II. By what mode should the ordinance be administered ? Answer, We have no where met with a single verse, word,

or circumstance, which indicates the application of water, by pouring or sprinkling; but wherever any thing is found descriptive of this ordinance, immersion (as the word baptism undeniably signifies) is plainly implied in circumstances, and confirmed by allusions.

III. What is its spiritual design, and in YJp^om is it realized ?

Answer, The passages that have been before us plainly indicate that it was the Divine intention that this ordinance should exhibit and teach the important change produced \v^

the efficacy of grace on a sinner, namely, hi» fubihoation from sin, and bubial as to the love and practice of it; his BESUBBEOTiON to a new and religions life; the union and FELLOWSHIP into which the OhrisHan enters with the Tri-nne God; and his Bisma from the dead, through his risen Lord, at his coming.

CHAPTER IV.

Infant Baptism.—Pengilly on the grounds of Infant Baptism, its rise and supposed benefits. 1. Strange that Infant Baptism still exists. 2. No Infant Baptism in the New Testament. 3. The Saviour blessing little children. 4. Pedobaptist grounds of Infant Baptism. 5. The children of belieyers, 1 Cor. vii. 14. 6. The children of believers no better by nature than those of others. 7. The promise of God to Abraham and his seed. 8. Circumcision and the Abrahamic Covenant. 9. Infant salva. tion. 10. The authority on which Infant Baptism is founded. 11. The time when Infant Baptism was introduced. 12. Tradition. IS. Other innovations introduced. 14. The Christian fathers and Infant Baptltinu 15. Sponsors introduced, because infants could not believe. 16. Views of modem Pedobaptists. 17. The use of baptism. 18. The first Christian writer who defends Infant Baptism.

1. Perhaps nothing is stranger in the history of religion, than that infant baptism should have been so long, and by so many pions persons, received and practiced as an ordinance of the Church of Christ. Baptists have from the commencement rejected it; and in no ca^e have they shown it any favor: and nothmg ha^ been more fully and fairly proved, th^ the cor-rectness of the Baptist position on this subject. Wide-spread, indeed, are the doubts among Pedobaptists; and extensive is the neglect of the so-called ordinance, as is evident from the long and loud complaints of the people, by their religious teachers. Still infant baptism is a law of the Pedobaptist denominations.

Though enough is said in the preceding remarks on the general sabject, to convince the candid, we deem it ipiportant to give the Baptist arguments more fully, and know of nothing better adapted to our design, than Pengilly's article on Infant Baptism. Besides, it is constructed to follow the general article on Baptism, and I here insert it, almost entire, asking for it the serious consideration of our readers. We do not see how any one can resist such arguments.

PENGILLT ON THE GROUNDS OF INFANT BAPTISM, ITS BISB, AND

SUPPOSED BENEFITS.

2. No Infant Baptism in the New Testament,

Question. Although in the passages of Scripture you have

cited, I have not found an express authority, either by com^ mand or example, for the baptism of infants, yet will .Psedo-baptist divines allow that no such authority is to be found in the New Testament ?

Answer. Bishop Burnet. " There is no express precept or rule given in the New Testament for baptism of infants." Expos, of the Articles^ Art. xxvii.

Mr. S. Palmer. '^ There is nothing in the words of institution, nor in any after accounts of the administration of this rite, respecting the baptism of infants: there is not a single precept for, nor example of, this practice through the whole New Testament." Answer to Priestley on ike Lord^s Supper^ p. T.

Luther. "It cannot be proved by the sacred Scripture, that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the Apostles." {In Peed. Exam. Vol. II. p. 4.) See also Goodwin, Boston, Limboroh, and Baxter, at page 44* of this pamphlet..

3. On the Saviour^s blessing little children.

What, then, are we to make of those words of our Saviour, and his subsequent conduct ? Mark x. 14, 16. " Suffer-the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of 14

sach is the kingdom of heayen. And he took them np in his anns, put his hands upon them, and blessed them."

Anstjoer. Jf, when onr condescending Saviour took these children in his arms, it had been added, "and he baptized them," instead of the words ** and blessed them," then this passage with propriety might be adduced, and, indeed, would have decided the subject; but as the Holy Spirit has recorded the circumstance, it no more refers to infant baptism, than to infant communion, or infant circumcision. It is certain Christ did not baptize these children, for he neyer baptized at all, John It. 2; and if his disciples, who baptized for him and by his authority, had been commanded by their Lord to baptize infants, it is certain they would not have "rebuked" the parents or friends of these children for bringing them.

But-this passage, by fair inference, and implication, contains an argument against infant baptism. Here you observe parents bringing their children to Jesus to crave his blessing upon them; or, at least, that he would " pray," Matt. xix. 13, that the blessing of heaven might attend them.

Now let me ask. If baptism would have brought these children into the covenant of grace, or into Christ's church, or secured to them any spiritual benefit, would the Lord Jesus have concealed that circumstance from these parents, and froni his disciples ? Would he " take them in his arms and bless them," and give them back to the parents wUhovt baptism^ and without a word upon that ordinance ? Was it ever known that any spiritual benefit was sought from him, and he bestowed it not ? Here the spiritual good of these children was sought at his hands, and if baptism was the key, the seal, the door to all the spiritual blessings of the covenant of grace, (as PsBdobaptists often describe it,) would the Lord Jesus refuse it—or send them away without it ? This is impossible ; and therefore I infer that infant baptism is no part of the will of Christ, that it can communicate no good, and ought not to be

observed. Some of the most learned PsBdobaptists are aware that this passage serves not their cause.

Poole's Continuatoes. " We must take heed we do not' found infant baptism upon the example of Christ in this text; for it is certain that he did not baptize these children. Mark only saith, He took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them." Annot. on the place, in Matt six. 14.

Bishop Taylor. 'Trom the action of Christ's blessing infants, to infer they are to be baptized, proves nothing so much, as that there is a want of better arguments; for the conclusion would with more probability be derived thus : Christ blessed infants, and bo dismissed them, but baptized them not; therefore, infants are not to be baptized." Liberty of Frophecy^ p. 230.

4. Pcedohaptist growndsfor Infard Baptism.

If the New Testament does not afford an authority for infant baptism, upon what grounds do Psedobaptist divines practice and defend it ?

Answer. Mb. Edw. Williams, (one of its most zealous advocates,) affirms, '^ The champions [for it] are by no means agreed upon this question, On what is the right of infants to baptism founded ?"*

Their grounds are various and contradictory. The early fathers who practiced it, urged ike virtue of the ordinance in taking away sin, and securing eternal life; adding, the certain ruin of those that neglected itf—The church of Rome holds, '^ If any one shall say that baptism is not necessary to salvation, let him be accursed. "J—The Greek church, by Cyril, patriarch of Constantinople, affirms, ^^ We believe that baptism is a sacrament appointed by the Lord, which except a person

* Notes on Morrioe's Social Religion, p. 68.

t See Oiigen, Gyprian, aod Amhroie in Mr. WaU'i Hist, of Infiuit Bap. VoL I., ohap. 6, 13,14. X Catechism of the Oonnoil of Trent, Part IL p. 164.

receiye he has no commanion with Christ."^— ^The Lntheran church, and the chnrch of England, hold both the ordinances ''as generally necessary to salyation." The former, agreeing with Calvin and Melancthon, "own a sort of faith in infants," affording them a right; while the English chnrch hesitates not to baptize them, " Because they (the infants) promise by their sureties" repentance and faith, ''which promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform, "f

Many learned writers, as well as churches, have expressed their views upon this inquiry. Mr. Wall, Mr. Hammond, and many others, hold that the practice of " Judish proselyte baptism" is the foundation of the Christian rite, and as infants received the former, so they should the latter: but Mr. Owen, Mr. Jennings, and others, have proved that no such practice existed among the Jews to afford such a pattern till generations after Christ. J—Sir N. Knatchbull assumes circuTncision as the proper foundation.—^Beza, and after him Mr. Doddridge and others, considered the holiness of the children of believers, as making them proper subjects. §—Mr. Matt. Henry and Mr. Dwight contended that "the profession of faith made by the parents" to be their children's right. ||—Mr. H. P. Burder affirms, " The identical principle which pervades and unites the whole of the argument—^is that infants are to be baptized SOLELY on the ground of connection with tfieir parents ;^ and this he explains,—"It is a connection in the covenant of grace, the covenant of redemption, the everlasting covenant, embracing all that man can desire, or all that JehoviEih can impart."^—An anonymous writer affirms that "children by baptism are actually brought into the covenant of grace."

* Confess. Christ. Fidei, chap, xvi

t See Church Catechism, and P»dobap. Exam. Vol. II. p. 491, et seq. X Mr. Jndson's Serm. on Christian Baptism, pp. 62, 63. § See Beza and Doddridge on 1 Cor. viL 14.

(I Treatise on Baptism, p. 76, and Bwight's Theology on the subject. % Sermon of the Bight of Infants to Baptism, pp. 7, 25; cited by Mr. L Birt in Strictures on ditto, p. 18.

This is denied by another, who replies that the " children of believers are really and truly in the coyenant of grace before their baptism."*

6. The Children of Believers in 1 Cor, vii. 14.

Some of the grounds assumed by those churches and eminent men, appear to have weight. Does not the " holiness" referred to, existing in the children of believers, and founded on 1 Cor. vii. 14, aflEbrd the ground required ? " For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now they are holy." If holy^ they are surely proper subjects of baptism.

Answer, So many good men have thought: but holiness is no where required in God's word as a pre-requisite to baptism. And is there not an absurdity in the thought that baptism, which is the outward sig^ of washing away sin, Acts xxii. 16, should be administered to infants, because they are hplyf

But what is the holiness intended in the above passage 7 The Apostle says, it results from an unbeueyeb being sanctified. Now this sanctification cannot be sjpiriiual; for that is the work of the Holy Ghost upon the mind and heart, and in which an unbeliever has no share or part. Acts viii. 21. If attention be paid to the subject upon which the Apostle is speaking, his meaning can readily be perceived. He is advising the Corinthians upon the question, ''Whether, if a husband or wife who is converted to Christ, has an unbelieving partner, either Jew or idolator, the believer should separate from the connection ;^^ as in Ezra x. 1-14. The Apostle advises, "If the unbelieving partner be pleased to dwell with the believer, the believer should not cause the separation." Then follows the passage before us, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife;" or, as Doddridge renders it, " is sanctified to the wife," &c.

Now, in what sense can any thing, or person, be sa/ncUfied,

* In Padobap. Exam, as before. 14*

in which there is no moral or spiritual holiness commnnicated, and the sanctification is not the work of the Holy Spirit ? The Scriptures afford the reply. The temple, the altar, the offerings, the official garments, &c., under the law, were expressly said to be sanctifiedy when they were appointed by God's law, and set apart to certain specified purposes. Apply this to the subject before us. Marriage is an appointment of God; and when a man or woman enters into that contract, he or she, by God's law, is set apart, or sanctified, to stand in the relation of husband or wife; and hence the union is lawful, becoming, and pleasing to God, and shall continue to be so, though one-of the parties shall be converted and the other be an unbeliever.*

Taking this, which ^.ppears to me to be the sense of the passage, the inference which the Apostle draws from this sanctification, or legal appointment and constitution by Divine law, is natural, "else were your children unclean, but now are they holy;" i. e.. If the marriage union was not according to the law of God, your children would be the fruit of unclean-ness; but now, the union being in harmony with God's will, they are "holy;" they are free from illegitimate impurity. So some of the greatest and best Paedobaptist writers understand the Apostle. Thus, among a multitude of others :—

Me. T. Williams, of London. "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the (believing) wife, &c., so that the connection is perfectly lawful, and the children are legiiimcUe, or in a ceremonial sense, holy," Cottage Bible, on the place.

* Mr. Gill, on the verse in question, cites a number of passa^^s from Jewish writings, in which the word sanctified, in the phraseology of common use, is used for legally espoused. If this reading were adopted in this passage, it would not only convej good sense, but make the reasoning of the Apostle evident. If the word holy must be taken in a spiritual sense, and infant baptism inferred from it, the word sanctified, being evidently here of a kindred meaning, would unquestionably afford equal ground for the baptism of the unbelieving parent! Nor should it be forgotten that the word children in this place, as in Acts iL 39, signifies posterity of any age.

\

Melanothon, the Reformer. *' The connection of the argument is this, ' If the use of marriage should not please God, your children would be bastards, and so unclean; but your children are not bastards, therefore the use of marriage pleaseth God.' How bastards were unclean in a peculiar manner the law shows, Deut. xxiii." In Fcedobap, Exam. Yol. II. p. 375.

SuAUBS AND Yasques. " The cWldren are called holyy in a civil sense: that is, legitimate, and not spurious. As if Paul had said, ' If your marriage were unlawful, your children would be illegitimate. But the former is not a fact; therefore not the latter.'" Ibid. ^. SIS.

Camero. "The holiness of which the Apostle speaks is not opposed to that impurity which by nature properly agrees to all on account of Adam's offence, but to the impurity of which believing wives were apprehensive from their cohabiting with unbelieving husbands." Ibid. p. 372.

Inference. If the holiness which is merely legitimacy of birth, is no title to baptism, then the passage we have considered favors not the baptism of infants.

6. The Scriptures do not authorize the plea that the chit-dren of believers are better by nature than those of unbelievers.

From this interpretation, it would appear that the children of believers are no better, or more holy by nature, than the children of unbelievers. Is this in accordance with the Scriptures?

Answer. Most unquestionably so. Thus, Psalm 1}. 5, " Behold, (saith the son of pious Jesse,) I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Bph. ii. 3, " We (says the Apostle Paul, for himself and all the primitive Christians,) were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Komans v. 12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Chap. iii. 9, 10, "What then, are we better than they? No, in no wise: for

we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles that they are AiiL nnder sin; as it is writteu, there is none righteous, no, not one." And o«ir Saviour adds^^That which is bom of the flesh is flesh, and that which is of the Spirit is spurit Ye must be bom again." John iii. 6, t.

Churoh of Enqland. " Original sin is the ftuilt and cor-raption of the nature of every man; and therefore in every person bom into this world it deserveth Ood's wrath." Articles, Art. ix.

Mr. Dobbinqton. ''Although the parents be admitted into the new covenant, the children bom of them are not bom within that covenant, but are, as all others, bom in a state of rebellion and misery." Vindicai. of the Churchy p. 44.

