Proposition 10

I now proceed to show that immersion and washing of regeneration are two Bible terms for the same act, viewed from two different perspectives.

The term regeneration appears only twice in the common version of the New Testament, and not once in the Old Testament. The first is Matt. 19:28: "You who have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Dr. George Campbell, following the punctuation adopted by Griesbach, and substituting the word renovation for regeneration, renders it, "That, at the renovation, when the Son of Man shall be seated on his glorious throne, you, my followers, sitting also upon twelve thrones," etc. Genesis, being the term used for creation, palingenesia, denotes the new creation — either literally at the resurrection of the dead, or figuratively at the beginning of the Christian era, or at the start of the Millennium. Josephus, the Jew, called the return of Israel to their own land and institution, "The Regeneration" or "Palingenesia."

No notable writer, critic, or expositor supposes that regeneration in Matt. 19 applies to what theology calls the new birth, or regeneration of the soul — not even the Presbyterian Matthew Henry, nor Dr. Whitby, Campbell, Macknight, Thompson; nor, indeed, any writer I recall ever reading. Regeneration in this passage denotes a state, a new condition. In the same sense, we often use the term. The American Revolution was the regeneration of the country or the government. The beginning of the Christian era was a regeneration — so will be the creation of the new Heavens and new Earth. Since this is such a clear matter, and so generally accepted, we proceed to the second occurrence of this term.

"God saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit." God has saved us through the bath of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. This is the second time the word regeneration is found in the New Testament; and here it is conceded by the most learned Paidobaptists and Baptists that it refers to immersion. Though I have been led to this conclusion from my views of the Christian religion, I neither hold it myself nor justify it to others on this basis. I prefer to establish it by other testimonies than by those who agree with me on the meaning of this institution. Among these I will include Dr. James Macknight, formerly prolocutor or moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and translator of the Apostolic Epistles. One of his notes on Titus 3:5 reads as follows: — "Through the bath of regeneration." "Through baptism, called the bath of regeneration, not because any change in nature" (but I would not say in the state) "of the baptized person is produced by baptism; but because it is an emblem of the purification of his soul from sin." He then quotes in proof, (Acts 22:16.) "Arise, and be immersed, and wash away your sins." — Paul. He supports this view also from Eph. 5:26, and John 3:5. "The bath of regeneration," is then, according to this learned Paidobaptist, Christian immersion.

Parkhurst, in his Lexicon, on the word loutron, connects the same phrase, the washing or bath of regeneration, with Eph. 5:26, and John 3:5, as referring to immersion. So say all the critics, one by one, as far as I know. Even Matthew Henry, the good and venerable Presbyterian commentator, concedes this point as well, and quotes Eph. 5:26, Acts 22:16, and Matt. 28:19-20, in support of the conclusion that the washing of regeneration refers to baptism.

Our opponents themselves being judges, we have gained this point, namely, that the only time the phrase washing of regeneration occurs in the New Testament with reference to a personal change, it means, or is equivalent to, immersion. Washing of regeneration and immersion, therefore, are only two names for the same thing. Although I might be justified in moving on to another topic and assuming this point fully established, I prefer, for the sake of those slow to understand, to strengthen this conclusion with some other testimonies and arguments.

As regeneration is taught to be equivalent to "being born again," and understood to mean the same as a new birth, we will examine it under this metaphor. For if immersion is equivalent to regeneration, and regeneration means the same as being born again, then being born again and being immersed are the same thing; for this simple reason: things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Everyone must admit that no person can be born again of what he receives. Just as no person is born naturally — so no person can be born again, or born metaphorically — of what he receives. It destroys the idea, the figure, the allusion, and everything else that justifies applying these words to any change in a person, to suppose that the subject of the new birth, or regeneration, is born again of something he has received. This single remark shows the impropriety and inaccuracy of thought; or, perhaps, the lack of thought that popular notions of regeneration allow and sanctify.

In natural birth, there is the begetter and that which is begotten. These are not the same. The act of being born is different from what is born. Now the Scriptures carry this figure through every key point of similarity. There is the begetter. "Of his own will he has begotten or impregnated us," says James the Apostle. "By the word of truth," as the incorruptible seed; or, as Peter says, "We are born again, not from corruptible, but from incorruptible seed, the word of God which endures forever." But when the act of being born is spoken of, then water is introduced. Hence, before we enter the kingdom we are born of water.

