B O O K   T H I R D.

---

CHAPTER I.

SUBJECTS OF JOHN'S BAPTISM.

      THE action called baptism, so far as judged convenient and necessary, has been ascertained. A miniature view, while it is more portable and convenient, may be as true and faithful to the original as one large as life. There is sometimes as much argument in a page as in a volume--in a sheet as in an octavo. The age of folios and quartos has passed away. Men of reflection know that many words and long sentences are not always arguments. In an age of books, like the present, a tract may be read while a treatise may be neglected; and, therefore, may be made more useful than a volume.

      We now propose a miniature view of the subject of baptism, or the person that ought to be baptized. A million of pages could not convince a certain class of men on any subject to which they are already committed. They love to have, it so they will have it so; and, therefore, it is so. Our hopes generally terminate upon the uncommitted--the candid and the inquisitive for truth. For their sake, and with an almost single eye to their illumination and rescue from error, we select arguments and authorities, both as respects variety and number. To this class we now propound the question, Who of mankind have a right to receive the blessing of Christian baptism?

      Before tendering an answer to the important question, Who ought to be baptized, it will be expedient to inquire to what dispensation or institution of religion this solemn and significant ordinance belongs. Our most reformed standards of Protestantism affirm, with the Westminster Confession, that "baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament;" and, consequently, belonged not to the Patriarchal or Jewish institution of religion. This is [205] a very important decision of a very leading question bearing directly and forcibly on the great subject of investigation.

      But we may be asked, What importance is attached to the fact that it is a New Testament ordinance? The fact that there is an Old and New Testament, an obsolete and an existing divine institution, is pregnant with very important results and bearings as respects both duty and privilege. A new Testament or a new Will makes a prior one of no binding influence or importance. Paul thus reasons in his letter to the Hebrews. His words are, "In that God saith, I will make a new institution, or testament, he hath made the first old;" that is, obsolete. Still, the Old Testament, being the mould or type of the New, may be of much value to us, even although it ceases to be binding. If the shell of an antediluvian fish increases our knowledge of physical nature, why may not the moulds and types of the Jews' religion, in which our Christian institution was once enveloped, increase our knowledge of that institution?

      God has generally presented a picture to the eye as well as a word to the ear, in revealing his purposes and designs to the human race. To look into the Patriarchal and the Jewish institutions through the developments of the Christian religion, is, therefore, of much importance, both as respects the enlargement of our knowledge and the confirmation of our faith. To myself, as to many other students of the Bible, it is demonstrably evident that God has from the beginning of time been arranging the prominent characters and incidents in human history and the leading events of his own moral government and providence in such a way as to create faith in his testimony, and to illustrate and render more intelligible the mysteries of Christ and his gospel. To glance at a few of these, with a reference to the subject on hand, may not be without some interest and advantage to the inquirer after the proper subject of baptism.

      Placing, then, before us the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, or the Oracles of God committed to the Jews and those committed to the Christians, we discover in them the following singular coincidences:--Each has its Adam, its constitution, its special community, its Mediator, its precepts, its promises, its privileges, its rewards, its punishments. Hence the frequency with which these are placed in contrast by the authors of the volume containing the Christian Scriptures.

      In the apostolic writings we have two Adams contrasted--the [206] first and the second, the earthly and the heavenly. We fell in the first, we rise in the second. There are two chief covenants--the first and the second, the old and the new; two Mediators--Moses of the first, and the Lord Messiah of the second; two communities--the Jewish and the Christian; two births--that of the flesh and that of the Spirit; two positive precepts--circumcision and baptism; two classes of promises--the one temporal, the other spiritual: two inheritances--one in Canaan and one in heaven.

      But as the first existed for the sake of the second, and as the points of shadow and substance, of type and antitype, are numerous and various, the prominent characteristics, designs, and tendencies of these two divine institutions are set in order before us and pictured out in several conspicuous and remarkable persons, events, and circumstances. To these also we shall briefly allude as preparatory to a proper development of the question before us.