Mb. Adam Clabks. "All are bom with a sinful nature^-— there has never been one instance of an immaculate human soul since the fall of Adam. Through his transgression all come into the world with the seeds of death and corruption in their own nature; all are sinful—all are mortal—and must die.'' On Rom. v. 12, 13.

Mb. Doddbidgs. ''As we all proceed from a corrapt original, we do not more evidently bear the imi^e of the earthly Adam in the infirmities of a mortal body, than in the degeneracy of a corrapted mind." Fam. JExpos, Improv. on JohniiL 1-10.

t. The Promise of €hd to Abraham and Me Seed.

But God was pleased to promise to Abraham to be " a (}od to him and to his seed." Gen. xvii. t. Now believers in Christ are Abraham's spiritual seed; must not they^ therefore, and their seed, be included in that promise, and possess the same spiritual benefits ?

Answer. The statement introducing this question is an important tmth, that God promised to be '' a God to Abraham and to his seed;" and so it is trvue that believers in Christ are Abraham's spiritual seed, and also that the God of Abraham ig equally tbeir God; but it would be not only not true, bat

an alanniiig and dangerous error, to assert tbat the children of belieyers are, on that acconnt, also the spiritual seed of Abraham, and enjoy the same benefits. The children of believers must themselves become believers, must possess the same faith with their parents, and be Christ's genuine disciples, in order to be included in that promise and blessedness.

Hear the Apostle Paul, Gal. iii. 6, t, " Abraham believed God," i. e., in reference to the coming Messiah, " and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye, therefore, that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham ;" ver. 29, " and if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." And ver. 9, " So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham."

No doctrine can be more dangerous, (because calculated to be fatally delusive,) than this, ''Thatbecause persons are bom of pious parents, they are therefore under some peculiar spiritual and advantageous distinction, on account of which they are entitled to sacred privileges, and do not need equally with others the same converting grace and mercy, and the same atoning sacrifice." John the Baptist applied the axe to the root of this tree, at the dawn of this dispensation. ''Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our Father." Ye are a " generation of vipers I Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ?" So our Redeemer, when the Jews uttered their usual vaunt, "We be Abraham's seed," replied, " I know that ye are Abraham's seed. If God were your Father, ye would love me. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." John viii. 33, 37, 42, 44. Such is Chbist's testimony of the carnal circumcision I

If, then, Abraham's ovm descendants were not his spiritual seed, while destitute of faith and love, surely none can contend that the unbelieving descendants of believing Gentiles can be that spiritual seed.

Mb. Edw. Williams exposes this error in strong terms, in his Notes on Morrice's Social Religion, " Our author takes considerable pains to maintain a favorite pointy which I shall pronounce a very precarious hypothesis. It is that of heredi-iary grace, if I may so express the notion,—^that all th& children of the godly are absolutely interested in all new covenant blessings. . . . But that interpretation of the Abrahamic promise, Oen. xviL T, which Mr. M. and some others have adopted, and which considers the words in their undistinguished application, is beflite with yeby absubb oonbequsngss. Jehovah, surely, was not the God of Abraham and of his UNBEUEYiNa descendants in the same respects. . . . The New Testament saints have nothing more to do with the Abrahamic covenant than the Old Testament believers who lived prior to Abraham." Notes, p. 312-311.

Matt. Hsnbt. ** Grace doth not run in the blood, nor are saving benefits inseparably annexed to external church privileges ; though it is common for people thus to stretch the meaning of God's promise to bolster themselves up in a vain hope.. .. The children of the flesh, as such, by virtue of their relationship to Abraham—are not therefore the children of God." Expos, on Kom. ix. 6-13.

8. Circumcision and the Abrahamic Covenant no ground for Infant BapHsm,

But did not circumcision bring those that received it into the covenant of grace?

Anstver. No: in no case whatever. The covenant of grace, (aa Mr. Burder expresses it^ cited at p. 54,) is " the covenant of redemption, the everlasting covenant." Nothing can bring into that covenant but the grace of Gk)d in Christ Jesus. It existed from the beginning of the world, and righteous Abel enjoyed its blessings. It has been an ever-flowing river, communicating its saving streams to the Church of God

THROUGH ALL AGES* and ALL DISEENSATIONa JEuOCh, Nooh,

and, no doubt, thousands of others, though uncircumoised.

^joyed tb6 blessedness of this covenant before Abraham waa bom. Circumcision, therefore, is no part of the "covenant of grace;" and that it did not bring Ahrahcmi into it, is tindenia-bly clear, for he enjoyed it and all its blessedness many years before circnmcision was instituted; when he was, says the Apostle, "not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision." Bom. iv. 10. And that this rite did not bring children into the covenant of grace is equally evident, from the addresses of all th^ holy prophets and Apostles, and of Christ himself, to those who had thus received that rite, and who are addressed as persoims entirely destitute of the grace of Ood, and being by natare the children of wrath, even as others. See, among innumerable passages, Isa. i. 2-15, John viii. 42-44, Eph. ii. 8, Acts vii. 51, 52.

In what sense, then, is circumcision " a seal of the covenant,*' if it had not this efficacy ?

Answer. Common as it is to denominate circumcision a seal of the covenant, it is no where so denominated in the word of God. In one place, Rom. iv. 11, it is called a seal of righteousness ; but except the whole verse be cited, the sense of the Apostle is entirely lost. 1^6 words are these: " And he (that is, Abraham) received the-sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised." In no other place is circumcision called a seal; and let my reader try, after carefully looking at the whole passage, to make this applicable to infteits, or to infant circumcision or baptism, or to unbdievers in any 4Da8e, if he can. He will remaa4^,

1. Circumcision is here spoken of, not Sa reference to its general administration to the Jewish nation, but to Abraham in particular. 2. It is spoken of, not as it might be received by a person destitute of vital piety, for it is called " a seal <^ the righteousness o? paith," &c. 3. It is not spoken of as sealing what was in future to be bestowed or Enjoyed, but of

a blessing long before possessed— " of the faith which he had, yet being nncircumcised."

I appeal to the serious judgment of the reader, what a perversion of the sense of God's word it must be, to call circumcision, from this passage, " a seal of the covenant^" or " a seal of righteousness," thereby referring to the naUonal administration of that rite to the Jews, and as sealing to tkem (hs blessings of salvation, when the Apostle so guardedly expresses himself as sealing only what a true and uyino faith had previously obtained I This passage can apply to none but to Abraham, and those of his posterity, who, like their progenitor, possessed a converting and saving faith.

Yenema. *^ Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith, as the Apostle affirms; but this only in respect of such Israelites as were believers." In Fasdobap. Exam. Vol. 11. p. 268.

Why, then, was circumcision administered to infants at all ?

Answer, It pleased God to enter into a particular covenant with Abraham, which he had not done with the other patriarchs, though they equally enjoyed the blessings of the covenant of grace, in which particular covenant, described in Gen. xvii. 1-14, the Almighty promised to Abraham, " I will multiply thee exceedingly—make thee exceeding fruitful; and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession ; and I will be their God."

My reader need not be told, that an eabthly einodom is here promised to Abraham and his seed. He was to multiply into a nation, or nations, and kings were to arise amongst th^n; the land of Canaan was to be their country, and their perpetual residence. In it they were to dwell from generation to generation, and to continue a separate people from all other nations, until the special promised seed, that is, Chbist,

should appear, in whom, as afterwards declared, Gen. xxii. IT, 19, "all the nations of the earth shall be blessed."

To this covenant it pleased God to append the institution of circumcision. Thus it is given, Gen. xvii. 9-23: " Thou shalt keep my covenant, therefore; thou, and thy seed after thee, in their generations. This is my covenant which ye shall keepji—Every man-child amongst you shall be circumcised ; he that is eight days old, he that is bom in thy house, or bought with money of any stranger, must needs be circumcised ; and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were bom in his house, and all that were bought with money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and circumcised the flesh of their iforeskin in the self-same day, as God had said unto him."

My reader will here perceive how tl^jB right of circumcision pertained to Abraham's household. Every male from eight days old, and every servant or purcJiased stave, of any age, willing or unwilling, must submit to this rite; and if he refused, " that soul (it is added, v. 14,) shall be cut off from his people." Can this rite, thus indispensably administered to all the males of a house, because the master received it, be to them the seal of the covenant of grace? This, I think, no enlightened Christian can for a moment imagine.

The Divine intention in making this ordinance a national rite, and requiring it to bo so strictly observed upon all the male offspring of Abraham, and to those who were incorporated among them, appears evidently to be, their separation

AS A PEOPLE FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD, that in them, in

after ages, God might accomplish his vnse and gracious purposes; FIRST, in the coming of the promised Seed, the Saviour of sinners; and beyond that event, in what the prophets have foretold of Israel, to be fulfilled at a period yet to come. For these designs, God was pleased to separate the Jews, by this indelible sign upon their persons: and as it was to be a n^tiqual 15

distmction, it most necessarily be a national rite, and in effecting this SEPARATION the Diyine wisdom appears in applying it in early infancy.

WiTsius. " The descendants of Abraham were separated by circumcision from other nations, and renounced their friendship : as appears from the open declaration of the sons of Jacob, Gen. xxxiv. 14, 15. A circumcised perSbn, say the Jews, ' has withdrawn himself from the whole body of the nations.' And, indeed, circumcision was a great part, and, as it were, the foundation op the middle wall op paetition." Ec(m, of the Gov. Book iv. ch. 8. § 20.

Mb. Erskine. " When God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed, circumcision was instituted for this, among other purposes, to show that descent from Abraham was the foundation of his posterity's right to those blessings." Theolog. Dissert, p. 9..

In what sense then are we to consider the Abrahamic covenant as continued into the gospel dispensation, and enjoyed by Christians ?

Answer, My reader, by comparing Gen. xv. 6, 6, 18, and chap. xvii. 1-14, will observe that the covenant (or rather covenants) made with Abraham were two-pold. 1 Spiritual and internal^ pertaining to Abraham's acceptance with God, and salvation, as a believer in the coming Messiah; and which was all realized in Abraham's believing posterity, as we have already shown. 2. Worldly and external^ pertaining to the land of Canaan; with which were to be united the services of the temple, a worldly sanctuary, a material altar, carnal sacrifices, and a changing priesthood; and the whole of this was intended as " a shadow of good things to come." See Heb. vii. 23, ix. 1-10, and X. 1.

Now, all that is spiritual and internal in this covenant, and as enjoyed by Israel under it, is what is called " the covenant of grace," and is continued in the Christian church by the Holy Spirit: while what is worldly^ external^ and typical, is

fidfilled and done away is the coming of Christ, and in the SPiBiTiJAL privileges of his church. We have now, as Christians, no worldly kingdom, nor have we a temple, altar, or sacrifices, as the Jews; nor are we required to be separated from the nations of th6 world, so as to be one distinct nation; and hence no carnal distinction is necessary.—" My kingdom (said Christ) is not of this world." John xviii. 36. It is not worldly in its nature, seat, form, government, or privileges; but spiriiualy and, as such, denominated ''the ministration of the Spirit;" and consists "in righteousness, peace, and joy iu the Holy Ghost." Rom. xiv. IT ; 2 Cor. iil T.

Yenema. "Circumcision, according to a two-fold covenant, INTERNAL and EXTERNAL, which then existed, had likewise a two-fold aspect, spiritual and carnal. The former referred to the internal covenant of grace; the loiter to a legal, typical, and external covenant. Thai was concerned in 'sealing the righteousness of faith,' as the Apostle asserts: this in the external prerogatives of Judaism, and in conferring external benefits. That was peculiar to the believing Israelites; this was common to the whole people." In Peed, Exam. Vol. II. p. 243.

Is there, then, nothing typical in the rite of circumcision ?

Answer, I replying to this question, it is my happiness to be able to refer my reader to an authority which, as a Christian, he will esteem decisive and infallible. Circumcision was a type, but not of baptism, (a figure, a type of a figure I) but of " the circumcision of the heart" and " tJie putting off the sins of the flesh," And this blessed work is accomplished, not on babes in age, but *^babe6 in Christ;" bom from above, and children of God. Hear the infallible authority to which I refer, Rom. ii. 28, 29, "For he is not a Jew, (an Israelite indeed,) which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision, (in God's ultimate design,) which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that OF THE HEART; in the spirit and not in the letter, whose praise

is not of men, but of God." Phil. iii. 3, "For we are tiie circumcision which worship God in. the spirit^ and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. ^ Col. ii. 11, ** Circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ."

According to this, baptism was not institued in the boom OF oiBCUMCisiON, and so became its end and fulfilment.

Answer, It is certain that this was not the case. 1st. Because when the Apostles and Elders were assembled at Jerusalem, to consider the question, Whether those who were turned to God from among the Gentiles should be circuni' cisedf Acts xv., not a word was said about the end and fulfilment of the Jewish rite in the Christian: and had this been the known appointment of Christ, this must have been the decision of the subject. 2d. Because had this been the appointment of the Saviour, it would have been an affront to his authority to continue circumcision for another day after he had substituted baptism in its pUce: but circumcision was observed, even by the-Apostle Paul, long after Christ had instituted the New Testament rite. See Acts xvi. 3. This would have been a similar impropriety to the offering of " a sacrifice for si^," according to the law, after Christ had " put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."*

* The absurdity of urging the baptism of infants from the institution of circumcision, will appear bj observing, 1st. That male children only were to receive that rite; and 2d. That men aervcCnta and slavea were equally commanded to be circumcised when the master was, and that upon pain of being out off, or put to death. If that Divine command, therefore, be applied aa descriptive of the subjects of baptism, it will equally require the baptism of servants and purchased slaves, willing or unwilling, as well as of infants; and it would restrict the Christian ordinance to the male sex alone. This being so plainly contrary to the revealed will of Christ on baptism, prorcB the fallacy of the doctrine.

In the word of God I see no connection or resemblance between circumcision and baptism, except in this, that they were both initiatory ordinanc€9/ the one into the bocbf-politic of Israel of old, the subjects of which rite are

I

As you allow that circnmcision was a seal in reference to Arbaham as a believer, is not baptism equally a seal under the New Testament, in a believer's case ?

Answer, If it be so, it must be understood in the same sense in which the Apostle expressed it in the case of the patriarch; and then it would be "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which the believer had, yet being unbaptized." But we cannot do better than allow the New Testament to answer our inquiries; and here I am no where taught that any extemd ordinance is a seal of the covenant of grace, but most plainly instructed, (in beautiful harmony with the spiritual nature of the Messiah's kingdom,) that the work of the Spirit on the heart is the only seal of that covenant.

