born of many brethren." If He is the Son of God's love, they are called His "dear children :" if He is the light of the world, He says, "Ye are the light of the world:" if He is a Saviour, they are saviours too-not meritoriously, not efficiently, but instrumentally; according to the language of James, "If a man err from the truth, and one convert him, let him know that he who converteth a sinner from the error of his way, shall save a sonl from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." "I am a wonder," says David, “unto many." Speaking of the subjects of Divine grace, Zechariah says, they are "men wondered at." They are like Him, they belong to Him, whose name is The Wonderful. Their experience in general is strange to the people of the world; their language to them seems paradoxical, when they say, "I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh, Iligious course, though they get nothing live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me." The people of the world think it strange, that theyrun not to the same excess of riot; they are amazed, when they see that they can turn their backs upon those amusements and dissipations which seem essential to their very life; and they will often imagine, that it is mere affectation in Christians to do this, that their hearts are still after these things; for they are not in the secret; they know not that they have discovered pleasures infinitely superior-that they are weaned from worldly indulgences, that the Sun has arisen, and so has darkened the stars by His superior effusion of light. So they are astonished when they see them in their trials "possessing their souls in patience;" and sometimes even rejoicing in those seasons, in which they are tossing "like wild bulls in a net," are looking up and "cursing God and their King," or their souls "preferring strangling and death rather than life." They are amazed when they see this in Christians: and the reason is, because they do not see a l. They see their troubles, but they do not see their supports: they see the burdens which press them down, but they do not see the "everlasting arms" underneath them; they do not see what access they have to the throne of the heavenly grace; how they bathe their weary souls in the streams of that river, which maketh glad the city of God; and how, by waiting on Him, their strength is renewed, so that they "run and are not weary, they walk and are not faint." They are astonished when they see them going on in their re by it, though they gain no worldly honour "Lord, it is my chief complaint, THE RIGHT MODE OF BAPTIZING. A SERMON, BY THE REV. GEORGE CLAYTON. PREACHED AT YORK-STREET CHAPEL, WALWORTH, ON SUNDAY MORNING, MAY 10, 1840. (On occasion of the Administration of the Ordinance of Baptism.) "What saith the Scripture ?"-Romans iv. 3. THESE words have been selected | spired Book, or, in other words, what is simply as a motto to the following dis- the mind of the Spirit of God, on the course, which is intended expressly to right administration of the ordinance elicit what is the decision of the in- of Christian baptism. To the Scrip ture alone our appeal will be made. "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them." If we find an inspired apostle establishing and confirm ing the truth by a reference to the lively oracles of God, how much more is it incumbent on us to do so, who can make no pretension whatever to supernatural powers of discernment, or to an infallible judgment on religious doctrine! "What saith the Scripture ?" ought to be our question on all matters of doctrine, of duty, of worship, and of ritual ob servance. You need not be told, my brethren, that the rite of baptism has for many ages been a subject of controversy among Christians; some affirming, that it is the duty and privilege of all who profess faith in Christ to be baptised and their offspring with them, and that the ordinance is most properly administered by the pouring or aspersion of water upon the person baptized; others contending as zealously, that baptism is incumbent on adult believers only, and must be exclusively administered by the dipping, plunging, or immersion of the whole person under water. It is not my purpose, at this time, to treat upon those who are the proper subjects of baptism, as it would lead us into far too wide a field of inquiry; but I may be permitted to remark, in passing, that it is boldly asked, whether we can produce an express command from Holy Scripture, or a direct precedent from the New Testament, for the baptism of infants. I consider this question extremely senseless and absurd: for, in the first place, there needed no express command for the baptism of infants; in the next place, there are no express commands for other observances, which we all profess to venerate and regard. For example; where is the express command for the change of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day of the week? Or where is the command in the New Testament for the observance of any Sabbath at all? Where, I ask, is the express command for the admission of females to the sacrament of the Lord's supper? It is clear, that no females were present at the first institution of that sacrament; nor is there a single passage in Holy Scripture which records the admission