1. The Origin of Baptism.— Christian theologians do not require to go further back than to the New Testament, for there, in the record of our Lord’s life, and in the writings of His apostles, they find all that is required to form a basis for their doctrines. The principal passages in the New Testament in which baptism is described are as follows :—Matt, xxviii. 18-20; Mark xvi. 16; John iii. 26; Acts ii. 38, x. 44,∕ ’. ,viii. 16, xix. ], ff., xxii. 16; Rom. vi. 4; 1 Cor. i. 14-16, vi. 11; Eph. v. 26; Col. ii. 12; Heb. x. 22, 23, &c. From these texts we learn that baptism is specially connected with the gift of the Holy Spirit, with the forgiveness of sins, with our being buried with Christ; and we are also taught by whom baptism is to be administered, and who are the proper partakers in the ordinance. It is from a due arrangement and comparison of the conceptions in these texts that a doctrine of baptism has been formed. But while theologians do not require to go beyond the New Testment for the origin and meaning of baptism, historical investigation cannot help trying to trace analogies to the rite in Old Testament and even in Pagan history. In the New Testament itself there are two distinct kinds of baptism spoken of—the baptism of John and Christian baptism. Treatises on Jewish antiquities speak of the baptism of proselytes; and St Paul applies the term baptism to describe certain Old Testament events, and we find in use among certain Pagan tribes rites strongly resembling Christian baptism, so far as external ceremonies go. Hence the question arises, What is the relation of Christian baptism to these 1

Writers on the antiquities of the Christian church were accustomed to find the source of Christian baptism in the baptism of John, and to assert that John’s baptism was simply a universal and symbolical use of the well known ceremony of the baptism of proselytes, and they connected this Jewish rite with Old Testament and even with Pagan lustrations. But this mode of explanation must now be abandoned. It is very difficult to show any real connection between the baptism of John and Christian baptism further than the general relation which all the actions of the forerunner must have had to those of the Messiah. We know very little about the baptism of John, and all attempts to describe it minutely are founded either upon conjecture or upon its identity with the baptism of proselytes. Was John’s baptism an initiation, and if so, initiation into what? Did Christ baptize in His lifetime, or did Christian baptism properly begin after Christ’s death, and after the mission of the Holy Ghost Ί What was the formula of John’s baptism, and was there any change or growth in the formula of Christian baptism 1 (The Tübingen School, for example, think that the formula in Acts ii. is much earlier than the complete and more developed one in Matt, xxviii. 19.) All these questions require to be answered w ith much more precision than the present state of our information admits of, before we can define the precise relation subsisting between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ.

The connection between the baptism of John and the Jewish baptism of proselytes, of which a great deal has been made, is also founded on assumptions which cannot be proved. This very plausible theory first assumes that proselytes were baptized from an early time in the Jewish Church, although the Old Testament tells us nothing about it, and then supposée that John simply made use of this ordinary Jewish rite for the purpose of declaring symbolically that the whole Jewish nation were disfranchised, and had to be re-admitted into the spiritual Israel by means of the same ceremony which gave entrance to members of heathen nations. But the subject of the baptism of proselytes is one of the most hopelessly obscure in the whole round of J ewish antiquities, and can never be safely assumed in any argument; and the general results of investigation seem to prove that the baptism of proselytes was not one of the Jewish ceremonies until long after the coming of Christ, while there is much to suggest that this Jewish rite owes its origin to Christian baptism. Others again, as Steitz, find the historical basis of baptism in the lustrations or sprinklings with water so often mentioned in the Old Testament, in such symbolical acts as Naaman’s bathing in the Jordan, and in various prophecies where purification from sin is denoted by sprinkling, e.g., Ezek. xxxvi. 25-30, Zech, xiii. 1, &c.; but such anticipations can scarcely be called the historical origin of the rite. Many modern writers connect baptism with certain Pagan rites, and point to the lustrations in use in religious initiation among the Egyptians, Persians, and especially the Hindus, but very little can be made of such far-fetched analogies. Perhaps the most curious instance of this kind is to be found in the double baptism,—the one Pagan and civil, and the other religious and Christian,—which existed side by side with each other in Norway and Iceland. The Pagan rite was called “ansa vatri,” while the name for Christian baptism was “skéro.” The Pagan rite was much older than the introduction of Christianity, and was connected with the savage custom of exposing infants who were not to be brought up. The newly-born infant was presented to the father, who was to decide whether the child was to be reared or not; if he decided to rear it, then water was poured over the child and the father gave it a name; if it was to be exposed, then the ceremony was not gone through. The point to be observed is that, if the child was exposed by any one after the ceremony had been gone through, it was a case of murder, whereas it was not thought a crime if the child was made away with before water had been poured over it and it had been named. The analogy lies in the use of water, the bestowal of the name, and the entrance into civil life through the rite.