2 Cor. i. 22. ''Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts."

Bph. i. 13. "Ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise."

Bph. iv. 30. " Grieve not that Holy Spirit, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption."

C'habnook. " God seals no more than he promises. He promises only to faith, and therefore only seals to faith. Covenant graces, therefore, must be possessed and acted, before covenant blessings be ratified to us." Works, VoJ. II. p. 181, ed. 1.

ViTEiNGA. " The sacraments of the J^ew Covenant are of such a nature, as to seal nothing but what is spiritual, nor to be of any advantage, except in regard to those who really believe in Jesus Christ." In Feed. Exam, Vol. II. p. 268.

How, then, is the doctrine of the Church of England to be understood, by which we are taught, that a child by baptism it " incorporated" and "grafted into the body of Christ's Church;"

aU the male inhahitanta —the other into the body of Christ, which ia hia ohweh, and the subjects of which are all helievera in him. To this the Apostle seems to refer in Col. iL 11-13.

16*

and in another place, ** made a member of Christy a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven ?"

Answer, To support that doctrine by any thing said in the Scriptures of this ordinance, (as the reader of the preceding pages mnst be aware,) is impossible; to make it agree with the analogy of faith as taaght by the concurring testimony of the whole of Divine revelation, is equally impossible. What is here attributed to baptism, the Scriptures ascribe to the omnipotent agency of the Holy Ghost in regeneration, and to the infinite efficacy of the Redeemer's cross in securing eternal Hfell See 2 Thes. ii. 13, 1 Pet. iii. 18. Baptism, then, is here said to do what nothing short of the power and grace of God is able to perform ; and that children, as they advance in life, should be taught to express and believe such a doctrine, and to consider themselves in the possession of such spiritual advantages, merely by having received this external rite, destitute as it is of all saving efficacy, is inexpressibly lamentable and dangerous; because it might prove, as it is fitly calculated to be, fatal to their souls I

Me. John Hyatt, (the late excellent minister of the Tabernacle, London.) " If the Church of Christ is his body, and every real believer is a member of that body, how important the question. Are we members of the body of Christ ? Millions have been taught to say, that in baptism they are made members of Christ, who have given indubitable proofs that they uttered falsehood 1! The members of the body of Christ are tmited to him as a head; and there are no dead, no unsanctified members. All are useful, active, and obedient. Ah I my hearers, beware of deception—^beware of substituting the name for the reality—^the form of godliness for the power. Surely, ' licentious characters cannot presume that they are members of the mystical body of the Son of God. A holy head, and impure members; a pure fountain, and corrupt streams ; a good tree, and bad fruit;—^these are anomalies. If you are united to him,

you are of one spirit with him." Sermons on various Sub-jectSy p. 363.

9. Infant Salvation,

But if infants are not to be received into the Church by baptism, and they should die in infancy, is not their salvation endangered ?

Answer. By no means. How can the want of that endanger salvation which God hath nowhere enjoined or required ? Did not our Lord receive tjnbaptized children into his arms, when on earth, and bless them, and send them away unbaptized, and without uttering a word about baptism ? See question 2. And who then will say that baptism is necessary, that He should receive them to himself in heaven, especially when they remember his gracious declaratian in reference to these unhop-tized children^ "Of such is the kingdom of heaven?" See Mark x. 14, and Matt, xviii. 10.

Persons dying incapable of faith in Christ, are without doubt saved, not by water^ nor by the work of man ; but by the Mood of Christ, and by the power of the Spirit. In like manner persons dying in faith, but having no opportunity of being baptized, as the penitent on the cross, are saved by the same infinitely efficacious, and the only sufficient means.

If we do for our children what God hath required, we shall find this quite sufficient, without attempting to do what God hath Tiot required. And should it please God to remove them from us in infancy, it is better to commit their souls to the merits of Christ, than to the unauthorized application of water to their bodies. The former we are sure saves. 1 John i. t. And we are equally sure baptism cannot save; Acts viii. 13, 23; and is not necessary to salvation, Luke xxiii. 43. To apply baptism for salvaiiony therefore, is making a false saviour of the ordinance, and implies a criminal unbelief in the all-sufficiency of Christ.

10. On what Authority is Infant Baptism founded*^ Admitting the want of Scripture authority for infant bai^-

tiflm, on what other aathoritj is it supposed to be originally founded ?

Answer, Some have orged in its behalf apoitolical tradir tion. Others, a council of bishopSy held at Carthage, A. D. 253. Higher authority it has not; and neither of these can Protestants admit.

M&. Field. '' The baptism of infants is therefore named a tradition^ because it is not expressly delivered in Scripture that the Apostles did baptize infants; nor any express precept there found that they should do so." On the GhurcTi, 3f 5.

Bishop Pbideaux. ''Pedobaptism rests on no other Divine right than Episcopacy,^^* Fascicid. Oon6ro. Loc. ir. § iiL p. 210.

11. The time when Infant Baptism was introduced.

If this be granted, when was infant baptism supposed ta be introduced ?

Answer. There is no certain evidence of it earlier than the beginning of the third century after Christ. At that period it was practiced in Africa, and is mentioned, for the first time, by Tertullian, about the year 204, in his work entitled ** De Baptismo," which I shall cite presently.

CuRGELUEus, (a leamcd divine of Geneva^ and professor of Divinity.) " The baptism of infants, in the two first centuries after Christ, was altogether unknown; but in the third and fourth was allowed by some few. In the fifth and following ages, it was generally received. The custom of baptizing

*■ In the Edict drawn up in the year 1547, by command of Charles V. Emperor of Germany, to allay dispiiteB between the Bomanista and the Reformers, Tradition is expressly stated as the ground of iAfant bi^tism: "Habet prsterea Ecclesia traditiones, Ac, quas qui conyellit, is negat eandem columnam esse et firmamentam yeritatis. Hnjos generis snnt Bap-tismiis parynlomm et alia;" i. e., " The Church moreover has traditions handed down to these times from Christ and the Apostles, through the hands of the bishops: which, whoever would overturn, he must deny the same (viz., the Church) to be the pillar and ground of truth. Of this sort are the baptism of little ones, and other things." In Dr, Byland^t Oandui SUOe-mwi, Notes, p. 28.

mfants did not begin before the third age after Christ was bom. In the former ages, no trace of it appears—«nd it was introduced without the command of Christ." In Peed, Exam.

Vol. n. p. te.

SaIiMASIUS and Suioerus. "In the two first centuries no one was baptized, except being instructed in the faith, and acquainted with the doctrine of Christ, he was able to profess himself a believer; because of those words, He thai believetht andis baptized," Ut supra.

Venema. " Tertullian has no where mentioned paedobap-tism among the traditions or customs of the church, that were publicly received, and usually observed.—^For in his book, De Baptismo, he dissuades from baptizing infants, and proves the delay of it to a more mature age is to be preferred. Nothing can be affirmed, with certainty, concerning the custom of the church before Tertullian^ seeing there is not anywhere, in more ancient writers, that I know of, undoubted mention of infant baptism." Ut supra^ p. T4.

The passage alluded to, containing the nasT mention of infant baptism, is the following:

Tertullian. " The delay of baptism may be more advantageous, either on account of the condition, disposition, or age of any person, especially in reference to little children. For what necessity is there that the sponsors should be brought into danger ? because either they themselves may fail of the promises by death, or be deceived by the growth of evil dispositions. The Lord, indeed, says. Do not forbid them to come to me. Let them, therefore, come when they are grown up; when they can understand; when they are taught whither they are to come. Let them become* Christians when they can know Christ. Why should this innocent age hasten to the remission of sins ? Men act more cautiously in worldly things; so that Divine things are here intrusted with whom earthly things are not. Let them know how to seek salvation, that you may appear to give to one that asketh. . . , H ^^JscsRsvsSi

understand the importance of baptism, they will rather fear tlie consequent obligation than the delay : true &ith alone is secure of salvation."

Now I request my reader to observe—1. That there ifl confessedly no mention of infant baptism in the writings of any of the Fathers, before Tertullian, in the beginning of the third century; though the baptism of believers is repeatedly founds in various authors; some of which I shall cite in the next part of this appendix. 2. That when infant baptism is first men-r tioned, in the Christian Father above quoted, it is in a passage where the rite is referred to, not as of something of universal practice and approbation; but where it is opposed and bba-80NED AOAiNBT as Something unknown in the age of Christ and the Apostles, and destitute of their authority, for with him their authority would not have been questioned for a moment; and as something implying danger in reference to sponsors^ and absurdity relative to children. Thus,

Regaltius, the learned annotator upon Cyprian. " In the Acts of the Apostles, we read that both men and vxymenwere baptized when they believed the gospel preached by Philip, but not a word of infants. From the age of the Apostles, therefore, up to the time of Tertullian, the matter remained in obscurity, [or doubtfid, in ambiguo;] and there were some who from that saying of our Lord, Suffer little children to come unto me, to whom the Lord nevertheless did not command water to be administered, took occasion to baptize even new-bom infants. And as if, (seculare aliquod negotium cum Deo transigeretur,) they transacted some secular business with God, they offered sponsors or sureties to Christ, who engaged that they should not revolt fro» the Christian faith when grown up ; which indeed displeased Tertullian." In Stennett^s An-Bwer to Bu^sen, pp. 69, T3, and in Mr, WaiVs Hist. Vol. II. chap. 2.

12. Tradition no Authority for Infard Baptism,

Tradiiion from the Apostles is declared by the Church of

Rome to be the authority for infant baptism; is this said to be its authority where the practice is first mentioned ?

Answer, Na such authority is ever once hinted at.

Venema. " Tertullian dissuades from baptizing infants— which he certainly would not have done, if it had been a tradition, and a public custom of the church, seeing he was very TENACIOUS of traditions; nor, had it been a tradition, would he have failed to mention it ?" Bee after next question,

13. Other innovations introduced.

Do we find any other innovation introduced into the Church of Christ, about the same period ?

Answer, Several. We never read of—1. The consecration of the baptismal water; 2. The use of sponsors; 3. The imposition of hands at baptism; 4. The use of material unction at confirmation; 5. Offering prayers and oblations for the dead, &c.; we never read of any of these 'in any Christian writer before Tertullian; and hence, learned Poedo-baptists infer that they were introdttced about thai time. Thus, Mr. Pierce, speaking of the third of these, says, that Tertullian is " the most ancient author that mentions this rite;" and adds, " We make no doubt it began about the time of Tertullian." Vindication of Dissenters^ Pt. III. ch. vii. pp. 1T2, It5. We come to the same conclusion, for the very same reason, respecting the baptism-of infants. The celebrated and learned divine \ cited in the former question seems willing to admit this:—

Yenema. "I conclude therefore, that paedobaptism cannot be plainly proved to have been practiced before the time of Tertullian; and that there were persons in his age who desired their infants might be baptized^ especially when they were afraid of their dying without baptism; which opinion Tertullian opposed, and, by bo doing, intimates that vmdo-BAPTISM began TO PREVAIL." In Fced. Exam, Vol. II. pp. •r9, 80.

14. The Christian Fathers and Infant Baptism,

Did the first Christian Fathers, who supported the baptism of infants, suppose that some spiritual benefit was commimi-eated to them by that ordinance ?

Answer. They did. They held that baptism was necessary to salvation; that forgiveness accompanied it; that infants by it were purged from the pollution of original sin; and that all prsons dying without baptism were lost. Thus,

Cyprian, A. P. 253. " As far as lies in us, no soul, if possible, is to be lost. It is not for us to hinder any person from baptism and the grace of God; which rule, as it holds to all, so we thiuk it more especially to be observed in reference to infants, to whom our help and the Divine mercy is rather to be granted; because by their weeping and wailing at their first entrance into the world, they do intimate nothing so much as that they implore compassion."

Ambrose, A. D. 390. " For no person conies to the kingdom of heaven,^ but by the sacrament of baptism.—^Infants that are baptized are reformed back again from wickedness to the primitive state of their nature."

Chrysostom, a. D. 898. " The grace of baptism gives cure without pain, and fills us with the grace of the Spirit. Some think that the heavenly grace consists only in the forgiveness of sins: but I have reckoned up ten advantages of it." '' If sudden death seize us before we are bafptized, though we have a thousand good qualities, there is nothing to be expected but hell." See the original of these passages in Mr. WalVs Hist, of Inf. Bap. Vol. I. ch. 6, 13, 14; and II. ch. 6.

These extracts, which I njight have increased a hundredfold, are sufficient to prove that some of the Fathers, from about the middle of the third century, considered baptism as essentially necessary to salvation; and in this false view of the ordinance, the baptism of infants originated. To this agree the following learned writers:—

SuiCERTJS, Professor of Greek and Hebrew at Zurich. " This opinion of the absolute necessity of baptism arose from a wrong understanding of our Lord's words, Except a man be bom of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the king-dam of heaven.^^ In Poed. Exam, Yol. 11. p. 129.

Salmasius, the very learned historian and critic. "An opinion prevailed l^at no one could be saved without being baptized; and for that reason the custom arose of baptizing mfants." lUd. p. 128.

15. Sponsors introduced as infants could not believe.

But if a profession of repentance and faith was always required before baptism in the apostolic age, how could Christian ministers, or churches, so early as the days of TertuUian, admit of the baptism of infants, by whom no such profession could be made ?

Anstver, The deficiency, in reference to infants, was ingeniously supplied by introducing "sponsors." They would not dispense with the profession, but they would admit it by proxy. Two or three persons, and, in the case of an infant of high rank, from twenty to an hundred, were admitted as " sureties," who professed, in behalf of an infavt, to repent, renounce the devil and his works, and to believe the doctrines of the gospel. These sureties are first mentioned by Tertul-lian, A. D. 204, in the passage I have copied, pp. 65, 66, where they are called "sponsors,'* i. e., persons who answer, and make themselves answerable for another.

Here is religion by proxy; real, personal, experimental religion I a thing unheard of before since the world began. But when so many strange absurdities were introduced into the church, as those before mentioned, p. 67, we need not be much surprised at this. To a reader, however, who knows by his own experience, and by the concurrent testimony of every part of the Bible, that there is no religion but that which is between God and the soul, and is God's gift, and in which 16

another can have no share or part, it is grieyoos to reflect serionsly on this alarming innovation.

16. Views of modem Pcedobapiists.

Bat do modem Paedobaptists entertain the same view as the ancients, as to the necessity of baptism to salvation ?

