM.

tie wrote, there were many cases of professing Chnstians
being united by the marriage tie with pagans ; the former,
perhaps, being converted after marriage ; or being so unwise,
as, after conversion, deUberately to form this unequal and
unhappy connexion. What was to be deemed of such mar-
riages, seems to have been the gi-ave question submitted to
this inspired teacher. He pronounces, under the direction of
the Holy Spirit, that, in all such cases, when the unbeliever
is willing to live with the believer, they ought to continue to
live together, that their connexion is so sanctified by the cha-
racter of the beheving companion, that their children are
*' holy," that is, in covenant with God ; members of that
chu]:ch with which the behoving parent is, in virtue of his
profession, united : in one word, that the infidel party is so
far, and in such a sense, consecrated by the believing party,
that their children shall be reckoned to belong to the sacred
family with which the latter is connected, and shall be regard-
ed and treated as members of the Church of God.*

" The passage thus explained," says an able writer, " es-
tabhshes the church membership of infants in another form.
For it assumes the principle, that when both parents are re-
puted believers, their children belong to the Church of God
as a matter of course. The whole difficulty proposed by the
Corinthians to Paul, grows out of this principle. Had he
taught, or they understood, that no children, be their parents
believers or unbelievers, are to be accounted members of the
church, the difficulty could not have existed. For if the
faith of both parents could not confer upon the child the pri-
vilege of membership, the faith of only one of them certainly
could not. The point was decided. It would have been
mere impertinence to teaze the apostle with queries which
carried their own answers along with them. But on the sup-
position that when both parents were members, their children
were also members ; the difficulty is very natural and serious.
" I see," would a Corinthian convert exclaim, " I see the
children of my Christian neighbours, owned as members ot
the Church of God ; and I see the children of others, who
are unbelievers rejected with themselves. I believe in Christ
myself; but my husband, my wife, believes not. What is to
become of my children ? Are they to be admitted with my-
self ? Or are they to be cast off with my partner ?"

* It is worthy of notice that this interpretation of the passage is
adopted, and decisively maintained by Augustine, one of the most
pious and learned divines of the fourth century, De Sermone Domini
in Monte, ch. 27.

INFANT BAPTISM. 21

" Let not your heart be troubled," replies the apostle,
»' God reckons them to the believing, not to the unbelieving
parent. It is enough that they are yours. The infidelity of
your partner shall never frustrate their interest in the covenant
of your God. They are holy because you are so."

" This decision put the subject at rest. And it lets us
know that one of the reasons, if not the chief reason of the
doubt, whether a married person should continue, after con-
version, in the conjugal society of an infidel partner, arose
from a fear lest such continuance should exclude the children
from the church of God. Otherwise, it is hard to compre-
hend why the apostle should dissuade them from separating
by such an argument as he has employed in the text. And
it is utterly inconceivable how such a doubt could have enter-
ed their minds, had not the membership of infants, born of
believing parents, been undisputed, and esteemed a high priv-
ilege, so high a privilege, that the apprehension of losing it,
made conscientious parents at a stand whether they ought
not rather to .break the ties of wedlock, by withdrawing from
an unbelieving husband or wife. Thus the origin of this
difficulty, on the one hand, and the solution of it, on the
other, concur in establishing our doctrine, that by the ap-
pointment of God himself, the infants of believing parents
are born members of his church."*

10. Finally ; the history of the Christian Church from
the apostolic age, furnishes an argument of irresistible force
in favour of the divine authority of infant baptism.

I can assure you, my friends, with the utmost candour and
confidence, after much careful inquiry on the subject, that,
for more than fifteen hundred years after the birth of Christ,
there was not a single society of professmg Christians on
earth, who opposed infant baptism on any thing like the
grounds which distinguish our modem Baptist brethren. It
is an undoubted fact, that the people known in ecclesiastical
history under the name of the Anabaptists, who arose in Ger-
many, in the year 1522, were the very first body of people,
in the whole Christian world, who rejected the baptism of
infants, on the principles now adopted by the Antipcedobap-
tist body. This, I am aware, will be regarded as an unten-
able position by some, of the ardent friends of the Baptist
cause ; but nothing can be more certain than that it is even

* Essays on the Church of God, by Dr. J. M. xMason. Christian's
Magazine, ii. 49, 50.

3* 18*

22 INFANT BAPTISM.

SO. Of this a short induction of particulars will afford con
elusive evidence.

Tertullian, ahout two hundred years after the birth of
Christ, is the first man of whom we read in ecclesiastical
history, as speaking a word against infant baptism ; and he,
while he recognises the existence and prevalence of the prac-
tice, and expressly recommends that infants be baptized, if
they are not likely to survive the period of infancy ; yet ad-
vises that, where there is a prospect of their living, baptism
be delayed until a late period in life. But what was the
reason of this advice ? The moment we look at the reason,
we see that it avails nothing to the cause in support of which
it is sometimes produced. Tertullian adopted the supersti-
tious idea, that baptism was accompanied with the remission
of all past sins ; and that sins committed after baptism were
peculiarly dangerous. He, therefore, advised, that not merely
infants, but young men and young women ; and even young
widows and widowers should postpone their baptism until
the period of youthful appetite and passion should have pass-
ed. In short, he advised that, in all cases in which death
was not likely to intervene, baptism be postponed, until the
subjects of it should have arrived at a period of life, when
they would be no longer in danger of being led astray by
youthful lusts. And thus, for more than a century after the
age of Tertullian, we find some of the most conspicuous con-
verts to the Christian faith, postponing baptism till the close
of life, Constantine the Great, we are told, though a pro-
fessing Christian for manj'' years before, was not baptized till
after the commencement of his last illness. The same fact is
recorded of a number of other distinguished converts to Chris-
tianity, about and after that time. But, surely, advice and
facts of this kind make nothing in favour of the system of
our Baptist brethren. Indeed, taken altogether, their histori-
cal bearing is strongly in favour of our system.

The next persons that we hear of as calling in question
the propriety of infant baptism, were the small body of peo-
ple in France, about twelve hundred years after Christ, who
followed a certain Peter de Bruis, and formed an inconsider-
able section of the people known in ecclesiastical history
under the general name of the Waldenses. This body main-
tained that infants ought not to be baptized, because they were
incapable of salvation. They taught that none could be
saved but those who wrought out their salvation by a long
course of self-denial and labour. And as infants were inca-
pable of thus " working out their own salvation," they held

INFANT BAPTISM. 23

that making them the subjects of a sacramental seal, was an
absurdity. But surely our Baptist brethren cannot be willing
to consider these people as their predecessors, or to adopt
their creed.

We hear no more of any society or organized body of
intipoedobaptists, until the sixteenth century, Avhen they
•irose, as before stated, in Germany, and for the first time
broached the doctrine of our modern Baptist brethren. As
far as I have been able to discover, they were absolutely un-
known in the whole Christian world, before that time.

But we have something more than mere negative testimony
on this subject. It is not only certain, that we hear of no
society of Antipcedobaptists resembling our present Baptist
brethren, for more than fifteen hundred years after Christ ;
but we have positive and direct proof that, during the whole
of that time, infant baptism was the general and unopposed
practice of the Christian Church.

To say nothing of earlier intimations, wholly irreconcile-
able with any other practice than that of infant baptism,
Origen, a Greek father of the third century, and decidedly
the most learned man of his day, speaks in the most unequiv-
ocal terms of the baptism of infants, as the general practice
of the church in his time, and as having been received from
the Apostles. His testimony is as foUows — "According to
the usage of the church, baptism is given even to infants ;
when if there were nothing in infants which needed forgive-
ness and mercy, the grace of baptism would seem to be su-
perfluous." (Homil. VIII. in Levit. ch. 12.) Again ; "' In-
fants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins ?
Or, when have they sinned ? Or, can there be any reason
for the laver in their case, unless it be according to the sense
which we have mentioned above, viz : that no one is free
from pollution, though he has lived but one day upon earth ?
And because by baptism native pollution is taken away, there-
fore infants are baptized." (Homil. in Luc. 14.) Again:
" For this cause it was that the church received an order from
the Apostles to give baptism even to infants."*

The testimony of Cyprian, a Latin Father of the third
century, contemporary with Origen, is no less decisive. It
is as follows :

In the year 253 after Christ, there was a Council of sixty-
six bishops or pastors held at Carthage, in which Cyprian
presided. To this Council, Fidus, a country pastor, pre-

* Comment, in Epist. ad Romano:^. Lib. 5.

24 INFANT BAPTISM.

seated the following question, which he wished them, by
their united wisdom, to solve — viz. Whether it was neces-
sary, in the administration of baptism, as of circumcision, to
wait until the eighth day ; or whether a child might be bap-
tized at an earlier period after its birth ? The question, it
will be observed, was not whether infants ought to be bapti-
zed ? That was taken for granted. But simply, whether it
was necessary to wait until the eighth day after their birth 1
The Council came unanimously to the following decision,
and transmitted it in a letter to the inquirer.

*' Cyprian and the rest of the Bishops who were present
in the Council, sixty-six in number, to Fidus, our brothei:,
greeting :

" As to the case of Infants, — whereas you judge that they
must not be baptized within two or three days after they are
born, and that the rule of circumcision is to be observed, that
no one should be baptized and sanctified before the eighth day
after he is born ; we were all in the Council of a very dif-
ferent opinion. As for what you thought proper to be done,
no one was of your mind; but we all rather judged that the
mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no human being
that is born. This, therefore, dear brother, was our opinion
in the Council ; that we ought not to hinder any person from
baptism, and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind to
us all. And this rule, as it holds for all, we think more es-
pecially to be observed in reference to infants, even to those
newly born." (Cyprian, Epist. 66.)

Surely no testimony can be more unexceptionable and de-
cisive than this. Lord Chancellor King, in his account oi
the primitive church, after quoting what is given above, and
much more, subjoins the following remark-—" Here, then is
a synodical decree for the baptism of infants, as formal as
can possibly be expected ; which being the judgment of a
synod, is more authentic and cogent than that of a private
father ; it being supposable that a private father might write
his own particular judgment and opinion only ; but the de-
termination of a synod (and he might have added, the unani-
mous determination of a synod of sixty-six members) de-
notes the common practice and usage of the whole church."*

The Famous Chrysostom, a Greek father, who flourished
towards the close of the fourth century, having had occasion
to speak of circumcision, and of the inconvenience and pain
which attended its dispensation, proceeds to say — " But our

* Inquiry into the Constitution, &c. Part II. Chap. 8.

INFANT BAPTISM. 25

circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism^ gives cure with-
out pain, and procures to us a thousand benefits, and fills us
with the grace of the Spirit ; and it has no determinate time,
as that had ; but one that is in the very beginning of his age,
or one that is in the middle of it, or one that is in his old age,
maj' receive this circumcision made without hands ; in which
there is no trouble to be undergone but to throw off the load
of sins, and to receive pardon for all past offences." (Ho*
mil. 40. in Genesin.)

Passing by the testimony of several other conspicuous
writers of the third and fourth centuries, in support of the
fact, that infant baptism was generally practised when they
wrote, I shall detain you with only one testimony more in re-
lation to the history of this ordinance. It is that of Augus-
tine, one of the most pious, learned and venerable fathers o^
the Christian Church, who lived a little more than thre'*
hundred years after the Apostles, — taken in connexion with
that of Pelagius, the learned heretic, who lived at the samr
time. Augustine had been pleading against Pelagius, in fa
vour of the doctrine of original sin. In the course of thL*
plea, he asks — " Why are infants baptized for the remission
of sins, if they have no sin?" -At the same time intimating
to Pelagius, that if he would be consistent with himself, his
denial of original sin must draw after it the denial of infant
baptism. The reply of Pelagius is striking and unequivocal.
" Baptism," says he, " ought to be administered to infants,
with the same sacramental words which are used in the case
of adult persons."—" Men slander me as if I denied the sac-
rament of baptism to infants." — " I never heard of any, not
even the most impious heretic, who denied baptism to in-
fants; for who can be so impious as to hinder infants from
being baptized, and born again in Christ, and so make them
miss of the kingdom of God ?" Again : Augustine remarks,
in reference to the Pelagians — " Since they grant that infants
must be baptized, as not being able to resist the authority of
the whole church, ivhich was doubtless delivered by our Lord
and his Apostles) they must consequently grant that they
stand in need of the benefit of the Mediator; that being
offered by the sacrament, and by the charity of the faithful,
and so being incorporated into Christ's body, they may be
reconciled to God," &c. Again, speaking of certain heretics
at Carthage, who, though they acknowledged infant baptism,
took wrong views of its meaning, Augustine remarks — "They,
minding the Scriptures, and the authority of the whole
church, and the form of the sacrament itself, see well that

26 INFANT BAPTISM.

baptism in infants is for the remission of sins." Further, in
his work against the Donatists, the same writer speaking of
baptized infants obtaining salvation without the personal ex-
ercise of faith, he says—" which the whole body of the
church holds, as delivered to them in the case of little infants
baptized ; who certainly cannot believe with the heart unto
righteousness, or confess with the mouth unto salvation, nay,
by their crying and noise while the sacrament is administer-
ing, they disturb the holy mysteries : and yet no Christian
man will say that they are baptized to no purpose." Again,
he says — " The custom of our mother the church in bapti-
zing infants must not be disregarded, nor be accounted need-
less, nor believed to be any thing else than an ordinance de-
livered to us from the Afostlesj'^ In short, those who will
be at the trouble to consult the large extracts from the writings
of Augustine, among other Christian fathers, in the learned
fVaWs history of Infant Baptism, will find that venerable
father declaring again and again that he never met with any
Christian, either of the general church, or of any of the sects,
nor with any writer, who owned the authority of Scripture,
who taught any other doctrine than that infants were to be
baptized for the remission ©f sin. Here, then, were two
men, undoubtedly among the most learned then in the world
— Augustine and Pelagius ; the former as familiar probably
with the writings of all the distinguished fathers who had
gone before him, as any man of his time ; the latter also a
man of great learning and talents, who had travelled over the
greater part of the Christian world ; who both declare, about
three hundred years after the apostolic age, that they never
saw or heard of any one who called himself a Christian, not
even the most impious heretic, no nor any writer who claim-
ed to believe in the Scriptures, who denied the baptism of
infants. (See Wall's History, Part I. ch. 15—19.) Can the
most incredulous reader, who is not fast bound in the fetters
of invincible prejudice, hesitate to admit, first, that these men
verily believed that infant baptism had been the universal prac-
tice of the church from the days of the Apostles ; and,
secondly, that, situated and informed as they were, it was im-
possible that they should be mistaken.

The same Augustine, in his Epistle to Boniface, while he
expresses an opinion that the parents are the proper persons
to offer up their children to God in baptism, if they be good
faithful Christians ; yet thinks proper to mention that others
may, with propriety, in special cases, perform the same kind
office of Christian charity. " You see," says he, " that a

INFANT BAPTISM. 27

great many are offered, not by their parents, but by any other
persons, as infant slaves are sometimes offered by their mas-
ters. And sometimes when the parents are dead, the infants
are baptized, being offered by any that can afford to show
this compassion on them. And sometimes infants whom
their parents have cruelly exposed, may be taken up and
offered in baptism by those who have no children of their
own, nor design to have any." Again, in his book against
the Donatists, speaking directly of infant baptism, he says —
*' If any one ask for divine authority in this matter, although
that which the whole church practises, which was not insti-
tuted by councils, but was ever in use, is very reasonably
believed to be no other than a thing delivered by the authority
of the Apostles ; yet we may besides take a true estimate,
how much the sacrament of baptism does avail infants, by the
circumcision which God's ancient people received. For
Abraham was justified before he received circumcision, as
Cornelius was endued with the Holy Spirit before he was
baptized. And yet the apostle says of Abraham, that he re-
ceived the sign of circumcision, ' a seal of the righteousness
of faith,' by which he had in heart believed, and it had been
* counted to him for righteousness.' Why then was he
commanded to circumcise all his male infants on the eighth
day, when they could not yet believe with the heart, that it
might be counted to them for righteousness ; but for this
reason, because the sacrament is, in itself of great impor-
tance? Therefore, as in Abraham, 'the righteousness of
faith' went before, and circumcision, ' the seal of the right-
eousness of faith came after ;' so in Cornelius, the spiritual
sanctification by the gift of the Holy Spirit went before, and
the sacrament of regeneration, by the laver of baptism, came
after. And as in Isaac, who was circumcised the eighth day,
the seal of the righteousness of faith went before, and (as he
was a follower of his father's faith) the righteousness itself,
the seal whereof had gone before in his infancy, came after ;
so in infants baptized, the sacrament of regeneration goes
before, and (if they put in practice the Christian religion) con-
version of the heart, the mystery whereof went before in
their body, comes after. By all which it appears, that the
sacrament of baptism is one thing, and conversion of the
heart another."

So much for the. testimony of the Fathers. To me, I

acknowledge, this testimony carries with it irresistible con-

' viction. It is, no doubt, conceivable, considered in itself, that

in three centuries from the days of the apostles, a very mate-

28 INFANT BAPTISM.

rial change might have taken place in regard to the subjects
of baptism. But that a change so serious and radical as that
of which our Baptist brethren speak, should have been intro-
duced without the knowledge of such men as have been just
quoted, is 7iot conceivable. That the church should have
passed from the practice of none but adult baptism, to that
of the constant and universal baptism of infants, while such
a change was utterly unknown, and never heard of, by the
most active, pious, and learned men that lived during that
period, cannot, I must believe, be imagined by any impartial
mind. Now when Origen, Cyprian, and Chrysostom, de-
clare, not only that the baptism of infants was the universal
and unopposed practice of the church in their respective
times and places of residence ; and when men of so much
acquaintance with all preceding writers, and so much
knowledge of all Christendom, as Augustine and Pelagius,
declared that they never heard of any one who claimed to
he a Christian^ either orthodox or heretic, who did not
maintain and practice infant baptism; I say, to suppose,
in the face of such testimony, that the practice of infant bap-
tism crept in, as an unwarranted innovation, between their
time and that of the apostles, without the smallest notice of
the change having ever reached their ears is, I must be al-
lowed to say, of all incredible suppositions, one of the most
incredible. He who can believe this, must, it appears to
me, be prepared to make a sacrifice of all historical evidence
at the shrine of blind and deaf prejudice.

It is here also worthy of particular notice, that those
pious and far famed witnesses for the truth, commonly
known by the name of the fValdenses, did undoubtedly hold
the doctrine of infant baptism, and practise accordingly. In
their Confessions of Faith and other writings, drawn up be-
tween the twelfth and sixteenth centuries, and in which they
represent their creeds and usages as handed down, from father
to son, for several hundred years before the Reformation, they
speak on the subject before us so frequenriy and explicitly,
as to preclude aU doubt in regard to the fact alleged. The
following specimen of their language will satisfy every rea-
sonable inquirer.

" Baptism," say they, is administered in a fall congrega-
tion of the faithful, to the end that he that is received into
the church may be reputed and held of all as a Christian
brother, and that all the congregation may pray for him that
he may be a Christian in heart, as he is outwardly esteemed
to be a Christian. And for this cause it is that we present

INFANT BAPTISM. 29

our children in baptism, which ought to be done by those to
whom the children are most nearly related, such as their
parents, or those to whom God has given this charity."

Again; referring to the superstitious additions to baptism
which the Papists had introduced, they say, in one of their
ecclesiastical documents, — "The things which are not ne-
cessary in baptism are, the exorcisms, the breathings, the
sign of th« cross upon the head or forehead of the infant, the
salt put into the mouth, the spittle into the ears and nostrils,
the unction of the breast, &;c. From these things many
take an occasion of error and superstition, rather than of
edifying and salvation."

Understanding that their Popish neighbours charged them
with denying the baptism of infants, they acquit themselves
of this imputation as follows :

" Neither is the time nor place appointed for those who
are to be baptized. But charity and the edification of the
church and congregation ought to be the rule in this matter.

"Yet, notwithstanding, we bring our children to be bap-
tized; which they ought to do to whom they are most near-
ly related ; such as their parents, or those whom God hath
inspired with such a charity."

" True it is," adds the historian, " that being, for some
hundreds of years, constrained to suffer their children to be
baptized by the Romish priests, they deferred the perfor-
mance of it as long as possible, because they detested the
human inventions annexed to the institution of that holy sa-
crament, which they looked upon as so many pollutions of
it. And by reason of their pastors, whom they called Bar-
bes, being often abroad travelling in the service of the
church, they could not have baptism administered to their
children by them. They, therefore, sometimes kept them
long without it. On account of which delay, the priests
have charged them with that reproach. To which charge
not only their adversaries have given credit, but also many
of those who have approved of their lives and faith in all
other respects^*

* See John Paul Perrin's account of the Doctrine and Order of the
Waldenses and Albigenses; Sir Samuel Morland's do. j and also Le-
ger's Histoire Generale des Eglises Vaudoises. Mr. William Jones,
a Baptist, in a work entitled, a History of the Waldenses, in two vol-
umes octavo, professes to give a full account of the Faith and Order
of these pious witnesses of the truth ; buty so far as I have observed,
carefully leaves out of all their public formularies and other docu-
ments, every thing which would disclose their PcEdobaptist principles
and practise I On this artifice comment is unnecessary.

30 INFANT BAPTISM.

It being so plainly a fact, established by their own un-
equivocal and repeated testimony, that the great body of the
Waldenses were Poedobaptists, on what ground is it that our
Baptist brethren assert, and that some have been found to
credit the assertion, that those venerable witnesses of the
truth rejected the baptism of infants? The answer is easy
and ample. A small section of the people bearing the gene-
ral name of Waldenses, followers of Peter de Bruis, who
were mentioned in a preceding page, while they agreed
with the mass of their denomination in most other matters,
differed from them in regard to the subject of infant baptism.
They held, as before stated, that infants were not capable of
salvation ; that Christian salvation is of such a nature that
none can partake of it but those who undergo a course of
rigorous self-denial and labour in its pursuit. Those who
die in infancy not being capable of this, the Petrobrussians
held that they were not capable of salvation ; and, this being
the case, that they ought not to be baptized. This, how-
ever, is not the doctrine of our Baptist brethren ; and, of
course, furnishes no support to their creed or practice. But
the decisive answer is, that the Petrobrussians were a very
small fraction of the great Waldensian body; probably not
more than a thirtieth or fortieth part of the whole. The
great mass of the denomination, however, as such, declare, in
their Confessions of Faith, and in various public documents,
that they held, and that their fathers before them, for many
generations, always held, to infant baptism. The Petro-
brussians, in this respect, forsook the doctrine and practice
of their fathers, and departed from the proper and established
Waldensian creed. If there be truth in the plainest records
of ecclesiastical history, this is an undoubted fact. In short
the real state of this case may be illustrated by the following
representation. Suppose it were alleged that the Baptists in
the United States are in the habit of keeping the seventh day
of the week as their Sabbath? Would the statement be
true ? By no means. There is, indeed, a small section of
the Antipoedobaptist body in the United States, usually sty-
led " Seventh day Baptists" — probably not a thirtieth part of
the whole body — who observe Saturday in each week as
their Sabbath. But, notwithstanding this, the proper repre-
sentation, no doubt is, — (the only representation that a faith-
ful historian of facts would pronounce correct) — that the
Baptists in this country, as a general body, observe " the
Lord's day" as their Sabbath. You may rest assured, my
friends, that this statement most exactly illustrates the real

INFANT BAPTISM. 31

fact with regard to the Waldenses as Posdobaptists. Twenty-
nine parts, at least, out of thirty, of the whole of that body
of witnesses for the truth, were undoubtedly PcEdobaptists.
The remaining thirtieth part departed from the faith of their
fathers in regard to baptism, but departed on principles alto-
gether unlike those of our modern Baptist brethren.

I have only one fact more to state in referenee to the
pious Waldenses, and that is, that soon after the opening of
the Reformation by Luther, they sought intercourse with
the Reformed churches of Geneva and France ; held commu-
nion with them ; received ministers from them ; and appear-
ed eacrer to testify their respect and affection for them as
*' brethren in the Lord." Now it is well known that the
churches of Geneva and France, at this time, were in the
habitual use of infant baptism. This single fact is sufficient
to prove that the Waldenses were Pcsdobaptists. If they
had adopted the doctrine of our Baptist brethren, and laid
the same stress on it with them, it is manifest that such
intercourse would have been wholly out of the question.

If these historical statements be correct, and that they are
so, is just as well attested as any facts whatever in the annals
of the church, the amount of the whole is conclusive, is de-
monstrative, that, for fifteen hundred years after "Christ, the
practice of infant baptism was universal ; that to this general
fact there was absolutely no exception, in the whole Chris-
tian church, which, on principle, or even analogy, can coun-
tenance in the least degree, modern Anti-poedobaptism ; that
from the time of the Aposdes to the time of Luther, the gene-
ral, unopposed, established practice of the church was to re-
gard the infant seed of believers as members of the church,
and, as such, to baptize them.

But this is not all. If the doctrine of our Baptist brethren
be correct ; that is, if infant baptism be a corruption and a
nullity ; then it follows, from the foregoing histoiical state-
ments, most inevitably, that the ordinance of baptism was lost
for fifteen hundred years : yes, entirely lost, from the apos-
tolic age till the sixteenth century. For there was manifestly,
" no society, during that long period, of fifteen centuries, but
what was in the habit of baptizing infants." God had no
church, then, in the world for so long a period! Can this
be admitted ? Surely not by any one who believes in the
perpetuity and indestructibility of the household of faith.

