much to baptize as to preach the Gospel;' and supports his version, as follows: The writers of the Old and New Testaments do almost every where, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, express a preference given to one thing beyond another, by an affirmation of that which is preferred, and a negation of that which is contrary to it.' Somewhat similar to this in strength of expression is the language of the evangelist, when he says, ' Jerusalem and all Judea' came to John's baptism; and also, 'Except ye hate father and mother,' &c. None, I presume, will pretend that every inhabitant of Jerusalem and Judea went to John's baptism, or that Christ really requires us to hate our parents! These, with the one under consideration, are broad expressions, the meaning of which is to be learned by other scriptures. At the time this epistle was penned, the Church at Corinth was much disturbed with bitter contentions. One said, I am of Paul,' and another, I am of Apollos,' &c. In view of these things, the apostle says to them, I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus,' &c, lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.' Thus it appears, his gratitude that he had baptized no more, arose from the consideration of their difficulties, and the opportunity it would have given them to accuse him of impure motives, had the number been greater. He does not even intimate but that baptism is a Gospel rite, and they had done well in being baptized; but, on the contrary, he virtually confesses both in his apology for what he did.

.

St. Paul was a man of consistency of character; he was not wont to do business without authority. Even when he went to Damascus to pour out the vengeance of his intolerant spirit upon the heads of the innocent disciples, he carried letters of authority.' And is it rea sonable to conclude, that, after he was called to, the apostleship, he went round baptizing; and then, by letter or otherwise, confessing that he was not authorized to baptize! The fact, that he baptized some, gives the translation of Bishop Pearce a commanding influence.

4. It is ceremonial.' If by this be meant, a rite of the ceremonial law, I deny it. It is true that law embraced divers washings of men and things; but not that washing which is denominated Christian baptism. The distinguishing characteristic of this is the name in which it is performed the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Therefore before this can justly be ranked with the washings of the ceremonial law, it must be shown that one of those washings, at least, was performed in this name, which cannot be done. But, if the objector only means, it is an outward form, the objection stands with equal force against every other external of religious worship. For if this be ceremonial, so is preaching, praying, singing, kneeling, sitting in silence, and shaking hands! But are all these to be abandoned merely for this reason? Religion without ceremony, is like a soul without a body; and to man must be perfectly visionary and untangible. But God has wisely connected them; and what He has joined together, let not man put asunder.

5. Some have been saved without being baptized.' The inference pretended to be deduced from this is, that water baptism is not essential to salvation, and consequently is not required by the Gospel. But is this a fair inference from the premises? How far God may regard the ignorance, prejudices, and superstitions of men, in the day of

judgment, is somewhat difficult to decide. Though baptism is a Gospel ordinance, binding on all Christians, it is not incredible, that such may be the circumstances under which some neglect it, that their neglect will not prove an insuperable barrier to their salvation. Hence, if the premises in the objection be true, the inference deduced from it is not legitimate.

Some have undoubtedly been saved without the Gospel, and without practising many of the duties it enjoins. But does it follow that the Gospel is not from God, and that its observance is not necessary to salvation with those who have it? The objection insinuates, that it does. Thus, it is obvious, should the objection be followed out in all its ramifications, it would lead to most fatal results.

6

6. Christ did not baptize.' That He did not, on one occasion, referred to, John iv, 2, is admitted; but that He never baptized, is not so clear. Whether He did or not, however, it is evident His disciples baptized with His direction and approvance; otherwise He would have rebuked them, and pointed out the repugnancy of water baptism to the spirituality of the Gospel dispensation, as He was accustomed to do, when He discovered any aberration in their principles or conduct from the laws of His kingdom. That He ever expressed any dissatisfaction with them on account of their baptizing, does not appear from the Bible; but, on the contrary, when He was about going to His Father, He commanded His apostles to go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature, baptizing them' with water, as I shall show in the sequel of this discourse. Therefore, had He baptized with His own hand, He would not more fully have given His sanction to the ordinance than He did; though He baptized not, but His disciples.' 7. The last objection I shall notice is found in the inquiry, If baptism be a Divine ordinance, why is not pediluvium, or feet-washing, enjoined by Christ; and circumcision, practised by Paul in the case of Timothy? In regard to the first, I answer, It was enjoined on the disciples as an act of civility and humility merely, and not designed to be perpetual or universal. In proof of this, I observe, that washing feet is not mentioned, as a religious rite, directly or indirectly, by either Christ or His apostles; whereas the injunction be baptized, and the declaration he was, or they were baptized, and similar references to this subject, are recorded in almost every part of the New TestaThis, with every unprejudiced man, capable of weighing an argument, is a satisfactory reason for not practising pediluvium. Were other reasons necessary, they could be easily adduced; but surely they are not.