Answer. The majobitt of professed Christians have ever avowed, and do still avow, the same doctrine I The Church of Rome has honored those who dare deny it with an ''anathema ;" and the Greek chnrch, though not so ready to anathematize, entertains the same opinion. The reformed churches, and the different denominations of Protestant Psedobaptists, whether bearing the name of Episcopalians,, Presbyterians, Independents, Congregationlists, or Wesleyans, while they generally disavow that doctrine, yet they hold opinions which, when fairly carried out to their consequences, come little short of the same amount. They have seen in the doctrine of the ancients, and of Rome, " that no one can be saved without their baptism," too plain a demonstration of the " little horn" of antichrist,*—^the mystery of iniquity which began to work in the Apostles' days,f—^to avow that doctrine in the same terms. But let me ask my respected brethren in these communities. If baptism makes its subjects, as some of them say, J "children of God and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven;" or, as all of them, by their leading writers, have said, that it brings its subjects " into the Church of Christ" or " into the covenant of grace," or " seals to them the benefits of that covenant," and which is " the covenant of redemption, embracing all that Jehovah can impart;" whether this is not tantamount to the doctrine guarded by Rome's anathema ? If baptism brings into, or seals the benefits of, the covenant of grace, it will bring to heaven; for God hath joined these two together. And if there be not another way of bringing into this "covenant of grace and redemption," what must become of those who are not brought in, and who die in that situation ? Thus

* Daniol viL 8-21. f 2 Thes. ii. 3-10. t See Authorities at pp. 64, 66.

pressed to consequences, I see no other conclusion to be come at fix)m these premises, but that of Ohrysostom, just cited, horrible as it sounds I Let my brethren who would recoil at the thought of that conclusion, examine rigidly and honestly whether the virtues they join to the rite of baptism afford not the just and fair ground of it. And if the conclusion be denied, let them deny the premises from which it is drawn; but while they avow the premises, I must be allowed to insist upon the conclusion.

It. WhxU is the use of Baptism in the Church f

If no spiritual or saving benefit necessarily attends the ordinance of baptism, (which evidently is, and ever has been, conceived as the basis and reason of infant baptism, by the BIAJOBITY of those that have practiced it,) why is the ordinance administered at all ? and of what use is it in the Church of Christ?

Answer, " God is his own interpreter." The ritual ordinances appointed of God in his church were never, under any dispensation, intended by him to carry salvation with them. For that purpose '^ neither circumcision avaUeth anything, nor uncircmncision," as the Apostle affirms; and the same may be said of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Salvation proceeds from a source entirely distinct and separate from these ordinances. It may be fully enjoyed without them; and they may be administered, and repeated a thousand times over, without it. The penitent malefactor was saved without baptism; Simon Magus was baptized without part or lot in salvation.

What, then, you inquire, is the use of baptism ? I reply, It is a solemn, sacred institution of Jesus, intended by him, as I have before observed, to exhibit and to teach the way of salvation. It saves in no way of itself; but it presents a figurative and an impressive representation of saving—of that real saving, which is through the purifying merits of a crucified and risen Saviour. As such Christ instituted it; and as such it is the duty and privilege of his followers to observe it, till

he come. Thus the Apostle Peter, cited p. 49, when he saySy Baptism saves; he immediately guards against error upon this subject,— ii is not the putting away Ike JWh of the fiesh, or impurity, or sin of any kind, which can only be cleansed by the blood of Christ. But it saves as a '' figure ;" it symbolically presents ''the fountain opened for sin and uhcleannesa," and to thai fountain it directs the penitent to flee, and therein by faith '' to wash away sin, calling on the name of the Lord." Acts xxii. 16. When this is realized, then baptism affords the answer of a good conscience^ satisfied that Christ is obeyed, guilt purged away, and the soul saved through tilie blood of the Lamb. Psedobaptist divines affirm the same. Thus,

Mb. David Davidson, on 1 Peter iiL 21. " Lest any should imagine spiritual deliverance secure by the external rite, in any other sense than figuratively, the Apostle adds, that the baptism he chiefly meant was the cleansing of the conscience, which is by faith in Christ. The same figure and reality are repeatedly thus stated. See Eph. v. 26; Tit. iii. 5; Heb. ix. 14." Commentary on the New Test. p. 459.

18. The first Christian writer who defends InfanJt Baptism.

Who is the first Christian writer that defended the baptism of infants? •

Answer. The first that mentioned the practice at all was Tertullian, A. D. 204. It was named next by Origen, A. D. 230. But the first writer that defended the practice was Cyprian, A. D. 253. At this period the plan of admitting a profession by sponsors became so general, at least in AMca, where it commenced, and the security the rite afforded of eternal life was deemed so important, that the practice of it became general. Hence Synods and Councils were held to sanction the practice, and to consider the time after birth when the ordinance may be properly administered. Thus, the very learned writer cited before—

BjKj^altitjs. '' Most men thinking this opinion of Tertolliaa unsafe, were of Cyprian's mind, that even new-bom children ougM to he made partakers of the layer of salvation; which was pitched npon in the decree of this Synod, and so the doubt was taken away." In StenneWs Answer to Buasen, pp. 69-.T3, and in Mr. WalVs Hist. Vol. II. ch. 2.

CHAPTER V.

Dr. FnUer on Infant Salvation, Dedication, and Baptism. 1. Are infanif, dying such, saved ? 2. Ought parents to dedicate their children to God? 3. Where is the difference in baptism ? 4. What harm can baptism of infants do? ls.t. It perverts the Gospel; 2d. It makes void the command of God by human tradition; 3d. It attacks and insults the mercy of God; 4th. It dishonors the Saviour; 5th. It does a serious injury to children.

The following tract, published by the American Baptist Publication Society, is by Rev. Richard Fuller, D. D. It is eminently worthy of the perusal of parents, stating in the most satisfactory manner the Scriptural view of the subject.

1. Are not infants, dying in infancy, saved f Certainly. Of a child which was the fruit of sin, David says, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me " (2 Sam. xii. 23.) It would be horrid blasphemy, to suppose that God can consign to hell infants who have never known good from evil. There is no controversy between Baptists and evangelical Pedobap-tists on this point.

2. OugM not parents to dedicate their children to Ood f Assuredly. A Christian consecrates himself and all he has to Christ. And this is to be done by parents themselves, not by . priests or ministers. In Mark x. 13, it was the parents, not the Apostles, who brought infants to Jesus. Tes, fathers and mothers, take your little ones to Him who is the same Jesus

16*

now; snpplicate his blessing on your offspring. Do more. Show» by your conduct, that you are sincere. When they are old enough, pray with them, send them to the Sunday School, and, above all, let your example point to heaven, and lead the way. To neglect this duty to our children, is to be ungrateful to God, who has given them to us ; it is to be most perfidious and unnatural to our offspring, who inherit from us depraved natures; in a word, it is to prepare for ourselves sorrow while our children live, and the bitterest reproaches of our consciences if they are cut off in sin. There is no difference between Baptist and Pedobaptist brethren on this article.

3. Where, then, is the difference 7 It is as to baptizing infants, Jesus Christ commands all to repent—^to beUeve— to be baptized. These are personal duties. The command is not to parents to do something for their children, but to each individual, requiring him to obey for himself. Can a parent obey, for a child, the command to repent ? All answer. No—^the child, when it grows up, must repent for itself. Can a parent obey, for his child, the command to believe ? All reply. Certainly not—the child, when of sufficient age, must believe for itself.

Now the command to be baptized is just like these commands, and yet our Pedobaptist brethren maintain that parents can obey for their children. They teach that a parent and minister can do something for an unconscious babe, by which it may be said that the babe has obeyed the command to be baptized, so that the child is absolved, when it grows up, from the duty of personal obedience. As your friend, as the friend of Christ, as the friend of your children—^for I am myself a parent—I wish affectionately to warn you against this error.

My friend, your common sense must convince you of the fallacy of such a doctrine. Your reason teaches you that we cannot obey God by proxy ; that obedience to God is a personal duty, and that no one can obey for another. It is sometimes said that Christian parents must baptize their children.

because Jewish parents circumcised theirs. But you see the sophistry of such reasoning. The command to circumcise was to parents aiid masters as such. " He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations } he that is bom in the house, or bought with money of any stranger that is not of thy seed." (Gen. xvii. 12.) This is a command to parenis, to perform a certain act on an infant eight days old; and to masters, to perform a certain act on a servant as soon as they purchased him. But baptism is not a command of this sort. It is a command to each individual, to be obeyed by himself. " Go preach the gospel to every creature: he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." (Mark xvi. 15, 16.) Here the being saved is personal salvation; the believing is personal faith; and the baptism is an act of personal obedience.

When a general sends an order to his officers, the officers have no authority to go beyond that order. They must read it and obey it. If the commission is, " First instruct and train men, and then enlist them into the army,^'' the officers cannot enlist men not instructed nor trained ; it would be absurd to say that they can enlist infants. When these infants grow up they may be trained and enlisted, if they choose. And this is just the fact as to baptism. Jesus has given his written order as to baptism. The order requires ministers first to " preach the gospel,'*^ to **teach^^ people, then to '*baptize^^ those that believe. This, of course, forbids the baptism of any who are not taught, or do not beliove. Infants cannot listen to preaching, cannot be taught, cannot believe, and, therefore, cannot be subjects for baptism.

Let no one throw dust in your eyes by saying, " If infants cannot be baptized because they cannot believe, then infants cannot be saved." We have already said that infants are saved, saved through the blood of Him who "died for all." But the command to believe and be baptized is addressed to those who can believe and be baptized. It is absurd to

suppose that Qod requires faith, or baptism, or any duly from babes.

Open yonr Bible. Yon find there not a trace of infEuit baptism. If infants are to be baptized, Jesus would have bap tized the children brought to Him. But this was plainly never thought of, either by the parents, or by the SaTiour and his Apostles. '' He took them up in his arms, and put his hands upon them, and blessed them.'' (Mark x. 16.) In all the cases of baptism recorded in the Scriptures, the parties were intelligent beings, who heard and acted for themselves. It is sometimes said that households were baptized. What then ? This clearly proves nothing, unless it be shown that there were infants in those households. " Mr. Smith and hia family were at church ;" does this prove that there are infiEuita in Mr. Smith's family, and that infants were at church ? The Baptists often baptize families. But we are not left to conjecture here. In the case of the jailer's household, it is expressly said that they "believed" and "rejoiced." (Acts xvi) Of the household of Stephanas it is declared, that they " addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." (1st Cor. xvi. 15.) The only other household is that of Lydia. From the history (Acts xvi.) all we know is, that she was a woman keeping her own dyeing establishment. Dr. Whitby, (a learned Pedobap-tist,) in his commentary on this passage, says, "When she and those of her household wer&* instructed in the Christian faith, in the nature of baptism required by it, she was baptized and her household." She and those employed in her establishment were baptized. There is not a word about her being married, or having children. The whole account, and her reception of the Apostles afterwards, (v. 15,) shows that she was a woman having her " own house," and doing business on her own account.

The advocates of this error sometimes quote Acts ii. 89. " For the promise is to you and to your children." Read the whole passage. It will expose this plea^ drawn from a garbled

quotation. " Repent, and be baptized, every one of yon, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to yon and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized." What is the promise here mentioned ? At verse 16th we are expressly informed that it included the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, which babes do not, of course, receive. " This is that which is spoken of by the prophet Joel. And it shall come to pass in the last days, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy." To whom is the promise made ? " To you" (Jews) " and your children;" that is, the Jews and their posterity, (as Joel says, " your sons and your daughters shall prophesy;" not babes, but children who can prophesy;) " and to all that are afar off;" that is, the Gentiles ; (as Joel says, " all flesh;") " even as many as the Lord our God shall call." How absurd to talk about infants being called I The remaining words settle the matter. " Then they (hat gladly received the word were baptized."

Baptism is a New Testament institution, and the New Testament teaches us who are to be baptized. They are believers only. Those who go to the Old Testament and the Jewish circumcision for arguments, plainly confess that the New Testament is against them. Baptism is a Christian command, to be obeyed by each individual for himself or herself. Circumcision was a command to the Jewish nation, requiring them to put a certain national mark on all male infants and slaves. The two things are as distinct as any two commands' in the whole Bible. I will, therefore, not dwell on this fallacy, except to remark, that when circumcision is spoken of in the New Testament with reference to Christians, it is never used as typical of baptism, but as emblematical of conversion and holiness. The very passage often cited by Pedobaptists proves this. It is Coloss. ii. 11, 12. Bead the passage, and you will see that the Apostle is describing a '^complete^^ Christian,

(y. 10.) And he notices two things: his conyersion, or the inward change; and baptism, or the outward confession. First, (y. 11,) because in circomcision a part of the flesh was cut off, conversion is called " putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision made without hands, the circumcision of Christ;" that is, the change which Christ by his Spirit performs on the heart. Then, afterwards, (y. 12,) comes baptism, which is compared, not to circumcision, but to a burial and resurrection. ''And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein abo ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised him from the dead."

Parents, dedicate your children to God; but do not> in the Yery act, conmiit that which God has not commanded, and which cannot, therefore, be pleasing to him.

4. Perhaps, however, you may say : After all, what harm can this ceremony do ? To which I answer, it plainly does no good, and it does much harm.

1st It perverts the Gospel. Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world." His kingdom is a spiritual kingdom. But read the writings of those who practice infant baptism, and you find they are forced to maintain that Jesus has a kmgdom which is of this world, into which water can introduce an unconscious babe. Jesus says, '' That which is bom of the flesh is flesh, and that which is bom of the Spirit is spirit." '' Except a man be bom again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The advocates of infant baptism teach that a child bom of the flesh can enter the kingdom of God, by having a little water sprinkled on it. This perversion of the gospel is the foundation of the Popish system, and of the union of Church and State in Protestant countries.

2d. It makes void the command of Ood by a human tradir

Uon. There is plainly ho authority for baptizing infants in the Bible. It is equally plain that the practice began long after the Apostles. CurcellaBus (a learned Pedobaptist) says, " Pedobaptism was not known in the world the two first ages after Christ. In the third and fourth centuries it was approved by few. At length, in the fifth and following ages, it began to obtain in divers places. Therefore we observe this rite indeed as an ancient custom, but not as an apostolical tradition. The custom of baptizing infants did not begin before the third age after Christ, and there appears not the least footstep of it in the first two centuries." (Crosby's Hist. Pref. 66.) This human custom, but for the Baptists, would entirely abolish from the earth the baptism of the New Testament, which is the immersion of believers.