Nay, if the principle of our Baptist brethren be correct,
the ordinance of baptism is irrecoverably lost altogether ;
that is, irrecoverably without a miracle. Because if, during

32 INFANT BAPTISM.

the long tract of time that his been mentioned, there was no
true baptism in the church ; and if none but baptized persons
were capable of administering true baptism to others? the
consequence is plain; there is no true baptism now in the
world ! But can this be believed ? Can we imagine that the
great Head of the Church would permit one of his own pre-
cious ordinances to be banished entirely from the church for
many centuries, much less to be totally lost ? Surely the
thought is abhorrent to every Christian feeling.

Such is an epitome of the direct evidence in favour of in
fant baptism. To me, I acknowledge, it appears nothing
short of demonstration. The invariable character of all Je-
hovah's dealings and covenants with the children of men ;
his express appointment, acted upon for two thousand years
by the ancient church ; the total silence of the New Testa-
ment as to any retraction or repeal of this privilege ; the evi-
dent and repeated examples of family baptism in the apostolic
age ; the indubitable testimony of the practice of the whole
church on the Poedobaptist plan, from the time of the apos-
tles to the sixteenth century, including the most respectable
witnesses for the truth in the dark ages ; all conspire to es-
tabhsh on the firmest foundation, the membership, and the
consequent right to baptism of the infant seed of believers.
If here be no divine warrant, we may despair of finding it
for any institution in the Church of God.

DISCOURSE II.

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

"And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us say
ing — if ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into mine
house, and abide there." — Act7 x\i.l5.

Having adduced, in the preceding discourse^ the direct
evidence in support of Infant Baptism, let us now attend to
some of the most common and popular objections, brought
by our Baptist brethren, against the doctrine which we have
attempted to establish. And,

1 . The first is, that we have no direct warrant in the New
Testament, in so many words, for Infant Baptism. " We
are no where," say our opponents, " in the histor\' of the

INFANT BAPTISM. 33

apostolic age, told, in express terms, either that infants ought
to be baptized, or that they were, in fact, baptized. Now is
it possible to account for this omission on the supposition that
such baptism was generally practised?" This objection has
been urged a thousand times, with great confidence, and with
no inconsiderable effect, on the minds of soms serious persons
of small knowledge, and of superficial thought. But when
thoroughly examined, it wiU, I am persuaded, appear desti-
tute of all solid foundation.

For, in the first place, even if it were as our Baptist breth
ren suppose ; that is, even if no express warrant, in so many
words, were found in the New Testament, authorizing and
directing infant baptism, could this reasonably be considered,
upon Poedobaptist principles, unaccountable, or even wonder-
ful ? The Poedobaptist principle, let it be borne in mind, is,
that the church under the New Testament economy is the
same with the church under the Old Testament dispensation ;
that the former was the minority or childhood, the latter the
maturity of the visible kingdom of the Messiah ; that one of
the most striking features in the New Testament character of
this kingdom is, a great increase of light, and enlargement of
privilege ; that the infant seed of believers had been bom in
covenant with God, and their covenanted character marked
and ratified by a covenant seal, for two thousand years before
Christ appeared ; and that, if this privilege had been inten-
ded simply to be continued, no new enactment was necessary
to ascertain this intention, but merely allowing it to proceed
without interposing any change. This is the ground we take.
Now, taking this ground ; assuming as facts what have been
just stated as such, can any thing be more perfectly natural
than the whole aspect of the New Testament in relation to
this subject? Very little, explicit or formal, is said in refer-
ence to the covenant standing of children, on the opening of
the new economy, simply because no material alteration as to
this point, was intended. All the first Christians having been
bred under the Jewish economy, and having been always ac-
customed to the enjoyment of its privileges, would, of course,
expect those privileges to be continued, especially, if nothing
were said about their repeal or abridgement. To announce
to these Jewish believers, that the covenant standing, and
covenant advantages of their beloved children, were not to be
withdrawn or curtailed, if no other alteration in reference tc
this matter, than an increase of privilege were intended, would
have been just as unnecessary as to inform them that the true
God was still to be worshipped, and the atoning sacrifice of

4* 19*

34 INFANT BAPTISM.

the Messiah still regarded as the only gi'ound of hope. In
short, assuming Poedobaptist principles, we might expect the
New Testament to exhibit precisely the aspect which it does
exhibit. Not to say, in so many words, that the privilege in
question was to be continued ; but all along to speak as if
this were to be taken for granted, without an explicit enact-
ment ; to assure the first Christians that " the promise was
still to them and their children;" and not to them only, but
also to " as many as the Lord their God should call'' into his
visible church ; to tell them that, in regard to this matter, the
administration of his New Testament kingdom was to be
such as to abolish all distinction of sex in Christian privilege ;
that, in Christ, there was to be no longer a difference made
between " male and female ;" and, in conformity with this
intimation, and as practical comment upon it, to introduce
whole families with the converted parents into the church,
by the appropriate New Testament rite, as had been invaria-
bly practised under the Old Testament economy.

But now turn, for a moment, to the opposite supposition ;
to that of our Baptist brethren. They are obliged, by their
system, to take for granted, that, after the children of the
professing people of God had been, for nearly two thousand
years, in the enjoyment of an important covenant privilege;
a privilege precious in itself, and peculiarly dear to the pa-
rental heart ; it was suddenly, and without explanation, set
aside : that on the opening of the New Testament dispensa-
tion, a dispensation of larger promises, and of increased
liberality, this privilege was abruptly and totally withdrawn ;
that children were ejected from their former covenant rela-
tion; that they were no longer the subjects of a covenant
seal, or of covenant promises ; and that all this took place
without one hint of any reason for it being given ; without
one syllable being said, in all the numerous epistles to the
churches, by any one of justification or apology, for so im-
portant a change! Nay, that, instead of such notice and
explanation, a mode of expression, under the new economy,
should be throughout used, corresponding with the former
practice, and adapted still to convey the idea that both pa-
rents and children stood in their old relation, notwithstanding
the painful change ! Is this credible ! Can it be believed
by any one who is not predetermined to regard it as true ?

But if the New Testament economy does not include the
church membership of the infant seed of believers, such a
change, undoubtedly, did take place, on the coming in of
the new economy. The Jewish disciples of Christ saw

INFANT BAPTISM. 35

their children at once cut off from the covenant of promise,
and denied its appropriate seal, to which they had always
been accustomed, and in which the tenderest parental feel-
ings were so strongly implicated. Yet we hear of no com-
plaint on their part. We find not a word which seems in-
tended to explain such a change, or to allay the feelings of
those parents who could not fail, if such had been the fact,
both to feel and to remonstrate.

I must say, my friends, that, to my mind, this considera-
tion, if there were no other, is conclusive. Instead of our
Baptist brethren having a right to call upon us to find a di-
rect warrant in the New Testament, in favour of infant
membership, we have a right to call upon them to produce
a direct warrant for the great and sudden change which they
allege took place. If it be, as they say, that the New Tes-
tament is silent on the subject, this very silence is quite
sufficient to destroy their cause, and to establish ours. It
affords proof positive that no such change as that which is
alleged ever occurred. That a change so important and in-
teresting should have been introduced, without one word of
explanation or apology on the part of the inspired aposdes,
and without one hint or struggle on the part of those who
had enjoyed the former privilege; in short, that the old
economy, in relation to this matter, should have been entire-
ly broken up, and yet the whole subject passed over by the
inspired writers in entire silence, is surely one of the most
incredible things that can well be imagined ! He who can
believe it, must have a mind "fully set in him" to embrace
the system which requires it.

So much on the supposition assumed by our Baptist breth-
ren, that there is no direct warrant in the New Testament
for infant membership, and of course, none for infant bap-
tism. Admitting that the New Testament is silent on the
subject, their cause is ruined. No good reason, I had al-
most said, no possible reason, can be assigned for such
silence, in the circumstances in which the Christian church
was placed, but the fact that things, as to this point, were to
go on as before. That the old privilege, so dear to the pa-
rent's heart, was to receive no other change than a new seal,
less burdensome; applicable equally to both sexes; in a
word, recognising, extending, and perpetuating all the privi-
leges which they had enjoyed before.

But it cannot be admitted that the New Testament con
tains no direct warrant for infant membership. The testi-
mony adduced in the preceding discourse is surely worthy,

36 INFANT BAPTISM.

to say the least, of the most serious regard. When the Mas-
ter himself declares concerning infants, "Of such is the
kingdom of heaven;" when an inspired apostle proclaims —
"The promise is to us and our children;" and when we
plainly see, under the apostolical administration of the
church, whole families received, in repeated instances, into
the church, on the professed faith of the individuals who
were constituted their respective heads, just as we know oc-
curred under the old economy, when the membership of in-
fants was undisputed : when we read such things as these in
the New Testament, we surely cannot complain of the want
of testimony which ought to satisfy every reasonable inqui-
rer.

2. A second objection often urged by our Baptist breth-
ren, is drawn from what they insist is the general law of
positive instifMtions. " In cases of moral duty, say they,
we are at liberty to argue from inference, from analogy, from
implication ; but in regard to positive institutions, our war-
rant must be direct and positive. Now, as we nowhere find
in the New Testament any positive direction for baptizing
infants, the general law, which must govern in all cases of
positive institution, plainly forbids it. Here no inferential
reasoning can be admitted."

This argument, I am persuaded, will not be regarded as
forcible by any who examine it with attention and impartiality.
The whole principle is unsound. The fact is, inferential rea-
soning may be, and is in many cases, quite as strong as any
other. Besides, if it be contended, that in every thing rela-
ting to positive institutes, we must have direct and positive
precepts, the assumed principle will prove too much.

Upon this principle, females ought never to partake of the
Lord's Supper ; for we have no positive precept, and no ex-
plicit example in the New Testament to warrant them in
doing so, and yet our Baptist brethren, forgetting their own
principle, unite with all Christians who consider the sacra-
mental supper as still obligatory on the church, in admitting
females to its participation. This practice is, no doubt, per-
fectly right. It rests on the most solid inferential reasoning,
which may be just as strong as any other, and which, in this
case, cannot be gainsayed or resisted. But. every time our
Baptist brethren yield to this reasoning, and act accordingly,
they desert their assumed principle.

3. A third objection frequently urged is, that if infant bap-
tism had prevailed in the primitive church, we might have
expected to find in the New Testament history some ex

INFANT BAPTISM. 37

amples of the children of professing Christians being bapti-
zed in their infancy. Our Baptist brethren remind us that
the New Testament history embraces a period of more than
sixty years after the organization of the church, under the
new economy. " Now," say they, " during this long period,
if the principle and practice of infant baptism had been the
law of the church, we must, in all probability, have found
many instances recorded of the baptism of the children of
persons already in the communion of the church. Whereas,
in all that is distinctly recorded, or occasionally hinted at,
concerning the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth,
Ephesus, Rome, Galatia, Colosse, &c., we find no mention
made of such baptisms. We, therefore, conclude that none
such occurred."

This objection, when examined, will be found, it is believ-
ed, to have quite as little weight as the preceding. The prin-
cipal object of the New Testament history is to give an ac-
count of the progress of the Gospel. Hence it was much
more to the purpose of the sacred writers to inform us re-
specting the conversions to Christianity, from Judaism and
Paganism, than to dwell in detail on what occurred in the
bosom of the church itself. Only enough is said on the lat-
ter subject to trace the disturbances which occurred in the
churches to their proper source, and to render intelligible and
impressive the various precepts in relation to these matters
which are recorded for the instruction of the people of God
in all ages. Hence all the cases of baptism which are re-
corded, are cases in which it was administered to converts
from Judaism or Paganism, to Christianity. To the best
of my recollection, we have no example of a single baptism
of any other kind. Now this, upon Poedobaptist principles,
is precisely what might have been expected. In giving a
history of such churches, who would think of singling out
cases of infant baptism ? This is a matter so much of course,
and of every day's occurence, that it is in no respect a re-
markable event, and, of course, could not be expected to be
recorded as such. No wonder, then, that we find no instance
of this kind specified in the annals of the apostolical church.

But this is not all. There is connected with this fact, a
still more serious difficulty, which cannot fail of bearing with
most unfriendly weight on the Baptist cause. Though it is
not wonderful, for the reason just mentioned, that we read of
no cases of infant baptism, among the Christian families of
the apostolical age; yet, upon Baptist principles, it is much
more difficult to be accounted for, that we find no example of

38 INFANT BAPTISM.

persons born of Christian parents being baptized in adult
agt. Upon those principles, the children of professing
Christians bear no relation to the church. They are as com-
pletely "without" as the children of Pagans and Mohamme-
dans, until by faith and repentance they are brought within
the bond of the covenant. Their being converted and bap-
tized, then, we might expect to be just as carefully noticed,
and just as minutely detailed, as the conversion and baptism
of the most complete " aliens from the commonwealth of
Israel." Yet the fact is, that during the whole three score
years after the ascension of Christ, which the New Testa-
ment history embraces, we have no hint of the baptism of
any infant born of Christian parents. In my judgment this
fact bears very strongly in favour of the Poedobaptist cause.

4. it is objected, that Jesus Christ himself it as not bap-
tized until he was thirty years of age; and, therefore, it is
inferred, that his disciples ought not to be baptized until they
reach adult age. To this objection I reply.

(1.) Christ was baptized by John. Now, it is certain, that
John's Baptism was not Christian baptism ; for it is evident
from the Acts of the Apostles, (chap. xix. 1 — 5.) that those
who were baptized by John, were baptized over again, " in
the name of the Lord Jesus." Besides, it is evident, from the
whole passage, that the baptism of Christ by John was au
essentially different thing from baptism as now practised in
the Christian church. The ministry of John the Baptist was
a dispensation, if we may say so, intermediate between the
Old and the New Testament economies. And, as our bles-
sed Lord thought proper to " fulfil all righteousness," he sub-
mitted to the baptismal rite which marked that dispensation.
Besides, under the Old Testament economy, when the High
Priest first entered on his holy office, he was solemnly wash-
ed with water. And that officer, we know, was wont to
come to the discharge of his functions at " about thirty years
of age," the very age at which our Saviour was baptized, and
entered on his public ministry. In like manner, when the
*' great High Priest of our profession," Christ Jesus, entered
on his public ministry, he thought proper to comply with the
same ceremony ; that he might accomplish the prophecy,
and fulfil all the typical representations concerning the Savi-
our, which had been left on record in the Old Testament
Scriptures. The baptism of Christ, then, has no reference
to this controversy, and cannot be made to speak either for or
against our practice in regard to this ordinance. But

(2.) If this argument have any force, it proves more than

INFANT BAPTISM. 39

our Baptist brethren are willing to allow, viz : that no per-
son ought to be baptized under thirty years of age. So that
even a real Christian, however clear his evidences of faith and
repentance, though he be twenty, twenty-Jive, or even twenty-
nine years of age, must in no case think of being baptized
until he has reached the full age of thirty. A consequence
so replete with absurdity, that the simple statement of it
is enough to insure its refutation.

5. A fifth objection continually made by our Baptist breth-
ren is, that infants are not capable of those spiritual acts or
exercises which the New Testament requires in order to a
proper reception of the ordinance of Baptism. Thus the
language of the New Testament, on various occasions is —
" Repent, and be baptized. BeUeve, and be baptized. If
thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest be baptized.
They that gladly received the word were baptized. Many of
the Corinthians, having believed, were baptized." In short,
say our Baptist brethren, as baptism is acknowledged on all
hands to be a " seal of the righteousness of faith;" and as
infants are altogether incapable of exercising faith : it is, of
course, not proper to baptize them.

In answer to this objection, my first remark is, that all
those exhortations to faith and repentance, as prerequisites to
baptism, which we find in the New Testament, are addressed
to adult persons. And when we are called to instruct adult
persons, who have never been baptized, we always address
them precisely in the same way in which the apostles did.
We exhort them to repent and believe, and we say, just as
Philip said, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou
mayest be baptized." But this does not touch the question
respecting the infant seed of believers. It only shows that
when adults are baptized, such a qualification is to be urged,
and such a profession required. And in this, all Poedobap-
tists unanimously agree.

But stiU, our Baptist brethren, unsatisfied with this an-
swer, insist, that, as infants are not capable of exercising
faith ; as they are not capable of acting either intelligently or
voluntarily in the case at all, they cannot be considered as
the proper recipients of an ordinance which is represented
as a "seal of the righteousness of faith." This objection is
urged with unceasing confidence, and not seldom accompa-
nied with a sneer or even ridicule, at the idea of applying a
covenant seal to those who are incapable of either under-
standing, or giving their consent, to the transaction. It is
really, my friends, enough to make one shudder to think

40 INFANT BAPTISM.

how often, and how unceremoniously language of this kind
is emplojed by those who acknowledge that infants of
eight days old, were once, and that by express Divine ap-
pointment, made the subjects of circumcision. Now cir-
cumcision is expressly said by the apostle to be a " seal of
the righteousness of faith," as well as baptism. But were
children of eight days old then capable of exercising faith,
when they were circumcised, more than they are now when
they are baptized ? Surely the objection before us is as
valid in the one case as in the other. And, whether our
Baptist brethren perceive it or not, all the charges of " ab-
surdity" and " impiety" which they are so ready to heap on
infant baptism, are just as applicable to infant circumcision
as to infant baptism. Are they, then, willing to say, that
the application of a " seal of the righteousness of faith" to
unconscious infants, of eight days old, who, of course, could
not exercise faith, was, under the old economy, preposte-
rous and absurd? Are they prepared thus to "charge God
foolishly ?" Yet they must do it, if they would be consis-
tent. They cannot escape from the shocking alternative.
Every harsh and contemptuous epithet which they apply to
infant baptism, must, if they would adhere to the principles
which they lay down, be applied to infant circumcision. But
that which unavoidably leads to such a consequence cannot
be warranted by the word of God.

After all, the whole weight of the objection, in this case,
is founded on an entire forgetfulness of the main principle of
the Poedobaptist system. It is forgotten that in every case
of infant baptism, faith is required, and, if the parents be
sincere, is actually exercised. But it is required of the pa-
rents, not of the children. So that, if the parent really pre-
sent his child in faith, the spirit of the ordinance is entirely
met and answered. It was this principle which gave mea-
ning and legitimacy to the administration of the correspon-
ding rite under the old dispensation. It was because the pa-
rents were visibly within the bond of the covenant, that their
children were entitled to the same blessed privilege. The
same principle precisely applies under the New Testament
economy. Nor does it impair the force of this considera-
tion to allege, that parents, it is feared, too often present
their children, in this solemn ordinance, without genuine
faith. It is, indeed, probable that this is often lamentably
the fact. But so it was, we cannot doubt, with respect to
the corresponding ordinance, under the old dispensation.
Yet the circumcision was neither invalidated, nor rendered

INFANT BAPTISM. 41

unmeaning, by this want of sincerity on the part of the pa-
rent. It was sufficient for the visible administration that
faith was visibly professed. When our Baptist brethren ad-
minister the ordinance of baptism to one who professes to
repent and believe, but who is not sincere in this profession,
they do not consider his want of faith as divesting the ordi-
nance of either its warrant or its meaning. The administra-
tion may be regular and scriptural, while the recipient is
criminal, and receives no spiritual benefit. It is, in every
case, the profession of faith which gives the right, in the eye
of the church, to the external ordinance. The want of sin-
cerity in this profession, while it deeply inculpates the hypo-
critical individual, affects not either the nature or the warrant
of the administration.

6. Again; it is objected, that baptism can do infants no
good. " Where," say our Baptist brethren, " is the benefit
of it ? What good can a litde ' sprinkling with water' do a
helpless, unconscious babe ?" To this objection I might
reply, by asking in my turn — What good did circumcision do
a Jewish child, helpless and unconscious, at eight days old 1
To ask the question is almost impious, because it implies an
impeachment of infinite wisdom.* God appointed that ordi-
nance to be administered to infants. And accordingly, when
the apostle asked, in the spirit of some modern cavillers,'
" What profit is there of circumcision ?" He replies, much,
every way. In like manner, when it is asked, " What pro-
fit is there in baptizing our infant children?" I answer,
Much, every way. Baptism is a sign of many important
truths, and a seal of many important covenant blessings. Is
there no advantage in attending on an ordinance which holds
up to our view, in the most impressive symbolical language,
several of those fundamental doctrines of the Gospel which
are of the deepest interest to us and our offspring ; such as
our fallen, guilty, and polluted state by nature, and the
method appointed by infinite wisdom and love for our reco-
very, by the atoning blood, and cleansing Spirit of the Sa-
viour ? Is there no advantage in solemnly dedicating our
children to God by an appropriate rite, of his own appoint-
ment ? Is there no advantage in formally binding ourselves,
by covenant engagements, to bring up our ofTspring " in the

* A grave and respectable Baptist minister, in the course of an argu-
ment on this subject, candidly acknowledged that the administration
of circumcision to an infant eight days old, would have appeared to
him a useless, and even a silly rite ! An honest, and certainly a very
natural confession.

20 5

42 IJVFANT BAPTISM.

nurture and admonition of the Lord ?" Is there no advantage
in publicly ratifying the connection of our children, as well
as ourselves, with the visible church, and as it were binding
them to an alliance with the God of their fathers ? Is there
nothing, either comforting or useful in solemnly recognising
as our own that covenant promise, " I will establish my
covenant between me and thee, and thy seed c^ter thee, to be
a God to thee and thy seed after thee?'''* Is it a step of no
value to our children themselves, to be brought, by a divinely
appointed ordinance, into the bosom, and to the notice, the
maternal attentions, and the prayers of the church, " the mo-
ther of us all ?" And is it of no advantage to the parents, in
educating their children, to be able to remind them, from
:ime to time, that they have been symbolically sanctified, or
set apart, by the seal of Jehovah's covenant, and to plead
with them by the solemn vows which they have made on their
behalf? Verily, my dear friends, those who refuse or ne-
glect the baptism of their children, not only sin against
Christ by disobeying his solemn command ; but they also
deprive both themselves and their children of great benefits.
They may imagine that, as it is a disputed point, it may be.
a matter of indifference, whether their children receive this
ordinance in their infancy, or grow up unbaptized. But is
not this attempting to be wiser than God ? I do not profess
to know all the advantages attendant or consequent on the
administi'ation of this significant and divinely appointed rite ;
but one thing I know, and that is, that Christ has appointed
it as a sign of precious truths, and a seal of rich blessings, to
his covenant people, and their infant offspring ; and I have
no doubt that, in a multitude of cases, the baptized children,
presented by professing parents who had no true faith, but
who, by this act, brought their children within the care, the
watch, and the privileges of the church, have been instrumen-
tal in conferring upon their offspring rich benefits, while
they themselves went down to everlasting burnings. If I
mistake not I have seen many cases, in which as far as the
eye of man could go, the truth of this remark has been sig-
nally exemplified.

Let it not be said, that such a solemn dedication of a child
to God, is usurping the rights of the child to judge and act
for himself, when he comes to years of discretion ; and that
it is inconsistent with the privilege of every rational being to
free inquiry, and free agency. This objection is founded on
an infidel spirit. It is equally opposed to the religious edu-
cation of children ; and, if followed out, would militate

INFANT BAPTISM. 43

against all those restraints, and that instruction which the
word of God enjoins on parents. Nay, if the principle of
this objection be correct, it is wrong to pre-occupy the minds
of our children with an abhorrence of lying, theft, drunken-
ness, malice, and murder ; lest, forsooth, we should fill them
with such prejudices as would be unfriendly to free inquiry.

The truth is, one great purpose for which the church was
instituted, is to watch over and train up children in the know-
ledge and fear of God, and thus, to " prej)are a seed to serve
him, who should be accounted to the Lord for a generation."
And I will venture to say, that that system of religion which
does not embrace children in its ecclesiastical provisions, and
in its covenant engagements, is most materially defective.

Infants may not receive any apparent benefit from baptism,
at the moment in which the ordinance is administered;
although a gracious God may, even then, accompany the out-
ward emblem with the blessing which it represents, even " the
washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy
Spirit." This, indeed, may not be, and most commonly, so
far as we can judge, is not the case. But still the benefits of
this ordinance, when faithfully applied by ministers, and faith-
fully received by parents, are abundant — nay, great and im-
portant every way. When • children are baptized, they are
thereby recognised as belonging to the visible church of God.
They are, as it were, solemnly entered as scholars or disci-
ples in the school of Christ. They are brought into a
situation, in which they not only may be trained up for God,
but in which their parents are bound so to train them up ;
and the church is bound to see that they be so trained, as that
the Lord's claim to them shall ever be recognised and main-
tained. In a word, by baptism, when the administrators and
recipients are both faithful to their respective trusts, children
are brought into a situation in which all the means of grace ;
all the privileges pertaining to Christ's covenanted family ; in
a word, all that is comprehended under the broad and pre-
cious import of the term Christian education, is secured to
them in the most ample manner. Let parents think of this,
when they come to present their children in this holy ordi-
nance. And let children lay all this to heart, when they
come to years in which they are capable of remembering and
realizing their solemn responsibility.