6

That St. Paul circumcised Timothy, the Scriptures plainly avow. This he did for reasons which he thought sufficient to justify it, and which (unhappily for Friends) are not concealed. Acts xvi, 3, it is said, ' Him,' referring to Timothy, would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him, because of the Jews which were in those quarters; for they knew all that his father was a Greek.' Because of the Jews.' Here we have the reason in full why the apostle did this; in which it is virtually conceded that circumcision is not a Gospel rite. Says Dr. Clarke, He (Timothy) was circumcised for this simple reason, that the Jews would neither have heard him preach, nor would they have had any connection with him, had he

been otherwise. Beside, St. Paul himself could have had no access to the Jews, in any place, had they known that he associated with a person who was uncircumcised: they would have considered both to be unclean. The circumcision of Timothy was a merely prudential thing. Timothy was laid under no necessity to observe the Mosaic ritual; nor would it prejudice his spiritual state, because he did not do it in order to seek justification by the law, for this he had before, through faith in Christ. In Gal. ii, 3-5, we read that Paul refused to circumcise Titus, who was a Greek, and his parents Gentiles, notwithstanding the entreaties of some zealous Judaizing Christians; as their object was to bring him under the yoke of the law. Here the case was widely different, and the necessity of the measure indisputa. ble.' Had the apostle refused to baptize any for the reasons he assigns in Galatians for not practising circumcision, the case would be different. But there is not one word in all his epistles against baptism, and very many in its support. Beside, circumcision is not once enjoined in the New Testament; it was not practised by the apostles except in this case, nor has it been by their successors down to the present time; whereas baptism is repeatedly enjoined, and was practised by the apostles, as I shall hereafter show.

There are some few other objections which might be noticed; but they are frivolous, compared with the foregoing. If I have answered these, the rest must yield of course.

I now proceed,

II. To adduce such arguments in proof of water baptism as are to be found in the Gospel.

On this part of the subject, I must necessarily be brief. This, however, is no apology for the discourse. The greatest brevity which could be desired is sufficient, I think, to secure the objects in view. 1. My first argument is drawn from the commission our Lord gave to His apostles: Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. No one who is not biased by the love of theory could suppose that baptism here is any other than that of water. And yet, Friends are very confident, that it is the baptism of the Spirit. That it is water baptism, and not the baptism of the Spirit, is to me very obvious, from the following considerations :

:

(1.) At the time when this commission was announced, the Holy Ghost had not been given; see Luke xxiv, 49. Hence the apostles were comparatively ignorant of spiritual baptism, if indeed they had any idea of it. With water baptism they were perfectly familiar. If therefore Christ had meant spiritual baptism, would He not have made an explanation expressive of his meaning? Reason says, He would, if He designed to be understood. As no such explanation was given, it is therefore clear, that He referred to the baptism with which they were acquainted, viz. water baptism.

(2.) It is the prerogative of Christ alone to baptize with the Holy Spirit. John said, 'I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but He that cometh after me is mightier than I; He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.' But this commission makes it the duty of the apostles to baptize. The apostles baptized with water; Christ alone baptized with the Holy Ghost.

If it be said, They were to baptize instrumentally, I answer, Then they were to preach and teach all nations instrumentally! But this is an anomaly in divinity which no reasonable man will readily allow. They were sent to preach the Gospel, not instrumentally, but literally and directly; and, with equal certainty, to baptize literally and directly. The baptism in the text is literal, and not spiritual.