3d. Infant baptism attacks and insults the mercy of God. For it originated in the horrid impiety, that infants will be damned without baptism. Thus Augustine, (A. D. 410,) says: " The Catholic Church has ever held that unbaptized infants will miss, not onl^ the kingdom of heaven, but also eternal life." (Wall on Infant Baptism, vol. i. pp. 411, 412.) And it is still really perpetuated by the same shocking doctrine, though its advocates are now afraid openly to avow it. Their insinuations about ''covenant mercies," about infants being *' admitted into the kingdom," &c., and their haste to sprinkle water on a dying child, all mean this, and nothing else.

* 4th. Infant baptism dishonors the Saviour. It cherishes the injurious idea that his blood is not enough; that our children, dying in infancy, cannot be saved through his atonement, but that the parent and minister must perform some act on them and for them, besides what Christ has done.

5th. I will only add, that this unscriptural practice does a serious injury to our children. It nourishes in them a vague idea that something has been performed towards their salvation. It prevents their searching the Scriptures for themselves, when they grow up. It fosters deeply-rooted prejudices, and

causes them to repel the thought that their parents could haTa been in error. And thus, the very love which jonr children bear yon closes their minds against all investigationy and perpetuates in them, and in their children's children, error and disobedience, which would at once cease, if they were left to read the Bible, and judge for themselves as to this command.

In proof of what has just been said, my dear Mend, I appeal to yourself. I ask you candidly, have you examined the Bible for yourself as to the question of baptism ? You will confess that you have not. And why have you not ? Because you have grown up with the idea that your parents attended to the matter for you. God commands " all men every where to repent;" none can so blind you, as to make you believe that your parents yielded to this command for you. God says to all, " Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ;" you are incapable of a delusion which would lull you into the folly of trusting that yojir parents had believed for you. You love the Saviour, and feel the absurdity of supposing that you need not love him because your parents loved him for you. How is it, then, that you can live and die under an illusion equally glaring t When God commands all believers to be baptized, how can you think that your parents obeyed this command for you ? When Jesus says, " If you love me, keep my commandments," will you mock him, and do the grossest violence to your own reason, by saying, " 1 love Jesus, but this or that command I need not keep; my parents kept it for me ?" Are you willing to die, and meet your Saviour with such a plea on your lips t

Do not suffer any one to perplex a plain thing by talking about " covenant mercies," and " circumcision," and the like. Search the Scriptures, and you will see that infant baptism is not a command of God, but an invention of man. It was introduced on account of the unscriptural, popish idea^ that water washes away original sin, and that none can be saved unless baptized, no matter how impossible baptism may be. Do not lend your countenance to an error so insulting to God

and so pernicious to your children. Believe and be baptized yourself. Train up your children in the way they should go. By prayer and counsel and example seek to win them to Jesus. And admonish them to search for themselves those Scriptures, " which are able to make them wise unto salvation." So shall the blessing of God be upon you, and " it shall be well with you and your children forever."

CHAPTER VI.

Communion.—^1. Baptist terms of Communion the same with other denominations. 2. Bobert HaU on Close Communion. 3. Baptists should not be called Close Communionists, to distinguish them from others. 4. Funiliar Dialogue between Peter and Benjamin, on Close Communion.

1. Baptists are called close communionists; and it is generally supposed their terma of communion differ from those of other denominations. Such, however, is not the fact. All denominations unite in requiring baptism prior to the Lord's Supper, on the ground that this is the order of the two ordinances in the New Testament. Consequently, it is neither intelligent nor fair to call Baptists close communionists in distinction from other denominations. The difference between us is that of baptism, and not communion. Baptists believing that immersion alone is baptism, cannot invite to the Lord's table those who have only been sprinkled, because they in common with other denominations believe baptism precedes communion. Other denominations would not invite Baptists, if they supposed them unbaptized.

2. It is common for even well-educated Pedobaptists to quote Kobert Hall, an open communion Baptist, who is the author of a work on the subject, against Baptists, as though

. his work was particularly against them, when it is against all IT

denominations, on the ground that baptism is not pie-reqidBite to ccHnmonion. With Mr. Hall, close conminnion consistB in making baptism precede communion, and conseqnentlj with him all denominations are close communioiusts. His language is» " The class of Christians whose sentiments I.am relating, are usually known by the appellation of Baptists; in contradistinction from whom all other Christians may be denominated Pedobaptists. It is not my intention to enter into a defence of their peculiar tenets, though they have my unqualified approbation ; but merely to state them for the information of my readers. It must be obvious, that in the judgment of the Baptists, such as have only received the baptismal rite in their infancy, must be deemed in reality unbaptized; for this is only a different mode of expressing their conviction of the invalidity of infant sprinkling. On this ground they have, for the most part, confined their communion to persons of their own persuasion, in which, as illiberal as it may appear, tibiey are supported by the general practice of the Christian world, which, whatever diversities of opinion may have prevailed, has generally concurred in insisting upon baptism as an indispensable pre-requisite to the Lord's table. The effect which has resulted in this particular case, has indeed been singular, but it has arisen from a rigid adherence to a principle almost universally adopted, that baptism is under all circumstances a necessary pre-requisite to the Lord's Supper. The practice we are now specifying has usually been termed strict cornvnur mon ; while the opposite practice, of admitting sincere Christians to the Eucharist, though in our judgment not baptized, is styled/ree communion.^^

3. With this explanation, no candid person will call Baptists close communionists, to distinguish them from other denominations. Our terms of commuriton are the same. Baptists are only entitled to a share with other denominations of the opprobrium of insisting upon the necessity of adhering to the order of the New Testament, in placing baptism before com-

munion. While {^edobaptists insist upon this order, and Baptists believe immersion alone baptism, the former can cast no blame upon the latter, except for being strict BaptiatSy not Gommurmnists. How much occasion Baptists have for their strict adherence to immersion, we have seen.

4. I cannot deny myself tl^ pleasure of quoting here a Tract, which I deem one of the best practical works on baptism and communion, which has been published. It is by Rev. Gustavus F. Davis, D. D., late pastor of the First Baptist Church, Hartford, Ct. It is entitled " A Familiar Dialogue between Peter and Benjamin, on the subject of Close Communion." We quote it> because it answers our purpose better than any thing we can write; and is well deserving circulation and the perpetuity which is implied in placing it in a bound volume, beyond what it could have in the tract form.

A FAMHiTAB DIALOGUE BETWEEN PETER AND BENJAMIN, ON

CLOSE GO1O0JNION.

Peter, Good morning, Behjamin; whither ai6 you going Sd early f

Benjamin, I am going to the Baptist prayer meeting.

P. Then yom attend the Baptist meeting, do you ?

£. I do. I am a member of the Baptist Church—^I go to the Baptist meeting from a conviction of dilty, and I esteem it a great privilege.

P. I will go witii you thia morning, because I wish to have a little conversation with you on the peculiarities of your denomination.

B, You sh£^ be welcome to a seat with me, and on the way I will explain to you as wdl as I can, the reasons for what you call our peculiarities.

P, Well, J must tell yon that I have read and thought much of late on the ground of our differences; and with respect to the mode and subjects of baptism, I have come to the settled eonclusion^ that you have the best of the argument. I have

satisfied myself that the original word BapHzo, Ugmfies to immerse.

B, Can you read Greek ?

P. No. But I find by all history that the (Greeks, who certainly understand their own language, have from the beginning, until this day, practiced immersion. Their practice is a very satisfactory comment on the meaning of the word. Besides, I have read the ample concessions of more than eighty Pedobaptist writers, that this is the meaning of the original word, and that immersion was practiced by the Apostles and by succeeding Christians for thirteen hundred years from tiie conmiencement of the Christian era. As late as 1643, in the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, sprinkling was substituted for immersion by a majority of one —25 voted for sprinkling, 24 for immersion. This small majority was obtained by the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot^ who had acquired great influence in that Assembly. Among the concessions of Pres-byterians, I find the Revt Professor Campbell, D. D., of Scotland, confessedly the most learned Greek scholar and biblical critic of modem times, says—"The word, both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse, and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, tingere, the term used for dying cloth, which was by immsrsion. It is always construed suitably to this meaning." Notes on Matt. iii. 11.

B. Haye you found any thing in the Bible which seems to support the statement that immersion was the practice of the primitive disciples ?

F. Yes. I perceive that they " baptized in Jordan,^^ and other places where there was "much water"—and the phraseology employed in describing the act of baptism, such as "Jesus when he was baptized came up straightway ovt oftke water ;^^ Philip and the Eunuch " went down both into the water,''^ &c., affords strong evidence that immersion was the act performed in the water. Then, again, the early believers in Christ are

said to have been " buried,mth him by baptism." The figurative use of the word baptism, in the expression of Christ, also, relating to his sufferings, seems very conclusive, " I have a baptism to be bapHzeA with." I was so struck with this expression, that I turned to the commentary of Dr. Doddridge, a pious and learned Pedobaptist minister, to see what he would say, and to ascertain whether the expression could be applied to a small degree, a mere sprinkling of sufferings. JBut I found he gave the meaning which seemed to me to appear on the very face of the passage.

B. Will you repeat his paraphrase ? .

P. With pleasure. " I have a baptism to bebaptized with, i. e., I ehall shortly be haJthed, as it were, in blood, and plunged in the most overwhelming distress." And when I hear my brethren pray, as they often do, " May we be baptized with the Holy Ghost," I cannot but think that they attach a similar meaning to the use of the word, and intend by the petition to pray. May we be deeply and thoroughly imbued with divine influences.

B, Some of the passages which you have quoted relate to John^ baptism. Have you never heard the objection that John's baptism was not Ohristian baptism ?

P. Yes. But if the baptism to which Christ himself submitted, was not Christian; especially when he said in reference to it, " Thus it becometh us to fblfil all righteousness," or, as Campbell renders it, " to ratify every institution," I know not what can deserve the name. Have you any additional reasons for considering John's baptism not Christian f

B. Yes. Mark (i. 1) calls his ministry the " beginning of the gospel," &c. Dr. 8cott, in his notes on this passage, gives my views of its import. " This was in fact (he begin* ning of the gospel, the Introduction of the New Testament Dispensation,^^

Luke (xvi. 16) says, ''The law and the prophets were until John," Ac. Those who object to John's baptism behig undet It*

the New Dispensation, saj that this dispensation did not com mence until after the resurrection of Okrist; bat this, yon perceive, would throw back the Lord's Supper into the Old Dispensation, for it was instituted before Tm deaJth,

jP. I do; but I have been a little puzzled with the account given in Acts xix. 1-6, respecting the disciples whom Paol found at Ephesus. Do you think they were re-baptized ?

B. By no means, and I think I can relieve your mind in a few words. I remark, in the first place, that these disciples were believers, and must have experienced the ordinary influences of the Holy Ghost. The inquiry of Paul related to the special miraculous gifts of the Holy Ohost \. these gifts, after suitable inquiries and explanations, were conferred. Luke is considered the writer of the Acts. I will now read the verses, first naming the speakers.

Paul, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ?

Disciples. We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul, Unto what then were ye baptized ? • Disciples. Unto John's baptism.

Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they (i. e., the people to whom John preached) heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Luke. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake unih tongues and prophesied.

P, 1 am satisfied, and I fear, after all, that the reason for objecting to John's baptism, is to be found in the overpowering evidence that it was immersion.

B. Have you not heard some startling objections to the possibility of - immersion, in certain cases mentioned in the Bible ?

P. Yes. My minister said the other day, " that it seemed

to him improbable, if not quite impossible, that 3,000 were immersed on the day of Pentecost," and that it was not likely that the jailer and his household ''the same hour of the night" went out to some river to be baptized, especially as the Apostles refused the next day to go out until they were honorably released.

B. And how did you dispose of these objections ?

P. With regard to the first, I remarked to him, that Peter was preaching at the third hour, (9 o'clock in the A. M.,) and his sermon, one would judge from reading the 2d of Acts, must have been ended before 11 o'clock; and as there were twelve Apostles and "other seventy" administrators, I proved to him by simple division of 3,000 by 82, that there were less than 37 candidates a-piece. I also referred him to the fact^ that a Baptist minister in Jamaica, not long since, immersed 129 in one day; another in Troy, 20 in nine minutes.

With regard to the second objection, I replied, that though the Apostles would not be released from the care of the jailer without an honorable legal discharge, yet under the care of that jailer they might go out to administer baptism. But there is no necessity for supposing that they did go out, as the jailer, before his conversion, "brought them out of the inner prison" into the outer court, and every one acquainted with the structure of an oriental prison, knows that in that court there were bathing fonts, in which prisoners were every day required to bathe. He and his family, I believe, were baptized in a font resembling a baptistery.

£. Really on baptism you reason like a Baptist. And aro you equally convinced that believers are the only proper subjects of baptism ?

P. Yes. I have been so for nearly two years. I harw told my minister and some of the private members of oar ctiiirfjfi, that it seems to me strange that they can doubt that pmOmtiM or believers are the only subjects of baptism, when thi>y fwiwl such passages as the following:

Mark xvi. 16. ^' He that believelhf and is baptised, shall be saved."

Acts 11. 38. "Bepent and be baptized erery one of yon.'' Acts viU. 12. " When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesns Christ, they were baptized, botk men and v)omen." Acts viiL 36, 37. ''The ennnch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized ? And Philip said. If thou believesi with all thine heart, thon mayest."

Acts xTiii. 8. " Many of the Oorinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized."

B. Bnt you know that they endeavor to find evidence in favor of infant baptism from an expression of Christy in reference to children—^from household baptism—and from circumcision.

P. Yes, I know they do. But though Jesus said, ** Suffer little children to come unto me," &c., yet John (iv. 2) says, "Jesus himself baptized not,^^ Of the household of Stephanas, Paul says, (1 Cor. xvi. 15,) "It is the first fruits of Achala, and they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints J^ Paul preached the word of the Lord to all that were in the house of the jailer, and it is said (Acts 16) that he believed in God, and rejoiced in God with all his houseJ*^ There is no evidence that there were any children in the household of Lydia, and from the last clause of the chapter that gives us an account of her conversion and baptism, it appears that her household consisted of brethren —^probably the servants that attended her on her trading journey. And have you never found any whole households that "believed and were baptized," in your denomination ?