7. A seventh objection which our Baptist brethren fre-
quently urge is, that, upon our plan, the result of baptism
seldom corresponds with its professed meaning. We say it
is a symbol of regeneration ; but experience proves that a

44 INFANT BAPTISM.

great majority of those infants who are baptized, never par'
take of the grace of regeneration. The practice of Poedo-
baptists, they tell us, is adapted to corrupt the church to the
most extreme degree, by filling it with unconverted persons.
To this objection we reply :

That baptism is not more generally connected or followed
with that spiritual benefit of which it is a striking emblem,
is indeed to be lamented. But still this acknowledged fact
does not, it is believed, either destroy the significance of the
ordinance, or prove it to be useless. If it hold up to view,
to all who behold it, every time that it is administered, the
nature and necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit ; if
it enjoin, and, to a very desirable extent, secure, to the chil-
dren of the church enlightened and faithful instruction, in the
great doctrines of the Gospel, and this doctrine of spiritual
cleansing in particular ; and if it is, in a multitude of cases,
actually connected with precious privileges, and saving bene-
fits ; we have, surely, no right to conclude that it is of small
advantage, because it is not in all cases followed by the bles-
sing which it symbolically represents. How many read the
Bible without profit ! How many attend upon the external
service of prayer, without sincerity, and without a saving
blessing ! But are the reading of the Scriptures, and the duty
of prayer less obligatory, or of more dubious value on that
account? In truth, the same objection might be made to
circumcision. That, as well as baptism, was a symbol of re-
generation, and of spiritual cleansing : but how many recei-
ved the outward symbol without the spiritual benefit ? The
fact is, the same objection ma3/ be brought against every in-
stitution of God. They are all richly significant, and abound
in spiritiial meaning, and in spiritual instruction ; but their
influence is moral, and may be defeated by unbelief. They
cannot exert a physical power, or convert and save by their
inherent energy. Hence they are often attended by many
individuals without benefit ; but still their administration is
by no means, in respect to the church of God, in vain in the
Lord. It is daily exerting an influence of which no human
arithmetic can form an accurate estimate. Thousands, no
doubt, even of baptized adults receive the ordinance without
faith, and of course, without saving profit. But thousands
more receive it in faith, and in connexion with those precious
benefits of which it is a symbol. This is the case with all
ordinances ; but because they are not always connected with
saving benefits, we are neither to disparage, nor cease to re-
commend them

INFANT BAPTISM. 45

But if baptism be a symbol of regeneration ; if it hold
forth to all who receive it, either for themselves or their off-
spring, the importance and necessity of this great work of
God's grace ; if it bind them to teach their children, as soon
as they become capable of receiving instruction, this vital
truth, as well as all the other fundamental truths of our holy
religion ; if, in consequence of their baptism, children are re-
cognised as bearing a most important relation to the church of
God, as bound by her rules, and responsible to her tribunal :
and if all these principles be faithfully carried out into prac-
tice : can our children be placed in circumstances more favour-
able to their moral benefit ? If not regenerated at the time of
baptism, (which the nature of the ordinance does not neces-
sarily imply) are they not, in virtue of their connexion with
the church, thus ratified and sealed, placed in the best of all
schools for learning, practically, as well as doctrinally, the
things of God ? Are they not, by these means, even when
they fail of becoming pious, restrained and regulated, and
made better members of society ? And are not multitudes of
them, after all, brought back from their temporary wanderings,
and by the reviving influence of their baptismal seal, and
their early training, made wise unto salvation ? Let none
say, then, that infant baptism seldom realizes its symbolical
meaning. It is, I apprehend, made to do this far more fre-
quently than is commonly imagined. And if those who
offer them up to God in this ordinance, were more faithful,
this favourable result would occur with a frequency more than
tenfold.

8. A further objection often urged by the opponents of in-
fant baptism is, that we have the same historical evidence for
infant communion that vje have for infant baptism ; and
that the evidence of the former in the early history of the
church, altogether invalidates the historical testimony which
we find in favour of the latter.

In reply to this objection, it is freely granted, that the
practice of administering the eucharist to children, and some-
times even to very young children, infants, has been in use in
various parts of the Christian church, from an early period,
and is, in some parts of the nominally Christian world, still
maintained. About the middle of the third century, we hear
of it in some of the African churches. A misconception of
the Saviour's words — " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you ;" led many
to believe that a participation of the Lord's supper was es-
sential to salvation. They were, therefore, led to give a small
20* 5*

46 INFANT BAPTISM.

portion of the sacramental bread dipped in wine to children,
and dying persons, who were not able to receive it in the
usual form ; and, in some cases, we find that this morsel of
bread moistened with the consecrated ^Tine was even forced
down the throats of infants, who were reluctant or unable to
swallow it. Nay, to so revolting a length was this supersti-
tion carried in a few churches, that the consecrated bread and
wine united in the same manner as in the case of infants,
were thrust into the mouths of the dead, who had departed
without receiving them during life !

But it is doing great injustice to the cause of infant baptism
to represent it as resting on no better ground than the practice
of infant communion. The following points of difference
are manifest, and appear to me perfectly conclusive.

(1.) Infant communion derives not the smallest countenance
from the word of God ; whereas, with regard to infant bap-
tism, we find in Scripture its most solid and decisive support.
It would rest on a firm foundation if every testimony out of
the Bible were destroyed.

(2.) The historical testimony in favour of infant commu-
nion, is greatly inferior to that which we possess in favour of
infant baptism. We have no hint of the former having been
in use in any church until the time of Cyprian, about the
middle of the third century ; whereas testimony more or less
clear in favour of the latter has come down to us from the
apostolic age.

(3.) Once more : Infant communion by no means stands on
a level with infant baptism as to its universal or even general
reception. We find two eminent men in the fourth century,
among the most learned then on earth, and who had enjoyed
the best opportunity of becoming acquainted with the whole
church, declaring that the baptism of infants was a practice
which had come down from the apostles, and was universally
practised in the church ; nay, that they had never heard of
any professing Christians in the world, either orthodox or
heretical, who did not baptize their children. But we have
no testimony approaching this, in proof of the early and uni-
versal adoption of infant communion.. It was manifestly an
innovation, founded on principles which, though, to a melan-
choly degree prevalent, were never universally received.
And as miserable superstition brought it into the church, so a
still more miserable superstition destroyed it. When transub-
stantiation arose, the sacred elements, (now transmuted, as
was supposed, into the real body and blood of the Saviour)
began to be considered as too awful in their character to be

INFANT BAPTISM. 47

imparted to children. But in the Greek church, who sepa-
rated from the Latin before the transubstantiation was estab-
lished, the practice of infant communion still superstitiously
continues.

9. Again : It is objected that Poedobaptists are not consis-
tent with themselves, in that they do not treat their children
as if they were members of the church. " Poedobaptists,"
say our Baptist brethren, " maintain that the children of pro-
fessing Christians are, in virtue of their birth, members of
the church — plenary members — externally in covenant with
God, and as such made the subjects of a sacramental seal.
Yet we seldom or never see a Poedobaptist church treating
her baptized children as church inembers, that is, instruct-
ing, watching over, and disciplining them, as in the case of
adult members. Does not this manifest that their system is
inconsistent with itself, impracticable, and therefore unsound?"
This objection is a most serious and weighty one, and ought
to engage the conscientious attention of every Pcedobaptist
who wishes to maintain his profession with consistency and
to edification.

It cannot be denied, then, that the great mass of the Pcedo-
baptist churches, do act inconsistently in regard to this matter.
They do not carry out, and apply their own system by a
corresponding practice. That baptized children should be
treated by the church and her officers just as other children
are treated : that they should receive the seal of a covenant
relation to God and his people, and then be left to negligence
and sin, without official inspection, and without discipline,
precisely as those are left who bear no relation to the church,
is, it must be confessed, altogether inconsistent with the na-
ture and design of the ordinance, and in a high degree un-
friendly to the best interests of the Church of God. This
distressing fact, however, as has been often observed, mili-
tates, not against the doctrine itself, of infant membership, but
against the inconsistency of those who profess to adopt and
to act upon it.

If one great end of instituting a church, as was before ob-
served, is the training up of a godly seed in the way of
truth, hohness, and salvation ; and if one gi-eat purpose of
sacramental seals is to " separate between the precious and
the vile," and to set a distinguishing mark upon the Lord's
people ; then, undoubtedly, those who bear this mark, whether
infant or adult, ought to be treated with appropriate inspec-
tion and care, and their relation to the Church of God never,
for a moment, lost sight of or neglected. In regard to adults,

48 INFANT BAPTISM.

this duty is generally recognised by all evangelical churches.
Why it has fallen into so much neglect, in regard to our in-
fant and juvenile members, may be more easily explained
than justified. And yet it is manifest, that attention to the
duty in question in reference to the youthful members of the
church, is not only important, but, in some respects, pre-
eminently so ; and peculiarly adapted to promote the edifica-
tion and enlargement of the Christian family.

If it be asked, what more can be done for the moral culture
and welfare of baptized children, than is done ? I answer,
much, that would be of inestimable value to them, and to the
Christian community. The task, indeed, of training them
up for God, is an arduous one, but it is practicable, and
the faithful discharge of it involves the richest reward. The
following plan may be said naturally to grow out of the doc-
trine of infant membership ; and no one can doubt that, if
carried into faithful execution, it would form a new and glo-
rious era in the history of the Church of God.

Let all baptized children, from the hour of their receiving
the seal of God's covenant, be recorded and recognised as in-
fant disciples. Let the officers of the church, as well as
their parents according to the flesh, ever regard them with a
watchful and affectionate eye. Let Christian instruction,
Christian restraint, and Christian warning, entreaty and prayer
ever attend them, from the mother's lap to the infant school,
and from the infant school to the seminary, whatever it may
be, for more mature instruction. Let them be early taught to
reverence and read the word of God, and to treasure up
select portions of it in their memories. Let appropriate cate-
chisms, and other sound compends of Christian truth, be put
into their hands, and by incessant repetition and inculcation
be impressed upon their minds. Let a school or schools, ac-
cording to its extent, be established in each church, placed
under the immediate instruction of exemplary, orthodox, and
pious teachers, carefully superintended by the pastor, and
, visited as often as practicable by all the officers of the church.
Let these beloved youth be often reminded of the relation
which they bear to the Christian family ; and the just claim
of Christ to their affections and service, be often presented
with distinctness, solemnity, and affection. Let every kind
of error and immorality be faithfully reproved, and as far as
possible suppressed in them. Let the pastor convene the
baptized children as often as practicable, and address them
with instruction and exhortation in the name of that God to
whom they have been dedicated, and every endeavour made

INFANT BAPTISM. 49

to impress their consciences and their hearts with Gospel
truth. When they come to years of discretion, let them be
affectionately remmded of their duty to ratify, by their own
act, the vows made by their parents in baptism, and be urged,
again and again, to give, first their hearts, and then the hum-
ble acknowledgment of an outward profession, to the Saviour.
Let this plan be pursued faithfully, constandy, patiently, and
with parental tenderness. If instruction and exhortation be
disregarded, and a course of error, immorality, or negligence
be indulged in, let warning, admonition, suspension, or ex-
communication ensue, according to the character of the indi-
vidual, and the exigencies of the case. " What !" some will
be disposed to say, " suspend or excommunicate a young
person, who has never yet taken his seat at a sacramental
table, nor even asked for that privilege ?" Certainly. Why
not ? If the children of professing Christians are born mem-
bers of the church, and are baptized as a sign and seal of
this membership, nothing can be plainer than that they ought
to be treated in every respect as church members, and, of
course, if they act in an unchristian manner, a bar ought to
be set up in the way of their enjoying Christian privileges.
If this be not admitted, we must give up the very first princi-
ples of ecclesiastical order and duty. Nor is there, obviously
any thing m.ore incongruous in suspending or excluding from
church privileges a young man, or young woman, who has
been baptized in infancy, and trained up in the bosom of the
church, but has now no regard for religion, than there is in
suspending or excommunicating one who has been, for many
years, an attendant on the Lord's table, but has now forsaken
the house of God, and has no longer any desire to approach
a Christian ordinance. No one would consider it as either
incongruous or unreasonable to declare such a person unwor-
thy of Christian fellowship, and excluded from it, though he
had no disposition to enjoy it. The very same principle
applies in the case now under consideration.

It has been supposed, indeed, by some Poedobaptists, that
although every baptized child is a regular church member, he
is a member only of the general visible church, and not in
the ordinary sense, of any particular church ; and, therefore,
that he is not amenable to ecclesiastical discipline until he
formally connects himself with some particular church.
This doctrine appears to me subversive of every principle of
ecclesiastical order. Every baptized child is, undoubtedly,
to be considered as a member of the church in which he re-
ceived baptism, until he dies, is excommunicated, or regularly

50 INFANT BAPTISM.

dismissed to another church. And if the time shall ever come
when all om- churches shall act upon this plan ; when infant
members shall be watched over with unceasing and affection-
ate moral care ; when a baptized young person, of either sex,
being not yet what is called a communicant, shall be made the
subject of mild and faithful Christian discipline, if he fall
into heresy or immorality ; when he shall be regularly dis-
missed, by letter, from the watch and care of one church to
another; and when all his spiritual interests shall be guarded,
by the church, as well as by his parents, with sacred and
affectionate diligence ; when this efficient and faithful system
shall be acted upon, infant baptism will be universally ac-
knowledged as a blessing, and the church will shine with new
and spiritual glory.

The truth is, if infant baptism were properly improved ; if
the profession which it includes, and the obligations which it
imposes, were suitably appreciated, and followed up, it would
have few opponents. I can no more doubt, if this were done,
that it would be blessed to the saving conversion of thousands
of our young people, than I can doubt the faithfulness of a
covenant God. Yes, infant baptism is of God, but the
fault lies in the conduct of its advocates. The inconsistency
of its friends has done more to discredit it, than all the argu-
ments of its opposers, a hundred fold. Let us hope that
these friends will, one day, arouse from their deplorable
lethargy, and show that they are contending for an ordinance
as precious as it is scriptural.

10. Another objection, often urged with confidence, against
infant membership and baptism is, that, if they be well foun-
ded, then it follows, of course, that every baptized young
person, or even child, who feels disposed to do so, has a
right to come to the Lord's table, ivithout inquiry or 'per-
mission of any one. Upon this principle, say our Baptist
brethren, as a large portion of those who are baptized in in-
fancy are manifestly not pious, and many of them become
openly profligate ; if their caprice or their wickedness should
prompt them to go forward, the church would be disgraced
by crowds of the most unworthy communicants.

This objection is founded on an entire mistake. And a
recurrence, for one moment, to the principles of civil society,
will at once expose it. Every child is a citizen of the coun-
try in which he was born : a plenary citizen : there is no
such thing as half-way citizenship in this case. He is a free
born citizen in the fullest extent of the term. Yet, until he
reach a certain age, and possess certain qualifications, he is

INFANT BAPTISM. 52

not eligible to the most important offices which his country
has to confer. And after he has been elected, he cannot take
his seat for the discharge of these official functions, until he
has taken certain prescribed oaths. It is evident that the
State has a right, and finds it essential to her well being, by
her constitution and her laws, thus to limit the rights of the
citizen. Still no one supposes that he is the less a citizen,
or thinks of representing him as only a half-way citizen prior
to his compliance with these forms. In like manner every
baptized child is a member — ^a plenary member of the church
in which he received the sacramental seal. There his mem-
bership is recognised and recorded, and there alone can he
regularly receive a certificate of this fact, and a dismission
to put himself under the watch and care of any other church.
Still the church to which this ecclesiastical minor belongs, in
the exercise of that " authority which Christ has given, for
edification and not for destruction," will not suffer him, if
she does her duty, to come to the Lord's table, until he has
reached an age when he has "knowledge to discern the
Lord's body," and until he shall manifest that exemplary
deportment and hopeful piety which become one who claims
the privileges of Christian communion. If he manifest an
opposite character, it is her duty, as a part of her stated dis-
cipline, to prevent his enjoying these privileges just as it is
her duty, in the case of one who has been a communicant
for years, when he departs from the order and purity of a
Christian profession, to debar him from the continued enjoy-
ment of his former good standing. In short, the language of
the apostle Paul, though originally intended for a different
purpose, is strictly applicable to the subject before us : " The
heir, as long as he is a child, difTereth nothing from the ser-
vant, though he be lord of all ; but is under tutors and gover-
nors, until the time appointed of the Father." In a word,
in the Church, as well as in the State, there is an order in
which privileges are to be enjoyed. As it is not every citi-
zen who is eligible to office ; and as not even the qualified
have a right to intrude into office uncalled; so youthful
church members, like all others, are under the watch and
care of the church, and the time and manner in which they
shall recognise their baptismal engagements, and come to the
enjoyment of plenary privileges, Christ has left his church to
decide, on her responsibility to himself. No one, of any age,
has a right to come to her communion without the consent of
the church. When one, after coming to that communion
has been debarred from it for a time, by regular ecclesiasticaJ

52 INFANT BAPTISM.

authority, he has no right to come again until the interdict is
taken off. Of course, by parity of reasoning, one who has
never yet come at all, cannot come without asking and ob-
taining the permission of those who are set to govern in the
church.

This view of the subject is at once illustrated and confir-
med by the uniform practise of the Old Testament church.
The children of Jewish parents, though regular church mem-
bers in virtue of their birth, and recognised as such in virtue
of their circumcision, were still not allowed to come to the
Passover until they were of a certain age, and not even then,
unless they were ceremonially clean. This is so well attes-
ted by sacred antiquarians, both Jewish and Christian, that
it cannot be reasonably called in question. Calvin remarks,
that " the Passover, which has now been succeeded by the
sacred Supper, did not admit guests of all descriptions pro-
miscuously ; but was rightly eaten only by those who were
of sufficient age to be able to inquire into its signification."
The same distinct statement is also made by the Rev. Dr.
Gill, an eminent commentator of the Baptist denomination.
"According to the maxims of the Jews," says he, "persons
were not obliged to the duties of the law, or subject to the
penaltes of it in case of non-performance, until they were, a
female, at the age of twelve years and one day, and a male
at the age of thirteen years and one day. But then they
used to train up their children, and inure them to religious
exercises before. They were not properly under the law
until they were arrived at the age above mentioned; nor
were they reckoned adult church members until then ; nor
then neither unless worthy persons ; for so it is said, " He that
is worthy, at thirteen years of age, is called a son of the
congregation of Israel." (Commentary on Luke ii. 42.)

The objection, then, before us is of no force. Or rather,
the fact which it alleges and deprecates has no existence. It
makes no part of the Poedobaptist system. Nay, our system
has advantages in respect to this matter, great and radical ad-
vantages, which belong to no other. While it regards bap-
tized children as members of the church, and solemnly binds
the church, as well as the parents, to see that they be faith-
fully trained up " in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,"
it recognises the church as possessing, and as bound to exer-
cise the power of guarding the communion table from all the
profane approaches, even of her own children, and so regu-
lating their Christian culture, and their personal recognition
of Christian duty, as shall best serve the great purpose of

INFANT BAPTISM. 53

building up the church as " an habitation of God through the
Spirit."

11. The last objection which I propose to consider is this:
" If baptism," say our opponents, " takes the place of cir-
cumcision, and if the church is the same in substance now
as when circumcision was the initiating seal, then why is not
baptism as universal in the New Testament churchy as cir-
cumcision ivas under the old economy? Why is not every
child, under the light of the Gospel, baptized, as every
Israelitish child was circumcised." I answer, this undoubt-
edly, ought to be the case. That is, all parents, where the
Gospel comes, ought to be true believers ; ought to be mem-
bers of the Church of Christ themselves ; and ought to dedi-
cate their children to God in holy baptism. The command
of God calls for it ; and if parents were what they ought to
be, they would be all prepared for a proper application of
this sacramental seal. Under the Mosaic dispensation, a sin-
gle nation of the great human family, was called out of an
idolatrous world to be the depository of the word and the
ordinances of the true God. Then all who belonged to that
nation were bound to be holy ; and unless they were at least
ceremonially clean, the divine direction was, that they should
be " cut off from their people." The obligation was univer-
sal, and the penalty, in case of delinquency, was universal.
Multitudes of parents, no doubt, under that economy, pre-
sented their children to God in the sacrament of circumcision,
who had no true faith ; but they professed to believe ; they
attended to all the requisitions of ceremonial cleanness, and
that rendered the circumcision authorized and regular. So
in the New Testament church. This is a body, like the
other, called out from the rest of mankind, but not confined
to a particular nation. It consists of all those, of every na-
tion, who profess the true religion. Within this spiritual
community baptism ought to be as universal as circumcision
was in the old " commonwealth of Israel." Those parents
who profess faith in Christ, and obedience to him, and those
only, ought to present their children in baptism. There is,
indeed, reason to fear that many visible adult members are
not sincere. Still, as they are externally regular, their chil-
dren are entitled to baptism. And were the whole infant
population of our land in these circumstances, they might,
and ought to be baptized.

I have thus endeavoured to dispose of the various objec-
tions which our Baptist brethren are wont to urge against the
cause of infant baptism. I have conscientiously aimed to
21 6

54 INFANT BAPTISM.

present them in all their force ; and am constrained to believe
that neither Scripture, reason, nor ecclesiastical history afford
them the least countenance. The longer I reflect on the
subject, the deeper is my conviction, that the membership
and the baptism of infants rest on grounds which no fair ar-
gument can shake or weaken.

From the principles implied or established in the forego-
ing pages, we may deduce the following practical conclu-
sions :

1. We are warranted in returning with renewed confi-
dence to the conclusion stated in advance, in the early part
of our first discourse, viz : that the error of our Baptist breth-
ren in rejecting the church membership and the baptism of
infants, is a most serious and mischievous error. It is not
a mere mistake about a speculative point; but is an error
which so directly contravenes the spirit of the whole Bible,
and of all Jehovah's covenants with his people, in every age,
that it must be considered as invading some of the most vital
interests of the body of Christ, and as adapted to exert a most
baneful influence on his spiritual kingdom. On this subject,
my friends, my expressions are strong, because my convic-
tions are strong, and my desire to guard every hearer against
mischievous error increasingly strong. I am, indeed, by no
means disposed to deny either the piety or the honest con-
victions of our respected Baptist brethren in adopting an op-
posite opinion from ours. But I am, nevertheless, deeply
convinced that their system is not only entirely unscriptural,
but also that its native tendency is to place children, who are
the hope of the church, in a situation less friendly to the
welfare of Zion, and less favourable, by far, to their own
salvation, than that in which they are placed by our system ;
and that its ultimate influence on the rising generation, on
family religion, and on the growth of the church, must be
deeply injurious.

2. Again ; it is evident, from what has been said, that the
baptism, of our children means much^ and involves much
solemn tender obligation. We do not, indeed, ascribe to
this sacrament that kind of inherent virtue of which some
who bear the Christian name have spoken and inferred so
much. We do not believe that baptism is regeneration.
(See Additional Notes.) We consider this as a doctrine
having no foundation in the word of God, and as eminently
fitted to deceive and destroy the soul. We do not suppose
that the ordinance, whenever legitimately administered, is
necessarily accompanied with any physical or moral influr

INFANT BAPTISM. 55

ence, operating either on the soul or the body of him who
receives it. Yet, on the other hand, we do not consider it
as a mere unmeaning ceremony. We cannot regard it as the
mere giving a name to the child to whom it is dispensed.
Multitudes appear to regard it as amounting to little, if any
more than one or both of these. And, therefore, they con-
sider the season of its celebration as a kind of ecclesiastical
festival or pageant. They would not, on any account, have
the baptism of their children neglected ; and yet they solicit
and receive it for their offspring, with scarcely one serious
or appropriate thought ; without any enlightened or adequate
impression of what it means, or what obligation it imposes
on them or their children. A baptism, like a marriage, is re-
garded by multitudes as an appropriate season for congratula-
tion and feasting, and very little more, in connection with it,
seems to occur to their minds. This is deeply to be deplo-
red. The minds of the mass of mankind seem to be ever
prope to vibrate from superstition to impiety, and from im-
piety back to superstition. Those simple, spiritual views
of truth, and of Christian ordinances which the Bible every
where holds forth, and which alone tend to real benefit, too
seldom enlighten and govern the mass of those who bear the
Christian name. Now, the truth is, little as it is recollected
and laid to heart, few things can be more expressive, more
solemn, or more interesting, more touching in its appeals,
more deeply comprehensive in its import, or more weighty
in the obligations which it involves, than the baptism of an
infant. I repeat it — and oh, that the sentence could be made
to thrill through every parent's heart in (Christendom — the
baptism of a child is one of the solemn transactions pertain-
ing to our holy religion. A human being, just opening its
eyes on the world ; presented to that God who made it, de-
voted to that Saviour without an interest in whose atoning
blood, it had better never have been bom ; and consecrated
to that Holy Spirit, who alone can sanctify and prepare it
for heaven; is indeed a spectacle adapted to affect every
pious heart. In death, our race is run ; worldly hope and
expectation are alike extinct ; and the destiny of the immor-
tal spirit is forever fixed. But the child presented for bap-
tism, if it reach the ordinary limit of human life, has before
it many a trial, and will need all the pardoning mercy,
all the sanctifying grace, and all the precious consolations
which the blessed Gospel of Christ has to bestow. And
even if it die in infancy, it still needs the pardoning mercy
and sanctifying grace whicli are set forth in this ordinaince.

56 INFANT BAPTISM-.

On either supposition, the transaction is important. A
course is commenced which will be a blessing or a curse be-
yond the power of the human mind to estimate. And the
eternal happiness or the misery of the young immortal will
depend, under God, upon the training it shall receive from
the hands of those who offer it.