The Spirit of God is the begetter, the gospel is the seed; and being thus begotten and quickened, we are born of the water. A child is alive before it is born, and the act of being born only changes its state, not its life. Just so in the metaphorical birth. People are begotten by the Spirit of God, impregnated by the word, and born of the water.

In one sense a person is born of his father; but not until he is first born of his mother. So in every place where water and the Spirit, or water and the Word, are mentioned, the water comes first. Every child is born of its father when it is born of its mother. Hence the Savior put the mother first, and the Apostles follow him. No other reason can be given for placing water first. How consistent this style! Jesus says to Nicodemus, "You must be born again, or you cannot see the kingdom of God." Born again! What does this mean? "Nicodemus, unless you are born of water and the Spirit you cannot enter the Kingdom of God." So Paul says in Eph. 5:26, "He cleansed the church," or the disciples, "by a bath of water and the Word." And to Titus he says, "He saved the disciples by the bath of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit." Now, as soon as, and not before, a disciple who has been begotten of God is born of water, he is born of God, or of the Spirit. Regeneration is, therefore, the act of being born. Hence its constant connection with water. Reader, reflect — what confusion and nonsense the mystic doctors have made of this metaphorical expression and this topic of regeneration. To call the receiving of any spirit, influence, energy, or operation on the human heart regeneration, is an abuse of all language, as well as a departure from the diction of the Holy Spirit, who calls nothing personal regeneration except the act of immersion.

Some curious criticisms have been offered to escape the force of the plain declaration of Jesus and his Apostles on this subject. Some say that the words, "Except a man be born of water and Spirit," are not to be understood literally. Surely, then, if to be born of water does not mean to be born of water, to be born of the Spirit must mean something other than to be born of the Spirit. This is so fanatical and extravagant it needs no further exposure. He who cannot see the propriety of calling immersion being born again can see no propriety in any metaphor in common use. A resurrection is a new birth. Jesus is said to be the firstborn from the dead because he was the first who rose from the dead to die no more. And surely, there is no misuse of language, but the greatest propriety in saying that he who has died to sin and been buried in water, when raised again out of that element, is born again or regenerated. If Jesus was born again when he came out of a tomb, surely he is born again who is raised up out of the grave of waters.

Those who are thus begotten and born of God are children of God. It would be a monstrous assumption that such persons are not freed from their sins. To be born of God and born in sin is inconceivable. Remission of sins is as certainly granted to "the born of God," as eternal life and deliverance from corruption will be granted to the children of the resurrection when born from the grave.

To illustrate what we believe has now been proved, we will consider political regeneration. Though the term regeneration is loosely used in this context, by such a license of speech, we may illustrate this subject for the understanding of all. Yes, the whole subject of faith, change of heart, regeneration, and character.

All civilized nations and kingdoms have constitutions; and in their constitutions they declare who are members of the social compact. Besides those who make up the community at the time a constitution is adopted, they say who shall share its blessings in all future times; that is, who shall be admitted into it, and by what means they shall become members. They have always decreed that their own descendants shall inherit their political rights and privileges. But they have also ordained that foreigners; that is, members of other communities, may become, by adoption or naturalization, citizens or fellow members of the same community. But they have, in their wisdom and kindness, established a rite or form of adoption, which has much meaning; and which, when submitted to, changes the status of the subject. Now, as the Savior consented to be called a King, and to call the community over which he presides a Kingdom, it was because of the analogy between these human institutions and his institution; and for the purpose not of confusing, but of helping the human mind understand and grasp the great purpose of his mission to the world. And it is worthy of the most emphatic attention that it was when speaking of a kingdom, he spoke of being born again. Yes, on that occasion, and that occasion only, when he spoke of entering into his kingdom, did he speak of the necessity of being born again. And had he not chosen that figure, he would not have chosen the figure of a new birth. With these facts and circumstances before us, let us examine political regeneration as the best imaginable illustration of religious regeneration. A. B. was born on the island of Great Britain, a native subject of George III, king of Great Britain. He was deeply attached to his native island, to the people, the customs, and traditions of his ancestors and relatives. With all these attachments growing stronger, he grew up to adulthood. Then he heard reports of this good land, this large, fertile, and highly desirable country. The country, the people, and the government were described to him in the most favorable terms. Sometimes these descriptions were exaggerated; but still, he could separate truth from fiction and was fully convinced not only of the existence of these United States but also of the possibility of becoming a citizen. He believed the testimony he heard, resolved to leave the land of his birth, to risk life and property, boarded a ship, and said goodbye to all the companions of his youth, his relatives, and dear friends. His conviction was so strong, and his faith so firm, that old Neptune and King Aeolus, with all their terrors, could not frighten him. He sailed from his native shores and landed on this continent. However, he was ignorant of many things related to this new country and government; and upon arrival, he asked for the rights and privileges of a citizen. He was told that the civil rights of hospitality to a stranger could be extended to him as a friendly alien, but none of the rights or privileges of a citizen could be his unless he was born again.