E, Yes, several. I called on a family of this kind not long since, in the town of WiUington, Con. The father and mother and seven children and an apprentice, had all become members of the Baptist Church in that town. Such instances are not

unfi^equent among ns. I belieye yon did not express yoot views of the armament drawn from circumcision.

P. I can see no analogy between the circumcision of a male Hebrew child, and the baptism of b, female child of a believing GentUe. And if baptism came in the room of circumcision, I wonder the change was not thought of by the apostolical council to whom the dissension about circumcision was referred. It would have been easy for them to remove the difficulty by simply saying, " Baptism came in the room of circumcision, and is to be observed by believers in its stead;" but they "gave no such commandment." See Acts zv. 1-31.

B. Ton said you wished to converse with me on the pecu^ liarities of the Baptist denominatioiL But thus far your sentiments and mine are the same. I can see no dUTereiiee between us.

P. Tou will find there is one point at lea«t on which wo shall widely differ.

B, I would now ask you what tiiat is, but the time form^ei' ing has come; we will now dose our conrerMitioii, and if yoo please, resume it again this evening at my baaie.

P. Very well. I will call at 8 o'clock

B. Oood evening, brother Peter. I am glad to see yoiL B« seated. Ever since our conversadon this moroing^ I bar« h^mn trying to imagine what you could mean by that *' one point on which we shall widely differ."

P. There is one thing, and one only, which prevents me tfom being a Baptist; but that one thing seems to be an insuperable barrier.

P. Do tell me what it is.

P. 0, your close commuiflon I

P. Do we not commune just as you do 7 The only dlflbr-ence I can see is, we celebrate the Lord's Supper at the closa of the day instead of the morning, becanib we think this season

better adapted to the idea of a Supper. Wkat do pm by close commimion ?

P. Tou do not receiYe Ohrutiaiui of oUm^ dennmfnalionay and this is a great stumbling block to me.

B. Let me ask yon one question, and the annwer^ I ham reason to anticipate, will show that onr difference of opinieii on this point is not so wide as jon imagine. Do yon beliefe that baptism is a pre-reqnisite to commonion f

P. Certainly; though I confess I should like to hear «oa» of your reasons for considering it so.

B, I will give them with pleasure.

Christ commissioned his disciples to " €h> teach (disciple) all nations"—admitting them immediatdy to the Lord's Supper ? No ; '' baptizing them," &c. They were then to teadi them all things which he had commanded. One of the commands afterwards to be taught the baptized disciples was, *^ Do this in remembrance of me." According to this commiih sion, when Ananias became satisfied that Saul had become a disciple, he said to him, ''Arise,*'^^«nd what next? Come to the table of the Lord ? No. '' Arise, and be hapbizedJ*^ He afterwards " assayed to join himself to the disciples." We have another example in the manner of building the Church at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. By consulting the second chapter of Acts, you wiU find that the joyful convertB were first bapUzed, and then continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine, in fellowship, in " brecUdng of breads" Ac. Baptism se^ns to have been considered by all denominations '(that have held to external ordinances at all) as a rite which should precede the reception of the Lord's Supper.

Justin Martyr says, '' This food is called by us the Eucharist ; of which it is no^ lawful fof any to partake, but such as believe the things taught by us to be true, and have been baptized.^^ Dr. Wall informs us, that "No church ever gave the communion to any persons before they were baptized. Among all the absurdities that ever were held, none ever

CX)1IMUNI0N. SOS

mahit8med ihat, that any person should partake of the communion before \i^ was bi^^ed." Dr. Doddridge tells us, "It is certain that^ as far as our knowledge of primitiYe antiquity reaches, 9u> vmba^ptized. person received the Lord's Supper." Again: " How excellent soever any man's character is, he must be baptized before he can be looked upon as completely a member of the Church of Christ." Mr. Baxter remarks—" What man dare to go in a way which hath neither precept nor example to warrant it, from a way that hath a full current of both ? Yet they that will admit members into the visible church wUhoiU baptism, do so." Equally to the point is the assertion of Dr. Dwight, late President of Yale College. He says: " It is an indispensable qualification for this ordinance, that the candidate for communion be a member of the visible Church of Christ, in full standing. By this I intend— that he should be a person of piety; that he should have made a public profession of religion; and that Tie shovM have been baptized.^^ And how is it in your church ? Does your minister require candidates for admission first to be baptized?

P. I never knew him to receive any who had not been baptized according to his views of baptism. Indeed, I do not know of a Presbyterian or Congregational diareh ia the country, that would admit persons to the comfflanlon wht/m they considered unbaptized, I never supposed thai thin ever could consistently be dispensed with in the ehweaium'f^ni I confess I never saw before so strong reafons in favor of flnri requiring baptism of candidates for adffllMlofi to obur^ili privileges.

B, Well. You see that the prindpl* m wtileti wiy mi4 all other denominations act in this instatiije, \n prmimif itm mm^. Your minister believes that sprinkling )mnriniff Mi4 pUuf(h% are all equally valid baptism; ami iUttntrtfrtt iufUpn mmh m Ht^ sprinkled, poured, and plunged, U) Um tymmmUm. Mf nunister believes with Paul, tliai Hum U trtii ** tma tmif^Jhrn/^

and that is immersioQ; he therefore can invite only the immersed. There is no close communion here; if there is any closeness, it is close baptism. The Baptists and all oUier Christians refuse to commune with the nnbaptdzed. The question then his, What is baptism ? If we agree in settling this question, then there is no difference between us. And as they all believe that immersion is vfJid baptism, I have ofton wondered that they do not practice immersion instead of sprinkling, and end the strife. They have no doubt that we are baptized; if they had, they would not receive us. We do conscientiously doubt the validity of sprinkling for baptism. The sacrifice on their part to produce conformity would be nothing; on ours it would be the sacrifice of honesty conscientious principle.

P. I now see that your churches and ours act on the same principle respecting the admission of persons to the sacrament^ but still I wish to name a few objections to your practice, which have existed in my mind, and which, I freely aoknow-ledge, still have some influence upon me.

B. Go on, my brother; let me know all your difficulties on this subject.

P. You know the communion table is called the Lord's table; how then can you refuse to admit the Lord's people ?

B, The very fact that it is the Lord^s table, furnishes the answer. If it were our table, we would invite whom we pleas^; bht as it is the Lord's table, we must consult his word, and extend the invitation to those only who, by the Saviour's commission, and the apostolic examples, we find allowed to partake—^viz., baptized believers.

And I think I can convince you that your minister does not invite all the Lord's people to come to the Lord's table.

P. O, he says he "can freely receive all that Christ has received."

P. But does not Mr. Goodman belong to his congregatioii,

and does not your minister belieye that he has a name descrip-tire of his character 7

P. Yes. I have often heard him regret that a man so eminently pions and exemplary should remain year after year, ont of the churchy where his influence is so much needed.

B. Mr. Goodman attends meeting on communion days, I suppose.

P. Yes; no inan is more constant in his attendance on public worship.

B, And is he invited to come to the Lord's table ?

P. O no. He was never baptized. He never joined the church.

B. And I have been told that within two months, many in^ your congregation have experienced religion.

P. Yes. A large number indeed have become pious.

B. Any of them before the last communion ?

P. Yes; more than forty. . B. Is your minister satisfied with thoir piety ?

P. I heard him say that he was never better satisfied with young converts.

B, Did he invite them to the Lord's table ?

P. Ono.

B. What I debar Mr. Goodman and more than forty others of the Lord's people from the Lord's table? Surely he is on the Baptist ground. And I have been told, too, that his mother and one sister are among the converts. How could he refuse to commune with his own mother and sister ?

P. None of these had been admitted to membership, and I am now convinced that piety alone, even when found in our dearest earthly connections, does not give them a right to the Lord's table. The 'Lord's people must, if they come at all, come in the Lord's way. But what do you say to them, provided they seem to be gmceref

B. We tell them that sincerity is no proof of correctness. Saul of Tarsus was sincere before his conversion. He thought 18

he was doing God serrice wh^n he was persecnting the church; and John Newton was sincere after his conversion, in contina-ing in the slave trade, nntil his eyes were opened to see the evil of this abominable traffic. But the sincerity of these men did not prove their conduct to be justifiable. But if sincerity be admitted as an evidence of correctness, then we claim to be correct ourselves; for we are as sincere in refusing to commune with those whom we consider unbaptized, as they are in refusing to commune with those whom they consider unbap-tized.

P. I have another question which I presume you have often heard, and which has been a source of some perplexity to me — " If we cannot commune together on earthy how can we in heaven?"

B. " We plead for a communion on earth, with Christians of every sect, which shall bear a resemblance to that of heaven. We do not suppose that the communion of the 'just made perfect'.consists in partaking of the symbols of Christ's death, but in high and spiritual intercourse; in mutual expressions of admiration and gratitude, while reviewing the dispensations of providence and grace towards them in this world; in mingled songs of praise to Him who hath washed them from their sins in his own blood; and in exalted converse concerning the glorious scenes which the revolutions of eternity will be continually unfolding to their delighted gaze. In such communion as this, although of a more humble character, we would be glad to participate with all good men."

F. Really, my brother Benjamin, you have answered my questions in a clear and satisfactory manner. I am convinced of the correctness of your principles, and the consistency of your conduct. I see that the, Baptist churches act in accordance with apostolic usage, and with the universal practice of Presbyterian and other churches, in requiring baptism as a pre-requisite to communion. I have for some time past been convinced that immersion is the only baptism, and believers

the only subjects of the ordinance; and I am now more fully confirmed in the opinion that baptism should in every instance precede communion. But what shall I do ? My parents and many other relatives belong to the Presbyterian Church. I receive much patronage in my business from the wealthy and respectable part of that church; I shall give offence by dissolving my connection, and you will admit that baptism is not really essential to salvation.

B, I will admit that baptism is not essential to salvation. The Baptists are so far from believing this, that they consider no one entitled to baptism, who is not in a state of salvation. Faith is essential to salvation; immersion is as essential to baptism, as roundness to a ball ; and baptism is an essential pre-requisite to communion. Is not baptism as essential as communion ? Are not both external ordinances ? The Jews were required on one occasion to offer a red heifer. Had they a right to say, the color is non-essential f A white one will answer as well ? Was not redness essential to obedience ? But, my dear brother, will you do nothing for the honor of Christ, which is not absolutely essential to your salvation ? " Is this thy kindness to thy friend ?" Are you not to obey all his commands, and to imitate his examples, even though he might possibly save you'if you were to neglect some of them ? You must forsake father and mother, and brother and sister, and wife, and houses, and lands, if you would follow Christ, and be a consistent disciple.

Your mind is confessedly enlightened with regard to the institutions established in beantifril order and simplicity by Him who evinced his love to you, by freely giving his blood as a ransom for your soul.

" If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye cfo them."

P. The love of Christ constraineth me: and fearless of consequences, I will make haste, and delay not to keep his commandments.

PART III.

BAPTIST CflUKCH POLITT. GOTBRNMEHT AND PRACTICE.

CHAPTER I.

1. The Bible the Law of the Church. 2. The Chnroh ft Spiritual Body. 8. The Independenee and Unity of the Church.

1. That the Bible is the only law of the Church, appears in the first article of the Confession of Faith we have published, to which the reader is referred. We widh only to say, in addition, iliat this is the fundamental law of the Church. The Church is not a legislatiye, but an ezecutiye body. Her office is to execute the laws of God, and not to re-enact, increase or diminish them. This simplifies her work beyond measure, and imparts confidence to her decisions. As she tries every thing by the law and the testimony, the Bible, so she is to be thus tried. The only question she has to settle is, what saith the infallible rule, the Bible ? And when she departs from it, she is of no authority. It is on this ground that the Baptist Church has from the commencement resisted, unto death, all innoya-tioDs upon Bible laws in church afifairs. On this foundation she has eyer stood out in the world alone. Imperfect in spirit, as she humbly confesses, she claims to be perfect in laws, because she knows none but those of God. It is on this (208)

ground that she rejects sprinkling for baptism, infant baptism, union of Church and State, persecution for belief, and superior and inferior orders of ministers.

To the Bible, then, we turn for the true and only church polity. What were the primitive churches? What their government, their practice, their officers, their discipline, their duties and privileges, and the like ? The church which will not stand this test, is no church of Christ. It is because we believe the Baptist churches will stand it, that we commend them to all.

2. The Church is a spiritual, and not a secular institution. " My kingdom," said the Saviour, " is not of this world." In what sense is this passage to be understood ? It is for the world, and is in the world; still it is not of the world. It is not for any secular purpose, civil or political, but is spiritual in its nature, promoting piety, and pointing to heaven. The union of Church and State is impossible; as the State is a secular institution, existing for such purposes, and securing its ends often by physical force. The Church is another kingdom, existing for another purpose, and promoted by other means. " If my kingdom," said the Saviour, " were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence." The conscience is not to be intimidated by the secular power, but is to be free to choose or reject the good and evil set before it. All secular dignity and ostentation are out of place in the church, where all are "brethren," acknowledging no "Master" but Jesus.

As the Baptist Church has always claimed these principles for herself, so she has freely and fully accorded them to others. As she has never admitted the right of the secular power to control her, and has given up her members to death by millions, in vindication of her rights and duty, so she has never resorted to persecution to make converts, and has yet her firsir death to cause, or act of oppression, for conscience sake, to 18*

perform. Pointing triumphantly to her history, in confirmation of her position, and to her cruel wrongs from Catholics and Protestants, Reformers and Pilgrim Fathers, as evidence of her patience and humility under suffering, her language is:

" Itfs not with flashing steel; It's not with cannon's peal.

Or stir of dmm; But in the honds of lore, — Our white flag floats ahove,— Its emhlem is the dove,— If 8 thus we come."

3. The independence and yet unity of the Church. Churches are independent of each other, and of all ecclesiastical bodies, and solely accountable to God. They acknowledge no head or control, but Jehovah; and no law but the Bible. " Be ye not called Rabbi," said the Saviour, " for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren." It is an assumption for any individual or combination to attempt to control or intimidate any church of Christ. The smallest, poorest church on earth is independent of all but Jehovah. It by no means follows that the largest, richest church in the city or country, has the most piety or wisdom, or is in any sense in a condition to dictate to others. The churches of the Bible, large and small, rich and poor, in the city and country, are addressed as equally distinct accountable bodies, required to act for themselves nobly, in the fear of God. We read of " the churches throughout all Judea," of "Galatia," "Asia," "Macedonia," "Corinth," "Cencrea," &c. There is not the least intimation of any combination of churches, for the control of others, in the word of God. Much less is there any intimation of any other ecclesiastical combination, as council, association, or synod, for the control of the Churches. Jehovah approaches the churches directly, and all of them equally. The true place of other ecclesiastical combinations is in subordination to the Church, and deriving their authority from her.