of any female to that ordinance. We do not dis ་ pute their right to it because there is no express command for it; for if we can make out the will of our Divine Founder by fair and legitimate inference, it is surely enough to govern our practice, although there be not an express command or a direct precedent? But I wish to ask our friends, what they mean by an express command. Do they require that we should produce a passage to this effect, Thou shalt baptize infants? If that be their meaning, we have no such express command. But if Christ has commanded us to go and disciple all nations, baptizing them; and ifi nfants are a constituent part of national bodies; then, I say, there is an express command for baptizing infants. If we have a direct precedent for the baptism of households, and if households include infants (and it is for those who dispute the matter to prove that those households spoken of in the New Testament did contain no infants), then I say, we have an express authority for the baptism of households, whether they contain infants or not. I consider, therefore, that the command is as express, that is to say, as clear and as direct, as it need be; and although we do not find it graphically written, that it is the will of Christ that infants should be baptized, because, as I have said, the thing was unnecessary, we assuredly believe, that the rite of baptism has succeeded, as a seal of the Christian covenant, to the rite of circumcision, which sealed the Abrahamic covenant. Children then of eight days old were admitted to church privileges; Christ came not to set aside those privileges; and therefore to demand of us an express command, when no command was necessary, seems to be a most extraordinary thing; and to offer a premium too, by public advertisement, for such an express command, seems to me almost profane; for it would seem to dictate to the blessed God as to what measure of evidenceHe should afford to His creatures of His will concerning His own worship. Am I to go to God and say in what terms He shall convey His will to His creatures? If that will have been sufficiently and clearly expressed, obedience is my duty, and I am not to quibble about the express terms of the command. This, however, I cannot fully enter into; and therefore dismiss it. And I wish to confine your attention, and my own, to the right mode of baptizing; whether it is more accordant with Scripture to baptize by pouring or sprinkling, or by dipping or immersion. Rudeness and wrath never yet served the cause of truth and righteousness. Christians must keep their tempers on all subjects, and avoid that violence which never helped, but has much hindered a righteous cause. We distinguish, then, between the men and their system. We owe charity to their persons, but no charity to their mistakes: and as I can truly say, that I have not one unkind feeling towards those who differ from me on this subject so I trust, that not one unkind word will drop from my lips this day. Should it be so, I can only say, may God and you forgive me. I. We object to the method of baptising by the immersion, dipping, or plunging of the whole body under water; first, because we deem it anti-scriptural. By which I mean to say, that it is not only altogether without the warrant of Holy Scripture, but that it is against the testimony of the inspired Word, rightly understood, so far as it applies to the ordinance under consideration. The reasons, my brethren, of my entering professedly, and at large, upon this topic at the present moment are these:first, the agitation of the question anew by our Baptist friends in their misunderstanding with the Bible Society, upon the matter of the oriental versions. Then publications upon that particular question have gone the length of agitatingthe wholecontroversy; and at a meeting held for the origination of a new society called "The Bible Translation Society," things were spoken and advanced with extraordinary boldness, which I think ought to be met. The whole question was assumed; and some things which, I must confess, appear to me disingenuous, uncandid and fallacious, were put forth, very much calculated to mislead the unwary, and to unsettle the faith of the Church. Constitutionally, as God knows, and from Here it will be necessary to advert, fixed principles, averse to controversy, first, to the meaning of the original it is not without sincere reluctance, that words bapto, baptizo, and haptisma; I approach this subject in a controversial from which the terms in our Bible, bapmanner; but I feel that "necessity is tize and baptism, are taken. Great stres laid upon me." There is a time to be is laid, on the other side, on this parsilent, and there is a time to speak out. ticular. It is undoubtedly a question If congregational ministers, and others for the learned, and therefore the great holding their sentiments, are silent for bulk of Christian professors must be peace' sake and forbearance towards our willing to be guided by the consentanebrethren, then we are told, that it arises ous voice of those who are well able to from the conscious weakness of our cause; investigate the subject. A man meets it is even surmised that we have secret with the word baptize in our New Testamisgivings as to the ground on which we ment. He