"Born again!" he said in a disappointed tone to Columbus, with whom he had his first conversation on the subject. "What do you mean by being born again?"

Columbus. — You must be naturalized, or adopted as a citizen; or, what we call born again.

A. B. — I don’t understand you. How can a man be born when he is grown?

Col. — That which is born of Great Britain is British, and that which is born of America is American. If, then, you want to be an American citizen, you must be born of America.

A. B. — 'Born of America!' You surprise me. I have come to America, well disposed toward the people and the country. I was once attached to England, but I became attached to the United States; and because of my faith and attachments, I have come here; and will you not receive me into your kingdom because I could not help being born in England?

Col. — As well disposed as I am, and we are, to receive you, I assure you, unless you are regenerated in a courthouse and have been enfranchised by and before the judges, you can never become a citizen of these United States.

A. B. — Yours is an arbitrary and despotic government. What airs of sovereignty you have assumed!

Col. — By no means. Right, reason, wisdom, policy, and benevolence for you, as well as the safety, dignity, and happiness of the whole community, require that every alien be naturalized, or made a citizen, before he can exercise or enjoy the rights of a citizen.

A. B. — You are certainly arbitrary—if not in the thing itself, of regeneration—then in the place and manner in which it must be done. Why, for instance, say that it must be done in a courthouse?

Col. — I will tell you; because there are the judges, the records, and the seal of the government.

A. B. — I understand you. Well, tell me, how is a man born again? Tell me plainly and without a figure.

Col. — With pleasure. You were born of your mother and father when you were born in England; and you were born legitimately, according to the institutions of England. Well, then, you were born of England, as well as born in it; and were, therefore, wholly English. This was your first birth. But you have expatriated yourself, as your application here proves—I say sentimentally you have expatriated yourself; but we must have a formal solemn pledge of your renunciation; and we will give you a formal pledge of your adoption. You must, ex animo, in the presence of the Judges and Recorders, renounce all allegiance to every foreign prince and ruler, and especially to His Majesty the King of Great Britain.

A. B. — Is that it? I can, with all my heart, renounce all political allegiance to every foreign prince and government. Is that all? I have no objection to that.

Col. — There is this also: — You are not only to renounce all political allegiance; but you must also, from the soul, solemnly vow, in the presence of the same Judges and Recorders, that you will adopt and submit to the constitution and government of these United States.

A. B. — I can do that too. I can renounce, and I can adopt; nor do I object to the place where it must be done. But, please, what solemn pledge will you give me!

Col. — As soon as you have vowed renunciation and adoption in the presence of the Judges and Recorders, we will give you a certificate, with a red seal, the seal of the state, attached to it; stating that you, having now been naturalized, or born according to our institutions, are born of America; and are now a son, an adopted son, of America. And that red seal indicates that the blood, the best blood of this government, will be shed for you, to protect and defend you; and that your life will, when called for, be cheerfully given up for your mother, of whom you have been politically born; just as it would have been for your own natural political mother, of whom you were first born.

A. B. — To this I must agree. In my mother tongue, it all means that I give myself up politically to this government, and it gives itself up to me, before witnesses too. How soon, please, after this new birth may I exercise and enjoy all the rights of a citizen?

Col. — They are yours the first breath you breathe under your new mother. It is true, we do not have, in these United States, any symbol through which a person is politically regenerated. We only ask a solemn pledge, and give one. Some nations have symbols. But we understand that the moment the vow is taken, the person is politically born again. And just as every other child has all the rights of a child which it can exercise as soon as it inhales the air; so all our political children have all political rights as soon as the form of naturalization is completed. But, remember, not until then.

