I repeat it, if baptism is only an emblem, then God's name is only an emblem, because that is the principal thing in it : and if God's name is only an emblem, God himself is only an emblem, because his name is himself : and if he is an emblem, he cannot be an almighty being. Certainly no Christian ought to teach such a doctrine, from whence such horrid conclusions may with ease be inferred. Those same denominations, in their prayers, call upon the name of the Lord. But why ? No doubt because they expect to be saved by this name ; as St. Paul says, ' Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.' Romans, 10, 13. But can an emblem save ? It is said there is no divine virtue, no regenerating efficacy in baptism. I ask, is there no virtue, no regenerating power in God's name, which is the principal thing in baptism ? If there is not, why do such (who call baptism an emblem) pretend to call on that name in prayer, and expect to be heard ? They expect help, yea, salvation in that name, when they call upon it ; yet that same name, when it is in baptism, has no virtue, no regenerating power–then it is nothing but an emblem ! By the name of God we are saved ; by it the dead were raised, and many other miracles wrought. Yet, is it not shocking, that when this name is in baptism many count it almost nothing ! If we are to seek no salvation in God's name, where then are we to seek for it ? Can there be any thing greater ?

Back: 3d. God's name is the fundamental thing...

Next: 4th. God's name is in baptism: hence...