Let those, then, who bring their children to the sacred font
to be baptized, ponder well what this ordinance means, and
what its reception involves, both in regard to parents and
children. Let them remember that in taking this step, we
make a solemn profession of belief, that our children, as well
as ourselves, are born in sin, and stand in indispensable need
of pardoning mercy and sanctifying grace. We formally de-
dicate them to God, that they may be " washed and justified,
and sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the
Spirit of our God. And we take upon ourselves solemn
vows to train them up in the knowledge and fear of God ; to
instruct them, from the earliest dawn of reason, in the prin-
ciples and duties of our holy religion ; to consider and treat
them as ingrafted members of the family of Christ, and to
do all in our power, by precept and example, by authority
and by prayer, to lead them in the ways of truth, of holiness,
and of salvation. Is this an ordinance to be engaged in as a
mere ceremony, or with convivial levity ? Surely if there be
a transaction, among all the duties incumbent on us as Chris-
tians— if there be a transaction which ought to be engaged in
with reverence, and godly fear : with penitence, faith, and
love ; with bowels of Christian compassion yearning over
our beloved offspring ; with humble and importunate aspi-
rations to the God of all grace for his blessing on them and
ourselves ; and with solemn resolutions, in the strength of his
grace, that we will be faithful to our vows, — this is that
transaction I O how full of meaning ! And yet how little
thought of by the most of those who engage in it with exter-
nal decorum !

3. The foregoing discussion will show by whom children
ought to be presented in holy baptism. The answer given
by the old Waldenses to this question is, undoubtedly, the
wisest and best. They say, as before quoted, " Children
ought to be presented in baptism by those to whom they are
most nearly related such as their parents, or those whom
God hath inspired with such a charity." If parents be
living and be of a suitable character ; that is, if they have
been baptized themselves, and sustain a regular standing as
professing Christians, they, and they alone, ought to present

INFANT BAPTISM. 57

their children in this ordinance. And all introduction of
godfathers and godmothers, as sponsors, either instead of the
parents, or besides the parents, is regarded by the great ma-
jority of Poedobaptist churches as superstitious, unwarranted,
and of course, mischievous in its tendency. Whatever tends
to beget erroneous ideas of the nature and design of a Gos-
pel ordinance ; to shift off the responsibility attending it from
the proper to improper hands ; and to the assumption of so-
lemn engagements by those who can never really fulfil them,
and have no intention of doing it, cannot fail of exerting an
influence unfriendly to the best interests of the Church of
God.

But if the parents be dead ; or, though living, of irreligious
character; and if the grand parents, or any other near rela-
tions, of suitable qualifications, be wilhng to undertake the
office of training up children " in the nurture and admonition
of the Lord," it is proper for them to present such children
in baptism. Or if deserted, or orphan children be cast in the
families of strangers, who are no way related to them accor-
ding to the flesh, but who are willing to stand in the place
of parents, and train them up for God ; even these strangers,
in short, any and every person of suitable character, who
may be willing to assume the charitable office of gi\dng them
a Christian education, may and ought to present such chil-
dren for Christian baptism. Not only the offspring of Abra-
ham's body, but " all that were born in his house, and all
that were bought with his money," were commanded to be
circumcised. Surely no Christian w^ho has a child, white
or black, placed in his family, and likely to be a permanent
member of it, can doubt that it is his duty to give it a faithful
Christian education. And as one great object of infant bap-
tism is to secure this point, he will not hesitate to ofl'er it up
to God in that ordinance which he has appointed, provided
no valid objection in regard to the wishes of the parents of
such a child interpose to prevent it.

4. This subject shows how responsible, and how solemn
is the situation of those young persons ivho have been in
their infancy dedicated to God in holy baptism .' This is a
point concerning which both old and young are too often for-
getful. It is generally coru^eded, and extensively felt, that
parents, by dedicating their children to God in this ordi-
nance, are brought under very weighty obligations, which
cannot be forgotten by them, without incuiTing great guilt.
But young people seldom lay to heart as they ought, that
their early reception of the seal of God's covenant, in conse-
21* 6*

58 INFANT BAPTISM.

quence of the act of their parents, places them in circum-
stances of the most solemn and responsible kind. They are
too apt to imagine that they are not members of the church,
until by some act of profession of their own, they are brought
into this relation, and assume its bonds ; that their making
this profession, or not making it, is a matter of mere choice,
left to their own decision ; that by omitting it, they violate
no tie — contract no guilt ; that by refraining, they leave them-
selves more at liberty ; and that the only danger consists in
making an insincere profession. This is a view of the sub-
ject, which, however common, is totally, and most crimi-
nally erroneous. The children of professing Christians are
already in the church. They were born members. Their
baptism did not make them members. It was a public ratifi-
cation and recognition of their membership. They were
baptized because they were members. They received the
seal of the covenant because they were already in covenant
by virtue of their birth. This blessed privilege is their
" birth-right." Of course, the only question they can ask
themselves is, not — shall we enter the church, and profess to
be connected with Christ's family ? But — shall we continue
in it, or act the part of ungrateful deserters ? " Shall we be
thankful for this privilege, and gratefully recognise and con-
firm it by our own act ; or shall we renounce our baptism ;
disown and deny the Saviour in whose name we have been
enrohed as members of his family ; and become open apos-
tates from that family ?" This is the real question to be de-
cided ; and truly a solemn question it is ! Baptized young
people ! think of this. You have been in the bosom of the
church ever since you drew your first breath. The seal of
God's covenant has been placed upon you. You cannot, if
you would, escape from the responsibility of this relation.
You may forget it ; you may hate to think of it ; you may
despise it ; but still the obligation lies upon you ; you cannot
throw it off. Your situation is solemn beyond expression.
On the one hand, to go forward, and to recognise your obli-
gation by a personal profession, without any love to the Sa-
viour, is to insult him by a heartless offering ; and on the
other, to renounce your allegiance by refusing to acknow-
ledge him, by turning your baoKs on his ordinances, and
by indulging in that course of life by which his religion is
dishonoured, is certainly, whether you realise it or not, to
*' deny him before men," and to incur the fearful guilt of
apostacy ; of " drawing back unto perdition."

" According to this representation," 1 shall be told, " the

INFANT BAPTISM. 59

condition of many of our youth is very deplorable. It is
their duty, you say, to profess the name of Christ, and to
seal their profession at a sacramental table. This they can-
not do ; for they are conscious that they do not possess those
principles and dispositions which are requisite to render
such a profession honest. What course shall they steer ?
If they do not profess Christ, they live in rebellion against
God : if they do, they mock him with a lie. Which side
of the alternative shall they embrace? Continue among the
profane, and be consistently wicked ? Or withdraw from
them in appearance and play the hypocrite ?"

The case is, indeed, very deplorable. ' Destruction is on
either hand. For " the unbelieving shall have their part in
the lake of fire ; (Rev. xxi. 6.) and the hope of the hypo-
crite shall perish :" (Job. viii. 13.) God forbid that we
should encourage either a false profession, or a refusal to
make one. The duty is to embrace neither side of the alter-
native. Not to continue with the profane, and not to act
the hypocrite ; but to receive the Lord Jesus Christ in truth,
and to walk in him. " I cannot do it," replies one: and
one, it may be, not without moments of serious and tender
emotions upon this very point : " I cannot do it." My soul
bleeds for thee, thou unhappy! But it must be done, or
thou art lost forever. Yet what is the amount of that expres-
sion— in the mouth of some a flaunting excuse, and of others,
a bitter complaint — I cannot? Is the inability to believe in
Christ different from an inability to perform any other duty ?
Is there any harder necessity of calling the God of truth a
liar, in not believing the record which he hath given of his
Son, than of committing any other sin ? The inability cre-
ated, the necessity imposed, by the enmity of the carnal
mind against God? (Rom. viii. 7.) It is the inability of
wickedness, and of nothing else. Instead of being an apol-
ogy, it is itself the essential crime, and can never become
its own vindication.

But it is even so. The evil does lie too deep for the
reach of human remedies. Yet a 'Remedy there is, and an
effectual one. It is here — " I will sprinkle clean water
upon you, and you shall be clean ; from all your filthiness
and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart
•also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you ;
and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh ; and
I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit
within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes ; and ye
shall keep my judgments and do them. (Ezek. xxxvi.

60 INFANT BAPTISM.

25 — 27.) Try this experiment. Go with thy *' filthiness,'
and thine " idols ;" go with thy " stony heart," and thy per-
verse spirit, which are thy real inability, to God upon the
throne of grace ; spread out before him his " exceeding great
and precious promises ; importune him as the hearer of
prayer, in the name of Jesus, for the accomplishment of them
to thyself. Wait for his mercy, it is worth waiting for, and
remember his word — Therefore will the Lord wait, that he
may be gracious unto you ; and therefore will he be exalted,
that he may have mercy upon you : for the Lord is a God
of judgment ; blessed are all they that wait for him.*

5. Finally, from the foregoing principles and considera-
tions, it is evident, that the great body of Poedobaptist
churches have much to reform in regard to their treatment
of baptized children, and are bound to address themselves
to that reform vAth all speed and fidelity. It has been al-
ready observed, that one great end for which the church of
God was instituted, was to train up, from age to age, a seed
to serve God, and to be faithful witnesses m behalf of the
truth and order of his family, in the midst of an unbelieving
world. If this be so, then, surely the church, in her eccle-
siastical capacity, is bound carefully to watch over the edu-
cation, and especially, the religious education of her youth-
ful members ; nor is there any risk in asserting, that just in
proportion as she has been faithful to this part of her trust,
she has flourished in orthodoxy, piety, and peace ; and that
when she has neglected it, her children have grown up in
ignorance, and too often in profligacy, and wandered from
her fold into every form of error. If the church wishes her
baptized youth to be a comfort and a strength to their moral
mother ; if she wishes them to adhere with intelligence, and
with dutiful affection to her distinctive testimony ; and to be
a generation to the praise of Zion's King, when their fathers
shall have gone to their final account ; then let her, by all
means, watch over the training of her young people with pe-
culiar diligence and fidelity ; and consider a very large part
of her duty, as a church, as consisting in constant and faith-
ful attention to the moral and religious culture of the rising
generation.

What is the reason that so many of the baptized youth, in
almost all our Poedobaptist churches, grow up in ignorance

* The two preceding paragraphs are from the powerful and eloquent
pen of the late Rev. J. M. Mason, D. D. See Christian's Magazine,
Vol. II. p. 414—416.

INFANT BAPTISM. 61

and disregard of the religion of their parents ? Why are so
many of them, when they come to judge and act for them-
selves, fomid embracing systems of gross error, if not total
infidelity, and wandering, in too many instances, into the
paths of degrading profligacy ? It is not enough to say, that
our children are by nature depraved, and prone to the ways
of eiTor and folly. This is, doubtless, true ; but it is not the
whole truth. It cannot be questioned, that much of the rea-
son lies at the door of the church herself, as well as of the
parents of such youth. The church has too often forgotten
that baptism is as really a seal to the church, as it is to the
parents and the children who receive it. And, therefore,
while in many instances, a superstitious regard has been paid
to the mere rite of Baptism., a most deplorable neglect of the
duties arising from it has been indulged, even by some of our
most evangelical churches. Parents while most vigilantly
attentive to the literary, scientific, and ornamental education
of their children, have slighted, to a most humiliating degree,
their moral and religious training. They have sent them to
schools conducted by immoral, heretical, or infidel teachers,
who, of course, paid no regard to that part of their education
which is unspeakably the most important of all ; or who ra-
ther might be expected to exert in this respect, a most pestif-
erous influence. And, after this cruel treatment of their
offspring, have appeared to be utterly surprised when they
turned out profligates ! What other result could have been
expected ?

While it is granted that the primary movements in the
great work of Christian education, are to be expected from
the parents ; indeed, if the work be not begun in the mother's
lap, a most important period has been suffered to pass unim-
proved ; — yet the church has a duty to perform in this mat-
ter which is seldom realized. It is hers, by her pastor and
eldership, to stimulate and guide parents in this arduous and
momentous labour ; to see that proper schools for her bapti-
zed youth are formed or selected ; to put the Bible and sui-
table Catechisms, and other compends of religious truth into
their hands ; to convene them at stated intervals for instruc-
tion, exhortation, and prayer ; to remind them from time to
time, with parental tenderness, of their duty to confess Christ,
and recognize their relation to his church, by their own per-
sonal act ; and, if they fall into gross error, or open immo-
rality, or continue to neglect religion, to exercise toward
them, with parental affection, and yet with firmness, that
discipline which Christ has appointed expressly for the ben-

62 INFANT BAPTISM.

efit of all the members, and especially of the youthful mem-
bers of his covenanted family. If this plan were faithfully
pursued with our baptized youth, I am constrained to concur
with the pious Mr. Baxter in believing that in nineteen cases
out of twenty, our children, consecrated to God in their in-
fancy would grow up dutiful, sober, orderly, and serious, and
before they reached mature age, recognise their membership
by a personal act, with sincerity and to edification. Happy
era ! When shall the church of God be blessed with such
fidelity, and with such results ?

DISCOURSE III.

THE MODE OF ADMINISTEBING BAPTISM.

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized ? —
Acts X. 47.

Having endeavoured, in the preceding discourses, to show
that the baptism of infants is a scriptural and reasonable ser-
vice, I now proceed to inquire into the mode in which this
ordinance ought to be administered.

And here, it is well known, that there is a very serious di-
versity of opinion. On the one hand, our Baptist brethren
believe that there is no tnie baptism unless the whole body
be plunged under water. While on the other hand, we, and
a very great majority of the Christian world, maintain that
the mode of baptism by sprinkling or affusion is a method
just as valid and lawful as any other. It will be my object,
in the present discourse, to support the latter opinion ; or
rather to maintain, from Scripture, and from the best usage
of the Christian church, that baptism by sprinkling or affu-
sion not only rests on as good authority as immersion ; but
that it is a method decisively more scriptural, suitable, and
edifying.

From the very nature of this subject it will require some
little extent of discussion to place it in a proper light, and
some closeness of attention to apprehend and follow the ar-
guments which may be employed. Let me then request
from you a candid and patient hearing. If I know my own
heart, it is my purpose to exhibit the subject in the hght of

INFANT BAPTISM. 63

truth ; and to advance nothing but that which appears to rest
on the authority of Him who instituted the ordinance under
consideration, and who is alone competent to declare his will
concerning it. And,

1. Let us attend to the real meaning of the original
word which is employed in the New Testament to express
this sacramental rite.

The Greek word BaTtT't^o, which we translate baptize,
from the circumstance of its having been so constantly and so
long the subject of earnest discussion, and from its near re-
semblance to the English word which we employ to render
it, (or we might rather say, its identity with that word) has
become so familiar with the public mind, that it may almost
be regarded as a naturalized term of our language.

Now, we contend, that this word does not necessarily, nor
even commonly, signify to immerse ; but also implies to
wash, to sprinkle, to pour on water, and to tinge or dye with
any liquid ; and, therefore, accords very well with the mode
of baptism by sprinkling or affusion.

I am aware, indeed, that our Baptist brethren, as before
intimated, believe, and confidently assert, that the only legit-
imate and authorised meaning of this word, is to immerse ;
and that it is never employed, in a single case, in any part
of the Bible, to express the application of water in any other
manner. I can venture, my friends, to assure you, with the
utmost confidence, that this representation is wholly incor-
rect. I can assure you, that the word which we render bap-
tize, does legitimately signify the application of water in any
way, as well as by immersion. Nay, I can assure you, if
the most mature and competent Greek scholars that ever lived
may be allowed to decide in this case, that many examples
of the use of this word occur in Scripture, in which it not
only may, but manifestly must signify sprinkling, perfusion
or washing in any way. Without entering into the minute
details of Greek criticism in reference to this term, which
would be neither suitable to our purpose, nor consistent with
our limits ; it will suffice to refer to a few of those passages
of Scripture which will at once illustrate and confirm the po-
sition which I have laid down.

Thus, when the Evangelists tell us that the Scribes and
Pharisees invariably " washed (in the original, baptized)
their hands before dinner;" when we are told that, when
they come in from the market, " except they wash, (in the
original, * except they baptize,') they eat not;" when we
read of the Pharisees being so scrupulous about the "wash-

64 INFANT BAPTISM.

ing (in the original, the * baptising') of cups, and pots, and
brazen vessels, and tables?" when our Saviour speaks of
his disciples being " baptized with the Holy Ghost," in man-
ifest allusion to the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the
day of Pentecost ; when John the Baptist predicted, that
they should be " baptized with the Holy Ghost, and with
fire," in reference to the Holy Ghost sitting upon each of
them as with "cloven tongues of fire" on the same day:
when we find the apostle representing the children of Israel
as all baptized by a cloud passing over without touching
them ; and also as baptized in the Red Sea, when we know
that none of them were immersed in passing through, or, at
most, only sprinkled by the spray of the watery walls on
each side ; for we are expressly told that they went through
" dry shod:'''' when Judas, in celebrating the Paschal supper
with his Master, in dipping a morsel of bread on a bunch of
herbs in the " sop" in the dish, is said, by Christ himself,
to "baptize his hand in the dish," (as it is in the original,
Matt. xxvi. 23.) which no one can imagine implies the im-.
mersion of his whole hand in the gravy of which they were
all partaking; I say, when the word "baptize" is used in
these and similar senses, it surely cannot mean in any of
these cases to immerse or plunge. If a man is said by the
inspired Evangelist to be baptized, when his hands only are
washed: and if "tables" (or couches, on which they recli-
ned at meals, as appears from the original) are spoken of as
"baptized," when the cleansing of water was applied to
them in any manner, and when the complete immersion of
them in water is out of the question ; surely nothing can be
plainer than that the Holy Spirit who indited the Scriptures,
does not restrict the meaning of this word to the idea of
plunging, or total immersion.

Again : the New Testament meaning of this term appears
from the manner in which it is applied to the ablutions of the
ceremonial economy. The aposde in writing to the He-
brews, and speaking of the Jewish ritual, says, " It stood
only in meats and drinks and divers washings," (in the ori-
ginal ' divers baptisms.') Now we know that by far the
greater part of these " divers washings" were accomplished
by sprinkling and affusion, and not by immersion. The
blood of the Paschal Lamb was directed to be " sprinkled"
on the door-posts of the Israelites, as a token of Jehovah's
favour, and of protection from death. When they entered
into covenant with God at Sinai, their solemn vows were
directed to be sealed by a similar sign. After Moses

INFANT BAPTISM. 65

had spoken every precept to all the people according to the
law, and they had given their consent, and promised to obey :
he took the blood of the sacrifice, and water, and " sprinkled"
both the book and the people, (Heb. ix. 19.) On the great
day of the atonement, when the High Priest went into the
most Holy place, he " sprinlded" the blood of the sacrifice
on the Mercy Seat, as a token of propitiation and cleansing.
When any individual was to be cleansed, and delivered from
legal guilt, the blood of the sacrifice was to be " sprinkled"
upon him seven times. In like manner at other times, the
consecrated oil was to be *' sprinkled" upon him who applied
for deliverance from pollution.

Thus the people were to be ceremonially delivered from
their uncleanness.* When Aaron and his sons were set apart
to their office, they were sprinkled with blood, as a sign of
purification. When tents or dwelling houses were to be
cleansed from pollution, it was done among other things, by
sprinkling them with water. When the vessels, used in do-
mestic economy, were to be ceremonially cleansed, the object
was effected in the same manner, by sprinkling them with
water. (See Numbers, xix. 17 — 22.) In a few cases, and
but a few, the mode of cleansing by plunging in water is pre-
scribed. Now these are the " divers baptisms" of which the
apostle speaks. It is worthy of notice that they are divers,
(Sca^opotg). If they h-ad been of one kind — immersion only
— this term could not with propriety have been used. But
they were of different kinds — some sprinkling, others pour-
ing, some scouring and rinsing, (see Leviticus vi. 28,) and
some plunging : but all pronounced by the inspired apostle to
be baptism.

But happily, the inspired apostle does not leave us in doubt
what those "divers baptisms" were, of which he speaks.
He singles out and presents sprinkling as his chosen and
only specimen. " For" says he, in the 13th, 19th, and 21st
verses of the same chapter, explaining what he means by
* divers baptisms,' " if the blood of bulls, and of goats, and the
ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the
purifying of the flesh ; how much more shall the blood of
Christ, &,c. For when Moses had spoken every precept to
all the people, according to the law, he took the blood of
calves, and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hys-

* See Exodus, xxix. 40; Leviticus, i. 3, 4,5, 8, 9, 14, and ]5 chap-
ters; Numbers, 19th chapter, and Deuteronomy, 12th and 15th chap-
ters.

22

06 IIVFANT BAPTISM.

sop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people. More-
over, he sprinkled likewise with blood both the tabernacle,
and all the vessels of the ministry." If the Apostle under-
stood his own meaning, then, it is manifest that in speaking
of " divers baptisms," he had a principal reference to the ap-
plication of blood and of water by sprinkling.

In short, it is perfectly manifest, to every one competent
to judge in the case, that the Greek words which we trans-
late baptize and baptism, do undoubtedly signify, in a num-
ber of cases in both the Old and New Testaments, the wash-
ing with water, or the application of water in any way. To
immerse, is, undoubtedly, one of the senses which may be
applied to the words. But it is so far from being the univer-
sal, the necessary meaning, as our Baptist brethren assert,
that it is not even the common meaning. And I am well
persuaded that the venerable Dr. Owen, certainly one of the
greatest and best men of the day in which he lived, is borne
out by truth when he pronounces, " That no one instance
can be given in Scripture, in which the word which we ren-
der baptize, does necessarily signify either to dip or plunge."
In every case the word admits of a different sense ; and it is
really imposing on public credulity to insist that it always
does, and necessarily must signify immersion.*

In like manner, if we examine the senses manifestly at-
tached to Bart-r-c^ and BartT'i^o, by the best Greek classical
writers, as shown by the ablest lexicographers and critics,
the same result will be established ; in other words, it will
appear that these words are used, and often used, to express
the ideas of cleansing, pouring, washing, wetting, and ting-
ing, or dying, as well as immersion : and, of course, that
no certain evidence in favour of the doctrine of our Baptist
brethren, can be derived from this source. Indeed, a late
eminent anti-poedobaptist writer while he strenuously main-
tams that BartTt^co, always signifies to immerse, acknow-
ledges that he has " all the lexicographers and commentators
against him in that opinion." [Carson on Baptism, p. 79.)
How far the confidence which, in the face of this acknow-
ledgment, he expresses, that they are all wrong, and that his
interpretation alone is right, is either modest or well-founded,
must be left to the impartial reader.

* See this point set in a clear and strong liglit by the Rev. Dr.
Woods, in his " Lectures on Infant Baptism ;" by the Rev. Professor
Stuart, in the " Biblical Repository," No. 10 ; by the Rev. Professor
PonO., of Maine, in his " Treatise on Christian Baptism," in the * Bib-
lical Repertory,' Vol. III. p. 475, &lc. &c.

INFANT BAPTISM. 67

It is evident, then, that our Baptist brethren can gain no-
thing by an appeal to the original word employed in the
New Testament to express this ordinance. It decides no-
thing. All impartial judges — ^by which I mean all the most
profound and mature Greek scholars, who are neither theolo-
gians nor sectarians — agree in pronouncing, that the term in
question imports the application of water by sprinkling, pour-
ing, tinging, wetting, or in any other way, as well as by
plunging the whole body under it.

2. There is nothing in the thing signified by baptism
which renders immersion more necessary or proper than
any other mode of applying water in this ordinance.

Our Baptist brethren suppose and insist that there is some-
thing in the emblematical meaning of baptism, which renders
dipping or plunging the only proper mode of administering
the ordinance. And hence nothing is more common, among
the brethren of that denomination, than to pour ridicule on all
other modes of baptizing, as entirely deficient in meaning and
expressiveness. I am persuaded, my friends, that the slightest
examination of the subject will convince every impartial
inquirer that there is no solid ground for this representation.

It is granted, on all hands, that the thing principally signi-
fied by baptism, is the renovation and sanctification of the
heart, by the cleansing influences of the Holy Spirit. This
was, undoubtedly, the blessing of which circumcision was an
emblem. It signified, as the inspired Apostle tells us, " the
putting off the body of the sins of the flesh." (Colossians, ii.
11.) " He is not a Jew," says the same apostle, " who 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." (Romans, ii. 28, 29.) In like manner, baptism
signifies the renovation of the heart by the special operation
of the Spirit of God. It is intended ever to keep us in mind,
by a very significant and striking emblem, that we are all by
nature polluted and guilty, and that we stand in need of the
pardoning and purifying grace of God by a crucified Re-
deemer.

