8thly. Another consideration of no inconsiderable importance to prove, that baptism by water, was to be a stated ordinance, in the New-Testament-dispensation, is taken from those passages of scripture, which do not directly, but impliedly assert, or allude to water-baptism, as a stated ordinance or practice, in the Apostolic and primitive Church. Titus iii. 15. Not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost. Paul is here guilty of a needless repetition, or else he intends two different things, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost. By the first, most Commentators and learned men, suppose he must intend baptism by water as a sign of the renewing of the holy Ghost. The original word translated washing of regeneration is the laver of regeneration—alluding to the laver or vessel to wash in, in the Jewish tabernacle and temple. We must be baptized, then, as well as renewed. The Apostle here speaks, indeed, most honourably of baptism, if he intend it, at all, as doubtless he doth.—Ephe. v. 26. That he might sanctify it, that is, the Church, having cleansed it by the washing of water, by the word. Christian baptism is generally supposed to be alluded to, in this passage, as one thing implied in being cleansed, in being regular and proper members of Christ’s Church. Romans, vi. 4. We are buried with him by baptism. How absurd would such an expression be, if there were no ordinance of baptism statedly administered!—It would be unintelligible to the Christians at Rome. What does the beloved Apostle mean? they would naturally say: We know of no such ordinance as baptism. He must have forgotten himself, or he would not speak of our being buried with Christ in baptism.—We have a similar allusion to the ordinance of baptism in Col. ii. 12. Buried with him, that is Christ, in baptism. If Christ would have no baptism, as a stated ordinance, how improper all such allusions to it. This scripture applies to all Christians, in all ages and parts of the world, who have the Gospel. But what instruction doth it contain in such allusions, if there be no ordinance of baptism?—More texts of this kind might be easily added, but these are enough as a specimen. If not of themselves a sufficient proof of the point before us, still they confirm the other arguments already adduced.—
9thly. It may, with much force be added here, as a convincing and satisfactory proof of the Institution of baptism by water, as a standing ordinance, in the Gospel dispensation, that the Apostles were unanimous in the administration of it, as an appointment of their Lord and Master. They absolutely knew his mind and will. They were with him so long, that it is impossible that they should be ignorant of his will. When he told them to baptize, they perfectly knew what he meant. They all practised baptism as a divine appointment. They baptised all their converts, without one exception, that we find on sacred record. Their command was, be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of Sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost. These were about three thousand, being all pricked to the heart by Peter’s Sermon, on the day of Pentecost. Now when they heard this they were pricked in their hearts, or convinced of Sin and savingly wrought upon, no doubt. And they said unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles, for they were all together, the Eleven, see Chap. ii. 1. Men and brethren, what shall we do?—Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized every one of you. This is a command from all the Apostles; for Peter spake in the name of the rest. They were all of one opinion on the subject; and this was but a few days after they received the commission to baptize all that should believe—go teach all nations, baptizing them. They never differed about the necessity of baptism. But were perfectly united in their practice. No one of them ever made any objection to the need of the ordinance, because Christ’s Religion was a spiritual Religion. Nay, they positively commanded their converts to receive the ordinance. Acts x. 48. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, using, beyond all reasonable doubt, the very form of words prescribed in the original institution. Here were both Jews and Gentiles, and one as well as the other, were commanded to be baptized. Now is it possible for any candid person, exercising his reason and reflecting powers, and not determined to support, at all events, a pre-conceived opinion, to suppose all the Apostles, in all parts of the world, among Jews and Gentiles, in all the Churches gathered by them, would unitedly, without one scruple, or one objector or objection, go into the practice of baptizing with water, if not an institution of their Lord, designed to be perpetuated, in his Gospel-kingdom, to the end of the world?—The Gentile converts, who were thousands of miles from Jerusalem and Judea, and where there were no Jews, were baptized, as well as Jewish converts. There could be no reason drawn from condescension or indulgence to prejudices, in their case, whatever there might be, in the case of Jewish converts.—
The arguments in support of the divine rite of baptism, as a Gospel-ordinance, would admit of much more illustration and enlargement—but I pursue the point no further, trusting that the attentive and reflecting hearer hath received full and entire satisfaction from the proofs already offered.