A. B. — You say some nations have their symbols. What do you mean by these?

Col. — I mean that the naturalized had to submit to some emblematic rite, by which they were symbolically detached from every other people, and introduced among those who adopted them, and whom they adopted. The Indian nations wash all whom they adopt in a running stream, and assign this task to their women. The Jews circumcised and washed all whom they admitted to the rights of their institutions. Other customs and forms have been used in other nations; but we regard simply the meaning of the thing, and have no symbol.

A. B. — In this I feel little interest. I want to become a citizen of these United States; especially as I am told I can have no inheritance among you, nor a voice in the nation, nor any immunity, unless I am born again.

Col. — You must, then, submit to the institution; and I know that as soon as you are politically born again, you will appreciate the importance and usefulness of this institution more than you do now; and will be just as eager as I am to see others submit to this wise, wholesome, and benevolent institution.

A. B. — As my faith brought me to your shores, and as I approve your constitution and government, I will not (now that I understand your institutions) let an opportunity pass. I will head to the place where I can be born again.

I should here offer an apology for a phrase occurring frequently in this essay and in this dialogue. When we represent the subject of immersion as active, either explicitly or implicitly, we depart somewhat from the style that fits the figure of "being born." For all persons are passive in being born. So, in immersion, the subject does not bury himself, nor raise himself; but is buried and raised by another. So in the act, the subject is always passive. And it is only of that act that we thus speak.

From all that has been said on regeneration, and from the illustration just given, the following conclusions must, we think, be clear to all: —

First. Begetting and quickening necessarily precede being born.

Second. Being born imparts no new life; it is simply a change of state, and introduces a new mode of living.

Third. Regeneration, or immersion—the former referring to the meaning of the act, and the latter term to the act itself—denote only the act of being born.

Fourth. God, or the Spirit of God, being the author of the whole institution, imparting to it its life and power, is the begetter, in the fullest sense of that term. Yet, in a subordinate sense, every one skilled in the word of God who converts another may be said to have begotten him whom he enlightens. So Paul says, 'I have begotten Onesimus in my chains:' — and 'I have begotten you, Corinthians, through the gospel.'

Fifth. The gospel is declared to be the seed; — the power and strength of the Holy Spirit to impart life.

Sixth. And the great argument, relevant to our purpose, in this long examination of conversion and regeneration, is what we consider the clearest of all conclusions, namely: — that remission of sins, or entering into a state of acceptance, being one of the present privileges of the Kingdom of Heaven, cannot be scripturally enjoyed by any person before immersion. As soon as a person can be a citizen before he is born, or have the privileges of an American citizen while an alien; as one can enjoy the privileges of a child of God before he is born again. For Jesus expressly declares that he has not given the privilege of sons to any but those born of God. If, then, the present forgiveness of sins is a privilege and a right of those under the new constitution, in the kingdom of Jesus; and if being born again, or being born of water and of the Spirit, is necessary for admission; and if being born of water means immersion, as clearly proved by all witnesses; then, remission of sins cannot, in this life, be constitutionally enjoyed before immersion. If there is any proposition regarding any part of the Christian institution that admits clearer proof or fuller illustration than this one, I have yet to learn where it may be found. But before we dismiss the sixth evidence, which includes so many items, I would like to make a remark or two on the appropriateness of considering the term "immersion" as equivalent to the term "conversion."

"Conversion" is, on all sides, understood to be a turning to God. Not merely thinking favorably of God, nor repenting for former misdeeds; but an actual turning to God, in word and deed. It is true that no person can be said to turn to God whose mind is not enlightened and whose heart is not well disposed toward God. All human actions not resulting from previous thought or determination are more the actions of a machine than the actions of a rational being. "He who comes to God," or turns to him, "must believe that God exists and that he is a rewarder of everyone who diligently seeks him." Then he will seek and find the Lord. An "external conversion" is no conversion at all. A turning to God with the lips while the heart is far from him is mere pretense and mockery. But though I never thought otherwise since I began to think about religion; I understand the "turning to God," taught in the New Institution, to be a coming to the Lord Jesus — not thinking about doing it, nor repenting that we have not done it; — but an actual coming to him. The question then is, Where shall we find him? Where shall we meet him? Nowhere on earth but in his institutions. "Where he records his name," there alone can he be found; for there only has he promised to be found. I affirm, then, that the first institution in which we can meet with God is the institution for remission. And here it is worth noting that the Apostles, in all their speeches and replies to questions, never commanded an inquirer to pray, read, or sing as preliminary to coming; but always commanded and proclaimed immersion as the first duty, or the first thing to be done, after believing the testimony.* Hence, neither praying, singing, reading, repenting, sorrowing, resolving, nor waiting to be better was the converting act. Immersion alone was the act of turning to God. Hence, in the commission to convert the nations, the only institution mentioned after proclaiming the gospel was the immersion of the believers, as the divinely authorized way of carrying out and completing the work. And from the day of Pentecost to the final Amen in the revelation of Jesus Christ, no person was said to be converted, or to turn to God, until he was buried and raised up out of the water.