II. The Doctrine of Baptism.— Among the Greek Fathers, for it is there we must look for the beginning of the doctrine, baptism was called by various names, all of which referred to the spiritual effects which were supposed to accompany the rite. For example, a common term for baptism was Παλιγγενεσία, or regeneration— for every Christian was supposed to be born again by the waters of baptism. “We fishes,” says Tertullian, “are born in water, conformable to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,—ίχ0υ'ς.” (Tψroυς Xpιστos, Θεοΰ Yioς, ⅜ωτηp = ιχθύς.) It was also called φωτισμό?, or illumination; mysterium ; signaculum, or seal of the Lord; character Dominicus ; gυησLς or μυσταγωγία, the initiation; εφοδίου, or viaticum, from its being administered to departing persons; sacerdotium laid, or the lay priesthood, because allowed, in cases of necessity, to be conferred by laymen; the great circumcision, because it was held to succeed in the room of circumcision; δώρου and χάρισμα κυρίου, the gift of the Lord, because it had Christ for its author, and not man; sometimes by way of eminence simply δώρου; τελείωσις and τελετή, the consecration and consummation, because it gave men the perfection of Christians, and a right to partake of το τελείου, the Lord’s Supper. In studying the statements made by the early Fathers upon baptism, we find not so much a distinct and definite doctrine as gropings toward a doctrine, and it is not until we come to St Augustine that we can find any strict and scientific theory of the nature and effects of the sacrament. The earlier theologians sometimes make statements which imply the most extreme view of the magical effects of the sacrament, and at other times explain its results in a purely ethical way. Thus, for example, Hermas says,—“Our life is sanctified by water;” while Tertullian expressly declares,—“Anima non lavatione sed responsione sancitur.” It should never be forgotten that the abundant use of metaphorical language by the Greek Fathers, and the want of anything like a strictly theological terminology, prevent our finding anything like the precise doctrinal statements which became familiar in the Western Church; while the prevalence of curious Greek physical speculations, which taught the creative power of water, mingled with and distorted the ideas about the effects of the water in baptism. It was St Augustine, the great theologian of the Western Church, who first gave expression to exact dogmatic statements about the nature and meaning of baptism. The real difficulty to be explained was the connection between the outward rite and the inward spiritual change; or to put it more precisely, the relation between the water used and the Holy Spirit who can alone regenerate. The Greek theologians had shirked rather than faced the difficulty, and used terms at one time exaggerating the magical value of the element, at another insisting on the purely ethical and spiritual nature of the rite; but they never attempted to show in what precise relation the external rite stood to the inward change of heart. It is true that one or two theologians had almost anticipated Augustine's view, but the anticipation was more apparent than real, for the theology of the Greek Church in this, as in most other doctrines, is greatly hampered by the mystical tendency to represent regeneration and kindred doctrines much more as a species of chemical change of nature than as a change in the relations of the will. Augustine insisted strongly on the distinction between the sacrament itself and what he called the “res sacramenti,” between the inward and spiritual and the outward and material, and by doing so Augustine became the founder of both the modern Roman Catholic and the modern orthodox Protestant views. Apart from certain modifying influences, it would not be difficult for the orthodox Protestant to subscribe to most of Augustine’s views upon baptism, for he insists strongly on the uselessness of the external sign without the inward blessing of the Spirit. But in this doctrine, as in most others, Augustine’s doctrine of the Church so interfered as to make practically inoperative his more spiritual views of baptism. The Church, Augustine thought, was the body of Christ, and that in a peculiarly external and physical way, and just as the soul of man cannot, so far as we know, exert any influence save upon and through the body, so the Spirit of Christ dispenses His gracious and regenerating influences only through the body of Christ, i.e., the Church. But the Church, Augustine thought, was no invisible spiritual communion. It was the visible kingdom of God, the visible “civitas Dei in peregrination© per terras,” and so entrance into the Church, and the right and possibility of participating in the spiritual benefits which members of the Church can alone enjoy was only possible by means of a visible entrance into this visible kingdom. Thus while Augustine in theory always laid greatest stress upon the work of the Holy Spirit and upon the spiritual side of baptism, he practically gave the impulse to that view of the sacrament which made the external rite of primary importance. It was the Holy Spirit who alone imparted spiritual gifts to the children of God. But the one way by which the benefits of this Spirit could be shared was in the first place through baptism. Baptism was thought to be necessary to salvation, and all who were unbaptized were unsaved. In this way Augustine, while recognizing the spiritual nature of the sacrament, held views about the importance of the rite which were as strong as those of any Greek theologian who had mingled confusedly in his mind Christian doctrines and the maxims of Pagan philosophy about the creative power of the element of water. Of course such a doctrine of the importance of the baptism with water had to be modified to some extent. There were cases of Christian martyrs who had never been baptized, and yet had confessed Christ and died to confess Him: for their sakes the idea of a baptism of blood was brought forward; they were baptized not with water, but in their own blood. And the same desire to widen the circle of the baptized led the way to the recognition of the baptism of heretics, laymen, and nurses. It was the Augustinian doctrine of baptism which was developed by the Schoolmen, and which now is the substance of modern Roman Catholic teaching. The Schoolmen, whose whole theology was dominated by the Augustinian conception of the Church, simply took over and made somewhat more mechanical and less spiritual Augustine’s doctrine. They were enabled to give the doctrine a more precise and definite shape by accommodating it to the terms of the Aristotelian philosophy. They began by distinguishing between the matter and the form of baptism. Had Augustine had this distinction before him he would probably have called the water the matter, and the action of the Holy Spirit the form which verified and gave shape to the matter; but the whole idea of the Schoolmen was much more mechanical, the magical idea of the sacrament came much more into prominence, and the spiritual and ethical fell much more into the background, and with them, while water was the materia sacramenti, the forma sacramenti was the words of the rite,—“I baptize thee,” <tc., &c. Thus insensibly the distinction between the external rite and the work of the Holy Spirit, which Augustine had clearly before him in theory at least, was driven back into its original obscurity, and while it was always held theoretically that the grace conferred in baptism was conferred by the Holy Spirit, still the action of the Spirit was so inseparably connected with the mechanical performance of the rite, that the external ceremony was held to be full warrant for the inward spiritual presence and power, and it was held that in baptism grace was conferred ex opere operato. The actual benefits which were supposed to come in this way were, freedom from original sin and forgiveness of it and all actual sins committed up to the time of baptism, and the implanting of the new spiritual life—a life which could only be slain by a deadly sin. The Scholastic doctrine of baptism is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and the restatements made by Möhler on the one hand, and Jesuit theologians on the other, do not do more than give a poetical colouring to the doctrine, or bring out more thoroughly the magical and mechanical nature of the rite.