Now, when the inspired writers speak of imparting the
influences of the Holy Spirit to the children of men, by what
kind of figure is that blessing commonly expressed? I
answer — as every one who is familiar with the Bible will
concur in answering — much more frequently by sprinkling
and pouring omt, than by any other form of expression. Thus
the prophet Isaiah speaks again and again of the Spirit being

68 INFANT BAPTISM.

poured out upon the people from on high. (Isaiah, xxxii.
15; xUv. 3.) Take a single specimen — "I will pour water
upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground ; I
will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon
thine offspring." The prophets, Ezekiel, Joel, and Zechariah,
repeatedly employ the same language ; (Ezekiel, xxxix. 29.
Joel, ii. 28, 29. Zechariah, xii. 10.) and this form of
expression is also found more than once in the New Testa-
ment. (Acts, ii. 17, 18 ; x. 45.) Indeed it seems to be the
favourite language of the Spirit of God when speaking on this
subject. In other places the term sprinkling is employed to
express the same idea. Accordingly, Jehovah says, by the
prophet Ezekiel, " I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and
ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your
idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you,
and a new spirit will I put within you ; and I will take away
the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart
of flesh." (Ezekiel, xxxvi. 25, 26.) And in like manner,
the prophet Isaiah, when speaking of the coming of the
Messiah, and the benefits accruing to the church in New
Testament times, fortels — " So shall he sprinkle many
nations." (Ezek. Hi. 15.) Again, this divine sanctifying
influence in its application to men, is represented by the
Psalmist, and by the prophet Hosea, under the similitude of
rain, which we know descends in drops, sprinkling the earth,
and its verdant furniture. (Psalm, Ixxii. 6. Hosea, vi. 3.)
" He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass ; as
showers that water the earth."

But to come still nearer to the point in hand. We have
not only seen that whenever the inspired writers wish to
express the idea of the Holy Spirit being imparted to men,
either to sanctify their hearts, or to furnish them with mi-
raculous powers, the figure of "pouring out" is, in almost
all cases, adopted, and that of immersion never; but, further,
when they use the specific term which expresses the ordinance
before us ; when they speak of the " baptism of the Spirit,"
how do they explain it? Hear the explanation by the Master
himself. The Saviour, after his resurrection, told his disciples,
that '* John truly baptized with water, but they should be
baptized with the Holy Ghost" not many days from that
time, (Acts i. 4, 5,) and directing them to remain in Jerusalem
until this promise should be fulfilled on the day of Pentecost.
And how did the Holy Spirit baptize the people then ? By
immersion ? Not at all ; but by being " poured out." Ac-
cordingly, the apostle Peter, in giving an account to his

INFANT BAPTISM. 69

brethren of what occurred in the house of CorneUus, declares :
" And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as
on Its at the beginning, (that is at the beginning of the New
Testament economy, on the day of Pentecost) . Then remem-
bered I the words of the Lord, how he said, John, indeed
baptized with water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy
Ghost." (Acts xi. 15, 16.) The baptism of the Holy
Ghost, then, consisted in the pouring out, or effusion of the
Holy Ghost. This was the baptism predicted by the prophets.
This was the baptism which our Lord himself promised.
And this was the baptism realized on the day of Pentecost.
I ask, again, was this immersion ? Yet it was baptism. And
here, we may add is an indubitable example of the word
baptism being used in a sense which cannot possibly imply
immersion.

Surely it is not without design or meaning, that we find
language of this kind so generally, I might almost say, so
uniformly used. Can a single instance be produced from the
word of God in which the cleansing influences of the Holy
Spirit are symbolized by dipping or plunging into water, or
into oil or blood? Or can a single example be found in
which believers are represented as being dipped or plunged
into the Holy Ghost? No such example is recollected.
Whenever the inspired writers speak of the Holy Spirit
being imparted to the children of men, either in his sanctify-
ing power, or his miraculous gifts, they never represent the
benefit under the figure of immersion; but always, unless my
memory deceives me, by the figures of " sprinlding," " pour-
ing out," " falling," or " resting upon" from on high. Now,
if baptism, so far as it has a symbolical meaning, is intended
to represent the cleansing of the Holy Spirit, as all agree ; it
is evident that no mode of applying the baptismal water can
be more strikingly adapted to convey its symbolical meaning,
or more strongly expressive of the great benefit which the
ordinance is intended to hold forth and seal, than sprinkling
or pouring. Nay, is it not manifest that this mode of admin-
istering the ordinance, is far more in accordance with Bible
language, and Bible allusion, than any other? Surely, then,
baptism by sprinkling or affusion, would have been treated
with less scorn by our Baptist brethren, if they had recol-
lected that these are, invariably, the favourite figures of the
inspired writers when they speak of the richest covenant
blessings which the Spirit of God imparts to his beloved
people. Surely all attempts to turn this mode of applying
the sacramental water in baptism into ridicule, is really
22* 7*

70 INFANT BAPTISM.

nothing less than shameless ridicule of the statements and the
language of God's own word ?

3. The circumstances attending the several cases of bap-
tism recorded in the New Testament, render it highly prob-
able, not to say morally certain, that the immersion of the
whole body could not have been the mode of baptism then
commonly adopted.

The baptism of the three thousand converts made by the
instrumentality of Peter's preaching, on the day of Pentecost,
is the first remarkable instance of Christian baptism which
occurs in the New Testament history. Christ had promised,
before he left his disciples, that he would send to them his
Holy Spirit, and the favourite expression by which he was
accustomed to designate this gift, was that he would pour out
the Holy Spirit upon them. Accordingly, in ten days after
his ascension to heaven, he was pleased, in a most extraor-
dinary manner, to fulfil his promise. The Spirit was poured
out.with a power unknown before. And, what is remarkable,
the apostle Peter assures the assembled multitude, that what
they then witnessed was a fiilfilment of the prediction by the
prophet Joel, that the Holy Spirit should be imparted in a
manner prefigured by the term pouring out, or affusion.
Three thousand were converted under the overwhelming im-
pression of divine truth, dispensed in a single sermon ; and
were all baptized, and *' added to the church" in a single
day. From the short account given of this wonderful trans-
action, we gather, that the multitude on whom this impression
was made, was convened in some part of the temple. They
seem to have come together about the third hour of the day,
that is, nine o'clock in the morning, according to the Jewish
mode of computing time. At least, when Peter rose to com-
mence his sermon, that was the hour. Besides the discourse
of which we have a sketch in the chapter containing the
account, we are told he exhorted and testified with many
other words. All these services, together with receiving the
confession of three thousand converts, must unavoidably have
consumed several hours ; leaving only four or five hours, at
the utmost, for baptizing the whole number. But they were
all baptized that same day. We read nothing, however, of
the apostles taking the converts away firom " Solomon's
Porch," or wherever else they were assembled, to any river
or stream for the sake of baptizing them. Indeed, at that
season of the year, there was no river or brook in the imme-
diate neighbourhood of Jerusalem, which would admit of
immersing a human being. Besides, is it likely that this

INFANT BAPTISM. 71

great multitude, most of whom were probably strangers in
Jerusalem, could have been furnished with such a change of
raiment as health and decorum required ; or that they could
have been baptized without clothing altogether ; or remained
on the ground, through the public exercises, in their wet
clothes ? Surely all these suppositions are so utterly impro-
bable that they may be confidently rejected. But, above all,
was it physically possible, supposing all the apostles to have
officiated in the administration of this ordinance, for twelve
men to have immersed three thousand persons in four or five
hours ; which we have seen must have been the case, if, as
is evident, the preaching, the examination of candidates, and
the baptizing of the whole number took place after nine
o'clock in the forenoon ? Those who have witnessed a series
of baptisms by immersion know how arduous and exhausting
is the bodily effort which it requires. To immerse a single
person, with due decoram and solemnity, will undoubtedly
require from five to six minutes. Of course, to immerse one
hundred, would consume, at this rate, between nine and ten
hours. Now, even if so much time could possibly be assigned
to this part of the work, on the same day, which is plainly
inadmissible, can we suppose that the twelve apostles stood,
for nine or ten hours, themselves, in the water, constantly
engaged in a series of efforts among the most severe and
exhausting to human strength that can well be undertaken ?*
To imagine this, would be among the most improbable, not
to say extravagant imaginations that could be formed on such
a subject. Yet even this supposition, unreasonable as it is,
falls far short of providing for even one half of the requisite
number. The man, therefore, who can believe that the three
thousand on the day of Pentecost were baptized by immer-
sion, must have great faith, and a wonderful facility in accom-
modating his belief to his wishes.

With regard to tha baptism of John, many of the same
remarks are entirely applicable. Our Baptist brethren uni-
versally take for granted that John's baptism was performed

* " A gentleman of veracity told tlie writer, that he was once pre-
sent when forty-seven were dipped in one day, in the usual way. The
first operator began, and went through the ceremony, until he had
dipped tioenty.Jive persons; when he was so fatigued, that he was
compelled to give it up to the other, who with great apparent difficulty
dipped the other twenty. two. Both appeared completely exhausted, and
went off the ground into a house hard by, to change their clothes and
refresh themselves." Scripture Directory for Baptism by a Lay-
man, 14.

72 INFANT BAPTISM.

by immersion ; and on the ground of that assumption, they
speak with great confidence of their mode of baptism as the
only lawful mode. Now, even if it were certain that the
forerunner of Christ had always baptized by immersion, still
it would be little to the purpose, since it is plain that John's
baptism was not Christian baptism. Had this been the case,
then, it is evident, that a large part of the population of
" Jerusalem and Judea, and of the region round about Jordan,"
would have been professing Christians. But was it so?
Every reader of the New Testament history knows it was
not; that, on the contrary, it is apparent from the whole
narrative, that a great majority of those whom John baptized,
continued to stand aloof from the Saviour. But what decides
this point, beyond the possibility of appeal or cavil, is the
statement in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apos-
tles, where we are told that some who had received John's
baptism, were afterwards baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus. Some opponents of this conclusion have suggested
that in the narrative given of this transaction, (Acts xix. 1 — 6,)
we are to consider the 5th verse, not as the language of the
inspired historian, but as a continuL-tion of Paul's discourse,
as recorded in the 4th verse. Professor Stuart, in his remarks
on the " Mode of Baptism," in the " Biblical Repository,"
(No. X. 386,) has shown conclusively that this gloss is
wholly inadmissible; and even leads to the most evident
absurdity. But there is no evidence, and I will venture to
say, no probability, that John ever baptized by immersion.
The evangelist informs us that he baptized great multitudes.
It appears, as before suggested, that " all Jerusalem, and all
Judea, and the region round about Jordan," flocked to his
ministry, and " were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing
their sins." Some have supposed that he baptized two mil-
lions of people. But suppose the number to be one-twentieth
part of this computation. The smallest estimate that we can
consider as answering the description of the inspired historians
is, that he baptized one hundred thousand individuals. And
this, in about one year and a half. That is, he must have
immersed nearly two hundred, upon an average, every day,
during the whole of the period in question. Now, I ask, is it
possible for human strength, day after day, for more than five
hundred days together, to undergo such labour ? It cannot
be imagined. The thing is not merely improbable ; it is
impossible. To accomplish so much, it would have been
necessary that the zealous Baptist should spend the whole of
every day standing in the water, for a year and a half, and

INFANT BAPTISM.

73

even this Avould have failed altogether of being sufficient.
say again, with confidence, it is impossible.

But that John baptized by immersion is utterly incredible
on another account. Can we imagine that so great a multi-
tude could have been provided on the spot with convenient
changes of raiment to admit of their being plunged consistently
Avith their health? Or can we suppose that the greater part
of their number, would remain for hours on the ground in
their wet clothes ? And if not, would decency have permitted
multitudes of both sexes to appear, and to undergo the
administration of the ordinance in that mode, in a state of
entire nakedness ? Surely we need not wait for an answer.
Neither supposition is admissible.

Nor is this reasoning at all invalidated by the statement of
one of the evangelists, that John " baptized at Enon, near
Salim, because there was much water there ;" or, as it is in
the original, " because there were inany vjciters there." For,
independently of immersion altogether, plentiful streams of
water were absolutely necessary for the constant refreshment
and sustenance of the many thousands who were encamped
from day to day, to witness the preaching and the baptism of
this extraordinary man ; together with the beasts employed
for their transportation. Only figure to yourselves a large
encampment of men, women, and children, consisting almost
continually of many thousand souls, continuing together for a
number of days in succession; constantly coming and going;
and all this in a warm clim^ate, where springs and wells of
water were comparatively rare and precious ; only figure to
yourselves such an assemblage, and such a scene, and you
will be at no loss to perceive why it was judged important to
convene them near the banks of abundant streams of water.
Had not this been done, they must, in a few hours, have
either quitted the ground, or sufi*ered real distress.

It is evident, then, that often and confidently as the baptism
of John has been cited as conclusive, in favour of immersion,
it cannot be considered as affording the least solid ground foi
such a conclusion. There is not the smallest probability that
he ever baptized an individual in this manner. As a poor
man, who lived in the wilderness ; whose raiment was of the
meanest kind ; and whose food was such alone as the desert
afforded ; it is not to be supposed that he possessed appropriate
vessels for administering baptism to multitudes by pouring or
sprinkling. He, therefore, seems to have made use of the
neighbouring stream of water for this purpose, descending its
banks, and setting his feet on its maro-in, so as to admit of his

74 INFANT BAPTISM.

using a handful, to answer the symbolical purpose intended
by the application of water in baptism.

The circumstances attending the baptism of our blessed
Saviour by John, have been often adduced by our Baptist
brethren as strongly favouring the practice of immersion:
but when they are examined, they will be found to afford no
real aid to that cause. In our common translation, indeed,
the Evangelist Matthew tells us, (ch. iii. 16,) That Jesus,
when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water,
(fee; and the Evangelist Mark tells us, (ch. i. 9, 10,) That
Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan ; and straightway,
coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, (fee.
This is considered by many superficial readers as decisive in
establishing the fact that immersion must have been used on
that occasion ; but the moment we look into the original, it
becomes evident that the language of both the Evangelists
imports only that Jesus, after he was baptized, went up from
the water, that is, ascended the banks from the river. No-
thing more is, unquestionably, imported by the terms used ;
and this leaves the mode of administering the ordinance
altogether undecided. Laying aside his sandals, he might
only have stepped a few inches into the river, or he might
have gone merely to the water's edge, without stepping into
it at all.*

The baptism of Paul, by Ananias, is another of the scrip
tural examples of the administration of the ordinance in
question, which yet affords not the smallest hint or presump-
tion in favour of immersion ; but rather the contrary.

We are told that Paul, the infuriated persecutor, while
" breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disci-
ples of the Lord," was met on his way to Damascus, and by
the mighty power of the Saviour whom he persecuted, was
stricken down, and fell prostrate and blind to the ground. In
thig feeble state he was lifted up, and " led by the hand, and
carried into Damascus ; and he was there three days without
sight, and did neither eat nor drink." In these circumstances,
Ananias, a servant of God, is directed to go to him, and teach
him what to do. " And Ananias," we are told, *' 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

* " See a very luminous and satisfactory view of the record of this
baptism, by Professor Stuart, of Andover, in the Biblical Repository,
No. X, p. 319, 320

INFANT BAPTISM. 75

mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost
And now, why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and
wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord ? 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."
(Acts, ix. and xxii. compared.)

The attentive reader will no doubt, take notice that in this
narrative there is fnot a single turn of expression which looks
like baptizing by immersion. There is no hint that Paul
changed his raiment ; or that he and Ananias went out of the
house to a neighbouring pond or stream. On the contrary,
every part of the statement wears a different aspect. Paul,
when Ananias went to him, was evidently extremely feeble.
He was sitting or lying in the house, perfecdy blind, and
having taken no sustenance for three days. Can it be ima-
gined that a wise and humane man, in these circumstances,
would have had him carried forth, and plunged into cold
water, which, in his exhausted state, would have been equally
distressing and dangerous ? It cannot be for a moment sup-
posed. Nothing like it is hinted. Ananias simply directs
him to " stand up and be baptized." " And immediately
there fell from his eyes as it had been scales ; and he received
sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.'' It was after
the baptism, as we learn, that he received sustenance and w*as
" strengthened." It would really seem as if no impartial
reader could receive any other impression from this account,
than that Paul stood up, in the apartment, in which Ananias
found him, and there received baptism by pouring or sprink-
ling on him a small quantity of that water which is applied
in this ordinance as a symbol of spiritual cleansing.

Again, the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, when duly
considered, will be found equally remote from affording the
smallest countenance to that conclusion in favour of immer-
sion, which has been so often and so confidently drawn
from it.

The eunuch v/as travelling on the public highway, when
Philip met him. They had been reading and commenting
on a prophecy of the Messiah, in which mention is made
of his sprinkling many nations. When they came to a
rivulet of water, the eunuch said, ' See, here is water, what
doth hinder me to be baptized V Philip had, no doubt, been
explaining to him the nature, design, and obligation of this
ordinance, or he would not have been likely to ask such a
question. The servant of God consented to baptize him;

76 INFANT BAPTISM.

and, as they were travelling, and probably destitute of any
convenient vessel for dipping up a portion of water from the
stream, they both went clown to the water, probably no fur-
ther than to its margin; far enough to take up a small portion
of it to sprinkle or pour on the eunuch. The narrative, in
the original, ascertains nothing more than that they both
w^ent to and from the water. In our translation, indeed, it is
said, they both went down into the water, and came up out
of tlie water. But, when we look into the original text, we
find the strict meaning of the terms employed, to be, that
Philip and the eunuch went down the banks to the water,
and coming from the water, reascended the banks again, to
the place where the chariot in which they rode had been left.
The same form of expression is used as in the case of Peter
and the tribute money, (Matt. xvii. 27.) " Go thou to the
sea, and cast an hook," &c. Here we cannot suppose that
our Lord meant to command Peter to plunge into the sea, but
only to go to the water's edge, and cast in a hook. The
same form of expression is also employed in many other
passages of the New Testament, where immersion is wholly
out of the question: As in John, ii. 12, where it is said,
Jesus M'ent down to Capernaum; Acts vii. 15, Jacob went
down into Egypt; Acts xviii. 22, He went down to Antioch,
&c. Surely, no one will dream of immersion in any of these
cases. There is nothing, then, in any of the language here
used, which necessarily, or even probably, imphes immersion.
At any rate, the terms employed apply equally to both.
There is the same evidence that Philip was plunged, as that
the eunuch was. It is said they both went to the water.
Nor can we consider it as at all likely that, in the circum-
stances in which they were placed as travellers, they were
either of them immersed. It is plain, therefore, that all the
confidence which our Baptist brethren have so often expressed,
that the case of the Ethiopian eunuch is a certain example of
immersion, must be regarded as presenting no solid evidence
in their favour, and as really amounting to a gross imposition
on popular credulity.

The next remarkable instance of baptism recorded in the
New Testament, is that of Cornelius and his household.
Cornelius, a " devout man, who feared God," was directed,
in a vision, to send for Peter, the apostle, who should impart
to him the knowledge of the Gospel of Christ. Peter, on
his arrival, having ascertaiued, wherfore Cornelius had sent
for him, unfolded to him, and to all who were convened in
his house, the way of salvation. " While he was yet

INFANT BAPTISM. 77

speaking, the Holy Ghost fell upon all ot them which heard
the word, then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water,
that these should not be baptized, who have received the
Holy Ghost as weU as we ? And he commanded them to be
baptized in the name of the Lord."

In this passage, there is nothing that has the remotest ap-
pearance of immersion. No hint is given of the candidates
for baptism being led out of the house, to a river or pool,
for the purpose of being dipped. The language of Peter has
an entirely different aspect. " Caii any ma7i forbid water,
that these should not be baptized?" That is " Can any man
forbid water being brought in a convenient vessel, to be ap-
plied by pouring or sprinkling ?" He had just spoken of
the Holy Ghost being poured out upon them ; and what
could be more natural than that he should apply water, the
emblem of spiritual cleansing, in conformity with the same
striking iigure ? " They were not dipped into the Holy
Ghost ; but the Holy Ghost was poured out upon them.
They were not applied to the Holy Ghost ; but the Holy
Ghost was applied to them. He "fell upon them ;" and the
introduction of water, to be applied in a corresponding man-
ner, was immediately authorized.

The baptism of the jaUer and his household, at Philippi,
still more decisively leads to the same conclusion. If we
examine the circumstances which attended this baptism,
they will be found to preclude, not only the probability, but
I may say with confidence, the possibility of its having been
performed by immersion. Paul and Silas were closely con-
fined in prison when this solemn service was performed.
While they were engaged in " praying and singing praises
to God," a great earthquake shook the prison to its founda-
tion, and the bonds of the prisoners were immediately un-
loosed. The jailer, awaking from his sleep, called for a
light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down be-
fore Paul and Silas, 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, 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."
This whole transaction, you will observe, occurred a httle
after midnight, and in a prison, that is, in the outer prison,
for the jailor seems to have brought them out of the dungeon,
or " inner prison," into some other apartment of the edifice.
For it was not until next morning, some hours after the bap-
23 8

78 INFANT BAPTISM.

tism, that the magistrates gave the keeper permission to let
them out of the prison. He and his family were evidently
baptized " the same hour of the night," that is, between
midnight (when we are expressly told the earthquake occur-
red,) and day ; and while yet in the place of confinement.
Now, I ask, how can we imagine it possible that the jailer
and his family should be baptized by immersion, in the cir-
cumstances in which they were placed ? We cannot sup-
pose that there was a river, or a pool of water, or a baptis-
tery within the walls of the prison, adapted to meet an occa-
sion as unexpected as any thing could be, which had never
occurred there before, and was never likely to occur, in like
circumstances again. He who can believe this, must be
ready to adopt any supposition, however extravagant, for the
sake of an hypothesis. As little can we imagine that Paul
and Silas would be dishonest enough to steal out of the prison
by night, and accompany the jailer and his family to the
river which runs near the city of Philippi, for the purpose of
plunging them ; especially as we know, on the one hand how
backward they were, the next morning to quit the prison,
unless brought out by the magistrates who had illegally im-
prisoned them : and on the other hand how much terrified
the jailer was at the thought of the prisoners escaping from
confinement, and of his being responsible even with his own
Hfe, for their safe keeping.

In like manner, we might go over all the other cases of
baptism recorded in the New Testament, and show that, in
no one case have we any evidence that the ordinance was
administered by immersion. Now, as the disciples of Christ
baptized such great multitudes — even more, at one period
than John ; can we imagine, if the constant, or even the
common mode of baptising had been by plunging the whole
body under water, and especially, if they had laid great
stress on adherence to this mode ; can we imagine, I say,
that amidst so many cases of baptism, some term of expres-
sion, some incidental circumstance would not have occurred,
from which the fact of immersion might have been clearly
manifested, or irresistibly inferred? One thing is certain.
The inspired writers of the New Testament could not pos-
sibly have regarded immersion in baptism in the same hght
in which it is regarded by our Baptist brethren. The latter,
consider their mode of applying water, as essential to the
ordinance. They dwell upon it with unceasing fondness,
introduce it into every discussion ; and loose no opportunity
©f recommending and urging it as that, without which an

INFANT BAPTISM. * 79

alleged baptism is a nullity ; nay, an offence to the Head of
the Church. While the former, though speaking, directly or
indirectly on the subject, in almost every page of the New
Testament, and under a great variety of aspects, have not
stated a single fact, or employed a single term, which evin-
ces that they either preferred or practised immersion in any
case. They have stated, indeed, some facts which can
scarcely, by possibility, be reconciled with immersion ; but
in no instance have they made a representation which is not
entirely reconcileable with the practice of perfusion or sprink-
ling. On the supposition that the doctrine of our Baptist
brethren is true, this is a most unaccountable fact ? What !
not one evangelist or aposde, though taught by the Spirit of
God what to say — kind enough, or wise enough, to put
this matter beyond a doubt ? The unavoidable inference is.
that the inspired writers did not deem the mode of applying
water in baptism, an essential matter ; and did not think it
necessary to state it precisely ; and, of course, that they dif-
fered entirely from our Baptist brethren.

4. Even if it could be proved (which we know it cannot
be,) that the mode of baptism adopted in the time of Christ
and his apostles, was that of immersion ; yet if that method
of administering the ordinance were not significant of some
truth, which the other modes cannot represent, we are plain-
ly at liberty to regard it as a non-essential circumstance, from
which we may depart when expediency requires it, as we
are all wont to do in other cases, even with respect to posi-
tive institutions. For example, the Lord's Supper was, no
doubt, originally instituted with unleavened bread ; and this
was, probably, at first the common custom. But as being
leavened or unleavened had nothing to do with the design
and scope of the ordinance ; as bread of either kind is equal-
ly emblematical of that spiritual nourishment which it is in-
tended to represent; most professing Christians, and our
Baptist brethren among the rest, feel authorised io celebrate
the Lord's Supper with leavened bread without the smallest
scruple.

Again ; the manner of sitting at the Lord's Supper, was,
in conformity with the then prevailing posture at feasts, to
recline on the elbow on a couch. There can be no doubt
that this was the uniform posture at th econvivial table, at
that time ; and in the narratives of the evangelists, we have
abundant evidence that the same posture was adopted by
our blessed Lord in the institution of the sacramental Sup-
per. But as it was only a circumstance connected with the

80 INFANT BAPTISM.

habits of those days, we do not feel bound; and our Baptist
brethren among others, do not feel bound, in administering
this ordinance, to conform to the original mode. We con-
sider the sacrament as completely and validly dispensed, if
bread and wine be reverently received, in commemoration
of the Saviour's death, with any posture of the body. Nay,
the example of our Saviour himself, plainly shows that,
under a change of circumstances non-essential modes, orig-
inally used, may be dispensed with. The prescribed ritual
of the Passover required that the lamb should be eaten with
shoes on the feet, and with staves in the hand ; but this cus-
tom was not followed by Him or his disciples, and perhaps,
never was observed after the entrance into Canaan. But
was the Passover rendered either less perfect, or less useful,
for all practical purposes, by this omission ? Surely we need
not wait for an answer.

