A SERMON, BY THE REV. SAMUEL GREEN. PREACHED ON OCCASION OF BAPTIZING AT LION STREET CHAPEL, WALWORTH, LORD'S DAY EVENING, FEB. 28, 1841; AND CONTAINING OBSERVATIONS ON A SERMON ON BAPTISM, BY THE REV. GEORGE CLAYTON, INSERTED IN EVANGELICAL REGISTER' FOR FEBRUARY LAST.

ON

66 THE

THE ordinance of Christian baptism is about to be administered in this place tonight. On such occasions my practise has been, if I have preached, to call your attention to some leading topic of practical truth connected with the ordinance, or involved in the solemn engagements, which, in the presence of many witnesses, the parties baptized are in the act of making. I have seldom taken up the subject of baptism controversially, having been content with a brief advertence to the reasons for our practise as they appear to lie on the surface of revealed truth. "To the law and to the testimony.' Blessed is he, says our Lord, "that heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them." I would not depart from this practice now, but for a circumstance that has recently occurred in this neighbourhood, which, I conceive, I ought not to overlook.

This circumstance is the preaching of a sermon "On the right mode of baptising," by my esteemed and venerated brother, the Rev. George Clayton, and the publishing of that sermon* within the present month, in a form and at a price placing it within reach of all, who are desirous of knowing what so excellent a person has to say on this much litigated topic. I have, moreover, reason for saying, that efforts are made even among you, to circulate and get this sermon read. Of neither of these things do I complain. A minister ought to state to his congregation what he conceives the truth to be; and if good can be done by giving a more permanent form to his statements, by all means let it be so; if his friends can guard any against error or establish any in the right course, if they can check the progress of incorrect views of truth or of incorrect and unscriptural practices, by circulating what he may have so preached and published, the more diligence they employ in this good work the better. The minister has no option; he must not withhold the truth, or any part of it, on pain of refusing to do the will of his Lord and Master. "Necessity is laid upon me,” said the apostle; "yea woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel"-i. e. the whole Gospel, every truth it reveals, every promise it unfolds, and every precept it enforces. "We kept back,” he says again, "nothing that was profitable unto you; we delivered unto you the whole counsel of God." But the right and the duty of examining what you hear from the pulpit, and what is offered to you from the press, will be equally incumbent. No minister is infallible. On what they heard the Bereans asked, 'Are these things so?' and they had recourse to the Scriptures of truth to meet this inquiry. I shall endeavour this evening, by God's help, to assist you in doing this in relation to my neighbour's sermon 66 on the right mode of baptizing." And may we all be guided by that light and deeply imbued by that spirit of love, which come from God.

Mr. Clayton takes as his text the language with which the apostle introduces the testimony of the ancient Scriptures of truth on the doctrine of a gratuitous justification. It will be found in the fourth chapter of the epistle to the Romans, and the third verse. I shall also take the same text.

"What saith the Scripture ?"-Romans iv. 3.

THE first paragraph of my neighbour's the inspired Book, or, in other words, sermon, as perfectly unexceptionable, I what is the mind of the Spirit of God, on will equally adopt. "These words have the right administration of the ordinance been selected simply as a motto to the of Christian baptism. To the Scriptures following discourse, which is intended alone our appeal will be made. 'To the expressly to elicit what is the decision of law and to the testimony; if they speak In The Evangelical Register for February last, ante page 68.

VOL. XIII.

X

not according to this word, there is no light in them.' If we find an inspired apostle establishing and confirming the truth by a reference to the lively oracles of God, how much more is it incumbent in us to do so, who can make no pretension whatever to supernatural powers of discernment, or to an infallible judgment in religious doctrine! What saith the Scripture?' ought to be our question on all matters of doctrine, of duty, of worship, and of ritual observance."

tion, than this sermon is, and among the deep regrets awakened by the perusal of it, this is one--The anti-trinitarian, the Socinian, will rejoice when he finds an orthodox, an excellent, a sound divine like Mr. Clayton reasoning thus.