After contemplating the scripture-proofs of the ordinance of baptism, as a standing ordinance in the religion of Jesus Christ, it may not be a mere waste of time, to consider, in a concise manner, what hath been objected against it. Plainly as it is instituted, it has nevertheless been denied.—This, together with the Lord’s Supper, hath been classed with the old abrogated Jewish rites and ceremonies, and exploded with them as wholly unworthy the regards of christians, and disgraceful to the spiritual nature of Christ’s religion. The texts of scripture, which inform us of the abolition of Jewish rites—meats and drinks—or carnal ordinances, have been applied to the Gospel-ordinances. The argument is this, the Apostles tell us no Jewish ordinances are binding on us, but are all abrogated, therefore there are no christian ordinances binding on us. This all must see, who can exercise any reason, is no argument at all. And no man who uses it, can believe it to be any argument. The passages of scripture which declare the abolition of the Jewish ordinances are Col. ii. 14, to the 23 verse—Rom. xiv. 1, to the 17 verse. And in several other places the same thing is affirmed. These places refer only to the Jewish rites and ordinances, and the abolition of them. Any one may see this, who will attend to them. To apply them to the christian ordinance of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, is not only unfair and unjust, but a horrible perversion of scripture. It cannot be done ignorantly; for any one who can read, and who is capable of perverting such passages, must know better.——
Again:—The abuses of the ordinance of baptism, and the disputes about it, are alledged as valid objections against there being any such ordinance to be observed in the Gospel-kingdom. We lament that it ever hath been abused or perverted: and that there have been so many controversies about its nature, and the subject and mode. But this is no kind of argument against its being a divine ordinance. For can a truth—a duty—or a doctrine of religion be named, which hath not been denied, or perverted, or abused?——
Another objection against the holy ordinances of the New-Testament, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, is taken from our Lord’s washing His disciples’ feet—Paul’s circumcising Timothy—St. James directing that the sick be anointed with oil—and the decrees of the first Apostolic council met at Jerusalem.—These several instances of conduct are recorded John xiii. 4—to the 12, Acts xvi. 1—to the 4—xv. 29—and James v. 14. The objection from these things, against the two standing sacraments or ordinances of the Gospel, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, is very easily obviated. Our Lord’s washing the feet of his disciples is described as an extraordinary instance of humility, and is a representation of the cleansing efficacy of his blood soon to be shed by wicked hands—calculated to teach us to love one another—to be meek—ready to do any kind office when needful, though mean—and that we should not assume any Lordship or dominion over one another’s consciences. And at the close, he expressly tells them he had set them a pattern of meekness and condescension, and not ordained an institution to be observed in his church to the end of the world. There is a material and essential difference between setting a pattern of a virtue or giving a remarkable display of it, and solemnly appointing a holy Ordinance. We cannot argue from the one to the other.—We are to follow the Redeemer, in all his doctrines and ordinances, but not to perform the same extraordinary personal actions—any more than to imitate him in his exterior manner, air, and habit.—As to Paul’s circumcising Timothy, there was a very plain reason for it. It was necessary for his reception, at that time, among the Jews. The ordinance of circumcision was not then declared to be abolished. When the time had come, when there was to be an open declaration of its abolition, no one of the Apostles practised it, upon their converts. Moreover, Timothy was circumcised as born of a Jew, and not as a christian convert. As a convert to christianity he was baptized, as of Jewish lineage he was circumcised. And St. Paul’s example to us, in this is, to exercise condescension, forbearance, and humility. As to the anointing the sick in the name of the Lord, James v. 14, it was an appointment for the miraculous cure of such, Mark vi. 13. But since those extraordinary gifts are ceased, as being no longer necessary for the confirmation of the Gospel, our faith in the common course of things has no warrant for using that ceremony; much less doth what is here said about it, give any countenance to the Papist’s Sacrament of extreme Unction which they administer not for the recovery of the sick, but for a pretended purgation from the sins of those that are in the very article of death, or past hope of recovery.