The Protestant doctrine of baptism, like the Scholastic or Roman Catholic, is to be traced back to Augustine and hi3 distinction between the sign and the thing signified, and may be looked at as a legitimate development of the Augustinian doctrine, just as that must be considered to be an advance on the doctrine of the early Church Fathers. The early Fathers had confused the sign with the thing signified,—the water with the action of the Holy Spirit,— and could only mark their half-conscious recognition of the distinction by an alternating series of strong statements made now on the one side and now on the other. Augustine distinguished the two with great clearness, but connected them in an external way by means of his conception of the visible Church and of baptism as the door leading into it, and this led his followers to pay exclusive attention to the external side, until the thing signified became lost in the sign. The Protestant theologians connected the two in an internal way by means of the spiritual conception of faith, and so were able always to keep the sign in due subordination to the thing signified. It is faith —not faith in the sense of imperfect knowledge, or assent to intellectual propositions, but faith in the sense of personal trust in a personal Saviour, or “fiducia,” as the 17th century theologians called it—which so connects the water with the presence and power of the Spirit that the one is the means which the other uses to impart His spiritual grace. In this way baptism is looked upon as one of the means of grace, and grace is imparted through it as through the other means—the Lord’s Supper, the Word of God, prayer, &c. Just as the dead letters and sounds of the Word of God are but the signs of the presence and power of His Spirit, and become at His touch the living revelation of the Lord, so in baptism, the outward rite, worthless in itself, becomes the sign and pledge of the presence and power of the Spirit of God; and as, in the case of the Word of God, it is faith or “fiducia” that on the human side connects the external signs with the inward power of the Spirit, so, in baptism, it is the same faith which unites the water and the Spirit. So far all orthodox Protestants are agreed, but in order to show the historical evolution of the doctrine, it is necessary to notice in a sentence the difference between the Lutheran and the Calvinist doctrines. Luther’s own doctrine of baptism changed very much: in the second stage—the stage represented by the tract, De Babyl. Capt. Eccl.— it is not different, in germ at least, from the Calvinist view; but he afterwards drew back and adopted views much nearer to the Scholastic theory. He was evidently afraid that, if he went too far from the Scholastic doctrine, and insisted too strongly on the importance of faith, he migh’t be led on to reject the baptism of infants; and his later theories are a recoil from that. The question which Luther had to face and answer here was, What is meant by faith, the faith which connects the symbol with the reality, and so appropriates the gifts of God’s grace in the sacrament? Is it a faith which begins and ends in the individual act of faith at work in the person that is baptized 1 or is it a much wider thing with a more universal significance Ί Luther did not face this question thoroughly, but his recoil from the Reformed theory of baptism seems to show that he would have taken the former answer. Nor did Calvin face the question; but his doctrine of baptism implies that he would have taken the latter answer. The faith which a man has in Christ, the faith which appropriates, is not the individual’s only, but extends far beyond him and his small circle. It is awakened by the Holy Spirit, it comes into being within the sphere of God’s saving purpose. Its very existence indicates a solidarité between the individual believer and the whole Church of God. Hence on the Reformed doctrine, while faith is essential to the right appropriation of the blessing in the rite, there is no need for thoroughly developed faith in those who are baptized. If they are infants, then they are baptized because of the faith of their parents or near relations, or of the congregation before whom the baptism is performed; only those who are the sponsors for the child bind themselves before God to train up the child to know that it has been baptized, and to appropriate in conscious individual faith the benefits of the ordinance. Such is the Reformed theory of baptism; and it rests upon the ideas of the solidarité of believers, of the prior existence of the Church to the individual believers, and of the ethical unity of the Church. On the other hand, those who hold that the Church is simply the sum of individual men and women, and that it is increased not by the silent widening of the influence of God’s saving purpose within mankind, but by individual conversions and by individuals joining the Church, cannot help regarding infant baptism as a mere mockery. Hence the doctrines of the Anabaptists, Baptists, Mennonites, &c. (see Baptists), who reject infant baptism altogether, and maintain that there can be no valid baptism without the conscious appropriation by an act of faith of the benefits symbolized by the rite. It is to be noticed that the tendency of those who reject infant baptism is to regard the sacrament not so much as a...