      There are several public persons, such as Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, with their families, made to stand in a double position to mankind--as natural progenitors of the race, and as typical or spiritual persons. Adam was the father and representative of the whole human race. From him we have all inherited both life and death. We all live because he lived; we die, because, as our representative, he sinned. His two sons, Cain and Abel, represent two seeds or races of men. Cain was a man and a murderer, and Abel was a saint and a martyr. Seth takes Abel's place, and his descendants remain for seventy generations, till the Messiah appears. Cain's offspring perished in the flood.

      Abraham of all the sons of Seth, was the most illustrious personage down to the times of the Messiah. He was constituted "the Father of the Faithful," and his faith the model faith of the family of God. He had two sons--one by nature and one by faith. The mother of the first was a slave--of the last, a free woman. The two women represent the two covenants, and their two sons the two communities under them.¹ One of these sons was "born after the flesh," the other "after the spirit," or by faith. Two families spring from these--the Ishmaelites and the Israelites. But Isaac was the person from whom the promised [207] Benefactor and Redeemer of the world was to come. "In Isaac shall thy seed be called." Isaac became a father: he has two sons, and only two--Esau and Jacob. Jacob is converted into Israel, while from Esau the Edomites descend. To Ishmael Abraham gave a loaf of bread and a bottle of water; to Isaac, all his estate. To Esau God gave Mount Seir; to Israel, Canaan, for an inheritance.

      It is worthy of remark that of these three most remarkable persons,--Adam, Abraham, and Isaac,--the first-born sons were only born after the flesh, and lived after the flesh; while their second born sons were born after the Spirit, and lived according to the Spirit. "Howbeit," said Paul, "that was not first which was spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterwards that which is spiritual:' Of the first class were Cain, Ishmael, and Esau; of the second, Abel, Isaac, and Israel.

      Such were the original elements, the mystic alphabet of spiritual things, as time in its evolutions afterwards developed. The typical nation is created out of the flesh of Isaac, according to what God had said to Abraham--"In Isaac shall thy seed be called." Hence the fortunes of Jacob and his sons are spread out before us from that day until the Messiah is born, to the comparative obscuration and disparagement of every other nation and people.

      They became "a nation, great, and mighty, and populous," and are placed under the special wing of Jehovah as their King. Their males are marked in the flesh by a special covenant entered into in the 99th of Abraham, one year before Isaac was born. Hence Isaac was born in circumcision.

      While on their way from Egypt to Canaan, they are constituted into a holy nation, a kingdom of priests; not spiritually holy, indeed, but holy as respected the flesh. Hence the free use of the term holy in its application to that people. Their camp, their tabernacle, with all its furniture,--their priesthood, with all its appurtenances, as well as their persons, were separated, sanctified, or made holy to the Lord.

      It is at Sinai that Moses appears as a mediator. It is there that the natural seed, the inheritance, and a special relation to God, are engrossed in one great politico-ecclesiastic institution. These three are now imbodied in one covenant and solemnly ratified.

      The seed of Abraham had now multiplied into millions, but [208] the promised seed was not yet come. While the flesh of the Messiah is in the nation, it must continue under a theocracy. It must be under the special care and direction of God. Its institutions must all be mystic, while the Messiah is hid in the family of Abraham.

      The new birth was represented by a "baptism into Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea." The mystic manna, or "THE BREAD OF LIFE," was concealed under the covert of the manna that daily fell around their dwellings. The stricken Rock, whence issued a living stream, was to them Christ. The cloud which over-shadowed them by day and illuminated them by night, which guided and protected them through the wilderness, was to them what the Holy Spirit is to Christians in all his influences through his word and ordinances. Their whole pilgrimage through the desert is a picturesque representation of human life under a remedial system. Death was shadowed forth in their Jordan, and heaven itself in their Canaan. "The things that happened unto them happened unto them for types, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world" (the consummation of that dispensation) "have come."