As to the decrees of the famous Apostolic council met at Jerusalem, they were adapted to the then existing case and circumstances of the Gentile converts, and not of perpetual obligation in Christ’s kingdom, except one article of a moral nature, abstinence from fornication. The others are not described as binding on all Christians. There is nothing, in the result of that council, which can possibly signify that the practice of Christians, in all ages, should be conformed thereto. It was wholly adapted to the then state of the Gentile Converts.——Thus it most manifestly appears that these instances of actions above cited and commented upon, are not binding on Christians, in the common ages of the Church; and were never intended to be;—nor can any argument or objection be raised from them, of the least weight or plausibility, against the two plain, express, and positive Institutions of the Gospel, to be observed, in all ages, to the end of the world, baptism and the Lord’s Supper.——
We will now make some improvement of what hath been said.—And what are the great and special uses or purposes of this Ordinance? Some affirm that it is a vain and unprofitable ordinance. Let us enquire, is it so then indeed? Did Jesus Christ impose on his church a rite useless and absurd?—The profit of it, however, appears to be great every way. But were we convinced, that he had actually appointed it, we ought to observe it, even if we could not discern any moral uses, or religious benefit resulting from it—trusting in his love, faithfulness, wisdom, and goodness.—It is of great use and importance as it teaches us, in a striking and affecting manner, our defilement and pollution by sin, one of the foundation-doctrines of the Christian Religion. It teaches us this more affectingly than words can do.—It is a clear and lively emblem of the need of the renewing of the holy Ghost. Baptismal water points out the need of a spiritual baptism—or that we must be cleansed from sin by grace divine, and a Saviour’s atoning blood.—The very form of words prescribed by our Lord, and always used, teach us where all our hope, our love, our trust, our dependence for salvation must center, in the Father, and the son, and the holy Ghost—a triune God. Baptismal water, as a visible sign, represents our need of having all our sins, as to their guilt, washed away by the blood of Jesus—Be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.—Baptism, as a sensible sign, signifies our obligation to renounce sin, and to put on the temper and character of Christ—to put away the filth of the flesh, and to put on newness of life—to renounce the vanity and pomp of the world—and to become clean in heart and life. And when we are baptized, or have our children baptized, we bind ourselves to love, to live to, to obey, and serve the one true God as set forth in his own word.—Can the ordinance, then, be useless?—Does it answer no important ends, no moral and religious purposes?—Is it also recognizing our engagements to be the Lord’s we and ours. And teaches some of the greatest and most important doctrines, truths, and duties of Religion.—Does it then, as the deniers of it affirm, keep us from god—from christ—from the substance—from the power of religion?—No: it brings us, in its tendency, to them. How unhappy that any, under a christian name, should set themselves to vilify—reproach, and deny, it!—May the scales of ignorance and prejudice fall speedily from their eyes; and that Jesus whose ordinances they reject, commiserate and forgive them; and not suffer them to be the means of spreading irreligion!—
2dly. We may enquire for the improvement of this subject, who may, according to scripture, enjoy the ordinance of baptism? The answer is, all who confess that Jesus is the Christ—who profess to believe in his religion—and have a desire and disposition to honour him in it,—and live a regular, pious and religious life. Such may enjoy it for themselves, and infant seed.——
3dly. As another observation for the improvement of the subject, we may ask how is it to be administered? Water is to be applied to the subject by sprinkling the face, or by immersion, in the name of the father, son, and holy Ghost. The quantity of water is a mere circumstance. And immersion is as valid as sprinkling.—Mere circumstances are left to the wisdom, prudence, and convenience of the observer. Some prefer immersion as the most scriptural, and others, sprinkling. Both are valid. Both are right? All that is essential is the application of water, in one of these ways, to the meet subject, as the form is prescribed. Some admit, others exclude infants, but this need be no bar to christian communion. Had the various denominations of christians entertained these catholic and charitable sentiments, there would never have been any dispute about the mode, and much evil would have been prevented.—I hope and expect the day will come—and O that it might not be far distant, when these reconciling and compromising sentiments will have a general diffusion; when all real christians will be united, though practising in different forms, and bend their whole force and zeal against error—vice—and irreligion.