And yet the churches are one, in that they have the flame Lord, the same work, the same motives, and the same heaven. But they are one, as the particles of the earth, or the drops of the ocean. In this manner they exist in harmony as fellow* laborers, but not as dictators; and in proportion as they are founded upon Christ, and governed by his laws, will they be at the same time one, and yet distinct

CHAPTER n.

The Churoli. 1. Origin and meaning of the term. 2. Formation of a Ohnreh. 8. The power, rights and duties of a Chnrch—^her power execi)-tire; she shoold extend the reign of Christ; select, ednoate, licease^ ordain, and support ministers of the' Gospel; and choose her own officers.

1. Origin and Meaning of the term Church, —The English word church is supposed to be derived from a Greek word, meaning "pertaining to the Lord." The Greek word is Kv^iaxov; the Saxon circe; the German kirche; Scottish kirk. The word in the New Testament, hence, generally translated church, is ixx%vj8ui, (ecclesia,) meaning literally ** called out or summoned." It does not therefore necessarily mean a religious assembly, but is so commonly used to designate such, that for all practical purposes, it is a sufficiently definite use of the term. See 1 Cor. i. 2; Rev. ii. t, &c. Rev. William Crowell, in his excellent " Church Members' Manual," says— " A church, in the language of the inspired writers, is a society of believers, who meet in one place for the worship of God, and for the united observance of the ordinances of the gospel. Li this sense the word occurs in the singular number upwards of fifty times, and the word churches upwards of thirty times.

in the New Testament. It is used with other significations in about sixteen or eighteen instances." Chancellor King, an Episcopalian, in his distinguished " Inquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, Unity and Worship of the Primitive Church," Bays: '^ The usual and common acceptation of the word (church) is that of a particular church, that is, a society of Christians meeting together in one place, under their proper pastors, for the performance of religious worship, and the exercising of Christian discipline."

It ISllows, that while in a sense any assembly may be called a church, the term is most properly applied to Christian assemblies ; and that the Church of Christ is an assembly according to his directions.

2. Formation of a Church, —Nothing is more natural than that the disciples of Christ Hying near each other should become acquainted, and find they have views in common; and that it is for their interest, and is their duty, to combine for their mutual edification and happiness, and for the propagation and defence of "the faith once delivered to the saints." A Christian moves into a new place. One of the first things occurring to him is, is there a church here of which I can approve ? If there is, he joins it by a letter from the church of which he was previously a member. If not, the next question is, are there any fellow-disciples, and in sufficient numbers to justify a combination for Christian purposes ? The number justifying such a step, depends on circumstances, of which those particularly concerned must judge. A very small number answers the purpose, as we have no rule, human or divine, settling the question of numbers. It is better for a small number to associate, than for them to live separately, unknown to each other. At the same time, common sense dictates that a small, weak body should be prudent in their attempts to construct a house of worship, or to support a minister of the gospel, lest they should bring reproach upon the cause by failure. No such considerations, however, should prevent the combination

THE CHURCH. S13

of any number of disciples of Christ in a given placfe, for tli6 adTancement of piety. Such a combination is a chnrch; and, if constructed after the plan of the New Testament, is a church of Christ

Brethren and sisters meeting together thus, and desiring further association with those of other places, can without difficulty ascertain to which of the denominations around tll^m they belong ; and apply to some of the neighboring churches of the same for recognition. When delegates are appointe^juOr-dinarily consisting of the pastor and two or three brethren from gome half-dozen or dozen neigl^boring churches, who assemble on a given day, and examine the views of the applying church, and if satisfied with their views, recognize them as a church of the same faith and order as themselves, by public divine service, generally by a sermon, charge, hand of fellowship, and devotional exercises;. Thus any company of disciples become a church, by their own association, in conformity with the New Testament, Mid thus they become a churt;h of the Baptist denomination.

This is a simple but natural state of things, not adverse to the New Testament, but in harmony with it, as for as can be gathered from its pages, so silent upon the method in which the primitive churches came into being, and entirely without laws for the constitution of future churches.

We know that brethren and sisters in Jerusalem, Aniioch, Corinth, &c., became the churches of these places, for so the New Testament teaches ; but as to just how the combination was accomplished, we are not informed, nor is it of any consequence. We presume it was as we have described. At the baptism on the day of Pentecost, we read, " the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." When Saul of Tarsus was converted, and baptized, he " assayed to join himself to the church," and though rejected at first, on account of his previous character, the brethren doubting his being a true disciple, yet, when introduced by Barnabas, he waft

receiyed as a brother beloved. We have only such fragmentarj intiinations of the formation of the primitive ehnrches, and their method of growth. As far as possible, we follow the primitive mode, and adopt such other roles as, in the silence of the Scriptures, seem desirable, and which do not contravene the laws of God.

S' The Power, Rights, and Duties of the Church, —By the power of the Church, we mean (to adopt one of Webster's definitions of the complicated term) '^ her command, right of governing, dominion, rule, sway, authority." Her power is executive, and not legislative. The Saviour's language is, (see Matt, xxviii. 18,) "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." All the power the church has, is derived from Him, and in her intercourse with the world, other churches, and individuals, she must govern herself accordingly. She has only to inquire, what doth the Head of the Church direct in any given case ? So far, and no farther, may she go. To make rules governing her in this respect, in her ever-changing relations, is not necessary, if it were possible. To the word of 6od she must resort in every case; and so simple are its laws that she need be in no doubt on this subject. She is no church of Christ, and has no power of any kind, as such, if she is not sufficiently imbued with the spiritual element, to conform entirely to His laws for her government.

The right and duty of the church is implied in what follows in the general command of the Saviour, in which he asserts his exclusive authority in heaven and in earth, quoted above. (See Matt, xxviii. 18-20.) "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all / things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

It follows that she may'&nd should do what she can for the extension of the reign of Christ. Her " field is the world," and her work is not done until "the kingdoms of this world are •

become the kingdoms of onr Lord, and of his Christ." She has a spiritual kingdom to extend, however, and must accomplish it by spiritual means. All nations are to be " taught," and gathered into the kingdom of Christ as they are taught^ convinced, persuaded. Is she to "compel them to come in, that his house may be filled," it is the compulsion of teaching, moral suasion.

Missionary societies, under the control of the church, have been resorted to, not because the Bible provides directly for them, but because they are supposed to be no infringement upon the Saviour's laws and successful church methods of accomplishing her work. Too much caution, however, cannot be used to prevent such societies from being above the church, and to confine them strictly to the Divine plan of promoting the growth of his kingdom. It is the right and duty of the church alone to extend the reign of Christ. It is indeed the right and duty of individual disciples to promote the cause of Christ, but it is also their right and duty to be members of tiie church, and as such, with such sanction, they can be most useful.

The church by her members can and should go into adjoining regions, as well as into distant ones, and teach and baptize and gather the converts into churches. They in turn should do likewise, and thus the cause is to be promoted until the end, until all churches militant are merged in the Church triumphant. •^

Each church has the right and is in duty bound to govern itself after the Divine method. While any individual may "assay" to join any church of Christ, as Paul did the "disciples at Jerusalem," the disciples must judge whether " he is a disciple," and can on the Saviour's authority be received as one of them.

It is the Saviour's requirement that the members of the Church should love each other, and walk together in the ordinances and duties aud privileges of his house blameless. The

•>

#

416 THE BAPTIffr DENOMINATION.

dmrch is to judge of the conduct of members, and diseipHsft them accordmg to the laws made and provided in the case kat the Bible. See article in this work on the subject of Discipline.

It is the right and the duty of the church to sympathize with hw members in all suitable matters. Most fully is this treated in Rom. 12th chapter, which should be engraven on the heart of every member of the body of Christ. "Lo, we being many (6th verse), are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.'? Ordinary intelligence and piety will regulate the use of this passage, and indeed the chapter, and save church members, on the one hand, from an unsuitable intrusion, and on the other, from cold and selfish indifference and neglect. Ample provisions are made in the laws of Christ for the pecuniary aid of poor members of the church. John iii. 16-18. " Hereby perceive we the love of Q-od^ because he laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoso hath this world's goo<^ and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels' of compassion for him, how dwelleth the love of God in him ? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth." See also 2 Cor. chap's 8th and 9tL; and kindred passages.

It is the right and duty of the church to look to €k>d for miltisters; and, receiving such as he may give them, to provide fof^their preparation, their induction into the sacred office, their support; and for their discipline, if it becomes necessary. Matt. ix. 37, 38. '^Then said he unto his disciples, the harvest truly is plenteous, but the laborers are few; pray ye, therefore, the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth laborers into his harvest." God is pleased to give the church in answer to prayer such ministers as she needs. Eph. iv. 11,12. ''And he gave some apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; and some Dastors and teachers; for the

THE OHUKOH. 21t *

perfecting of the saints—for the work of the ministry—^for the edifying of the body of Christ."

It follows that those to whom God has committed this important work are responsible for it. They cannot transfer it to one or many of their number of the clergy or laity. It is safficient, also, to task the energies of the entire church. God has provided that his ministers shall be intelligent, able men, and it follows that the church should provide whatever may be necessary for the accomplishment of his plan. Induction into the sacred office by license and ordination, also belongs to the church, as God has committed to her the control of the ministry, and has not given these particulars of it to others.

" A license to preach the gospel" is the appointment of a member by the church to the office. She is prudently, in the fear of God, and in the light of the scriptures, to decide the probabilities of his being called of God to the work of the ministry, and on conviction of the fact, she gives him a certificate, called a license. This seems necessary in acknowledgment of her right and duty; for his commendation to others; and to prevent imposition on the part of those who may wrongfully assume the sacred office.

The " ordination" of ministers of the gospel is amply provided for in the scriptures. Acts xiv. 23. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord on whom-^^ll^ -'^^ believed. Titus i. 5. "For this cause I left thee ys^^Q^Htf ^ that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting^ and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee."

Rev. William Crowell, in his " Chiuwh Member's Manual," a work having the sanction of sevelfal worthy names, particularly of Rev. Henry G. Ripley, IJ! D., Professor of Sacred Rhetoric and Pastoral Duties in the Newton Theological Institution, says of ordination: " It consists of two things; first, the election by the church of one to be their pastor, or to perform some ministerial service in their behalf, either to 19

them, or as an evangelist to the destitute. Second, his solemn indaction or inaagoration, in which the ministrj publicly recognize him as one of their number, welcome him to their brotherhood, and by the consent and acting in behalf of their respective churches, pledge to him the fellowship, confidence, and afifection of the ministry and churches. The first is the essential act, vrithout which no one could he properly invested with the office and functions of a Christian minister. The New Testament sustains no other ordination. What else has become custom in the case, should be distinguished from this, and used with great caution, on the ground that the laws of Christ are sufficient for his church.

"As it is desirable that the ministers of a given church may become the ministers of other churches, the rule generally in use of consulting other churches in the ordination of ministers is suitable, and is no infringement of the independence of the church, as she convenes the council, which of necessity derives its power to act from her. Besides, she may proceed contrary to its decisions, if she deems it her duty. Other churches, on this account, may reject her ministers or herself, but cannot interfere with her rights and duties."

We subjoin the following, upon licensing and ordaining members to preach the gospel, from Rules of Church Order, by Rev. J. Newton Brown, D. D.:

#Atty member who, in the judgment of the church, gives eiffionce, by his piety, zeal, and ' aptness to teach,' that he is called of God to the work of the ministry, after having preached in the hearing of the church, may be licensed to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, provided three-fourths of the members present at any regular meeting shall agree thereto.

'' If the church unanimously decide that one of its licensed preachers possesses the scriptural qualifications for full ordination, they shall call a council of ministers and brethren to examine the qualifications of the candidate, to which council the propriety of ordaining shall be wholly referred."

We quote also, on this topic, from Notes on Baptist Principles, attributed to Rev. Dr. Wayland:

I intended, at an earlier period, to have offered some suggestions on the subject of the licensure and ordination of ministers. What I should, perhaps, have done before, I will endeavor to do now.

I have often heard our mode of licensing ministers spoken of with marked disrespect. It has been said, How can we have any improvement in the ministry, while the authority of licensing ministers is held by the church ? What do common, uneducated brethren know about the fitness of a man to preach the gospel ? I do not say that other men have heard such remarks—I only say that I have heard them myself.

Now, with this whole course of remark, I have not the remotest sympathy. I believe that our mode is not only as good as any other, but farther than this, that it is, more nearly than any other, conformed to the principles of the New Testament. Let our churches, then, never surrender this authority to ministers, or to councils, or to any other organization whatever. I believe that Christ has placed it in their hands, and they have no right to delegate it. Let them use it in the manner required by the Master, and it can be placed in no safer hands.

In the Episcopal Church, the candidate is admitted to the ministry by the Bishop. In the Lutheran Church, I believe, ... substantially in the same manner. In the Presbjrterian Chmieli, it is done by Presbyteries. Have these means been successful in keeping the ministry pure in doctrine, and holy in practice ? , How is it in the established Church of England ? How is it in the Lutheran churches in Germany, of whose tender mercies our own brother Oncken has had so large an experience ? How ifi it with the old Presbyterian Church of Scotland ? Of the former condition of this last, we may inform ourselves, by reading "Witherspoon's Characteristics." How much they have improved of late years, the secession of the Free Church

might possibly inform us. But to bring this matter to a test, would we exchange our ministry, just as it is, for the ministry of either of these churches at the present day ? Or, take our own country, where freedom of opinion, and the watchfulness of other denominations has had a powerful influence over these churches, in matters of admission to the ministry, and look at the result. The object of a church of Christ is to subdue the world to God. Which mode of admitting men to the ministry has here been most successful in this respect ? For a long time after the settlement of the colonies, Baptist sentiments were confined almost exclusively to Rhode Island. Some of our Rhode Island ministers were whipped and imprisoned for holding a private religious meeting in Lynn, Massachusetts. The Revolution, however, abolished, for the most part, the power of the established orders, and our sentiments began to extend. At this period we were few and feeble. The men have but recently died, who remembered when oiir whole denomination embraced but two or three associations. The land was filled with Congregational, Presbyterian and Episcopalian churches. We now, I presume, outnumber them all, and we should have outnumbered them to a vastly greater extent, had we not swerved from our original practices and principles, for the sake of imitating our neighbors. We need not certainly speak lightly of a ministry, or of a mode of introducing men to the ministry, which has led to such remarkable results.