If it were not to treat this subject as one of doubtful debate, I would say that had there not been some act, such as immersion agreed on all hands, to be the medium of remission and the act of conversion and regeneration; the Apostles could not, with any regard to truth and consistency, have addressed the disciples as pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, and saved persons. If all this had depended upon some mental change, such as faith; they could never have addressed their congregations in any other way than as the moderns do: and that is always the language of doubt and uncertainty — hoping a little, and fearing much. This mode of address and the modern compared is proof positive that they viewed the immersed through one medium, and we through another. They taught the disciples to consider not only themselves as saved persons; but all whom they saw or knew to be immersed into the Lord Jesus. They greeted everyone coming out of the water as saved, and recorded him as such. Luke writes, "The Lord added the saved daily to the congregation."

Whenever a child is born into a family, it is a brother or a sister to all other children of the family; and its being born of the same parents is the act causative and declarative of its fraternity. All is mental and invisible before coming out of the water; and as immersion is the first act commanded, and the first constitutional act; so it was in the commission, the act by which the Apostles were commanded to turn or convert those to God who believed their testimony. In this sense, then, it is the converting act. No man can, scripturally, be said to be converted to God until he is immersed. How ecclesiastics interpret their own language is no concern of ours. We contend for the pure speech, and for the apostolic ideas attached to it.

To resume the direct testimonies declaring the remission of sins by immersion, we turn to the Gentiles. Peter was sent to the house of Cornelius to tell him and his family "words by which they might be saved." He tells these words. He was interrupted by the miraculous descent of the Holy Spirit. But it is to be noticed that the testimony to which the Holy Spirit there affixed its seal was the following words: — "To him gave all the prophets witness, that everyone who believes on him shall receive remission of sins by his name." While speaking these words concerning remission of sins by, or through his name, the Holy Spirit in its marvelous gifts of tongues fell upon them.

Many, seeing so much stress laid upon faith or belief, suppose that all blessings flow from it immediately. This is a great mistake. Faith, indeed, is the principle, and the distinguishing principle of this economy: but it is only the principle of action. Hence, we find the name, or person of Christ always interposed between faith and the cure, mental or physical. The woman who touched the edge of Jesus' cloak had as much faith before as after; but though her faith was the cause of her reaching out her hand, and accompanied it; she was not healed until the touch. That great type of Christ, the bronze serpent, cured no Israelite simply by faith. The Israelites, as soon as they were bitten, believed it would cure them. But yet they were not cured as soon as bitten; nor until they looked to the serpent. It was one thing to believe that looking at the serpent would cure them; and another to look at it. It was the faith, remotely; but, immediately, the look, which cured them. It was not faith in the waters of Jordan that healed the leprosy of Naaman the Syrian. It was immersing himself in it, according to the command. It was not faith in the pool of Siloam that cured the blind man whose eyes Jesus anointed with clay; it was his washing his eyes in Siloam's water. Hence, the laying on of hands, or a word, or a touch, or a shadow, or something from the persons of those anointed with the Holy Spirit, was the immediate cause of all the cures recorded in the New Testament. It is true, also, that without faith it is impossible to be healed; for in some places Jesus could not work many miracles because of their unbelief. It is so in all the moral remedies and cures. It is impossible to receive the remission of sins without faith. In this world of means, (however it may be in a world where there are no means) it is as impossible to receive any blessing through faith without the appointed means. Both are indispensable. Hence, the name of the Lord Jesus is interposed between faith and forgiveness, justification, and sanctification, even where immersion into that name is not detailed. It would have been unprecedented in the annals of the world for the historian always to have recorded all the circumstances of the same institution on every allusion to it; and it would have been equally so far for the Apostles to have mentioned it always in the same words. Thus, in the passage before us, the name of the Lord is only mentioned. So in the first letter to the Corinthians, the disciples are represented as saved, as washed, as justified, sanctified by the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. The frequent interposition of the name of the Lord between faith and forgiveness, justification, sanctification, etc. is explained in a remark in James' speech in Jerusalem. It is the application of an ancient prophecy concerning the conversion of the Gentiles. The Gentiles are spoken of as turning to, or seeking the Lord. But who among them are thus converted? "Even all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called." It is, then, to those upon whom the name of the Lord is called, that the name of the Lord communicates remission, justification, etc.