Now, unless it can be proved, that plunging the body into
water, and lifting it out again, was designed to be emblemati-
cal of something which cannot be otherwise expressed, we
have full liberty given us by the example of our Lord him-
self, to consider this mode as an unimportant circumstance.
If the cleansing element of water be applied, in any reveren-
tial mode, to the human body, the whole symbolical ex-
pression of the ordinance is attained, provided convenience
and decorum be duly consulted. If the cleansing or purify-
ing quality of the element used, be the idea intended to be
set forth in the emblem ; and if the greater part, as we have
seen, of the typical purifications prescribed under the cere-
monial economy were effected by sprinkling ; it is plain that
the emblem is complete, however the cleansing element may
be applied.

DISCOURSE IV.

THE MODE OF ADMINISTERING BAPTISM.

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized 7
Acts, X. 47.

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

INFANT BAPTISM. 81

It is perfectly evident, to every reflecting mind, that the
obstacles which may be conceived, and which very fre-
quently, in fact, occur, to render baptism by immersion difii-
cult, if not impracticable, are very many, and very serious.
It will be sufficient to hint at a few of the more familiar and
obvious. It is well known that some very large districts of
country, in various, parts of our globe, are so parched and
dry, and streams of water so rare, or rather, in many cases,
so unknown, for many miles together, that the means of
immersing a human body, in any natural stream or pool of
water, cannot possibly be obtained but with great trouble
and expense ; a trouble and expense impracticable to a large
portion of every community inhabiting those countries.
There are other parts of our globe, near the polar regions,
where, during the major portion of every year, the constant
reign of severe frost, seals up every natural stream and foun-
tain, and renders the immersion of a human body not merely
difficult, but impracticable, without great labour and cost.
Nor is this all ; even in the temperate and well watered lati-
tudes, there are seasons of the year, often of four or five
months continuance, when baptism by immersion is generally
dangerous, and, in many cases, highly so, to the health, and
even the lives of both those who administer, and those who
receive the ordinance.* And, finally, at all seasons, persons

* The Rev. Dr. Austin, in his answer to Mr. Merill, speaks thus —
" In besieged cities, where there are thousands, and hundreds of thou-
sands of people ; in sandy deserts like those of Africa, Arabia, and
Palestine; in the northern regions, where the streams, if there be any,
are shut up with impenetrable ice : and in severe and extensive
droughts, like that which took place in the time of Ahab ; sufficiency
of water for animal subsistence is scarcely to be procured, Now,
suppose God should, according to his predictions, pour out plentiful
effusions of his spirit, so that all the inhabitants of one of these regions
or cities, should be born in a day. Upon the Baptist hypothesis, there
is an absolute impossibility that they should be baptized, while there
is this scarcity of water ; and this may last as long as they live," p. 41.

So also, Mr. Walker, in his " Doctrine of Baptisms," (chapter 10)
speaks of a Jew, who, while travelling with Christians, in the time of
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, about sixty or seventy years after the
apostles, was converted, fell sick, and desired baptism. Not having
water, they sprinkled him thrice with sand, in the name of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost. He recovered, and his case was repor-
ted to the Bishop, (or pastor, there being no prelates then) who decided
that the man was baptized, (si modo aqua denuo perfunderatur) if he
only had water poured on him again. This record shows, not merely
that the *' difficulties" referred to, are far from being ideal; but also
that when the defect of the baptism by sand was attempted to be sup-
plied it was not by any sort of immersion, but only by the pouring on
of water

23* 8*

82 INFANT BAPTISM.

labouring under disease, can never be baptized in this mode,
with safety, at all : and, of course, must be deprived entirely
of the privilege of receiving this seal of the Christian cove
nant, so reasonable in itself, and so gratifying to the pious
mind. It is also certain, that Baptist ministers who are aged
and infirm, can never safely officiate in baptizing in any
case ; and when they are men remarkably frail and feeble in
body, they can never undertake, without manifest danger, to
baptize individuals of large stature, or more than common
corpulency. To all which may be added, that the public
baptism of females with all the delicacy and care which can
possibly be employed, is certainly, as thousands attest, a
practice little in keeping with those religious feelings and
impressions with which it is desirable that every Christian
solemnity should be attended.

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

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

INFANT BAPTISM. 83

There is one difficulty more, in reference to the mode of
baptism by immersion, of which it is not easy to speak, on
an occasion like the present, without appearing to intend
ridicule of an ordinance so solemn and important. Fidelity
to the subject, however, demands that I speak of it; and I
trust no one will suspect me of a design to make any other
than a perfectly grave and fair use of the matter to which I
refer. The circumstance to which I allude is, that in the
third, fourth, and immediately following centuries — in the
days of Cyprian, Cyril, Athanasius, and Chrysostom — when,
as all agree, the mode of baptizing by immersion was the
most prevalent method ; there is no historical fact more per-
fectly established, than that, whenever baptism was thus ad-
ministered, the candidate, whether infant or adult, male or
female, was entirely divested of all clothing: not merely of
outer garments, but, I repeat, of all clothing. No exception
was allowed in any case, even when the most timid and del-
icate female importunately desired it. This fact is estab-
lished, not only by the most direct and unequivocal state-
ments, and that by a number of Avriters, but also by the nar-
ration of a number of curious particulars connected with this
practice.* Among the rest we are told of scenes of indeco-
rum exhibited in the baptisteries of those days, which con-
vinced the friends of religion that the practice ought to be
discontinued, and it was finally laid aside. Perhaps it will
be asked, whether this fact in the history of Christian bap-
tism is adverted to for the purpose of reflecting odium, in a
sinister and indirect manner, on the practice of immersion ?
I answer, by no means ; but simply for the purpose of show-
ing that in tracing the history of baptism by immersion, we
have the very same evidence in favour of immersing divested
of all clothing, that we have for immersing at all : that, so
far as the history of the church, subsequent to the apostolic
age, informs us, these two practices must stand or fall toge-
ther ;t and that an appendage to baptism so revolting, so im-

* The zealous Baptist Robert Robinson, bears, on this subject, the
following testimony : " The primitive Christians baptized naked.
Nothing is easier than to give proof of this by quotations from the au-
thentic writings of the men who administered baptism, and who cer-
tainly knew in what way they themselves performed it. There is no
ancient historical fact better authenticated than this. The evidence
does not go on the evidence of the single word, naked ; for then a
reader might suspect allegory ; but on facts reported, and many reasons
assigned for the practice." History of Baptism, p. 85. He then
quotes several examples dated in the fourth century.

+ The learned Wall speaks on the subject thus : " The ancient
Christians, when they were baptized by immersion, were all baptized

84 INFANT BAPTISM.

moral, and so entirely inadmissible, plainly shows that those
who practised it must have been chargeable with a supersti-
tious and extravagant adoption of a mere form, which, from
its character, we are compelled to believe was a human in-
vention, and took its rise in the rudeness of growing supersti-
tion, perhaps from a source still more impure and criminal.

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

naked ; whether they were men, women, or children. The proofs of
this, I shall omit, because it is a clear case. The English Antipoedo-
baptists need not have made so great an outcry against Mr. Baxter for
bis saying that they baptized naked; for if they had, it would have
been no more than the primitive Christians did. They thought it bet-
ter represented the putting off the old man, and also the nakedness of
Christ on the cross. Moreover, as baptism is a washing, they judged
it should be the washing of the body, not of the clothes " Wall, Chap-
ter XV. Part II

INFANT BAPTISM 85

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

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

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

Perhaps no passages in Scripture have been more fre-
quently and confidently pressed into the service of baptism
by immersion than those that are found in Romans vi. 3, 4,
and Colossians ii. 12. In the former we find the following:
'* Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Je-
sus 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 Fa-
ther, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Cor-
responding with this in Colossians ii. 12, the following pas-
sage occurs : " Buried with him in Baptism ; wherein also
ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of
God, who hath raised him from the dead."

86 INFANT BAPTISM.

Now, our Baptist brethren, believing and insisting that
baptism and immersion ought to be considered, in aU cases,
as synonymous terms, take for granted that the expression,
"Buried with him in baptism," is intended to refer to the
resemblance between the interment of a dead body, and its
subsequent resurrection from beneath the surface of the earth ;
and the immersion of a baptized person entirely under the
water, and raising him up again from beneath the surface of
the fluid. In a word, our Baptist brethren assure us, that
the design of the apostle in these passages is to say, that
*' the baptized person's communion with Christ in his
death and burial, is represented by his being laid under the
water ; and his communion with him in his resurrection, by
his being raised out of it." In this general interpretation of
the figure many Poedobaptists have agreed ; and have thus
not a little confirmed the confidence of anti-pcedobaptists in
their cause. I am persuaded, however, that a candid exami-
nation of the real import of the figurative language before us,
will show that this confidence is entirely unfounded.

The Apostle, in the preceding part of the epistle to the
Romans, had shown that Christians are justified by faith in
the righteousness of Christ. He proceeds in the sixth
chapter to obviate the objection, that this doctrine tends to
licentiousness. " What shall we say, then ? Shall we con-
tinue in sin that grace may abound ? God forbid !" He
rejects with abhorrence the odious thought. " How shall we
that are dead to sin live any longer therein ?" He then ad-
verts to the significance of baptism, which being the ordi-
nance which seals our introduction into the family of Christ
may be considered as exhibiting both the first principles of
Gospel truth, and the first elements of christian character.
" Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into
Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?" He then in-
fers, that since baptism has so immediate a reference to the
death of Christ, it must, by consequence, be connected also
with his resurrection ; and that, as in the former view, it
teaches the regenerated the abandoning of the old life of sin ;
so, in the latter, it equally teaches them the pursuit and prog-
ress of the new life of righteousness. " Therefore we are
buried with him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ
was raised up fi-om the dead by the glory of the Father, even
so we also should walk in newness of life."

The obvious design of the apostle is to illustrate the cha-
racter and obligations of believers, from the circumstance,
that they are, in a certain respect, conformed to Christ's

INFANT BAPTISM. 87

death; that as he died for sin, so they are dead, or are under
obligations to be dead, to sin ; that is they are holy, or are,
by their profession, obliged to be holy. " So many of us as
were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his
death." And this is explained by what follows. " In that
Christ died, he died unto sin (or on account of sin) once ;
but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon
ve also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, (or in respect
to sin,) but alive unto God through Jesus Christ." This is
what was signified by baptism. And so believers were bap-
tized into Chrisfs death : not that baptism was a symbol of
death, or the state of the dead ; for water, or washing in wa-
ter, never was a symbol of this. But water, used in cere-
monial, whether by washing or sprinkling, and afterwards in
Christian baptism, always signified the fact, or the acknow-
ledged necessity of purification. Now being dead or in a
state of death to sin, is the same thing as to be spiritually
purified, or made holy. And this is the very thing that bap-
tism, coming in the place of ablutions under the former
economy, is exactly adapted to signify. Or, to say all in a
word, water used in baptism is a sign of that moral purifica-
tion of believers, which the Apostle means to express by
their being crucified, dead, and conformed to Christ's death.
Their being dead in conformity with Christ, is the expres-
sion which contains the metaphor. And baptism, as an ap-
pointed token or symbol, denotes what is signified by the
metaphor, not the metaphor itself.* The sum of the apos-
tle's illustration, then, so far as the point before us is con-
cerned, is simply this — That in baptism, as a rite emblemati-
cal of moral purification, Christians profess to be baptized
into the death of Christ, as well as, into (or into the hope
of ) his resurrection; that they are dead a.nd buried in re-
spect to sin, that is, in a moral and spiritual sense ; so that
every Christian can say, with P«wZ— -"I am crucified with
Christ; I have been made conformable to his death; being
dead indeed to sin, and alive to God by Jesus Christ."

But besides all this, which is sufficient of itself to show
how little reliance is to be placed on the gloss of this passage
adopted by our Baptist brethren — the burial of Christ was

* See Dr. Woods' Lectures on Infant Baptism, p. 188, 189. See
this interpretation of Rom. vi. 3, 4, and the corresponding- passage in
Colossians ii. 12, well illustrated in the Essay on Baptism, by Greville
JSioing, D. D. of Glasgow, and also in a Dissertation on Infant Bap-
tism, by Ralph Wardlaw, D. D. of Glasgow ; and still more recently
by Professor Stuart, in the Biblical Repository, p. 327. 332.

88 INFANT BAPTISM.

by no means such as the friends of this exposition commonly
suppose. The body of our Saviour was never buried in the
manner in which we are accustomed to inter human corpses,
that is by letting it down into the bosom of the earth, and
covering it with earth. It was placed in a tomb hewn out
of a rock ; not a tomb sunk in the earth, but hollowed out of
a rock, above ground, and containing separate cells for the
reception of bodies, " as the manner of the Jews was to
bury." Even supposing, then, that it were yielded to our
Baptist brethren that the design of the Apostle is to teach the
mode of baptism, by comparing it to the burial of Christ, it
would by no means serve their purpose. There was not in
fact any such subterranean immersion, if the expression may
be allowed, as they imagine. The body of the Saviour
was evidently laid in a stone cell, above ground, in which no
earth came in contact with it, and in which, when the stone
which closed up the door was taken away, the body was
distinctly visible. In short, the burial of Christ no more re-
sembled the modern interment of a dead body among us,
than the depositing such a body, for a time, in an apartment
in the basement story of a dwelling house, the floor of which
was either not sunk below the surface of the earth at all, or if
any, not more than a few inches ; admitting of free ingress
and egress as a common inhabited room. The figure in
question, then, does not serve the turn of our Baptist breth-
ren ; thus affording another proof, that nothing more was
intended by its use, than to set forth that by being baptized
into the death of Christ, we profess to be dead and buried
in respect to sin, without any reference whatever to the
mode in which either the burial or the baptism might be
performed.

Accordingly in the verse immediately preceding that be-
fore commented on, in the second Epistle to the Colossians,
the following passage occurs, evidently intended to teach the
same lesson : "In whom also ye are circumcised with the
circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of
the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ." And
in the verse immediately following that in which the burial
of Christ is alluded to, the figure of circumcision as an em-
blem of spiritual cleansing, is still pursued : " And you
being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your
flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven
you all trespasses." Here it is plain, the same general idea
is meant to be conveyed, as in the reference to baptism,
which has come in the room of circumcision. In both the

INFANT BAPTISM. 89

putting away sin ; the " putting off the sins of the flesh," is
emblematically represented and sealed : as a man dead and
buried is cut off from all temporal connections and indulgen-
ces ; so the baptized man is really, or at least by profession,
dead to sin, and in this way made conformable to the death
of Christ in its great design and efficiency, which are to pu-
rify to himself a peculiar people, dead to the world, dead to
carnal ambition, and secluded from every unhallowed practice.

Another signal example of the figurative language of Scrip-
ture applied to baptism, occurs in 1 Corinthians, x. 1,2.
" Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be igno-
rant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all
passed through the sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses
in the cloud and in the sea." Now, when we turn to the
narrative given by Moses, in the fourteenth chapter of Ex-
odus, we find that the Red Sea, through which the Israelites
passed, was divided before them ; that the waters stood up
like a wall on each side ; and that they passed through on
DRY GROUND. We are also informed, that the cloud by
which their [ine of march was divinely directed, did not even
fall upon them in the form of a shower, much less submerge
them ; but that it alternately went behind them and before
them ; now hanging in their rear, for the purpose of conceal-
ing them from their enemies ; and then preceding them in
their course, presenting a face of splendour to them, and a
face of darkness to their pursuers. In all this, there was
evidently nothing like immersion. The utmost that could
have happened, in consistency with the inspired narrative,
was their being sprinkled by the spray of the sea, or by
drops from the miraculous cloud, when it passed over their
heads.

The last passage of the class under consideration to which
I shall advert, is that found in the first Epistle of Peter, iii.
20, 21 : " The long-suffering of God waited in the days of
Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is
eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure where-
unto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away
of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience
toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The prin-
ciple implied in this passage is plain ; and it aflx>rds not the
smallest countenance to the doctrine of our Baptist brethren.
Evey one sees, that in the case of Noah and his family, and
of all the animals preserved with them in the ark, there was
no immersion in the waters of the flood. Nay, this was the
very evil from which the ark preserved them. Of course,
24 9

•

90 INFANT BAPTISM.

whatever else the passage may prove, it is impossible that
it should be legitimately considered as favouring baptism by
plunging the whole body under water.

7. Further ; that immersion is not necessary in baptism ;
and that to insist upon it, as indispensable, is superstition,
appears from the indisputable fact, that both the significance
and the effect of baptism are to be considered as depending,
not on the physical influence of water, or upon the quantity
of it employed, but on its symbolical meaning, and on the
blessing of God upon its application as a symbol. There
has always been a tendency in human nature to lay more
stress than the Bible warrants upon outward forms : and to
imagine that external rites have a virtue inherent in them-
selves, by which their recipients are of course savingly bene-
fitted. It is generally granted by enlightened Protestants to
be one of the mischievous errors of Popery, that baptism,
and the other appointed rites of our religion, when admin-
istered by authorized hands, have an inherent efficacy ; a
sort of self-operating power on those to whom they are ad-
ministered. This we consider as a superstitious and dange-
rous error. We believe that no external ordinance has any
power in itself; but that its power to benefit those who re-
ceive it depends altogether upon the influence of the Holy
Spirit of God, making it effectual ; and that this influence
may accompany or follow the ordinance, whatever may be
the outward form of its administration. If, indeed, we had
reason to believe that the benefit of baptism was caused by
the physical influence of water on any or every part of the
body, and depended upon that influence : if the least intimation
of this kind were given us, either by the word of God, or the
nature of the case ; it would be wise to insist on a rigorous
adherence to that form. But as the benefit of the ordinance
has no connection, so far as we know, with the operation ot
water on the animal frame ; but is the result, solely, of a di-
vine blessing on a prescribed and striking emblem ; and as
the word of God has no where informed us of the precise
mode in which that emblem shall be applied — we infer that
the divine blessing may attend upon any mode of applying
it. The language of our blessed Saviour on a memorable
occasion is full of instruction on this subject. In order to
give his disciples a striking lesson both of humility and pu-
rity, he condescended, on a certain evening when they were
assembled under solemn circumstances, to wash their feet.
Simon Peter, when his Master came to him, like too many
at the present day, misunderstanding the nature and signifi-

INFANT BAPTISM. 91

cance of the symbolical action, at first strongly objected, and
said, " Thou shalt never wash my feet." Jesus answered,
*' If I wash thee not, thou hast no part in me." To which
Peter, in the fulness of his fervent zeal, replied, "Lord, not my
feet only, but also my hands and my head." Jesus, however,
meaning to convey the idea that the whole action was symboli-
cal, and that the application of water to any part of the body
was abundantly sufficient, rejoins to Peter. "He that is wash-
ed, needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit ;
as much as to say, " It is not the physical ablution, but the
symbolical meaning, to which I now wish to call your atten-
tion ; and for this purpose the application of water to the feet
only, carries with it all the fulness of meaning, and all the
richness of benefit, that could have resulted from the most
plentiful application of it to the whole frame."

8. Another, and in my view, conclusive reason for believ-
ing that our Baptist brethren are in error, in insisting that no
baptism unless by immersion is valid, is that the native ten-
dency of this doctrine is to superstition and abuse. The
tendency here alleged has been often observed and lamented
by serious people, as likely to be connected with a false hope
and to destroy the souls of multitudes. Facts in support of
this remark have fallen under my own painful observation.
I have known many Baptists who appeared to feel as if there
was some inherent efficacy in being " buried under the water,"
and that those who submitted to that self-denying rite, were, of
course, real Christians. They have evidently appeared to
think that that was the great step in religion ; and that, hav-
ing taken it, all was secure. Now, I contend, that this is the
natural tendency of the Baptist doctrine ; that their laying
so much stress upon "going under the water," and holding
it up, with unceasing zeal, to the popular view, as the great
distinguishing, and indispensable badge of discipleship, is
unavoidably, adapted to betray " unwary souls" into a delu
sive confidence. There is no disposition in depraved human
nature more deeply inwrought, or more incessantly operative,
than the disposition to rely upon something done by us for
securing the divine favour. It is this disposition which has
led to all that enormous mass of superstitious observances
which distinguishes the Papal system, and which we have
every reason to beUeve is built upon by millions, as the foun-
dation of hope, instead of Christ. Whenever, therefore, any
external rite becomes the grand distinction of a sect, and the
object of something approaching to sectarian idolatry, we
may be sure there exists not only the danger, but the actual

92 INFANT BAPTISM.

commencement, to some extent, of that superstitious reliance,
which he who has not learned to fear, " knows nothing of
the human heart yet as he ought to know."

That this suggestion has something more than mere fancy
on which to rest, is evident from facts of recent and most
mournful occurrence. A large and daily increasing sect has
arisen, within a few years, in the bosom of the Baptist de-
nomination which maintains the delusive and destructive doc-
trine, that baptism is regeneration ; that no man can be re-
generated who is not immersed ; and that all, without excep-
tion, who have a historical faith, and are immersed, are of
course, in a state of salvation. This pernicious heresy, so
contrary to the plainest principles and facts of the word of
Ood, and so manifestly adapted to destroy the souls of all
who believe it, has been propagated to a melancholy extent,
by a plausible, reckless, and impious demagogue, and is sup-
posed to embrace one half of the Baptist body in the western
country, besides many in the east. In short, the Baptist
churches, in large districts of country, are so rent in pieces,
and deluded by the miserable impostor referred to, that their
prospects, for many years to come, are not only gloomy, but'
without a special interposition of the King of Zion in their
favour, altogether desperate.

Now I maintain that this wretched delusion is by no means
an unnatural result of the doctrine and practice of our Bap-
tist brethren, in regard to the baptismal rite. Multitudes of
them, I know, reject and abhor the heresy in question as
much as any of us. But have they duly considered, that it
seems naturally to have grown out of their own theory and
practice in regard to baptism ; their attaching such a dispro-
portioned importance to the mode of administering that ordi-
nance ; often, very often, directing the attention of the people
more to the river than the cross ; excluding all from Chris-
tian communion, however pious, who have not been immer-
sed ; and making representations which, whether so intended
or not, naturally lead the weak and the uninformed to con
sider immersion as a kind of talisman, always connected with
a saving blessing? This, I sincerely believe, is the native
tendency of the doctrine of our Baptist brethren, although
they, I am equally confident, neither perceive nor admit this
to be the case. If pious Christians who have not been im-
mersed cannot be admitted to communion in the church below,
there would seem to be still more reason for excluding them
from the purer church above. And so far as this principle
is received and cherished, though far from being aUke mis-

INFANT BAPTISM. 93

chievous in all cases, it can scarcely fail of predisposing many
minds in favour of that awful delusion, by which we have
reason to believe that not a few, under its higher workings
have been blinded, betrayed, and lost.

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

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

Eusebius states, (Book 6, chapter 43,) on the authority of
preceding writers, that Novatian being sick, and near death,
as was supposed, was baptized on his bed by affusion. He,
however, recovered, and was afterwards ordained to the
work of the ministry. And although some questioned,
whether a man who had been brought to make a profession
of religion only on a sick bed, and when he considered him-
self as about to die, ought to be made a minister; yet this
doubt arose, we are assured, not from any apprehension that
the baptism itself was incomplete ; but on the principle, that
he who came to the faith not voluntarily, but from necessity,
ought not to be made a priest, unless his subsequent diligence
and faith should be distinguished and highly commendable.

Of the character of Cyprian, who flourished in the former

» Wall, Part II. chapter ix. p. 352, &c.

24* 9*

94 INFANT BAPTISM.

part of the third century, enough has been said in a preced-
ing discourse. A certain Magnus, a country minister, con-
sulted him on the question, whether those who had been in-
troduced into the Christian Church, by baptism on their sick
beds, and, of course, by affusion or sprinkUng, ought to be
baptized again, if they recovered? Cyprian's answer to
this question is as follows :

" You inquire, my dear son, what I think of such as at-
tain grace in time of sickness and infirmity : whether they
are to be accounted lawful Christians, because they have not
been washed all over with the water of salvation, but have
only had some of it poured on them. In which matter I
would use so much modesty and humility, as not to pre-
scribe so positively, but that every one should enjoy the
freedom of his own thought, and do as he thinks best. I do,
however, according to the best of my mean capacity, judge
thus : That the divine favours can in no wise be mutilated or
weakened, so that any thing less than the whole of them is
conveyed, where the benefit of them is received with a full
and complete faith, on the part both of the giver and receiver.
For, in the sacrament of salvation, the contagion of sin is not
washed ojEf in the same manner as the filth of the body is in
a carnal and secular bath. It is entirely in a diflferent way
that the heart of a believer — it is after another fashion that
the mind of man is by faith cleansed. In the sacraments of
salvation, through the indulgence of God, when necessity
compels, the shortest way of transacting divine matters, con-
veys the whole benefit to those who believe. Nor let any
be moved by the fact, that the sick, when they are baptized,
are only perfused or sprinkled, since the Scripture says,
by the prophet Ezekiel, (chapter xxxvi. 25, 36,) "I will
sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean ; from
all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you ; a
new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put
within you." It is also said in the book of numbers, (chap,
xix.) " And the man which shall be unclean until the even-
ing, shall be purified on the third day, and on the seventh
day, and he shall be clean. But if he shall not be purified
on the third day, and on the seventh day, he shall not be
clean, and that soul shall be cut oflf from Israel, because the
water of aspersion hath not been sprinkled upon him." And
again, the Lord spake unto Moses, in the book of Numbers,
(chap viii.) " Take the Levites from among the children of
Israel, and cleanse them ; and thus shalt thou do unto them
to cleanse them ; sprinkle water of purifying upon them."