His argument is divided into six propositions. Immersion, he says, is antiscriptural; it is inappropriate to represent the thing intended to be set forth by baptism; it is uncalled-for and unnecessary; it is unseemly; it is dangerous; and in many cases it is impracticable. I intend chiefly to examine Scripture on the subject, and therefore shall say nothing of the last four of these propositions, more than that the first of them is tautological; the second is irrelevant-(what have we to do with the seemliness of what God requires ?); and the two last are not consistent with fact. Immersion is not dangerous, except in few cases, and in these we have never said it was required; "God will have mercy, not sacrifice.' Immersion is not impracticable, except where water cannot be obtained; and I suppose there, if there be such a place, baptism is not called for; my friend cannot pour, nor sprinkle, any more than I can dip.

After such an avowal of the manner in which the inquiry was to be conducted, and of the source whence evidence was to be drawn, you would expect a somewhat copious induction of Scripture evidence. Passage after passage would be looked for, fairly quoted, carefully examined; and left, when their plain meaning was fully brought out, to produce their legitimate effect on the mind. But whoever had his expectation so raised, by my friend's introduction to his sermon, must have been grievously disappointed. I will mention false quotations in a short time. It must suffice in this place to say, Mr. Clayton does not attempt examination into the meaning of the record. His whole sermon is a specimen of that kind of reasoning, which some persons who would be wiser than the spirit of inspiration, are fond of employing. The thing is unreasonable there are difficulties in the way of believing it-therefore it cannot be taught.' I know well enough, that my excellent friend would be among the last men to reason thus and avow it; but I candidly assure you, dear friends, that I never met with a more complete specimen of such a mode of argumenta- 'I must advert.

Mr. Clayton's sermon, moreover, is by no means of that kindly, bland, and softened spirit, for which he is so justly celebrated. I might quote painful illustrations, but I would much rather avoid the unthankful task. I regret that my brother has laid himself open in this particular to rebuke; but he will rebuke himself; I need not do it. To one thing however, before I go to my main object,

I cannot help expressing surprise, that Mr. Clayton had no better taste than to refer on this part of his subject to the gigantic dimensions of certain men, (for instance, O'Brien and Bright, whom he mentions by name,) as an insuperable obstacle in the way of the immersionist. For the comfort of men "exceedingly corpulent," who may feel it their duty to be baptized, I hereby offer to immerse any one of them who shall give evidence of being a believer in Jesus Christ, and 1 am sure any of my brethren are as equal as I am to the task. I fancied when I read the paragraph of my friend's sermon about the giants, that this was a difficulty confined, or almost confined, to his mind; but since then I have seen an ignorant, conceited, and flippant book, bearing the name of Mr.Thorn of Winchester,from which, not this argument only, but almost every other, contained in Mr. Clayton's sermon, has been either copied or abridged. And this book is recommended by Mr. Clayton to his young friends as an "admirable treatise !" Nay, several copies of it are to be placed in the York Street vestry library, for convenient reference ! To show that I do not speak of Mr. Thorn's book at random, I will quote testimony concerning it, from one who had not been unaccustomed to read or to reason against immersion. "What a pitiable state that man's heart must be in, to produce a work the result of seven years' labour, so destitute of the Spirit of Christ! One would suppose, that one hour's communion with God would have compelled the man to rewrite the whole. God pity and pardon him."

recom

Mr. Clayton speaks further of Mr. Thorn's treatise as "unanswered and unanswerable." Mr. Thorn's neighbour, Beujamin Coxhead, late of Winchester, answered it. Will Mr. Coxhead's book find its way to Mr. Clayton's vestry library shelves, as well as Mr. Thorn's? I suspect my mendation of a bock will have but little weight with the friends who have the management of that library, or I would say to them, Get Mr. Carson's treatise on the mode and subjects of baptism also. It is a masterly book, not, I believe, now in print; but a new edition, with some remarks on Mr. Thorn's treatise, may be expected soon.