It is observable that the baptismal form, above cited from St. Matthew, never occurs in the same words, either in the book of the Acts, or in any of the Epistles. But though the form in St. Matthew never appears elsewhere, the thing intended thereby is always implied. There are many ceremonies delivered by ecclesiastical writers, as used in baptism, which were introduced after the age of Justin Martyr, but which are now disused; as the giving milk and honey to the baptized, in the east; wine and milk, in the west, &c. They also added unction and the imposition of hands. Tertullian is the first who mentions the signing with the sign of the cross, but only as used in private, and not in public worship; and he particularly describes the custom of baptizing without it. Indeed, it does not appear to have been used in baptism till the latter end of the fourth or fifth century; at which time great virtue was ascribed to it. Lactantius, who lived in the beginning of the fourth century, says the devil cannot approach those who have the heavenly mark of the cross upon them as an impregnable fortress to defend them; but he does not say it was used in baptism. After the council of Nice, Christians added to baptism the ceremonies of exorcism and adjuration, to make evil spirits depart from the persons to be baptized. They made several signings with the cross, they used lighted candles, they gave salt to the baptized person to taste, and the priest touched his mouth and ears with spittle, and also blew and spat upon his face. At that time also baptized persons wore white garments till the Sunday following. They had also various other ceremonies; some of which are now abolished, though others of them remain in the church of Rome to this day.