      The long-promised and joyfully anticipated hour arrives--the "fulness of time" has come--the proper offspring of the woman appears. His harbinger anticipates him by a few months. In proper time he announces his appearance. He proclaims the acceptable year of the Lord, and prepares a people for his reign. He commences in the bosom of the Jewish church. He strikes at their cardinal errors in theory and practice. He says, "Think not to say you have Abraham for your father." He repudiates all reliance upon the flesh. "God," said he, "can raise, of these inanimate stones, sons to Abraham." "Reform," continues he, "for the REIGN OF HEAVEN approaches." He assures his countrymen that the day of excision and destruction was nigh to all them that trusted in the flesh. To use his own words, "the axe" then lay at the root of every barren tree. The fatal blow was about to be inflicted upon them, that would convert them into fuel. He announces, in very intelligible words, that his immediate successor, whose way he was preparing, would immerse the people in fire and in the Holy Spirit. They should all be immersed into their respective tenets. Those who received the Messiah should be immersed into the Holy Spirit; and those who did not would be cast into fire: for so the [209] context defines the subjects of the two baptisms--that of the Spirit and that of the fire. Hence the ministry of John; both his preaching and baptism are indicative of a new organization upon another principle than that of the Jewish organization. Fleshly connection with Abraham, or with any antecedent covenant would not be to any one a passport into the new association. A new faith and a new repentance are now proposed as the basis of a new ecclesiastical institution. The Jews, as a nation, expected a Messiah; but, as a nation, they rejected Jesus as that Messiah. Hence, as a national community, they ceased to be God's holy nation and his peculiar people. But they are not rejected as Jews, neither are they received to baptism as Jews. They are rejected because they reject Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, and they are received because they have received Jesus as the Messiah. It is essential to our induction into the spirit and genius of primitive and pure Christianity that we keep this cardinal and all-important fact before us--viz. that the Jews were neither received nor rejected by John as Jews; nor were they received or rejected upon the indefinite belief or disbelief of a Messiah, a Saviour to come; but they were received or rejected upon the distinct and definite belief or disbelief--that Jesus of Nazareth was that definite and special Messiah, of whom Moses, in the law, and all the Prophets did speak.

      In preparing a people for the Lord, John did not propose to build a church within a church--to erect an imperium in imperio; but simply by faith, repentance, and baptism, to have a people ready for the manifestation of the Messiah, to become the nucleus of a new institution.

      FAITH, then, and not flesh--personal repentance, and not family lineage, are essential prerequisites to admission into John's confidence and baptism, as the herald of the true Messiah. Thus, he levelled the mountains and exalted the valleys; thus, he made the crooked ways straight and the rough places smooth, that all flesh might now meet on one new, solid, sublime, and enduring foundation.

      Neither John nor his preaching, neither his repentance nor his baptism, was intended to reform or new-modify, to improve or perfect the Jewish constitution and community. Since the Messiah was born, and had come out of the nation, its solemn rites were but an empty shell. The kernel was now extracted. Hence spirit and not flesh, faith and not blood, baptism and not [210] circumcision, became the burden of the Harbinger, the Messiah himself, and his seventy Evangelists.

      Very early in the evangelical history, we are told that he came to his own country--ancient Canaan, the covenanted inheritance of Abraham and his seed; but his own people--his kinsmen in Abraham, received him not in the character and mission which he had assumed. But he was well and cordially received by a few. Hence it is declared, that "to as many as received him, to them he gave the privilege or power to become the sons of God--even to them that believe in his name; who were born, "not as the Jewish nation," of blood, of flesh, and of the will of man; but of God." Here is the clear and distinct avowal of the spirituality of the new kingdom. God's ancient kingdom was of this world, so long as the flesh of his Son was in it. But now he has come out of it, and faith unites us to him as the Founder of a new kingdom. This explains his speech to Nicodemus, a learned ruler of the Jews' church, on the necessity of being spiritually born before he could possibly be admitted into the new kingdom of God.

      There is great potency in an appropriate name. Hence the Spirit of wisdom and of eloquence selected for the first annunciation of this new institution the beautiful and attractive name, "THE REIGN OF HEAVEN." This reign of Heaven in the heart, in a society, or organized community, is called THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, and the Kingdom of God. But, as the Jews were, in their fleshly and worldly character, as a nation and people, placed under the special government of God, they were, in that sense, called "the Kingdom of God." It was, therefore, kindly intimated by the first of the Evangelists, and by the Harbinger on his first annunciation of a new institution, that, in contrast with the kingdom of God amongst the Jews, which was of this world, this should be first known as "the Kingdom of heaven," because of its inducting its citizens into a state of spiritual blessedness, as far above all antecedent dispensations as the heavens are higher than the earth.