(3.) They were to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' What, baptize with the Holy Ghost, in the name of the Holy Ghost! Strange orthodoxy! Wonderful discrimination! Here we see to what absurdities men are led in defence of their creed! Did Peter and John lay their hands on the disciples, at Samaria, in the name of the Holy Ghost, when the Holy Ghost came upon them? Did Paul use these words when he laid his hands on the twelve disciples at Ephesus? If not, did they not violate their Master's command? The truth is, this is a ceremony attending the communication of the Holy Ghost which the apostles never heard of, and of course never practised. And to suppose it embraced in the commission of Christ to His apostles, is to outrage every principle of interpretation; and establish a precedent which may be wielded in support of the wildest reveries of the most frantic imagination. Beside this, the universal practice of the apostles looks it out of countenance into contempt; and proves, so far as principle may be proved by the practice of inspired men, that the apostles understood their commission to embrace water baptism. Thus this commission stands an eternal monument of the obligation of baptism; and is not to be obscured by the sophistry of men.

2. Those scriptures which speak of water baptism in contradistinction from spiritual, incontestably prove it to be an ordinance of the Gospel. The text contains a command to repent and be baptized,' with a promise, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.' Here water baptism, as well as repentance, is made a prerequisite to that of the Spirit. Water baptism, I say; for I know not what other can be meant, without perverting the meaning and sense of language. To suppose it is spiritual, is to make the apostle say, Repent, and receive the Holy Ghost, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost! Friends must now admit water baptism, or adopt this unmeaning tautology.

In Acts viii, 13, we learn that Simon Magus believed, and was baptized. In the same chapter, it is said, When he saw that, through laying on of the apostles' hands, the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power;' and that Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee! thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter, for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.' Here, then, is one who had been baptized, and yet had no part nor lot in the Holy Ghost. Will Friends say, he was baptized with the Holy Ghost?

3. The apostles practised water baptism. This, perhaps, is sufficiently clear from what has already been said; but that no doubt may remain, I present the following remarks:-Philip preached and baptized in Samaria; Acts viii, 12. When the apostles heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John, who laid their hands on certain of them, and they received the Holy

Ghost.' Hence it appears, that Philip did not baptize them with the Holy Ghost; for He had fallen on none of them when Peter and John arrived. The case of Cornelius and his household is no less conclusive. Peter said, 'Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?' Thus, it appears they had already received the Holy Ghost, and nevertheless Peter demands water to baptize them. O! what a shadowy, ceremonial minister he must have been, to deal so much in signs and ceremonies in the midst of Divine substances! The twelve disciples whom Paul found at Ephesus were baptized, probably, by his own hand, or, at least, by his direction. And the subsequent mention of his laying his hands on them, and the descent of the Holy Ghost, is demonstration that their first baptism was not that of the Holy Ghost.

To these and many more passages of a similar character, I might add the testimony of the fathers. I shall, however, only allude to them. Irenæus and Justin Martyr, born near the close of the first century; Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian, born a little after; and Origen, born A. D. 184, all testify, directly or indirectly, that water baptism was practised in their time; and that they received it from the apostles. Were this not true, it would have been contradicted at the time they wrote, and some traces of the contradiction must have reached us; but this is not the case. Therefore their testimony must go to corroborate the proposition under consideration.

Having, as I trust, demonstrated water baptism to be a Gospel ordinance, little, very little, is necessary to prove that it is binding on all Christians; for, I consider, they stand or fall together. If water baptism were never a Divine ordinance, it is not binding on any; but if it were, it is now binding, unless it can be shown when and by whom it was abrogated. The Gospel is not like Church creeds, and almost every thing else subject to human volition, changeable, and ever changing. What it was in the beginning, it is now, and ever will be. The perpetuity of its character and claims stands based on the unchanging word of Jehovah. And do we think of binding the Divine will to the vain conceits of men, and thus detracting from the oracles of God? The Gospel is the sure word of testimony. While that stands, the obligation of baptism must remain. In conclusion. It is urged upon all who love our Lord Jesus Christ to be baptized. 1. Because the Scriptures require it. The same authority, which enjoins repentance and faith, enjoins baptism. Can we believe the authority of the former, and reject that of the latter? Is not this as peremptory as the command to repent, and believe? Why then neglect it? Did not God mean as he said? The stale objection, 'It was done away in Christ,' is too palpably false to be repeated. Just as much were repentance and prayer done away in Christ. He did not die to abolish the institutions of the Gospel, but to render them valid and good. Do you say, 'I don't feel it my duty to be baptized? Are your feelings then the rule of faith and practice? Are these the law by which you are to be judged? If not, beware how you study it. Your not feeling it your duty is no excuse for neglect in this case. The Gospel is plain. Repent and be baptized every one of you.' And by this law shall we be acquitted or condemned in the day of judgment.