says, "What does this profess to stand; and it is pretty plainly mean?" He goes to his Greek Testainsinuated, that many of us are Baptists ment, and there he finds the word in heart, only not honest enough pub- baptizo. He says, "What does this licly to declare our convictions; so that mean?" He then goes to his Lexicon, if we say nothing, we are very civilly and he finds there the Latin words, and charitably told, that it is just because intingo, mergo, lavo, abluo, madefacio. we have nothing to say. At such a He then goes to the English Lexicon, moment, it would be positively wrong and he finds that these words are transto avoid the discussion of this subject. lated, to dye, to stain, to steep into, to "The mere hireling fleeth, because he is dip, to wash, to cleanse. Some tell us a hireling, and careth not for the sheep." that the primary and radical signification Permit me, then, to use great plainness of the word is to immerse, and to immerse of speech and freedom of expression, only: but I am disposed to contend, that but, as I hope, with all that is respectful, the true meaning of the word is to wash, courteous and charitable, to those dearand without any direct respect to the immehonoured brethren, whom, though I deem diate mode of effecting that action. And them in grievous error on this point, II take upon myself, in the face of this am prepared to embrace as wise and congregation, to deny the fact that the good men, as brethren in Christ, and as original words signify to dip or to plunge "able ministers of the New Testament." necessarily, only, and always, as has been with uncommon boldness asserted water. Here let me venture to read upon a recent occasion. you another passage upon this same subject; because I would rather speak in the well-weighed words of another upon this part of the question, than in any which I myself can produce. "We," says the writer, "however, contend that our Baptist brethren cannot adduce the least substantial evidence that John, our Lord, Philip, or the Eunuch, or any other person mentioned in Scripture, as baptizing or baptized, went into the water at all; at least they cannot prove it from the before-named preposition. When it is said John was baptising in Jordan, and in Enon, we have no data for concluding that he was doing anything be Now in appealing to authority upon this subject, I will mention one-that eagle-eyed divine Doctor Owen, who was for five years Vice Chancellor of the University of Oxford, and who is admitted by all to be a giant of learning and more particularly in the Greek and Latin tougues, with which he was perfectly familiar. These are his words:-"I must say, and I will make it good, that no honest man who understands the Greek tongue, can deny the word to signify to wash as well as to dip." He adds, "Not a single instance can be given in Scripture, wherein baptizo doth necessarily signify to dip or to plunge."yond baptising at those places, or with This is all we contend for. We do not deny but that one of its senses is to dip or to plunge, but we do deny that this is necessarily and always its signification. We feel ourselves at liberty to adopt that sense of the word which is governed by the use of the word, and especially in the Book whence we derive our authority in all religious matters. "What saith the Scripture ?" the waters found there; the word en, as we shall presently prove, meaning at, on, or with, as well as in. When our blessed Saviour is said to have come up out of the water, the terms assure us of nothing more than that He came up from the edge or brim of the river, the proper and original meaning of the word apo being properly from. So when Philip and the Eunuch are said to have gone down into the water,' and to have 'come up out of the water,' we can gather nothing more than that they went down to the water, and came up from the water; the prepositions eis and ek sig. Should our In the admirable treatise of Mr. Thorn, of Winchester, on this subject, he gives, from authors, sacred and profane, a list of the meanings and senses of this word baptizo, and they amount to twenty-three; to wash away, to colour,tonifying chiefly to and from dive, to lead, to pierce, to paint, to draw up, to imbue, to plunge, to fill, to dye, to wash, to wet, to pollute, to dip, to cleanse, to overwhelm, to perish, to purge, to redden, to put under, to affright, to stain. Those who are learned on this question have used indefatigable pains in order to ascertain the true and proper meaning of this said word; and the true and proper meaning, in my conscientious judgment, will be found to be expressed by the word wash or cleanse, irrespectively of the mode by which that washing or cleansing is effected. Then you are aware that great stress is equally laid upon the import of the Greek prepositions, en, ek, eis and apo. Where it is said, " they went down into the water," and "came up out of the water," the force of the prepositions is simply that they went down to the water, and that they came from the water, without there being the slightest indication that they were put under the opponents reply that the sense they give the words in dispute is their radical, primary, and proper meaning, we might contend, first, that this requires proof, the production of which we earnestly solicit; and