bordering on the monstrous, or at least
on the Popish dogmas of a by-gone age.
"The Bible, the Bible only is our reli-
gion;" and as the British and Foreign
Bible Society would no longer help us to
give this volume pure, and in their own
tongue, to the heathen, we were com-
pelled to ask the aid of a new Society
to enable us to do so.
Thank God, we
have not asked for such aid in vain.*
But I am falling into the error of for-
getting the inquiry of the text, and going
into other matter. "What" then, as to
the right administration of baptism-
"what saith the Scripture?" The an-
swer must be found in the meaning of
the word-the one word, invariably
used to designate the rite. An elaborate
writer in the Congregational Magazine
for January last, remarks, "We ought
to search for the signification of words
[the word] relating to baptism, in the
Septuagint and in the New Testament,
rather than in other books. From Pagan
poets, historians, philosophers, and phy-
sicians, we appeal to the remains of
Hebraistic Greek, and especially to the
writings of the apostles, the pages of
Holy Writ." "The remains of Hebraistic
Greek" comprise chiefly two books, be-
side the Sacred Volume; to either of
which I would cheerfully, in the proper
place, make my appeal. Here the ap-
peal must be to the Scriptures alone.

Mr. Clayton refers to "The Bible of His religion. If the Hindoos, &c. canTranslation Society," recently formed not read Greek, they must have, in adamong us. He reports us as saying, dition to the New Testament, a living by having formed this Society, We must instructor to expound it in this partihave the words relating to baptism trans- cular, according to what he conceives lated by "immerse" and "immersion," or right. My friends, we could not assent we shall withdraw from the British and to this doctrine. In our view it was Foreign Bible Society, and set up another institution.' Now, brethren, what are the facts? 1. We have never thought of withdrawing from the British and Foreign Bible Society. 2. For many years past God has honoured members of our denomination, by enabling them to translate the Scriptures, and especially the New Testament, into many languages and dialects of the continent of India. They have uniformly translated every word, (those relating to baptism, as well as all others,) from the Greek, as they were conscientiously bound to do, into the most correct and intelligible terms in the dialects they were using; and for more than twenty years the British and Foreign Bible Society came to their help. That Society said, 'The millions of India must have the Scriptures, and we will assist you in your holy work of giving them in every language in which they can be translated.' There is no reason to suppose that the Bible Society would have held an other lang uage, but that certain parties, in Calcutta, in the year 1827, urged-The words relating to "baptize" and "baptism" are translated; we will not circulate such a New Testament.' In vain was it said in reply, 'It has been circulated for years, and wittingly on the part of the Bible Society. We have translated as we thought truth demanded; if not, show us our error. Withhold these New Testa- And first, for the Septuagint. This ments, and you leave millions of India appeal will be speedily dismissed, since without this sacred volume.' The men there are but two passages in which the to whom this appeal was made still said, word occurs, and in only one of them is and at last the British and Foreign Bible there any reference to water. That in Society said with them, The book which there is no such reference is Isaiah shall not go as it is; we do not charge xxi. 4. Our English version has the you with improperly translating these passage. "My heart panted, fearfulness words, but they shall not be translated affrighted me. Bishop Lowth has it, at all. The heathen shall not know,"My heart is bewildered, terrors have from anything their own New Testa- scared me." And either of these transments contain, what Jesus Christ re-lations is sufficiently literal. The Sepquires as to this preliminary ordinance tuagint, however, has-" My heart is

From Mr. Clayton's remarks on this subject, it would almost seem as if our versions in the East ladies were the only versions of the New Testament delinquent in this particular. But it is not so; the British and Foreign Bible Society supports, and will still support, many a version equally delinquent. Witness the Dutch Bible, Luther's German Bible, the Danish and the Swedish; not to mention others.