Some captious spirits need to be reminded that as they sometimes find forgiveness, justification, sanctification, etc. ascribed to grace, to the blood of Christ, to the name of the Lord, without an allusion to faith; so we sometimes find faith, and grace, and the blood of Christ, without an allusion to water. Now, if they have any reason and right to say that faith is understood in the one case; we have the same reason and right to say that water or immersion is understood in the other. For their argument is that in many places this matter is made plain enough. This is also our argument — in many places this matter is made plain enough. This single remark cuts off all their objections drawn from the fact that immersion is not always found in every place where the name of the Lord, or faith is found connected with forgiveness. Neither is grace, the blood of Christ, nor faith always mentioned with forgiveness. When they find a passage where remission of sins is mentioned without immersion, it is weak, or unfair, in the extreme, to argue from that that forgiveness can be enjoyed without immersion.

If their logic is worth anything, it will prove that a man may be forgiven without grace, the blood of Jesus, and without faith: for we can find passages, many passages, where remission, or justification, sanctification, or some similar term, occurs, and no mention of either grace, faith, or the blood of Jesus.

As this is the core, the essence, and richness of all the logic of our most ingenious opponents on this subject, I wish I could make it more emphatic than by printing it in capitals. I know some editors, some of our Doctors of Divinity, some of our most learned speakers, who make this argument, which we unhesitatingly call a genuine sophism, the Alpha and the Omega of their speeches against the meaning and indispensable importance of Christian immersion. The New Testament would have been a curious book if, every time remission of sins was mentioned or alluded to, it had been preceded by grace, faith, the blood of Jesus, immersion, etc., etc. But now the question comes, which, to the rational mind, is the emphatic question — do they think, believe, teach, and practice more wisely and more safely who think, believe, and teach that grace, faith, the blood of Jesus, the name of the Lord, and immersion are all essential to immediate pardon and acceptance; — or those who say that faith only, grace only, the blood of Christ only, the name of the Lord only — and immersion not at all? To all men, women, and children of common sense, this question is submitted.

It is, however, to me admirable that the remission of sins should be, not merely unequivocally, but so repeatedly declared through immersion, as it is in the apostolic writings. And here I would ask the whole thinking community, one by one, whether, if the whole human race had been assembled on Pentecost, or in Solomon's portico, and had asked Peter the same question the convicted proposed, would he, or would he not, have given them the same answer? Would he not have told the whole race to repent and be immersed for the remission of their sins? Or, to repent and be converted, that their sins might be blotted out? — to arise and be immersed, and wash away their sins? If he would not, let them give a reason; and if they say he would, let them assign a reason why they do not go and do likewise.

Some have objected against the "seasons of refreshment," or the comforts of the Holy Spirit being placed subsequent to "conversion," or "regeneration," or "immersion;" (for when we speak scripturally, we must use these terms as all referring to the same thing,) because the gifts of the Holy Spirit were poured out upon the Gentiles before immersion. They do not see the purpose of thus welcoming the Gentiles into the kingdom. They forget the comparison of the Gentiles to a returning prodigal, and his father going out to meet him, even while he was still a good way off. God had welcomed the first fruits of the Jews into his kingdom by a stupendous display of spiritual gifts, called the baptism of the Holy Spirit, before any one of the Jews had been immersed into the Lord Jesus. And, as Peter explains this matter in Cornelius's case, it appears that God determined to make no difference between the Jews and Gentiles in receiving them into his kingdom. Hence, says Peter, "he gave them the same gift which he gave to us Jews at the beginning," (never since Pentecost.) Thus Peter was authorized to command those Gentiles to be immersed by the authority of the Lord, no one daring to forbid it. But these gifts of the Holy Spirit differed greatly from the seasons of refreshment, from the righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, the common enjoyment of all who were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sins.

