I.

MODE OF BAPTISM.

THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.

MATTHEW, XXVIII. 19.

Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

All

THE disciples of Christ are to be baptized. So all evangelical Christians agree: and such is the law of Christ. But while there is an entire agreement with regard to the authority of the law, there has arisen a difference of opinion concerning its interpretation. the leading denominations of Protestant Christendom, save one (and it is to Protestant Christendom, if anywhere on earth, that we are to look for intelligent views of doctrine and of order, and for evangelical obedience), all the leading denominations of Protestant Christendom, save one, maintain that the mode of baptism is not essential and for this opinion they go, not to the decrees of the Pope, nor to the traditions of the Papal Church, as we have been slanderously reported, but to the Word of God. Upon the most careful examination, and in making the best and most scrupulous application of the

acknowledged rules of interpretation that we are able, we find that sprinkling and pouring are Scriptural modes of baptism. Many think further (and I profess myself of this number), that these are the only modes for which we have any clear Scriptural example, or even clear Scriptural authority, if anything is to depend upon the mode. But we think nothing depends on the mode :— that the command to Baptize refers to the thing done, rather than to the mode of doing it: viz., to a ritual purifying by some manner of application of water: and in which the mode of the application is a matter of entire indifference; provided it be done decently and reverently, as becomes an ordinance of God. Hence, we regard immersion as valid baptism; and never refuse to administer it in that mode, when the candidate for baptism cannot be satisfied in conscience with any other.

But while we believe these things, another large denomination of Christians deem it essential to baptism, that the whole body be immersed: and so essential, that they refuse to be united in church membership, or to partake, even occasionally, of the Lord's supper in company with others who hold the same Gospel truth and order; who are of acknowledged piety; who, according to their best understanding, and with the full conviction of their conscience, have been baptized; who differ from themselves only in not having been wholly under water in the manner of their baptism; and who, were they to be convinced that immersion is essential to baptism, would as soon throw their bodies into the fire as refuse to be immersed. Their fault is not wilful disobedience: it is not neglect; it is not any want of candor or diligence in examining the question concerning the mode of baptism; it is solely this: instead of subjecting

their judgment and conscience, in this matter, to the au thority of their Baptist brethren, they have presumed to follow their own judgment and their own conscience, as enlightened by a careful study of the word of God.

"To the law and to the testimony." That word shall judge us in the last day, and by that will we be determined

now.

In our investigation of the MODE of Baptism, I shall first remark concerning the principles of interpretation to be applied or admitted in determining this question.

Then, I shall, upon the basis of these principles, institute three inquiries:

1. What would the immediate disciples of Christ understand from the simple face of the command, " Baptize?"

2. Is there satisfactory evidence, that they always administered the ordinance of baptism by immersion?

3. On the supposition that our Lord was baptized in a given mode, and that the apostles always practised that mode ;--is there evidence that they considered that one mode essential?

I

The preliminary remarks concerning the principles of interpretation, together with an application of those principles to the method of arguing employed by our Baptist brethren, will occupy this first discourse. shall be obliged to take up subjects foreign from the common field of sermonizing; and such as are rather scholastic, and not very interesting to a mixed assembly. I shall be obliged to tax your patience somewhat: but I will make the matter as clear and as interesting as I can: and discuss no topic which you will not perceive to have a weighty bearing upon the argument before we get through.

There cannot be much Gospel in such a discussion as this; as the whole genius of the Gospel is averse to disputations about the mere modes of rites and ordinances. I will try, however, to discuss the matter in the spirit of the Gospel; and will endeavor to bring in as much of the Gospel of salvation as a disputation about the mere ceremony of an ordinance will admit. I proceed

1. TO THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION TO BE APPLIED OR ADMITTED IN DETERMINING THIS CASE.

Sir William Blackstone, in his "Commentaries on the Laws of England," cites the following example for the purpose of illustrating one of the principles on which laws are to be interpreted.*

"A law of Edward III. forbids all ecclesiastical persons to purchase provisions at Rome." Now the word 'provisions" commonly means "victuals;" "things to eat ;" and at first sight the law of Edward III. seems to forbid the purchasing of victuals;-meat,-grain,-eatables, at Rome.

Suppose now, on a debate concerning the import of this law, one should say, "The law is express it says 'provisions,' and provisions are victuals."" Granted: such is the common acceptation of the word. Suppose he should urge it; and bring a hundred dictionaries, in all of which the first and most common meaning of the word "provisions" should be "victuals." Suppose, when I question whether the law meant victuals, and endeavor to give my reasons, he should lift up his hand toward the sun, and cry, It is as plain as the sun in the heavens, and the man who does not see it is not worth argu* Blackstone, Introduction, § 2, 3.