      It is cheerfully and thankfully admitted that amongst myriads of men in the flesh, there always was a remnant of persons in the Jews' institution of distinguished piety and of great moral and spiritual excellence and eminence. But they were not so by the spirit and force of that institution, but by the spiritual provisions of the first covenant that God made with Abraham; [211] which, in its prospective character, intimated the Christian institution with all its provisions of righteousness and mercy, as now fully developed. But now, all true citizens of the Christian kingdom, by virtue of its own provisions, and without any foreign aid from an antecedent or a subsequent institution, are made partakers of all spiritual light, liberty, and privilege essential to the full development of a perfect character, and to the full enjoyment of all the blessings of wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and redemption.

      The institution announced by John is properly called a New Institution. Hence its foundation is new, as well as its privileges, rights, immunities. John, in preparing the way for its annunciation, therefore, very appropriately calls for personal reformation before baptism. He refuses all who cannot, or who will not, confess their sins and profess repentance prior to baptism. All his converts were baptized by him confessing or acknowledging their sins. Hence, they were persons who had sinned, and who did believe, and could make confession of sin and declaration of repentance. No one can say that John preached two baptisms, one having no confession of sin, no repentance connected with it; and one that refused both Pharisee and Sadducee, soliciting baptism because of their relations to Abraham, without faith in the Messiah and reformation of life.

      Indeed, John positively declares that he preached "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." It is called "the baptism of repentance." Now, it is impossible that infants or impenitent persons could have been the subjects of John's baptism. Two things were essential to entitle a person to John's baptism: the first is, that he had been a sinner, and was now a penitent sinner. Will either of these apply to tender infants? Who presumes to say that infants are sinners, or that they are penitent sinners, and that they can speak out and confess that they once were impenitent, but are now penitent sinners? In the absence of actual transgression, in the absence of repentance for actual transgression, and in the absence of a power to speak out and confess their sins, no one was a proper subject of John's baptism. May we not, then, fearlessly affirm that, for these irrefragable reasons, John baptized no infants--none, indeed, but penitent and reforming persons of mature age and reason. One important fact, of much value in this [212] investigation, is now established, viz. that the introductory baptism, ordained by God, called for knowledge, conviction of sin, repentance, and confession on the part of the subjects of it. That this conclusion may appear well-founded, we shall submit all the passages that speak of the subjects of John's baptism, and the peculiarities of his mission. They are the following:--

      Mark i. 1: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

      John i. 6, 7: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John: the same came to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe." Matt. iii. 3: "For this is he that was spoken of by the Prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."

      Luke i. 16 17: "And many of the children of Israel shall ho turn to the Lord their God: and he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." iii. 1, 2: "Now, the word of God came unto John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness."

      Mark iii. 1: "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea." Luke iii. 2: "And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Matt. iii. 2: "And saying, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

      Acts xiii. 24: "John preached the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel." xix. 4: "Saying unto the people, that they should believe on HIM which should come after him--that is, on Christ Jesus."

      John i. 19 to 31: "And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent Priests and Levites to ask him, Who art thou? He confessed, I am not the Christ. I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness Make straight the way of the Lord. And they asked him, Why baptizest thou, if thou be not that Christ? John answered, I baptize in water; but there standeth one among you, who, coming after me, is preferred before me. That HE should be manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing in water. 33. [For God] sent me to baptize in water."

      Matt. iii. 5: "Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan; 6. And were baptized of him in the Jordan, confessing their sins."

      Mark i. 4: "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; 5. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea and they of [213] Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins."

      Luke iii. 12: "Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do? 12. And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you."

      Matt. iii. 7: "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8. Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for repentance; 9. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. 11. I, indeed, baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire; 12. Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

      Matt. iii. 13: "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized of him. 14. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest then to me? 15. And Jesus answering, said unto him, Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him." Mark i. 9: [Thus] "Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and he was baptized of John in the Jordan."