Let it be noted here, as relevant to our present purpose, that as the Apostle Peter was interrupted by the baptism of the Holy Spirit when he began to speak of the forgiveness by the name of the Lord Jesus; as soon as he saw the Lord had received them, he commanded them to be immersed by the authority of the Lord. And here I must propose another question to the learned and the unlearned. How does it happen that though once and only once, it is commanded that the nations who believe should be immersed into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; and though we read of no person being immersed into this name in this way; I say, how does it happen that all sects use these words without hesitation, and baptize or sprinkle in this name; when more than once persons are commanded to be immersed for the remission of sins, and few of the proclaimers can be persuaded to immerse for the remission of sins, though so repeatedly taught and proclaimed by the Apostles? Is one command, unsupported by a single precedent, sufficient to justify this practice of Christians; and several commands and precedents from the same authority insufficient to authorize or justify us in immersing for the remission of sins? Answer this if you can; I cannot, on any other principle than that the tyrant Custom, who gives no account of his doings, has so decreed.

I come now to another of the direct and positive testimonies of the Apostles, showing that immersion for the remission of sins is an institution of Jesus Christ. It is the address of Ananias to Saul: "Arise and be immersed and wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord." On this testimony, we have not yet elaborated in this essay. It has been mentioned, but not examined.

Paul, like the Pentecost hearers, when convinced of the truth of the Messiah's claims, asked what he should do. He was commanded to go into Damascus, and it would be told to him there what to do. It was told to him in the words now before us. But, some say, this cannot be understood literally.

For experiment, then, take it figuratively. Of what was it figurative? Of something already received? Of pardon formerly bestowed? A figure of the past?! This is anomalous. I find one writer, and but one, who converts this into a commemorative baptism, like Israel's commemorating the escape from Egypt, or Christians commemorating the Lord's death. And, if I am not mistaken, some preacher said it was a figurative expression, similar to "This is my body!" One, whom I pressed out of all these refuges, was candid enough to say he really did not know what it meant; but it could not mean that Paul was to be "baptized for the remission of his sins!"

"To wash away sins" is a figurative expression. Like other metaphoric expressions, it puts the resemblance in place of the proper word. It necessarily means something analogous to what is said. But we are said to be washed from our sins in, or by the blood of Christ. But even "washed in blood" is a figurative expression and means something analogous to washing in water. Perhaps we may find in another expression a way to reconcile these strong metaphors. Rev. 7:14. "They have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." Here are two things equally incomprehensible — to wash garments white in blood, and to wash away sins in water! An efficacy is ascribed to water which it does not possess; and, as certainly, an efficacy is ascribed to blood which it does not possess. If blood can whiten or cleanse garments, certainly water can wash away sins. There is, then, a transferring of the efficacy of blood to water; and a transferring of the efficacy of water to blood. This is a plain solution of the whole matter. God has transferred, in some way, the whitening efficacy, or cleansing power of water, to blood; and the absolving or pardoning power of blood to water. This is done on the same principle as that of accounting faith for righteousness. What a gracious institution! God has opened a fountain for sin, for moral pollution. He has given it an extension as far and wide as sin has spread — as far and wide as water flows. Wherever water, faith, and the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are, there will be found the efficacy of the blood of Jesus. Yes, as God first gave the efficacy of water to blood, he has now given the efficacy of blood to water. This, as was said, is figurative; but it is not a figure that misleads, for the meaning is given without a figure, namely immersion for the remission of sins. And to him who made the washing of clay from the eyes the washing away of blindness, it is competent to make the immersion of the body in water effective to the washing away of sin from the conscience.

From the conscience, I say; for there its malignancy is felt; and it is only in releasing the conscience from guilt, and its consequences — fear and shame, that we are released from the dominion of sin, or washed from its pollution in this world. Thus immersion, says Peter, saves us, not by cleansing the body from its filth, but the conscience from its guilt; yes, immersion saves us by burying us with Christ, raising us with him, and so our consciences are purified from dead works to serve the living God. Hence our Lord gave so much importance to immersion in giving the commission to convert the world — "He who believes and is immersed shall be saved."

