ADVERTISEMENT TO THE THIRD EDITION. THE unexpected favor with which the former editions of this work were received, and the continued demand for it, have induced the author to prepare another edition. In doing this, he has embraced the opportunity to make such improvements as further investigation and more mature consideration suggested. He has also gladly availed himself of the criticisms of Mr. Carson, who honored the work with his review. Such reply as the author deemed the review of Mr. Carson to require, he has given in notes attached to the places of the text in question. He has done the same with the review of an American Baptist, who writes under the name of "Transmontanus." There are also included, in this edition, several dissertations (taken chiefly from the author's work on Baptist Errors) upon particular points, which could not be so fully discussed in the current of the discourses. Norwalk, March, 1846. INDEX. I. PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION, II. SCRIPTURAL MODES OF BAPTISM, III. DISSERTATIONS UPON PARTICULAR POINTS, TOUCH- 3. Dr. Campbell on Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38, 4. Prof. Ripley on Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38, 136 L 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 în 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 |