INFANT BAPTISM. 95

And again, " the water of aspersion is purification." From
which it appears that sprinkling is sufficient instead of im-
mersion; and whensoever it is done, if there be a sound
faith, on the part both of the giver and receiver, it is perfect
and complete."

From these passages, as well as from a number of others,
which might be quoted, found in the works of Cyprian, it is
evident, that, in a little more than one hundred and fifty
years from the death of the last apostle, cases of baptism by
perfusion or sprinkling had notoriously, and in repeated in-
stances, occurred; that such examples were found among
the heretics, as well as in the orthodox church ; that a man
so learned and pious as the venerable Cyprian, was de-
cisively of the opinion that they were to be justified; and,
finally, that he considered this as a point concerning which
Christians were at liberty to entertain their own opinion, and
to do as they judged best. Plainly implying that he did not
consider it at all as an essential matter.

Origen was contemporary with Cyprian. He wrote in
the Greek language. It was his vernacular tongue ; and he
was, probably, the most learned man of the century in which
he lived. This venerable Christian father, commenting on 1
Kings, xviii. 33, in which we read of Elijah's ordering water
to be poured on Lhe burnt sacrifice, tells us that he baptized
the wood on the altar. Was not Origen a good judge of the
meaning of a Greek word? Can we imagine that he would
have used the word baptize in this sense, if he had regarded
immersion as its exclusive meaning?

When Laurentius, a Roman deacon, about the middle of
the third century, was brought to the stake to suffer martyr-
dom, a soldier who had been employed to be one of his exe-
cutioners, professed to be converted, and requested baptism
from the hands of him whom he had been engaged to assist
in burning. For this purpose a pitcher of water was
brought, and the soldier baptized at the place of execution.*
In circumstances so solemn as these, surely no conscientious
man would have sported with a divine ordinance, or sub-
jected it to any essential mutilation. It was, doubtless,
deemed a sufl[icient mode of administering baptism.

Gennadius, a distinguished ecclesiastic of Marseilles, in
the fifth century, speaks of baptism as administered in the
French church indifferently, by either immersion or aff'usion,
or sprinkling. For having said, "We beheve the way of

* Walfridius Strabo, De Rebus Ecclesiast. as quoted by Wall.

96 INFANT BAPTISM.

salvation to be open only to baptized persons;" he adds,
"except only in the ease of martyrdom, in which all the
sacraments of baptism are completed." Then, to show how
martyrdom has all in it that baptism has, he says, " The per-
son to be baptized, owns his faith before the priest ; and
when the interrogatories are put to him, makes his answer.
The same does a martyr before the heathen judge. He also
owns his faith; and when the question is put to him, makes
answer. The one, after his confession is either wetted with
the water, or else plunged into it; and the other, is either
wetted with his own blood, or plunged into the fire." This
language plainly evinces that in the time of Gennadius, both
modes of baptism were in use and deemed equally valid.

Thomas Aquinas, and Bonaventura, are well known as
two learned ecclesiastics of the twelfth century. In their
time it is evident that both plunging and affusion were used
in the churches of Italy, in the administration of baptism.
Aquinas, in writing on the subject, expresses himself thus :
•' Baptism may be given not only by immersion, but also by
affusion of water, or by sprinkling with it. But it is the
safer way to baptize by immersion, because that is the most
common custom." On the other hand, his contemporary,
Bonaventura, observes, *' The way of affusion in baptism
was probably used by the apostles, and was, in his time,
used in the churches of France, and some others;" but re-
marks, " The method of dipping into the water is the more
common, and therefore the fitter and safer."

The Synod of Anglers, A. D. 1275, speaks of dipping
and pouring as indifferently used ; and blames some igno-
rant priests, because they dipped or poured on water, but
once; and at the same time declaring that the general custom
of the church was to dip, or to pour on water three times.
The Synod of Langres, A. D. 1404, speaks of pouring or
perfusion only. " Let the priest make three pourings or
sprinklings of water on the infanVs head," &c. The
Council of Cologne, in 1536, evidently intimate that both
modes were constantly practised. Their language is, " The
child is thrice either dipped or wetted with water." Fifteen
years afterwards, in the Agenda of the Church of Mentz,
published by Sebastian, there is found the following direc
tion: "Then let the priest take the child on his left arm,
and holding him over the font, let him, with his right hand,
three several times, take water out of the font, and pour it on
the child's head, so that the water may wet its head and
shoulders." Then they give a note to this purpose; that

INFANT BAPTISM. 97

immersion, once or thrice, or pouring of water may be used,
and have been used, in the church ; that this variety does not
aiier the nature of baptism ! and that a man would do ill to
break the custom of the church for either of them. But they
add, that it is better, if the church will allow, to use pouring
on of water. " For suppose," say they, " the priest be old
and feeble, or have the palsy in his hands ; or the weather
be very cold ; or the child be very infirm ; or too big to be
dipped in the font ; then it is much fitter to use affusion of
the water." Then they bring the instance of the apostles
baptizing three thousand at a time ; and the instance of
Laurentius, the Roman deacon, before spoken of — and add,
" That, therefore, there may not be one way for the sick,
and another for the healthy ; one for children, and another
for bigger persons ; it is better that the administrator of this
sacram^eut do observe the safest way, which is, to pour wa-
ter thrice; unless the custom be to the contrary." [Wcdl,
Part 11. chapter ix. p. 360, 361.)

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

yo INFANT BAPTISM.

for Christ, even if they did immerse, did not consider the
mode as essential, but were ready to hold the most unreser-
ved communion with those who practised aspersion.

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

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

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

INFANT BAPTISM. 99

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

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

3. Once more ; let us all be careful, my Christian friends,
as a practical deduction from what has been said, to forbear
" returning evil for evil," on this, or any other point of ec-
clesiastical controversy. However other denominations may
treat us, let us never be chargeable with treating the7n in an
unchristian manner. We are conscientiously compelled to
differ from our Baptist brethren. We believe them to be in
error ; in important and highly mischievous error. But
what then ? They are still brethren in Christ. Let us,

100 INFANT BAPTISM.

therefore, love them, and, however they may treat ws, treat
them with fraternal respectfulness, and seek their welfare.
Let us never indulge a spirit of mihallowed proselytism.
Let us never employ any other weapons against them than
those of candid argument, and fervent prayer. Instead of
" doting about questions, and strifes of words, whereof come
envy, railings, evil surmisings, and corrupt dispulings ;" let
us follow after patience, forbearance and charity ; ever re-
membering that all who really belong to Christ, however
they may differ in externals, are "one body in Him, and
members one of another." May we all be deeply imbued
with the spirit which ought to flow from this precious truth ;
and may all that we do be done with charity ! Amen !

(101)

ADDITIONAL NOTES.

(Note A.)

GIVING A NAME IN BAPTISM.

In administering the rite of circumcision, it was custo-
mary to give a name to the child. This is evident from the
circumstances attending the circumcision of John the Baptist,
as related in the gospel according to Luke, i. 59 — 64 ; and
also those attending the circumcision of our blessed Saviour,
as found recorded in the next chapter of the same gospel.
The same practice probably existed, from the earUest period
of the New Testament church, in the administration of bap-
tism. It makes, however, no necessary, or even important
part of the rite. A baptism administered without a name,
would, of course, be just as valid as if one were announced ;
and there is nothing in the essential nature of the case,
which would forbid a name given to a child in baptism being
reconsidered and altered afterwards. Yet, inasmuch as a
child, when baptized, is announced to the church as a new
member, subject to its maternal watch and care, it ought, in
common, for obvious reasons, to be introduced and known
under some name, so that each child may be distinguished,
and may receive its appropriate treatment. To introduce a
nameless member into any societ}'-, would be both unreason-
able and inconvenient. Moreover, it is of great conse-
quence, both to civil and religious society, that the birth and
baptism of every child be recorded in regular church books.
The formation of this record requires, it is evident, the use
of a name ; and after the name is adopted and recorded in
this public register, it is plain that frequent alterations of
the name, and tampering in a corresponding manner, with
the public register would lead to endless confusion and mis-
chief. Thus we are conducted, by a very obvious train of
reasoning, to the conclusion that the name announced in
baptism ought, in general, to be carefully retained, without
subtraction or addition. Sometimes, indeed, the civil law
requires such registers to be made and preserved, in regard
to every birth and baptism. Where this is the case, there
is, evidently, an additional reason for adhering strictly to
the name announced in baptism, recorded in the appropriate
25 10

102 ADDITIONAL NOTES.

register, and thus brought under official notice, and recorded
as the property of the state. See a number of curious ques-
tions proposed and resolved, concerning the names imposed
in baptism, in the Politicce Ecclesiastics of the learned Gis-
bertus Voetius. Tom. I. p. 714 — 724.

(Note B.)
baptismal regeneration.

This unscriptural and pernicious doctrine is not confined
to the Roman Catholics, in whose system it may without
impropriety be said to be indigenous ; but is also frequently
found in the pulpits and manuals of some Protestants, in
the midst of whose general principles, it ought to be regard-
ed as a poisonous exotic.

I. The doctrine referred to, as held by some Protestants,
in its most objectionable form, appears to be this : — that the
spiritual change which the Scriptures designate by the term
regeneration, is always attendant upon, and effected by, the
rite of baptism, when duly administered; that, on the one
hand, every person, infant or adult, who has been baptized
by an authorized minister, is a regenerated person ; and that,
on the other, every person who has not been baptized,
however deep or mature his penitence and faith, is still un-
regenerate. In short, the position is, that the inward grace
of regeneration always accompanies the outward sign of
baptism ; that they are inseparable ; that the one cannot exist
Avithout the other ; that he who has been thus regenerated,
if he die without falling from grace, is certainly saved ; that
baptism is essential to salvation; and that to call by the
name of regeneration any moral change, from the love of
sin to the love of holiness, which takes place either before
or after baptism, is unscriptural and absurd. This, as I
understand them, is the doctrine maintained by Bishop
Tomline, Bishop Marsh, Bishop Mant, and a number of
other writers, of equal conspicuity, in the church of En-
gland, and by not a few divines of the Protestant Episcopal
church in our own country.

This doctrine, I apprehend, is contrary to Scripture ; con-
trary to experience ; contrary to the declared opinion of the
most wise, pious, and venerated divines even of the Episco-
pal denomination ; and adapted to generate the most danger-

ADDITIONAL NOTES. 103

ous errors with regard to Christian character, and the Gospel
plan of salvation.

1. It is contrary to Scripture. Without regeneration, the
Scriptures declare, it is impossible to enter into the kingdom
of heaven. But the penitent malefactor on the cross un-
doubtedly entered into the kingdom of heaven, if we are to
credit our Lord's express declaration. Yet this penitent,
believing malefactor was never baptized, therefore he was
regenerated without baptism ; and of course, regeneration
and baptism are not inseparably connected. Again, Simon
Magus received the outward and visible ordinance of bap-
tism, with unquestionable regularity, by an authorized ad-
ministrator ; yet who will venture to say, that he received
the " inward and invisible grace" signified and represented
in that ordinance ? He was evidently from the beginning a
hypocrite, and remained, after baptism, as before " in the
gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity." Therefore
the outward and sensible sign, and the inward and invisible
grace are not in all cases, or necessarily, connected. Again ;
it is evident that the apostle Paul, Lydia, the Ethiopian
eunuch, the Philippian jailor, &c. " believed with the heart,"
and were, consequently, brought into a state of acceptance
with God before they were baptized, But we are told (John
i. 12, 13,) that as many as believe have been " born of God,"
and made the " sons of God." Of course, regeneration may
take place, i^ the case of adults, ought to take place, and in
these cases, did take place, before baptism ; and, conse-
quently, is not the same thing with baptism, or inseparably
connected with that rite. Once more ; we are assured in
Scripture, that " he who is born of God, or regenerated, doth
not commit sin, (that is, deliberately or habitually,) for his
seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born
of God;" and farther, that ''every one that loveth is 'born
of God' and knoweth God ;" and that " whosoever believ-
eth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." But can it be
said that this character belongs to all who are baptized ? Or,
that none who are unbaptized manifest that they possess it?
Surely no one in his senses will venture to make the asser-
tion. Therefore a man may be " born of God" before he is
baptized, and, consequently, the administration of the out-
ward ordinance, and that work of the Holy Spirit, called in
the word of God regeneration, are not always connected.

2. The doctrine before us is as contrary to experience as
it is to Scripture. " It is asserted," says an eminent divine
of the church of England, now living — " It is asserted, that

104 ADDITIONAL NOTES.

the spiritual change of heart called regeneration invariably
takes place in the precise article of baptism. If this assertion
be well founded, the spiritual change in question will in-
variably take place in every adult at the identical moment
when he is baptized ; that is to say, at the very instant when
the hand of the priest brings his body in contact with the
baptismal water ; at that precise instant, his understanding
begins to be illuminated, his will to be reformed, and his af-
fections to be purified. Hitherto he has walked in darkness ;
but now, to use the scriptural phrase, he has passed from dark-
ness to light. Hitherto he has been wrapped in a death-like
sleep of trespasses and sins ; but now he awakes, and rises
from the dead, Christ himself giving him life. Hitherto he
has been a chaos of vice, and ignorance, and spiritual con^
fusion ; the natural man receiving not the things of the Spirit
of God, for they are foolishness unto him : but now he is
created after God In righteousness and true holiness ; being
in Christ he is a ' new creature ;' having become spiritual,
tke things of the Spirit of God are no longer foolishness to
him ; he knows them because they are spiritually discerned.
Such are the emphatic terms in which regeneration is de-
scribed by the inspired writers. What we have to do, there-
fore, I apprehend, is forthwith to inquire, whether every
baptized adult, without a single exception, is invariably
found to declare, that, in the precise article of baptism, his
soul experienced a change analogous to that which is so un-
equivocally set forth in the above mentioned texts of Scrip-
ture."* We need not dwell long on the inquiry. The fact
is notoriously not so. Nor does it diminish the difficulty, in
admitting the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, to say, as
the Arminian advocates of this doctrine invariably do say,
that those who are once regenerated may fall from grace, and
manifest a most unhallowed temper This is not the ques-
tion. The question is, does experience evince, that every
subject of baptism, who has reached an age capable of mani-
festing the Christian character, does, at the moment of receiv-
ing the baptismal water, show that he is the subject of that
regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, by which " old
things are passed away, and all things become new in the
Lord ?" No one who has a particle of intelligence or can-
dour can imagine that any such fact exists ; but if it do not,
then the doctrine under consideration falls of course.

3. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is contrary to

Faher's Sermons, Vol. I. p. 145, 146.

ADDITIONAL NOTES. 105

the declared opinion of the most pious, judicious, and vene-
rable Protestant divines, including those ol the very highest
authority in the church of England. Nothing can be more
certain than that the mass of the English reformers distinctly
taught that baptism is a sign only of regeneration, and that
the thing signified might or might not accompany the ad-
ministration of the outward ordinance, according as it was
received worthily or otherwise. In support of this assertion,
the most explicit quotations might be presented from the
writings of those distinguished martyrs and prelates, Cran-
mer, Latimer, Ridley, and Hooper ; and after them from the
writings of the eminent bishops, Jewell, Davenant, Hall,
Usher, Reynolds, Leighton, Hopkins, Tillotson, Beveridge,
Burnet, Seeker, and a host of other divines of the English
church, of whose elevated character it would be little less
than an insult to any intelligent reader to attempt to offer
testimony. All these men declare in the most solemn man-
ner, against the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, in the
sense which, we are now considering. Indeed, I cannot call
to mind a single writer of that church, from the time of
Archbishop Cranmer to the present hour, who had the least
claim to the character of an evangelical man, who did not re-
pudiate the doctrine which I am now opposing ; and not a
few of them denounce it as Popish, and adapted to subvert
the whole system of vital and spiritual religion.

4. The last argument which I shall urge against the doc-
trine of baptismal regeneration, is, that it is adapted to ge-
nerate the most fatal errors with regard to the Gospel plan
of salvation.

So far as this doctrine is believed, its native tendency is,
to beget a superstitious and unwarranted reliance on an exter-
nal ordinance ; to lower our estimate of that inward spiritual
sanctification which constitutes the essence of the Christian
character; in fact, to supersede the necessity of that spiritual
change of heart, of which the Scriptures speak so much, and
for which the most holy and eminent servants of Christ
have, in all ages, contended. The truth is, the doctrine now
under consideration is the very same in substance, with the
doctrine of the opus operatum of the Papists, which all
evangelical Protestants have been opposing for more than
three hundred years, as a mischievous delusion. Accor-
dingly, the Popish character and fatal tendency of this error
have been unreservedly acknowledged by many bishops, and
other pious divines of the church of England, as well as by
many of the same denomination in this country.
25* 10*

106 ADDITIONAL NOTES.

Further ; if regeneration, which is the commencement of
holiness in the soul, is always communicated in baptism,
then it follows, as, indeed, those who entertain this doctrine
distinctly avow, — that baptism invariably places its subject in
a state of salvation ; so that every baptized person who dies
immediately after the administration of this sacrament, is in-
fallibly sure of entering the kingdom of heaven. If this doc-
trine were fully believed, would not every thinkmg, anxious
parent refrain from having his child baptized in infancy, and
reserve the ordinance for an hour of extremity, such as the
approach of death, that it might serve as an unfailing pass-
port to glory ? Would it not be wise in every adult who
may be brought to a knowledge of the Saviour, from Pagan-
ism, or from the world, to put off his baptism to the last hour
of his life, that he might be sure of departmg in safety? This
is well known to have been one of the actual corruptions ot
the fourth century, growing out of the very error which I am
ROW opposing. "It was the custom of many," says Dr.
Mosheim, " in that century, to put off their baptism till the
last hour ; that thus immediately after receiving by this
rite the remission of their sins, they might ascend pure and
spotless to the mansions of life and immortality." This is
no far-fetched or strange conceit. It is the native fruit of the
doctrine before us. Nay, if we suppose this pernicious
theory to take full possession of the mind, would it not be
natural that a tender parent should anxiously desire his child
to die immediately after baptism ; or even, in a desperate
case, to compiass its death, as infallibly for its eternal benefit?
And, on the same principle, might we not pray for the death
of every adult, immediately after he had received baptism,
believing that then " to die would certainly be gain ?" In
fine, I see not, if the doctrine be true, that a regenerating and
saving efficacy attends every regular baptism — I see not how
we can avoid the conclusion, that every Pagan, whether child
or adult, that can be seized by force, and however thought-
less, reluctant or profane, made to submit to the rite of bap-
tism, is thereby infallibly made " a child of God, and an in-
heritor of the kingdom of heaven ?"

These consequences, which appear to me demonstrably to
flow from the theory in question, afford sufficient evidence
that it is an unscriptural and pernicious error, even if no
other means of refutation could be found.

It is not forgotten that language which seems, at first view,
to countenance the doctrine which I am opposing, is found
in some of the early Fathers. Some of them employ terms

ADDITIONAL NOTES. 107

which would imply, if interpreted literally, that baptism and
regeneration were the same thing. But the reason of this is
obvious. The Jews were accustomed to call the converts to
their religion from the Gentiles little children, and their in-
troduction into the Jewish church, a new birth, because they
were brought, as it were, into a new moral world. Accord
ingly, circumcision is repeatedly called in Scripture '■'•thi
covenant,''^ because it was the sign of the covenant. After
wards, when baptism, as a Christian ordinance, became
identified with the reception of the Gospel, the early writers
and preachers began to call this ordinance regeneration, and
sometimes illumination, because every adtdt who was bap-
tized, professed to be born of God, illuminated by the Holy
Spirit. By a common figure of speech, they called the sign
by the name of the thing signified. In the truly primitive
times this language was harmless, and well understood; bu;
as superstition increased, it gradually led to mischievou?
error, and became the parent of complicated and deplorable,
delusions.

11. But there is another view of the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration, which is sometimes taken, and which, though
less pernicious than that which has been examined, is still, I
apprehend, fitted to mislead, and, of course, to do essential
mischief. It is this : That baptism is that rite which marks
and ratifies the introduction of its subject into the visible
kingdom of Christ; that in this ordinance the baptized person
is brought into a new state or relation to Christ, and his
sacred family ; and that this new state or relation is desig-
nated in the Scripture by the term regeneration, being in-
tended to express an ecclesiastical birth, that is, being
"born" into the visible kingdom of the Redeemer. Those
who entertain this opinion do not deny, that there is a great
moral change, wrought by the Spirit of God, which must
pass upon every one, before he can be in a state of salvation.
This they call conversion, renovation, &c. ; but they tell us
that the term '^regeneration''^ ought not to be applied to
this spiritual change ; that it ought to be confined to that
change of state and of relation to the visible kingdom oj
Christ which is constituted by baptism ; so that a person,
according to them, may be regenerated, that is, regularly in-
troduced into the visible church, without being really born of
the Spirit. This theory, though by no means so fatal in its
tendency as the preceding, still appears to me liable to the
following serious objections.

1. It makes an unauthorised use of an important theologi-

108 ADDITIONAL NOTES.

cal term. It is vain to say, that, after giving fair notice of
the sense in which we use a term, no misapprehension or
harm can result from the constant use of it in that sense.
The plea is insufficient. If the sense in question be an un-
usual and especially an unscriptural one, no one can estimate
the mischief which may result from the use of it in that
sense. Names are so closely connected with things, that it
is of the utmost importance to preserve the nomenclature of
theology from perversion and abuse. If the sense of the
word " regeneration" which is embraced in this theory,
were now by common consent admitted, it would give an
entirely nevv^ aspect to all those passages of Scripture in
which either regeneration or baptism is mentioned, making
some of them unmeaning, and others ridiculous ; and render
unintelligible, and in a great measure useless, if not delusive,
nine-tenths of the best works on the subject of practical reli-
gion that have ever been written.

2. But there is a more serious objection. If men be told
that every one who is baptized, is thereby regenerated —
"born of God" — "born of the Spirit," — made a "new
creature in Christ," — will not the mass of mankind, in spite
of every precaution and explanation that can be employed,
be likely to mistake on a fundamental point ; to imagine that
the disease of our nature is trivial, and that a trivial remedy
for it will answer; to lay more stress than they ought upon
an external rite ; and to make a much lower estimate than
they ought of the nature and necessity of that holiness with-
out which no man shall see the Lord ?

After all, however, although the doctrine of baptismal re-
generation, in the first and most objectionable sense, is
known to be rejected by all the truly evangelical divines of
the church of England, and by the same class in the Protes-
tant Episcopal church in this country ; yet it cannot be de-
nied that something, to say the least, very like this doctrine
is embodied in the baptismal service of that denomination on
both sides of the Atlantic. The following specimens of its
language will at once illustrate and confirm my meaning:
" Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is re-
generate, and grafted into the body of Chrisfs church, let
us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits, and
with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this child
may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning."
And again: "We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful
Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infarct hy
thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by adop-

ADDITIONAL NOTES. 109

tion, and to incorporate him into thy holy church," &c.
The same language is also repeated in the baptismal service
for " those of riper years." They are represented as being
*' regenerated ;" as being " born again," and *' made heirs of
salvation ;" and as having " put on Christ." This language
is differently interpreted, by the Episcopal ministers who
employ it, according to the opinion which they adopt with
regard to baptism. Those who coincide in opinion with
Bishop Mant, and others of similar sentiments, make no
scruple of avowing, that these expressions literally import,
what they fully believe, that every one who is duly baptized,
IS, in a'lid by that rite, born of the Spirit, and brought into a
state of grace and salvation. A second class of interpreters,
however, consider this language of the Liturgy as merely
importing that the person baptized is brought into a new
state, or a new relation to the visible church. While a third
class, although they acknowledge that the language before
us, literally interpreted, does certainly express more than a
mere visible relation, even the participation of truly spiritual
and saving blessings ; yet say, that they can conscientiously
employ it, because a Liturgy intended for general use, ought
to be, and must be, constructed upon the principle, that those
who come to receive its offices are all to be considered as
sincere, and as having a rights in the sight of God, to the
ordinance for which they apply ! And thus it happens, that
those who reject as Popish and delusive, the doctrine of
baptismal regeneration, as taught by Mant, and those who
concur with him, feel no difficulty in publicly and solemnly
repeating this language, every time they administer the ordi-
nance of baptism.

It is not for one of another communion to interpose be-
tween the consciences of Episcopal ministers, and the im-
port of their public formularies. In fidelity to my own
principles, however, and as a warning to those of my own
church who may be assailed by the proselyting effiarts of
some of this denomination, I may be permitted to say, that
if I believed with Bishop Mant, and his associates in senti-
ment, the language of the baptismal service would be entirely
to my taste ; but if not, I could not, on any account, con-
scientiously employ it. It would not satisfy me to be told,
that the language of one of the Thirty-nine Articles, and
some of the language found in the Book of Homihes, bears
a different aspect. This is, no doubt, true. Still this does
not remove or alter the language of the baptismal service.
There it stands, a distress and a snare to thousands of good

110 ADDITIONAL NOTES.

men, who acknowledge that they could wish it otherwise,
but dare not modify it in the smallest jot or tittle.* Had I
no other objection to ministering in the church of England,
or in the corresponding denomination in this country — this
part of ihe Liturgy would alone be an insurmountable one.
I could not consent continually to employ language, which,
however explained or counteracted, is so directly adapted to
deceive in a most vital point of practical religion. I could
not allow myself to sanction by adoption and use, language
which, however explained and counteracted in my own min-
istry, I knew to be presented and urged by many around me
in its literal import, and declared to be the only true doctrine
of the church.