      Matt. iii. 16: "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water." Mark i. 10: "And--coming up out of the water," Luke iii. 21, "and praying, the heaven was opened, 22, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. 23. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age."

      John i. 32: "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 29, 36. And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world! 34. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. 28. These things were done in Bethabara, where John was baptizing."

      John iii. 22: "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them and baptized. 26. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Behold, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. 27. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven. 30. He must increase, but I must decrease."

      Chap. iv. 1: "When, therefore, the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than [214] John, 2. (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) 3. He left Judea, and departed again into Galilee. x. 40. And [he] went away again beyond the Jordan, into the place where John at first baptized; 42. And many believed on him there."

      Luke vii. 24: "And when the messengers of John were departed he began to speak unto the people concerning John. What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? 26. A Prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and more than a Prophet." Matt. xi. 10: "For this is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 11. Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women, there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist." John v. 35: "He was a burning and a shining light."

      Mark xi. 29. "And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one question. 30. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? Answer me. 31. And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him? 32. But if we shall say, Of men; (all the people will stone us: Luke xx. 6,) they feared the people; for all men counted John that he was a Prophet indeed. 33. And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell."

      Luke vii. 29: "And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. 30. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized by him."

      From a careful examination of the whole testimony of the four Evangelists concerning John's baptism, there appears as much reason to conclude that the Messiah was an infant when John immersed him in the Jordan, as that he ever baptized an infant or any one incapable of confessing his sins and professing reformation.

      His baptism is called baptism of repentance. It is so called by Matthew, Mark, and Paul; of course, then, none but penitents could be the subjects of a "baptism of repentance for remission of sins." Infants have not sins to repent of; and, therefore, can neither morally, nor physically, nor by proxy confess them. Hundreds of candid Pedobaptists avow the conviction that John's baptism, at least, was addressed only to persons of mature age and reason. With the Episcopal commentators, T. Scott and Burkitt, "almost all learned men say John's baptism was the baptism of repentance, of which infants were incapable." Burkitt's Notes on Matt. xix. 13-15. "It does not appear that any but adults were baptized by John. Adults professing [215] repentance and a disposition to become the Messiah's subjects, were the only persons whom John admitted to baptism." T. Scott's Com., Matt. iii. 56.

      It is as inexpedient as unnecessary to multiply such concessions and acknowledgments as these. Scarcely any one is so presumptuous as to contend that John baptized any one, except the Messiah, who did not confess his sins; and but very few have had courage to affirm that he ever sprinkled or poured water upon any one, infant or adult.

      But there are those that assume that there was a Jewish proselyte baptism in use long before the days of the Baptist, and that John derived his baptism from it. This, it must be confessed, is a very weak bulwark in defence of infant baptism. Infant proselytes!! What an easy triumph!! John could not have said to such, "Generation of vipers, who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, and think not to say, We have Abraham for our father."

      A few great names have, indeed, been arrayed before us, affirming that such a rite was in use from very ancient times amongst the Jews. But as many great, if not greater names, can be arrayed on the negative side. Do they mention a Lightfoot, a Beza, a Maimonides ? We will offset these with a Wernsdorfius, a Deylingius, an Eliezer, and a Knatchbull. Do they appeal to the Talmud, "that labyrinth of errors and foundation of Jewish fables?" We call for Josephus, who is as silent as the grave on this assumption. Do they appeal to Rabbis? We summon Philo and the Apocrapha. Neither of these so much as allude to it. Do they tell us of Dr. Owen? We tell them of Dr. Benson. Do they prove that ever the Jews baptized a proselyte? Let them name him. Then we will show that he lived after the days of John the Baptist, from whom doubtless certain Jews borrowed proselyte baptism.