The Quakers assert, that water baptism was never intended to continue in the church of Christ any longer than while Jewish prejudices made such an external ceremony necessary. They argue from Eph. iv, 5, in which _one_ baptism is spoken of as necessary to Christians, that this must be a baptism of the Spirit. But from comparing the texts that relate to this institution, it will plainly appear that water baptism was instituted by Christ in more general terms than will agree with this explication. That it was administered to all the Gentile converts, and not confined to the Jews, appears from Matt. xxviii, 19, 20, compared with Acts x, 47; and that the baptism of the Spirit did not supersede water baptism appears to have been the judgment of Peter and of those that were with him; so that the one baptism spoken of seems to have been that of water; the communication of the Holy Spirit being only called baptism in a figurative sense. As for any objection which may be drawn from 1 Cor. i, 17, it is sufficiently answered by the preceding verses, and all the numerous texts, in which, in epistles written long after this, the Apostle speaks of _all_ Christians as baptized; and argues from the obligation of baptism, in such a manner as we can never imagine he would have done, if he had apprehended it to have been the will of God that it should be discontinued in the church. Compare Rom. vi, 3, &c; Col. ii, 12; Gal. iii, 27.

Baptism, in early times, was only administered at Easter and Whitsuntide, except in cases of necessity. Adult persons were prepared for baptism by abstinence, prayer, and other pious exercises. It was to answer for them, says Mosheim, that sponsors, or godfathers, were first instituted in the second century, though they were afterward admitted also in the baptism of infants. This, according to M. Daillé, was not done till the fourth century. Wall refers the origin of sponsors, or godfathers, on the authority of Tertullian, to the commencement of the second century; who were used in the baptism of infants that could not answer for themselves. The catechumens were not forward in coming to baptism. St. Ambrose was not baptized before he was elected bishop of Milan; and some of the fathers not till the time of their death. Some deferred it out of a tender conscience; and others out of too much attachment to the world; it being the prevailing opinion of the primitive times, that baptism, whenever conferred, washed away all antecedent stains and sins. Accordingly they deferred this sanctifying rite as long as possible, even till they apprehended they were at the point of death. Cases of this kind occur at the beginning of the third century. Constantine the Great was not baptized till he was at the last gasp, and in this he was followed by his son Constantius; and two of his other sons, Constantine and Constans, were killed before they were baptized. As to the necessity of baptism, we may observe, however, that, though some seem to have laid too great stress upon it, as if it were indispensably necessary in order to salvation; it must be allowed, that for any person to omit baptism, when he acknowledges it to be an institution of Christ, and that it is the will of Christ that he should submit to it, is an act of disobedience to his authority, which is inconsistent with true faith.

The word _baptism_ is frequently taken for _sufferings_, Mark x, 38; Luke xii, 50; Matt. xx, 22, 23. Of expressions like these we find some traces in the Old Testament also, where waters often denote tribulations, Psalm lxix, 1, 15; cxxiv, 4, 5; and where to be swallowed up by the waters, and to pass through the great waters, signify to be overwhelmed with miseries and calamities.

St. Paul, endeavouring to prove the resurrection of the dead, among several other reasons in support of the doctrine, says, “If the dead rise not at all, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead?” 1 Cor. xv, 29. Of this phrase various interpretations have been given; three of which only shall be here mentioned. “It means,” say some, “‘baptized in the room of the dead just fallen in the cause of Christ, and who are thus supported by a sucession of new converts, immediately offering themselves to fill up their places, as ranks of soldiers who advance to combat in the room of their companions, who have just been slain in their sight.’” Others think it signifies, “In hope of blessings to be received after they are numbered with the dead.” Dr. Macknight supplies the words, τῆς ἀναϛάσεως, and reads the clause, “Who are baptized for the resurrection of the dead;” or in consequence of their believing in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead; on account of which faith, and their profession of it, they are exposed to great sufferings, for which they can have no recompense, if there be no resurrection of the dead, nor any future life at all.

As to the subjects of baptism, the anti-pædobaptists hold that believing adults only are proper subjects, because the commission of Christ to baptize appears to them to restrict this ordinance to such only as are taught, or made disciples; and that, consequently, infants, who cannot be thus taught, ought to be excluded. “It does not appear,” say they, “that the Apostles, in executing the commission of Christ, ever baptized any but those who were first instructed in the Christian faith, and professed their belief of it.” They contend that infants can receive no benefit from baptism, and are not capable of faith and repentance, which are to be considered as prerequisites.