As to the plea, that a Liturgy must necessarily be con-
structed upon the principle that all who come to its offices
must be presumed to be sincere, and be solemnly assured, in
the name of God, that they are so, nothing can be more de-
lusive. Cannot scriptural truth be as plainly stated, and as
Avisely guarded in a liturgical composition as in any other ?
Oar Methodist brethren have a prescribed form for baptism ;
and so far as I recollect its language, they have succeeded,
without apparent difficulty, in making it at once instructive,
solemn, appropriate, and unexceptionable. And I have heard
Presbyterian ministers a thousand times tell their hearers,
with as much distinctness in administering sacraments, as 'in
ordinary preaching, that " the sacraments become effectual to
salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth
administer them ; but only by the blessing of Christ, and
the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them^

But it may be asked, what kind or degree of efficacy do
Presbyterians consider as connected with baptism ? Do they
suppose that there is any beneficial influence, physical or
moral, in all cases, connected with the due administration of
this sacrament ? I answer, none at all. They suppose that
the washing with water in this ordinance is an emblem and a
sign of precious benefits ; that it holds forth certain great
truths, which are the glory of the Christian covenant, and
the joy of the Christians's heart ; that it is a seal affixed by
God to his covenant with his people, whereby he certifies

* An evangelical and deeply conscientious minister of the Episcopal
church, who, after struggling for some time with the most distressing
scruples, as to this very feature in the baptismal service, ventured to
alter a few words, was forthwith given to understand, that such liber-
ties would not be tolerated, and was soon constrained to withdraw from
the Episcopal communion.

ADDITIONAL NOTES. Ill

his purposes of grace, and pledges his blessing to all who re-
ceive it with a living faith ; nay, that it is the seal of valuable
outward privileges, even to those who are not then, or at
any other time, " born of the Spirit;" that, as a solemn rite
appointed by Christ, it is adapted to make a solemn impres-
sion on the serious mind ; but that v/hen it is administered to
the persons, or the offspring of those who are entirely desti-
tute of faith, there is no pledge or certainty that it will be
accompanied with any blessing. They receive the ivater,
but not the Spirit. They are engrafted into the visible
church, but not into the spiritual body of Christ, and are,
after baptism, just as they were before, like Simon the
Sorcerer, "in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of
iniquity."

(Note C.)
sponsors in baptism.

It is well known that the Presbyterian church differs from
the Episcopal in regard to the subject announced at the head
of this note. We differ in two respects. First, in not re-
quiring or encourag 'ng the appearance of any other sponsors,
in the baptism of children, than the parents, when they are
living and qualified to present themselves in this character :
and secondly, in not requiring, or even admitting, any god-
fathers or godmothers at all in cases of adult bapUsm. My
object in the remarks which I am about to make on this sub-
ject, is, not to impugn either the principles or practice of our
Episcopal brethren; but simply to state, for the instruction
of the members of our own church, why we cannot think or
act with them in relation to this matter.

It is curious to observe the several steps by which the use
of sponsors, as now established in the Romish and some
Protestant churches, reached its present form. Within the
first five or six hundred years after Christ, there is no evi-
dence that children were ever presented for baptism by any
other persons than their parents, provided those parents
were living, and were professing Christians. When some
persons in the time of Augustine, who flourished toward the
close of the fourth, and beginning of the fifth century, con-
tended that it was not lawful, in any case, for any excepting
their natural parents to offer children in baptism ; that learned

112

ADDITIONAL NOTES.

and pious father opposed them, and gave it as his opinion,
that in extraordinary cases, as, for example, when the
parents were dead; when they were not professing Chris-
tians ; when they cruelly forsook and exposed their off-
spring; and when masters had young slaves committed to
their charge, in these cases, (and the pious Father mentions
no others,) he maintains that any professing Christians, who
should be willing to undertake the benevolent charge, might
with propriety, take these children, offer them in baptism,
and become responsible for their Christian education. This,
every one will perceive, is in strict conformity with the
principles maintained in the foregoing essay, and with the
doctrine and habits of the Presbyterian church.

The learned Bingham, an Episcopal divine of great learn-
ing, seems to have taken unwearied pains, in his " Ecclesi-
astical Antiquities," to collect every scrap of testimony with-
in his reach, in favour of the early origin of sponsors. But
he utterly fails of producing even plausible evidence to that
amount; and at length candidly acknowledges that in the
early ages, parents were, in all ordinary cases, the presentors
and sureties for their own children ; and that children were
presented by others only in extraordinary cases, such as
those already alluded to. It is true, indeed, that some
writers, more sanguine than discriminating, have quoted
Dionysius, Tertullian, and Cyril of Alexandria, as affording
countenance to the use of sponsors in early times. Not one
of those writers, however, has written a sentence which
favours the use of any other sponsors than parents, when
they were in life, and of a proper character to offer their
children for the sacramental sealin question. Even Diony-
sius, whose language has, at first view, some appearance of
favouring such sponsors ; yet, when carefully examined,
will be found to speak only of sponsors who undertook to
train up in the Christian religion some of the children of Pa-
gans, who were delivered, for this purpose, into the hands of
these benevolent sureties, by their unbelieving parents. But
this, surely, is not inconsistent with what has been said.
And, after all, the writings of this very Dionysius are given
up by the learned Wall, and by the still more learned and
illustrious Archbishop Usher, as a "gross and impudent
forgery," unworthy of the least credit.

It was not until the council of Mentz, in the ninth century,
that the church of Rome forbade the appearance of parents
as sponsors for their own children, and required that this
service be surrendered to other hands.

ADDITIONAL NOTES. 113

Mention is made, by Cyril, in the ffth century, and by
Fiilgentius in the sixth, of sponsors in some peculiar cases
oi adult baptism. When adults, about to be baptized, were
dumb, or under the power of delirium, through disease, and
of course unable to speak for themselves, or to make the
usual profession ; in such cases it was customary for some
friend or friends to answer for them, and to bear testimony to
their good character, and to the fact of their having before
expressed a desire to be baptized. For this, there was, un
doubtedly, some reason; and the same thing might, with
propriety, in conceivable circumstances be done now. From
this, however, there was a transition soon made to the use of
sponsors in all cases of adult baptism. This latter, how-
ever, was upon a diflf'erent principle from the former. When
adults had the gifts of speech and reason, and v/ere able to
answer for themselves, the sponsors provided for such, never
answered or professed for them. This was invariably done
by the adult himself. Their only business, as it would ap-
pear, was to be a kind of curators or guardians of the spiritu-
al life of the persons baptized. This office was generally
fulfilled, in each church, by the deacons when adult males
were baptized ; and by the deaconesses when females came
forward to receive this ordinance.

Among the pious Waldenses and Albigenses, in the middle
ages, no other sponsors than parents seem to have been in
common use. In one of their catechisms, as preserved by
Perrin, and Morland, they ask, " By whom ought children
to be presented in baptism?" Answer, "By their parents,
or by any others who may be inspired with this charity ;"
which is evidently intended to mean, as other documents re-
specting them show, that where the parents were dead, or
absent, or could not act, other pious professors of rehgion
might take their places.

According to one of the canons of the church of England,
" parents are not to be urged to be present when their chil-
dren are baptized, nor to be permitted to stand as sponsors
for their own children." In the Protestant Episcopal church
in this country, parents " shall be admitted as sponsors if it
be desired." But in both countries it is required that there be
godfathers and godmothers for all adults, as well as for infants

The baptismal service of the Methodist church in the United
States, for infants, does not recognise the use of any sponsors
at all, excepting the parents, or whatever other "friends"
may present them.

It is plain then, that the early history of the church, as
26 11

114 ADDITIONAL NOTES,

well as the word of God, abundantly sustains the doctrine
and practice of the Presbyterian church in this matter. We
maintain, that as the right of the children of believers to bap-
tism, flows from the membership and faith of their parents
according to the flesh ; so those parents, if living, are the
only proper persons to present them for the reception of this
covenant seal. If, however, their proper parents, on any
account, cannot do this, they may, upon our principles, with
propriety, be presented by any professed believers, who,
quoad hoc, adopt them as their children, and are willing to
engage, as parents, to " bring them up in the nurture and ad-
monition of the Lord."

If, indeed, nothing else were contended for in this case,
than that, when believing parents have pious and peculiar
friends who are willing to unite with them in engagements to
educate their children in the true religion, such friends might
be permitted to stand with them ; there might not be so much
to condemn. Even then the solemn question might be asked;
*' Who hath required this at your hands ?" But when the
system is, to set aside parents ; to require that others take
their places, and make engagements which they alone, for
the most part, are qualified to make; and when, in pursu-
ance of this system, thousands are daily making engagements
which they never thinlc of fulfilling, and in most cases, no-
toriously have it not in their power to fulfil, and, indeed, feel
no special obligation to fulfil ; we are constrained to regard
it as a human invention, having no waiTant whatever, either,
from the word of God or primitive usage ; and as adapted,
on a variety of accounts, to generate evil, much evil, rather
than good.

(Note D.)

confirmation.

In the apostolic church, there was no such rite as that
which under this name has been long established m the
Romish communion as a sacrament, and adopted in some
Protestant churches as a solemnity, in their view, if not com-
manded, yet as both expressive and edifying. It is not in-
tended in this note to record a sentence condemnatory of
those who think proper to employ the rite in question : but
only to state "with brevity some of the reasons why the

ADDITIONAL NOTES. 115

fathers of the Presbyterian Church, thought proper to ex-
clude it from their ritual; and why their sons, to the present
hour, have persisted in the same course.

1. We find no foundation for this rite in the word of God.
Indeed our Episcopal brethren, and other Protestants who
employ it, do not pretend to find any direct warrant for it in
Scripture. All they have to allege, which bears the least re-
semblance to any such practice, is the statement recorded in
Acts viii. 14 — 17 : *' 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 had 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." That there is here a reference to the extraor-
dinary or miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, and these
conferred by extraordinary officers, is so perfectly apparent,
that it is no wonder the advocates of Confirmation do not
press it as proof of their point. The only wonder is, that
they ever mention it as aff'ording the most remote counte-
nance to their practice. The diligent reader of Scripture
will find four kinds, or occasions of laying on hands re-
counted in the New Testament. The first, by Christ him-
self, to express an authoritative benediction, Matt. xix. Mark
X. 16 ; the second, in the healing of diseases, Mark xvi. 18,
Acts xxviii, 8 ; the third, in conferring the extraordinary gifts
of the Spirit, Acts viii. 17, xix. 6 ; and the fourth, in setting
apart persons to sacred office. Acts vi. 6. xiii. 3. 1 Tim. iv.
14. The venerable Dr. Oweriy in his commentary on Heb.
vi. 2, expresses the opinion, that the laying on of hands
there spoken of, is to be considered as belonging to the third
class of cases, and, of course, as referring to the extraordi-
nary gifts of the Holy Spirit. Others have supposed that it
rather belongs to the fourth example above enumerated, and
therefore applies to the ordination of ministers. But there is
not a syllable or hint in the whole New Testament which
looks like such a laying on of hands as that for which the
advocates of Confirmation contend.

2. Quite as httle support for Confirmation can be found in
the purest and best periods of uninspired antiquity. Towards
the close of the second century, several uncommanded and
superstitious additions had been made to the ordinance of
baptism. Among these were anointing with oil, in avowed
imitation of the Jewish manner of consecration ; administer

116 ADDITIONAL NOTES.

ing to the baptized individual a mixture of milk and honey
as the symbol of his childhood in a new life, and as a pledge
of that heavenly Canaan, with all its advantages and happi-
ness, to which the hopes of the baptized were directed ; the
laying on of the hands of the minister officiating in baptism,
for imparting the Holy Spirit ; to all which may be added,
that immediately after the close of this century, we find the
practice of exorcism introduced as a preliminary to baptism,
and as a means of expelling all evil spirits from the candidate
for this ordinance. These superstitious additions were made
to succeed each other in the following order ; exorcism, con-
fession ; renunciation ; baptism ; chrismation, or anointing
with oil, which was done in the form of a cross ; and finally,
the laying on of hands, or confirmation, which immediately
followed the anointing with oil, and the administration of the
simple element above mentioned. " As soon as we are bap-
tized," says Tertullian, " we are anointed with the blessed
unction." And he adds, " This miction is according to the
Jewish dispensation, wherein the high priest was anointed
with oil out of a horn." The laying on of hands, or con-
firmation, immediately followed the unction. " As soon as
we come from the baptismal laver," says Tertullian, " We
are anointed, and then hands are imposed." This was con-
sidered as essential to the completion of the ordinance.
" We do not receive the Holy Ghost," says the same father,
"in baptism, but being purified by the water, we are pre-
pared for the Holy Ghost, and by the laying on of hands, the
soul is illuminated by the Spirit." The exorcism, then,
the anointing with oil, the sign of the cross, the imposition
of hands for conveying the Holy Spirit, and the administra-
tion of milk and honey to the candidate, were all human ad-
ditions to baptism, which came in about the same time, and
ought, in our opinion, to be regarded very much in the same
light with a great variety of other additions to the institutions
of Christ, which, though well meant, and not destitute of
expressiveness, are yet wholly unauthorized by the King and
Head of the Church.

3. When the practice of the laying on of hands, as an
ordinary part of the baptismal service, was added, by human
invention, to that ordinance, it always immediately followed
the application of water, and the anointing with oil. " As
soon as we come from the baptismal laver," says Tertullian
" we are anointed, and then hands are laid on." And it is
further acknowledged by aU, that every one who was com-
petent to baptize, was equally competent to lay on hands.

Al>DITIONAL NOTES. 117

The two things always went together; or rather formed
parts of the baptismal ordinance, which was not thought to
be consummated without the imposition of hands by him who
had applied the water and the unction. And this continued
to be the case, throughout the greater part of the church, for
the first three hundred years. Then the term bishop signi-
fied the pastor or overseer of a flock or congregation. Every
pastor was a bishop, as had been the case in apostolic times.
And then, in ordinary cases, none but the bishop or pastor
of each church, administered baptism. Of course, he only
laid on hands. But afterwards, in the progress of corruption,
when Prelacy was gradually brought in, it became custom-
ary, for the sake of doing greater honour to the prelates,
to reserve this imposition of hands to them, as a part of
their official prerogative. Jerome (Dialog. Adv. Lucifer,)
expressly declares, that the committing this benediction
wholly to the bishops, was done " rather in honour of the
priesthood, than from necessity imposed by any law."
Even now, throughout the Greek Church, this rite is admin-
istered, for the most part, in close connection with baptism,
and is dispensed by any priest who is empowered to baptize.
In like manner, in the Lutheran and other German churches,
in which confirmation is retained, it is administered by every
pastor. Still even when confined to prelates, this imposi-
tion of hands was not, in ordinary cases, long separated from
the baptism : for the children were commonly carried to
the bishop to have his hands laid upon them as soon as con-
venient. After a while, however, it became customary to
separate the two things much more widely. Confirmation,
or the laying on of the bishop's hands, began to be post-
poned for a number of years, according to circumstances ;
until, at length, it was often left till the arrival of adult age,
and even, in some cases, till the decline of life. All these
progressive steps evidently ma]i»ied a mere human invention,
for which there is no divine appointment or warrant what-
ever.

4. The rite of confirmation is superfluous. As it was
plainly a human invention, so it is unnecessary, and answers
no purpose which is not quite as well, to say the least, pro-
vided for in the Presbyterian Church, which rejects it. It
is said to be desirable that there should be some transaction
or solemnity by which young people who have been bap-
tized in their infancy, may be called to recognise their reli-
gious obligations, and, as it were, to take upon themselves
the profession and the vows made on their behalf in bap-
26* 11*

118 ADDITIONAL NOTES.

tism ? Granted. There can be no doubt that such a solem-
nity is both reasonable in itself, and edifying in its tendency.
But have we not just such a solemnity in the Lord's Sup-
per; an ordinance divinely instituted; an ordinance on
which all are qualified to attend, and ought to attend, who
are qualified to take on themselves, in any scriptural or ra-
tional sense, their baptismal obligations; an ordinance, in
fact, specifically intended, among other things, to answer
this very purpose, viz. the purpose of making a personal
acknowledgment and profession of the truth, the service, and
the hopes of Christ : — have we not, I say, in the Sacramen-
tal Supper just such a solemnity as we need for the end in
(question — simple, rational, scriptural, and to which all our
children may come, just as soon as they are prepared in any
form to confess Christ before men? We do not need confir-
mation, then, for the purpose for which it is professed to be
desired. We have something better, because appointed of
God ; quite as expressive ; more solemn ; and free from cer-
tain objectionable features which are now to be mentioned.
5. Finally; we reject the rite of confirmation in our
Church, because in addition to all the reasons which have
been mentioned, we consider the formula prescribed for its
administration in the Church of England, and substantially
adopted by the Episcopal Church in this country, as liable
to the most serious objections. We do not think it a duty
in any form, to practise a rite which the Saviour never ap-
pointed ; but our repugnance is greatly increased by the
language with which the rite in question is administered by
those who employ it. In the " Order of Confirmation," as
prescribed and used in the Protestant Episcopal Church in
the United States, the following language occurs. Before
the act of laying on hands, the officiating bishop, in his
prayer repeats the following language ; " Almighty and ever
living God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these thy
servants, by water and the Holy Ghost, and hast given
unto them forgiveness of all their sins," &;c. &;c. And again,
in another prayer, after the act of confirmation is completed,
he speaks to the Searcher of hearts thus — "We make our
humble supplications unto thee for these thy servants, upon
whom, after the example of thy holy apostles, we have now
laid our hands ; to certify them by this sign of thy favour
and gracious goodness towards them," &;c. And also, in
the act of laying on hands, assuming that all who are kneel-
ing before him already have the holy sanctifying spirit of
Christ, he prays that they " may all daily increase in this
Holy Spirit more and more."

ADDITIONAL NOTES. 119

Such is the language addressed to large circles of young
people of both sexes, many of whom there is every reason
to fear, are very far from having been " born of the Spirit,"
in the Bible sense of that phrase ; nay, some of whom mani-
fest so little seriousness, that any pastor of enlightened piety
would be pained to see them at a communion table ; yet the
bishop pronounces them all — and he appeals to heaven for
the truth of his sentence — he pronounces them all regene-
rate, not only by vjater, but also by the Holy Ghost ; cer-
tifies to them, in the name of God, that they are objects of
the divine ^^favour ^^^ and declares that, being already in a
state of grace and favour with God, they are called to " grow
in grace ;" to " increase in the Holy Spirit more and more,"

There are many who have long regarded, and who now
regard this language not only with regret, but with shudder-
ing, as adapted to cherish false hopes, nay, to deceive and
destroy souls by wholesale. I must again say, that if there
were no other obstacle to my consenting to minister in the
Protestant Episcopal church, this alone would be an insur-
mountable one. For it must come home to the conscience
and the feelings, not of the bishop only, but of every pastor
in that church who has, from time to time, a circle of belo-
ved youth to present for confirmation. It is vain to say, that
the church presumes that all who come are sincere, and of
course born of the Spirit, and in a state of favour with God.
This is the very point of our objection. She so presumes,
and undertakes to " certify''^ them of it. Presbyterian min-
isters do not, dare not, use such language. They do not
and dare not, undertake to " certify" to any number of the
most mature and exemplary communicants that ever gathered
round a sacramental table, that they are all in a state of grace
and salvation, and that they have nothing to do but to " follow
on," and " increase in the Holy Spirit." Nor is it a suffi-
cient answer, I repeat, to say, that a liturgy, being a fixed
composition, cannot be so constructed as to discriminate
between different characters. This is denied. Every en-
lightened and faithful minister of whatever denomination,
who is at liberty to employ such language as he approves,
knows how to express himself, both in prayer and preach-
ing, in discriminating and expressive terms ; and how to
avoid modes of expression adapted to deceive and betray un-
wary souls. It is surely not impracticable to address the
largest and most promiscuous assembly in a manner Avhich
though not adapted to the precise case of every individual
shall be at least free from error, free from every thing of a

120 ADDITIONAL NOTES.

deceptive and ensnaring character. Our Methodist breth
ren, it was before remarked, have a prescribed liturgical
form for baptism ; which they have rendered sufficiently-
discriminating, and at the same time unexceptionably safe.
And, what is not unworthy of notice in this place, though
the liturgy of the Protestant Episcopal church is evidently
the model which, to a certain extent, they have kept before
them in constructing their own, they have wisely discarded
altogether the ceremony of confirmation from their ritual.

The advocates of confirmation, as a separate ecclesiastical
rite, seldom fail of quoting Calvin as expressing an opinion
decisively in favour of it. This is doing great injustice to
that illustrious man. Calvin directly and warmly opposes
the idea of confirmation being considered as a distinct ordi-
nance, claiming divine authority in the Church of God.
This he reprobates ; and especially the practice of confining
the administration of it to prelates ; but adds, " that he has
no objection to parents bringing their children to their minis-
ter, at the close of childhood, or the commencement of ado-
lescence, to be examined according to the catechism in com-
mon use, and then, for the sake of greater dignity and reve-
rence, closing the ceremony by the imposition, of hands.
" Such imposition of hands, therefore, says he, as is simply
connected with benediction, I highly approve, and wish it
were now restored to its primitive use, uncorrupted by su-
perstition." (Institutiones, Lib. iv. cap. xix. § 4). But
what serves to throw light on Calvin's real sentiments on
this whole subject is that, in commenting on Acts viii. 17, he
reproaches the Papists for pressing that passage into the sup-
port of their sacrament of confirmation ; and not only asserts,
but proves, that the laying on of hands there spoken of, re-
lates, not at all to the ordinary and sanctifying, but to the
miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, which have long since
ceased in the church ; and, of course, that the passage in
question ought never to be quoted in favour of confirmation,
or of any other permanent rite in the Christian Church

(Note E.)

vote of the westminster assembly respecting baptisbf.

It has been sometimes ignorantly, and most erroneously
asserted that the Wesminster Assembly of divines, in put-

ADDITIONAL NOTES. 121

ting to vote, whether baptism should be performed by sprink-
ling or immersion^ carried it in favour of sprinkling, by a
majority of one only. This is wholly incorrect. The facts
were these. When the committee who had been charged
with preparing a " Directory for the worship of God,"
brought in their report, they had spoken of the mode of bap-
tism thus : " It is lawful and sufficient to sprinkle the child."
To this Dr. Lightfoot, among others, objected; not because
he doubted of the entire sufficiency of sprinkling ; for he de-
cidedly preferred sprinkling to immersion ; but because he
thought there was an impropriety in pronouncing that mode
lawful only, when no one present had any doubts of its be-
ing so, and when almost all preferred it. Others seemed to
think, that by saying nothing about dipping, that mode was
meant to be excluded, as not a lauful mode. This they did
not wish to pronounce. When, therefore, the clause, as
originally reported, was put to vote, there were twenty-five
votes in favour of it, and twenty-four against it. After this
vote, a motion was made and carried, that it be recommitted.
The next day, when the committee reported, and when some
of the members still seemed unwilling to exclude all mention
of dipping. Dr. Lightfoot remarked, that to say that pouring
or sprinkling was lawful, would be " all one as saying, that
it was lawful to use bread and wine in the Lord's Supper."
He, therefore, moved that the clause in the " Directory" re-
specting the mode of baptism, be expressed thus :

*' Then the minister is to demand the name of the child,
which being told him, he is to say (calUng the child by his
name) —

" / baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

"As he pronounceth these words, he is to baptize the
child with water, which, for the manner of doing it, is not
only lawful, but sufficient, and jnost expedient to be, by
vouring or sprinkling of the water on the face of the child,
without adding any other ceremony." This was carried.
See LightfooVs Life, prefixed to the first volume of his
Works, (folio edition,) p. 4; compared with NeaWs His-
tory of the Puritans, vol. ii. p. 106, 107, compared with the
Appendix, No. II. (quarto edition,) where the " Directory,"
as finally passed, is given at full length.

We do not learn, precisely, either from Lightfoot's biogra-
pher, (who was no other than the indefatigable Strype,) or
from Neal, by what vote the clause, as moved by Lightfoot
was finaUy adopted; but Neal expressly tells us, that " the
Directory passed the Assembly with great unanimity."

122 ADDITIONAL NOTES.

From this statement, it is evident, that the question which
was carried in the Assembly, by a majority of one, was, not
whether affusion or sprinkUng was a lawful mode of bap-
tism ; but whether all mention of dipping, as one of the law-
ful modes should be omitted. This, in an early stage of the
discussion, was carried, by a majority of one in the affirma-
tive. But it would seem that the clause, as finally adopted,
which certainly was far more decisive in favour of sprinkling
or affusion, was passed " with great unanimity. ^^ At any
rate, nothing can be more evident, than that the clause as it
originally stood, being carried by one vote only, and after-
wards, when recommitted, and so altered as to be much
stronger in favour of sprinkling, and then adopted without
difficulty, the common statement of this matter by our Bap-
tist brethren is an entire misrepresentation.

THE END.