      But we appeal to a stronger and a clearer light. We inquire at the Oracle of God. And what saith it? That John's baptism was a new institution. The words of those who ought to know it import this. The PRIESTS and the LEVITES ask John, "If thou art neither the Christ, nor Elias, nor the Prophet, why baptizest thou?" For this reason, says John, "I am come baptizing in water, because" I knew that "HE should be made manifest to Israel." Does not this indicate a new commission and a [216] new institution? To the same effect, says Paul, in his speech at Antioch, in Pisidia--"When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel."

      But there are two passages of Scripture still more expressly contradictory of this assumption. The one is taken from the Messiah himself. I ask you, says he, "Whence came the baptism of John--from heaven or from men?" They dare not say from men, for the people know better and would have stoned them.

      The other passage is Heb. ix. 10. In this all the divinely appointed rites, washing and bathing practised by the Jews, are said to have been ordained only till the time of reformation, or to the Christian era. These clearly indicate that John's baptism was from God, and not from tradition or from the Jews. Indeed, all this is logically and grammatically implied in calling him the Baptist. A baptist he might have been, but the Baptist he could not be but by contrast or by eminence.

      There is, however, one fact in the history of Jews' proselyte baptism as ancient as the existence of the usage, whether that be before or since the Baptist's time, fatal to the use that the advocates of infant baptism make of it. It is this: "IT WAS NEVER REPEATED ON THE POSTERITY OF THOSE WHO HAD BEEN THUS BAPTIZED."² Dr. John Walker, of Dublin, and the Socinians, regarding Christian baptism as a proselyting institution, refuse baptism to those whose parents have been baptized. Indeed, all those who regard baptism as a proselyting usage, after the Jewish style, ought never to baptize their descendants, whether infants or adults.

      We conclude, then, from all the premises extant, whether in the New Testament or out of it, that the baptizing of infants is without the slightest countenance, so far down as the personal Ministry of John the Baptist, or of the Messiah in person, is concerned. If, then, it be a divine institution, it must be a Christian institution; and if a Christian institution, it must have been instituted by Jesus Christ. Of course, then, the proof necessarily lies upon him that affirms that Jesus Christ ordained it. We ask for such evidence. Those who have it must, then, produce it. It is not incumbent on us to prove that the [217] Messiah did not institute or ordain infant baptism. It is incumbent on them that inculcate and practise it to show the Christian authority under which they act. A positive institution requires positive precept--a positive and express authority. No positive institution has ever been established upon mere inference. To attempt to found a positive Christian ordinance upon an inference, or upon a series of inferences, is, in spirit and in effect, to stultify and make void its pretensions. When was there in the history of the Bible a positive institution or a divine ordinance erected, enforced, and practised, upon a mere inference? We ask for a parallel case. It never has been given. It never can be given. We have called upon its advocates times without number for such a precept--for such a positive injunction; but hitherto we have asked in vain.

      We can, occasionally, circumstantially prove a negative. We sometimes prove an alibi. We show that the accused was elsewhere at the time and place in which the imputed deed was committed. The argument then is, The accused did not do it, because he could not do it; for he was not there.

      The assumption on hand may, indeed, in this way be negatived, and the negative maintained. We show that there is no baptism of divine authority, or of divine record, that did not require a moral qualification on the part of the subject of it. John, for example, demanded faith, repentance, and confession on the part of those who demanded his baptism. Indeed he went still farther. He repudiated the plea of ancestorial worth, of ancestorial faith, in the strongest imaginable terms. He supposes a case in which a son of Abraham, "the Father of the Faithful," presents himself demanding baptism on account of fleshly relationship. And what does he say to him? "Think not to say in your heart that you are a son of Abraham"--that this renowned Patriarch is your father. Nay, verily. "Bring forth fruits worthy" of the profession of repentance. Confess your sins and forsake them. Here, then, may be found a full demonstration of the ground we have assumed. The required qualification of the subject maybe such as to negative the approach of any one, of every one who is physically or otherwise disqualified. Now what alibi in law is more evident than if faith, repentance, and confession be required in any case as a prerequisite to the reception of any institution, the want of those qualifications wholly disqualifies such a candidate for that [218] institution, and negatives his advances to it. So long, then, as it is written, "If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest," it is also implied that if thou dost not believe with all thy heart thou mayest not be baptized.

[CBAC 205-219]