As to the mode, they observe that the meaning of the word βαπτίζω signifies to _immerse_ or _dip_, and that only; that John baptized in Jordan; that he chose a place where there was much water; that Jesus came up out of the water; that Philip and the eunuch went down both into the water; that the terms, _washing_, _purifying_, _burying in baptism_, so often mentioned in the Scriptures, allude to this mode; that immersion only was the practice of the Apostles and the first Christians; and that it was only laid aside from the love of novelty, and the coldness of climate. These positions, they think, are so clear from Scripture, and the history of the church, that they stand in need of but little argument for their support. Farther, they also insist that all positive institutions depend entirely upon the will and declaration of the institutor; and that, therefore, reasoning by analogy from previously abrogated rites is to be rejected, and the express command of Christ respecting baptism ought to be our rule.

The Pædobaptists, however, are of a different opinion. As to the subjects of baptism, they believe that qualified adults, who have not been baptized before, are certainly proper subjects; but then they think, also, that infants ought not to be excluded. They believe that, as the Abrahamic and Christian covenants are the same, Gen. xvii, 7; Heb. viii, 12; that as children were admitted under the former; and that as baptism is now a sign, seal, or confirmation of this covenant, infants have as great a right to it as the children of the Israelites had to the seal of circumcision under the law, Acts ii, 39; Rom. iv, 11. Farther, if children are not to be baptized because there is no positive command for it, for the same reason they say that women should not come to the Lord’s Supper; nor ought we to keep holy the first day of the week; neither of these being expressly commanded. If baptizing infants had been a human invention, they also ask, how such a practice could have been so universal in the first three hundred years of the church, and yet no record have remained when it was introduced, nor any dispute or controversy about it have taken place? Some reduce the matter to a narrower compass; urging, (1.) That God constituted in his church the membership of infants, and admitted them to that privilege by a religious ordinance, Gen. xvii; Gal. iii, 14, 17. (2.) That this right of infants to church membership was never taken away: and this being the case, they argue, that infants must be received, because God has appointed it; and, since they must be received, it must be either with baptism or without it; but none must be received without baptism; therefore, infants must of necessity be baptized. Hence it is clear that, under the Gospel, infants are still continued exactly in the same relation to God and his church in which they were originally placed under former dispensations. That infants are to be received into the church, and as such baptized, is also inferred from the following passages of Scripture: Gen. xvii; Isa. xliv, 3; Matt. xix, 13; Luke ix, 47, 48; Acts ii, 38, 39; Rom. xi, 17, 21; 1 Cor. vii, 14.

Though there are no express examples in the New Testament of Christ and his Apostles baptizing infants, yet there is no proof that they were excluded. Jesus Christ actually blessed little children; and it is difficult to believe that such received his blessing, and yet were not to be members of the Gospel church. If Christ received them, and would have us “receive” them, how can we keep them out of the visible church? Beside, if children were not to be baptized, it is reasonable to expect that they would have been expressly forbidden. As whole households were baptized, it is also probable there were children among them. From the year 400 to 1150, no society of men, in all that period of seven hundred and fifty years, ever pretended to say it was unlawful to baptize infants: and still nearer the time of our Saviour there appears to have been scarcely any one who advised the delay of infant baptism. Irenæus, who lived in the second century, and was well acquainted with Polycarp, who was John’s disciple, declares expressly, that the church learned from the Apostles to baptize children. Origen, in the third century, affirms, that the custom of baptizing infants was received from Christ and his Apostles. Cyprian, and a council of ministers, held about the year 254, no less than sixty-six in number, unanimously agreed that children might be baptized as soon as they were born. Ambrose, who wrote about 274 years from the Apostles, declares that the baptism of infants had been practised by the Apostles themselves, and by the church down to that time. “The catholic church every where declares,” says Chrysostom, in the fifth century, “that infants should be baptized;” and Augustine affirmed, that he never heard or read of any Christian, catholic or sectarian, but who always held that infants were to be baptized. They farther believe that there needed no mention in the New Testament of receiving infants into the church, as it had been once appointed and never repealed. So far from confining baptism to adults, it must be remembered that there is not a single instance recorded in the New Testament, in which the descendants of Christian parents were baptized in adult years. The objection that infants are not proper subjects for baptism, because they cannot profess faith and repentance, falls with as much weight upon the institution of circumcision as infant baptism; since they are as capable or are as fit subjects for the one as the other. Finally, it is generally acknowledged, that if infants die, (and a great part of the human race die in their infancy,) they are saved: if this be the case then why refuse them the sign of union with Christ, if they be capable of enjoying the thing signified?