But, while viewing the water and blood as made to unite their powers, as certainly as Jesus came by water and blood, we ought to consider another testimony given to this gracious combination of powers by Paul the Apostle: "Being sprinkled in heart from an evil conscience, and being washed in body with pure water."

The application of water, the cleansing element, to the body, is made in this gracious institution to reach the conscience, as did the blood of sprinkling under the law.

Some ask, How can water, which does not penetrate the skin, reach the conscience? They boast of such an objection as exhibiting great intellect and good sense. But little do they think that in so talking, they laugh at and mock the whole Divine Economy under the Old and New Covenants: for, I ask, did not the sacrifices and Jewish purifications somehow reach the conscience of that people? If they did not, it was all mere frivolity throughout. And can eating bread and drinking wine not influence or affect the soul? And can the breath of one person not pierce the heart of another, and so move his blood as to make his head a fountain of tears? He who objects to water and the meaning of immersion objects to the whole remedial institution, as taught by Moses and by Christ, and insults the wisdom and goodness of God in the whole scheme of salvation. And he who objects to water because it can only take away the filth of the flesh ought rather to object to blood; because it rather stains and pollutes than cleanses the body, and cannot touch the soul. But all such reasoners are foolish talkers. To submit to God's institution is our wisdom and our happiness. The experience of the myriads who were immersed for the remission of their sins, detailed in the Christian scriptures, to say nothing of those immersed in our times, is worth more than volumes of arguments from the lips and pens of those who can only regard and venerate the traditions of their fathers; because it is assumed their fathers were wiser and more able to judge correctly than their sons. But since it is not our purpose to quote and elaborate on all the sacred testimonies, direct and indirect, to immersion for the remission of sins, we will close the proof and illustration of this proposition with an incidental reference to the cleansing power of this institution, found in the 2nd Epistle of Peter. After listing the additions to faith necessary to secure our calling and election, of which courage is the first, and charity, or universal love, the last; the Apostle says that "he who does not have these things is blind, shutting his eyes, and forgetting that he was cleansed from his old sins." I need not say here that this is, perhaps, (and certainly as far as I know,) universally understood to refer to Christian immersion. The "old sins," or "former sins," can, we assume, mean no other sins than those washed away in immersion. No one has yet tried to show that these words can mean anything else. It is one of the most unequivocal, and, because incidental, one of the most decisive proofs, that, in Peter's judgment, all former sins were forgiven in immersion. With Peter we began our proof of this position, and with Peter we shall end our proof of it. He first proclaimed reformation for the remission of sins; and in his last and farewell letters to the Christian communities, he reminds them of that purification from sin, received in, and through immersion; and in the strongest terms warns them against forgetting that they were so purified.

If anyone were to reason about the simple meaning of the action commanded by Jesus, I think it might be made clear from the action itself, in its two parts, the burial and the resurrection, that it must mean everything the Apostles have ascribed to it. Decay literally goes down into the grave; but does decay come out of it? Is there no change of state in the grave? Who expects to come out of the grave in the same state in which he went into it? The first to rise from the dead did not; nor will any of those who fall asleep in him. How, then, can it be that anyone buried with Christ in immersion can rise with Christ and not rise in a new state? Surely the Apostle urges a new life from the change of state effected in immersion. "Since, indeed, you have risen with Christ, set your minds on things above." Walk in a new life.

Again, and lastly here — Is a child in the same state after birth as before? Is its state not changed? And does it not live a new life compared to its former way of living? As newborn babies desire the milk of the breast, so let the newly regenerated desire the pure milk of the Word, that they may grow by it. Call immersion, then, a new birth, a washing of regeneration, or a resurrection, and its meaning is the same. And when so called, it must mean that change of state which is implied in putting on Christ, in being pardoned, justified, sanctified, adopted, reconciled, saved, which was the great proposition to be proved and illustrated, and which we believe has been proved and illustrated by the preceding testimonies and reflections.

Though no article of Christian faith, nor item of Christian practice, can legitimately rest on any testimony, reasoning, or authority outside the sacred writings of the Apostles, even if only one day after their death; yet the views and practices of those who were contemporaries, or pupils, of the Apostles and their immediate successors, may be offered as supporting evidence of the truths taught, and the practices commanded, by the Apostles; and, as such, may be cited; still bearing in mind that where the testimony of the Apostles ends, Christian faith necessarily ends. After this preliminary remark, I proceed to support the following proposition: —