The word in question does not occur elsewhere in the Septuagint. Mr. Clayton, indeed, quotes two other passages, laying that stress upon the word baptized which indicates that he thought it was to be found in them? Did he trust to the guidance of Mr. Thorn, and thus fall into his error? To whatever cause it is to be attributed, error it is. The word baptize is not in either of the passages Mr. Clayton quotes. One of them is 1 Sam. xiv. 27. "Jonathan dipped the (Deut. xxxiii. 24)-" Let him dip his top of his rod :" though the word bap-foot in oil." Here the abundance of the tized, which Mr. Clayton employs, is oil is intimated by the figure of immersnot to be found here that which is ing the foot in it. found obviously means neither to sprinkle, nor to pour, but to dip, literally to dip; Jonathan dipped " the top of the

(2 Kings viii. 15)—"He took a thick | describing it are used allusively, will be cloth and dipped it in water." Water of especial use in guiding our inquiry. was neither poured nor sprinkled upon the cloth that was so cruelly used. (Mark xiv. 20)" One of the twelve that dippeth with me in the dish." Mr. Clayton says, this passage "does not imply the total submersion of the hand in the dish, but merely that the hand was put forth to the dish to take the sop which Christ had previously dipped in the same manner." Did Christ's reaching of the morsel to the dish make a sop of that morsel? and did He make the sop, and leave it near the dish for Judas to take up? These and other absurdities are implied in Mr. C's. version of the passage. I say nothing of the saturation of the morsel necessary to make it a sop.

(Rev. xix. 13)-"He was clothed in a vesture dipped in blood;" perhaps actually immersed in blood. Remember, the passage is a figurative representation of Christ as a successful warrior. Or perhaps, tinged, dyed, with the blood of fallen foes.

I must beg, however, that it may be distinctly understood, if this paraphrase on these texts should not be satisfactory, they are not instances of the use of the word baptized. That word does not occur in one of them; it is the word which unhappily Mr. Clayton mistakes for it.

This, however, may be reckoned a digression; necessary, perhaps, by the course of Mr. Clayton's argument; still, I will try and avoid such digressions in what remains to be said. Mr. Clayton adds, "I take upon myself in the face of this congregation, to deny the fact, that the original words signify to dip, or to plunge, necessarily, only, and always." As to that word which is never employed of Christian baptism, this denial was needless. We have never said that such was its meaning "necessarily, only, and always." Convenient things those adverbs sometimes are! As to the other word, that which is very seldom employed for any thing else than Christian baptism, so far as the Septuagint is concerned, the denial is unsustained by evidence.

The first occurrence of the word is in Matt. iii. 6, 7. John is the baptizer-the Jordan is the baptistery-and the multitudes who flock together from all parts are the subjects of the rite. Mr. Clayton, on the authority of the travellers Shaw and Chateaubriand, speaks of the stream of the Jordan as so rapid, and the margin as so deep, that it was impracticable to baptize there. A rather hazardous assertion in the face of Scripture testimony, that "the multitudes were baptized in the Jordan, confessing their sins." There were, however, fords (places to pass through) in the Jordan, so that it was not every where so deep and so rapid.

"The Jordan is six or eight feet deep at the margin." So is the Thames, the silver Shannon, the picturesque Rhine, in some places; but who therefore conceives it impracticable for two persons to walk into either of those rivers, at any place, and for one to immerse the other? John went, it is plain, to the Jordan. Now why, if not because it was convenient to immerse there? For the little water needful to sprinkle or pour, he would scarcely have gone to the largest river in the vicinity. He is said on another occasion, to go to Enon, to baptize, "because there was much water, or many waters, "there." For the lesser administration of the ordinance contended for by our friends, a few buckets of water would have been sufficient, and any place would have done well enough.

In Acts viii. 38, the baptism of the eunuch by Philip is recorded. "And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.' On this text, Mr. Clayton says, "There is not one word about going under the water. Both went to an equal depth in the water. If one went under the water, both went under the water." So then he admits that they did go into the water. For what purpose? Mr. Clayton says, "Perhaps they entered a few paces into the water; the element of water might then be applied to the eunuch." The sacred historian says, Philip baptized the eunuch. Mr. Clayton seems to be

to him at all. "It cannot be demon

Secondly. As to the New Testament. The Greek verb for baptizing is used, I believe, seventy-six times; the noun, bap-doubtful whether the water were applied tism, twenty-six. A few of these numerous instances only can be examined; those where the ordinance is not the subject of the text, but where the terms

strated," he says, "that the eunuch was put under the water at all; the element of water might be applied to him." Did