secondly, if it were true, they must demonstrate that the inspired penmen have employed them in the preceding passages in their radical, primary and proper meaning. This they have not done, and this they are unable to do." So much, then, for the true meaning of the words upon which so much stress is laid. I observe here again, that the instances given of baptism, as narrated in the New Testament, never necessarily imply the act of immersion. John the Baptist, it is true, baptized in Bethabara beyond Jordan; baptized by the waters of Jordan, baptized at Enon near to Salim, because there was "much water," or many shallow waters there; but modern travellers, Doctor Shaw and the Viscount Chateaubriand, have clearly shown, that as to baptizing in the river of Jordan, it is not a practicable thing; first because of the rapidity of the stream, and secondly, from the extreme depth at the margin, being from six to eight feet in depth; so that as to baptizing in Jordan, in the river itself, there seems to be no just presumption nor the slightest probability in favour of it. That he might have used the water of this river for this purpose, there can be no doubt; but the shallows about Jordan, effected by the frequent inundation of the stream, were much too shallow to admit of the practice of immersion. Then with respect to the Pentecostal converts, three thousand of whom were added to the Church on one day, we presume they were added by baptism, and how would it have been possible to have baptized three thousand persons in the afternoon of a single day, had the labori ous and onerous process of immersion been the mode practised? With respect to Philip and the Eunuch, there is not one word said of their going under the water, though they went down to the water. They seem both to have gone in to an equal depth. If one went under the water, both went under the water. But no such fact can be at all demonstrated; and is it likely, that this Ethiopian nobleman, on a journey, submitted to the immersion of his whole person under the water? We read of no change of garment; we read not of his putting off the dress he wore, or putting on another after he had been immersed. Surely some of these circumstances might have been narrated. It is one thing, my dear hearers, to go down to the water for the purpose of . receiving the initiatory rite of Christian baptism, and another thing to be put under the water. Our excellent friends seem to me to have gone much too far, in contending for their system; for they should prove not only for immersion, but submersion, upon which the Scripture is entirely silent. "Doth not every one of you lead his ox and his ass to water?" Do not the animals go into the water for purposes of cleansing or purposes of refreshment? But they do not go under the water. It is very possible that they might approach the river-side or the margin of a brook or pool, and perhaps enter a few paces into it, which is very common in hot countries; the element of water might be applied; but really in Scripture there is not one word, which amounts to evidence, that in any given case, the whole person was plunged beneath the flood. In truth, the presumptions are all against it. In the case of the jailer, for example, whose history I read this morning, when he believed, he was baptized and his house, and he was baptized "the same hour of the night," Is it to be supposed, that in the dead of the night, and at that "same hour" he and all his were immediately baptized by being immersed in water? It seems to be drawing very largely upon one's credulity, even to suppose this to have been the fact in the peculiar circumstances in which he was placed. But I must beg your attention to one thing more on this branch of the subject; that the words of which we are speaking are used in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament Scriptures, and in the New Testament, in a way that quite excludes all idea of immersion. In the Septuagint, Jonathan is said to have baptized the top of his rod in honey. How was this done? He just dipped the point of the rod in honey, and applied it to his mouth, but certainly did not immerse the whole rod in the honey. It is said, that Nebuchadnezzar, in the time of his separation and affliction, was baptized with the dew of heaven. Our translators say, "wet with the dew of heaven;" the original term is "baptized with the dew of heaven." How does the dew baptize? By falling down in gentle, gradual, diffusive drops. When I dip my pen in ink, I truly dip it; but I do not cover it all over in every part with the liquid which I use in writing. We read of the baptism of pots and cups, of brazen vessels, of beds or couches. I beg to ask, whether it is at all rational to suppose that those couches, on which the ancients reclined at their repasts, were immersed in water? Rather, were they not sprinkled? Was not water in some form or other poured upon them in order to denote a ritual and a metaphorical cleansing? It is said, that the Israelites were "baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Now the fact of that case was, that they passed through the sea, as it is expressly said, on dry land. The waters stood onaheap upon the right hand and upon the left, and they passed through without being wet, except it |