As to the mode, the Pædobaptists deny that the term βαπτίζω, which is a derivative of βάπτω, and, consequently, must be something less in its signification, is invariably used in the New Testament to express plunging. It is denied, therefore, that dipping is its only meaning; that Christ absolutely enjoined immersion; and that it is his positive will that no other mode should be used. As the word βαπτίζω is used to express the various ablutions among the Jews, such as sprinkling, pouring, &c, Heb. ix, 10, for the custom of washing before meals, and the washing of household furniture, pots, &c, it is evident from hence that it does not express the manner of doing a thing, whether by immersion or effusion, but only the thing done; that is, washing; or the application of water in some form or other. It no where signifies _to dip_, but in denoting a mode of, and in order to, washing or cleansing; and the mode or use is only the ceremonial part of a positive institute; just as in the Lord’s Supper, the time of day, the number and posture of the communicants, the quantity and quality of bread and wine, are circumstances not accounted essential by any part of Christians. If in baptism there be an expressive emblem of the descending influence of the Spirit, pouring must be the mode of administration; for that is the Scriptural term most commonly and properly used for the communication of divine influences, Matt. iii, 11; Mark i, 8, 10; Luke iii, 16–22; John i, 33; Acts i, 5; ii, 38, 39; viii, 12, 17; xi, 15, 16. The term _sprinkling_, also, is made use of in reference to the act of purification, Isa. lii, 15; Ezek. xxxvi, 25; Heb. ix, 13, 14; and therefore cannot be inapplicable to baptismal purification. But, it is observed, that John baptized “_in_ Jordan:” to this it is replied, To infer always a plunging of the whole body in water from this particle, would, in many instances, be false and absurd. The same Greek preposition, ἐν, is used when it is said they should be “baptized with fire;” but few will assert that they should be plunged into it. The Apostle, speaking of Christ, says, he came not, ἐν, “by water only;” but, ἐν, “by water and blood.” There the same word, ἐν, is translated _by_; and with justice and propriety; for we know no good sense in which we could say he came _in_ water. It has been remarked that ἐν is, more than a hundred times, in the New Testament, rendered _at_; and in a hundred and fifty others it is translated _with_. If it be rendered so here, John baptized at Jordan, or with the water of Jordan, there is no proof that he plunged his disciples in it. Jesus, it is said, came up _out of_ the water; but this is no proof that he was immersed, as the Greek term, ἀπὸ, often signifies _from_: for instance, “Who hath warned you to flee _from_,” not _out of_, “the wrath to come?” with many others that might be mentioned. Again: it is urged that Philip and the eunuch went down both into the water. To this it is answered, that here also is no proof of immersion: for, if the expression of their going down _into_ the water necessarily includes dipping, then Philip was dipped, as well as the eunuch. The preposition εἰς, translated _into_, often signifies no more than _to_, or _unto_: see Matt. xv, 24; Rom. x, 10; Acts xxviii, 14; Matt. iii, 11; xvii, 27: so that from none of these circumstances can it be proved that there was one person of all the baptized, who went into the water ankle deep. As to the Apostle’s expression, “buried with him in baptism,” that has no force in the argument for immersion, since it does not allude to a custom of dipping, any more than our baptismal crucifixion and death has any such reference. It is not the sign, but the thing signified, that is here alluded to. As Christ was buried, and rose again to a heavenly life, so we by baptism signify that we are separated from sin, that we may live a new life of faith and love. To conclude: it is urged, against the mode of immersion, that, as it carries with it too much of the appearance of a burdensome rite for the Gospel dispensation; as it is too indecent for so solemn an ordinance; as it has a tendency to agitate the spirits, often rendering the subject unfit for the exercise of proper thoughts and affections, and indeed utterly incapable of them; as in many cases the immersion of the body would, in all probability, be instant death; as in other situations it would be impracticable, for want of water; it cannot be considered as necessary to the ordinance of baptism, and there is the strongest improbability that it was ever practised in the times of the New Testament, or in the earliest periods of the Christian church.