We want no change in our mode of licensing candidates. We do, however, need that the subject should receive more attention, and that in this, as in everything connected with the Church of Christ, we should specially act in the fear of God. If a church will act in this matter, with conscientious desire to please the Master, we know of no better hands into which we could entrust the power of admission to the ministry. Some twenty-five years since, I knew a church refuse a license to two young men, to whom, I presume, it would have been readily

granted by almost any Bishop or Presbytery. Both were graduates of college; one was among the first scholars in his class, bat his delivery was so exceedingly dull, that he conld by no possibility interest an audience. He was refosed a license, because the brethren could obtain no evidence that he was called to the work, inasmuch as he had no aptness to teach. He, however, persevered, obtained a license from some church less scrupulous, and, if I mistake not, went through a Theological Seminary, and received what is called a thorough training; but I think he was never called to be the pastor of any church, and, so far as I know, never entered upon the work of the ministry. The other was the case of a young man of brilliant powers of elocution, and very respectable scholarship, but of erratic and eccentric character. The same church refused to license him, because they deemed him wanting in the sobriety of character and consistency of example, which are required in a minister of Jesus Christ. Subsequent events proved that they did not act without good reason. If aU our churches would act in this manner, we should want to go no further to find a safe depository of the power of admitting men to the ministry. If, on the other hand, we are false to ourselves, and treat this subject as a matter of form, to be acted upon without thought, or much consideration, it is not our principles, but ourselves that are in fault. Any systeni that man could devise, would make mischief, if it were treated with the thoughtlessness which I fear is fast overspreading many of our churches.

Let us, then, look for a moment upon this su|)jecty as our churches profess to understand it. We believe that there is such a thing as a call to the ministry; that is, that a man is moved to enter upon this work by the Holy Spirit. This call is manifested in two ways; first, in his own heart; and secondly, in the hearts of his brethren. So far as he himself is concerned, it appears in the form of a solemn conviction of duty resting upon him, with such weight that he believes it impossi-19*

ble for him to please Christ in any other way than in preaching the gospel. He dares not enter upon any other pursuit, until he has made every effort in his power to be admitted to this work. I beg these remarks to be remembered. They may be considered by many as obsolete and behind the age. It may be so, and yet the age may be wrong. There is a word of prophecy surer than this age, or than any age. I know it is common to hear men, even among Baptists, talk of the choice of a profession, and of balancing in their minds whether they should be lawyers, ministers, or physicians. They will say, perhaps, they dislike the turmoil of politics, the hard and irregular labor of a physician, the monotony of teaching; they are fond of study, of writing, and of quiet mental improvement; and besides, they can enter the ministry, be married and settled so much more easily than would be possible in any other profession, that they, on the whole, prefer it. Now I would always dissuade such a man from entering the ministry at all. If he could, with just as clear a conscience, be a lawyer as a minister, let him be a lawyer by all means. The Church of Christ can do without him. He proposes to enter the ministry of reconciliation from mere selfish motives, and the Saviour has no occasion of his services. He makes a convenience of the ministry of the word, he uses it to promote his own objects, he is a hireling whose own the sheep are not. If he begins in this way, in this way he will, unless the grace of God prevent, continue. He will soon tire of the work, and leavd it for something else, or he will continue in it, to shed around him on every side the example of well-educated, cold, worldly-minded selfishness.

And here, at the risk of being considered a Puritan of the deepest dye, I must hazard another remark. This notion of considering the ministry in the same light as any other profession, to be preferred merely on the ground of personal advantage, is working very grave evils in the Church of Christ. I rejoice, however, to declare that I believe these views to bo

much less preyalent among Baptists than among other denominations. A yonng man preparing for the ministry with these views, feels himself mnch in the condition of any other professional student. He takes frequently a pride in sinking every thing that smacks of the cloth. He is anxious to appear a man of the world. He will talk over fashionable insipidity and personal gossip, with the most amusing volubility. He converses about his sermons, as a young lawyer would about his pleas or political harangues. He is more at home at the evening party, than at the bed-side of the dying, and is oftener seen at the concert than the prayer-meeting. If any one should suggest that such a life was not quite consistent with the character of a young evangelist, he would probably ask, with most amusing innocence. What is the harm of all this ? He means to discharge his professional duties, and this being done, why should he not indulge his tastes and love of society, just as well as any other professional man ? The Apostle James seemed to think his question unanswerable, when he asked, " Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter ? Can a fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries, either a vine, figs ? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh." Many of our young evangelists, however, have found out the way in which this can be done. The same lipK can discuss the insipidities of fasMon during the week, and tho solemn truths of repentance towards God, and tho otoruiU judgment, on the Sabbath. Brethren, these things ought not so to be.

Suppose such a man enters the ministry and aHHumoH tliu care of souls. He is continually comparing himself wltii mou of other professions. They strive to advance tliomH(^lvotl, why should he not do the same ? His object is not to convort souls, but to distinguish himself as a writer, or Hpoakur, and thus to secure some more eligible professional Hittuition, a church in a city, a splendid edifice, a congregation of I ho rich, the fashionable and well-conditioned. Or, ho may dosire

the fame of a lecturer, or may seek for any other form of distinction and notoriety, to which success in the pulpit may conduct him. If the ministry of the gospel is like other professions, why should he not? But if the Holy Ghost has called him to follow in the footsteps of Christ, and has committed immortal souls to his charge, and if he will be called to account for the proof which he has given of the ministry; in a word, if religion be a reality and no sham, if the crown, of glory be bestowed only on those who fight the good fight, if only those who turn sinners to righteousness shall shine as the stars forever-^-why, then, it is a very different matter.

It is the right and duty of the church to support her ministry. It is God's plan that the ministry should be "wholly" devoted to its appropriate work. See Acts vi. 4 and 1 Tim, iv. 15. With an exclusive confinement to their appropriate work, they may well exclaim, "who is sufficient for these things ?"

As a necessary concomitant of this principle, the church is bound to support her ministers. The passages are very numerous in the scriptures on this topic. We give only a specimen of them: Luke x. 1^8; 1 Cor. ix. T-14. The expressions, in the former, " For the laborer is worthy of his hire;" and in the latter, " Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the •gospel shall live of the gospel," sufficiently indicate the obligation of the church. "^

While the church is not to support her ministers in indolence or extravagance, it is perfectly obvious she should give them a living which is ample and fair; removed at once from ostentation on the one hand, and contempt and inadequacy on the other. Ministers may find it their duty to toil for little or no pecuniary aid, when blessed with an abundance from other sources; or when toiling for the good of the cause with a very poor church. But these are exceptions to the Divine rule, found indeed in the scriptures, but not in any way to infringe upon the rule. Paul labored with his hands for his support^

font in some manner as we snggest, claiming at the same time his right to a support.

Churches shoold insist on their right and duty to sustain their ministers amply, according to their circumstances, that he may have an entire heart and mind to labor exclusively for the cause.

For the right and duty of churches to discipline their ministers, and to sustain public worship, we refer to articles " Discipline," and " Meetings."

It hardly need be added that it is the right and duty of the church to choose her own officers. Who else should choose them, or can in consistency with the obligation of the church ?

If we had no direct Divine command or precedent on this subject, we should be thrown upon our natural rights to choose our own officers and servants. But we have Divine direction in that as we have seen it is the church to whom Christ commits the responsibility of obtaining ministers &om him. The remark is equally true of deacons. Pastors and deacons are the only officers of the church, as we shall see. But what is more direct and perhaps more desirable evidence of the right and duty of the church to choose her own officers, is the practice of the primitive church. See Acts i. 15-26; Acts vi. 1-6; 2 Cor. viii. 19-23. The first of these passages is an account of the first assemblage of the disciples after the Saviour's Qficension—in other words, the first meeting of the church at Jerusalem. Its object was to fill a vacancy in the Apostle-ship. "Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples" and'' proposed the filling of the vacancy, when "they (the disciples) appointed two" candidates, and in prayer asked God to direct their choice. " And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles."

The next passage relates to the choice of deacons. The Apostles propose the appointment of deacons. " And the

Baying pleased the whole maltitade, and they chose Stephen,'^ &c., " whom they set before the Apostles."

The remaining passage concerns ministers appointed to go on an errand of charity for the church. The language of the passage is '^chosen of the churches," and ''messengers of the churches."

Precisely in this manner do the Baptist churches, as they ever have, perform this duty, not by a pope, or bishop, or synod, or presbytery, or council, but by their own vote.

CHAPTER III.

Members of the Ohuroh. 1. Spiritual persons. 2. How they beoome members. 3. Restoration of excluded members. 4. How persons of other denominations become members. 5. Rights and duties of ohuroh members.

1. Conversion and baptism are essential to membership in the church; and those who have experienced the one, and have submitted to the other, and they only, are entitled to the privilege. The kingdom of Christ is a spiritual kingdom, and its members of necessity must be spiritual persons. They only, and they ever, of whatever nation, " are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God." The commission is to teach and baptize and gather such into the kingdom; and it follows, only such.

That the primitive churches were composed of spiritual members, is also evident from the manner in which they were addressed, and all the circumstances attending primitive disciples. " Paul unto the church of God, which is at Corinth, to them who are sanctified.in Christ Jesus, called to be saints." "To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi." " They that gladly received the word were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand

Boals." Saul of Tarsus was first conyerted, then baptized, and then received into the church. There is no greater perversion of the church, and no more certain method of death to her, than to admit unconverted, nnbaptized persons to membership. Besides, it is inflicting great injury upon them, putting them in a false position, where they can neither be useful nor happy.

2. Individuals become members of the church, on application, and on giving evidence of the above-named qualifications, by election. Different churches have different rules of admission, but the only principles involved relate to the free offer of the candidate on his own part, and his free election on the part of the members of the church. The following is a common method in Baptist churches of reaching the above result; and most of its particulars are deemed essential, though in some minor points different usages prevail, and are admissible.

A person believes he is converted, and, as is common with those truly converted, he desires to join the church. He expresses his wish to a member of the church, who proposes him. Or some member believes him converted, and suggests that it is his duty to join, and, with his consent, proposes him. He then appears before the church, and relates his Christian experience. Any member proposes such questions as seem suitable to obtain an understanding of his views. He then retires, and if no member objects to him, he is elected to come into full membership, after baptism and the hand of fellowship. Previously to his examination, he is furnished with the articles of faith and rules of order in use in the church. While the intelligence and maturity of advanced experience is not expected or required of applicants, they must give evidence of conversion, and concur, in the main, in the belief and practice of the church, being fully settled on all plain fundamental principles. Any member is free to make suitable objections to him, and his conscientious scruples are regarded; but he is not permitted to insist on unreasonable, personal, and selfish

objections. The examination is generally in private chnrch-meeting, though not always, or necessarily; and the baptism and hand of fellowship, public. He is now a member in good and full standing, and can only be censored for his fnture conduct.

3. Excluded members of the church may be restored by suitable reformation and confession. Excluded members wishing to join other churches, should be restored to their original church, and come in regularly by letter. Cases may exist, however, in which it may be the duty of a church to receive excluded members of other churches on their experience, they being independent, and aU churches being liable to errors in discipline. This is a vexed question, however, and great Christian prudence should characterize such action. On these several topics, see article "Discipline."

4. Persons of other denominations become members of Baptist churches by a relation of their Christian experience, as in the case of those who have not been members of any church.

5. The rights of church members are to the sympathy, and love, and watchful care of each other. They all have an equal voice and vote in all church matters. Each member has the right of private judgment, and is not liable to discip* line therefor, provided his opinions are not fundamentally heretical, and he is evidently sincere in believing them in conformity with the word of God. All members, however, should be modest in their private judgment, while they maintain their rights in this direction. All are accountable to God for their opinions and usefulness, and are under obligations to him, to be insisted upon with humility against the world, if it becomes necessary.

We quote the following from Notes on the Principles and Practice of the Baptist churches, in the Examiner, attributed to Rfev. Dr. Wayland :

" The private brethren of the church have rights. Jesus

Chrigt has called them to be his servants, and he has conferred ^ on every one the privilege of working in his vineyard, and has promised to each lalMrer a rich reward. He has given to each servant some particular gift, and permilbted him to use that gift for him. Of tlus right no man, or body of men, or eoclesiastioil aathority, may deprive him. Every Christian is Christ's freeman, and he has a right to labor for Christ in any place where his Master opens a door : and he is to seek diligently to ascertain where the door is opened for him."

On the general dnties of church members, we quote from Rev. Dr. Brown's Kules of Church Order:

" The duties of members to themselves are, the acquisition of religious knowledge; constant progression in grace and spiritoality; consistency of external conduct; and the control and eradicalion of ^very unholy temper.

It is the duty of members to honor, esteem, and love their Pastor; to pray for him, fervently and daily; to submit to him in the scriptural exercise of his official authority; to attend constantly «p<m hia ministrations; to manifest a tender regard for his reputation; and to contribute towards his support, in proportion to their ability.

It is the duty of each member to cultivate and cherish brotherly love for all other members of the church; to visit and sympathize with them in afiAiction; to pray with and for them; to administer pecuniary relief to those who are necessitous; tenderly to regard their reputation; affectionately and privately to admonish them for faults and improprieties; and to strive by all proper measures to promote their spiritual benefit and prosperity.

Toward those who are not connected witli the church, it is the duty of members to bear a prudent testimony against evil practices; to be exact in fulfilling obligations and performing promises; to live in a peaceable and neighborly manner; to perform offices of kindness and charity; to act an example of industry, honesty, and generosity; and, as opoortunity and 20

ability may enable, to commend the religion of the gospel nnto them.

It is the dnty of all members removing from the yicinitj of the chorch, to take letters of dismission to other churches of the same denomination; bat should this not be practicable, to famish their names and places of residence within three months after leaving the charch."

CHAPTER IV.

Officers of the Ohnroh. 1. A Ohnrch may exist without them. 2. Bishops or Pastors and Deacons the only Officers. 3. Terms applied to Officers of the Church. 4. The authority, rights and duties of Pastors. 5. The origin, ordination^ and duties of Deacons. 6. Other seryants of the Church.

«

1. A CHURCH may exist without officers, but it is in the most limited sense of the term, as a mere ''assembly'' or "congregation." God has provided officers for his Church. The primitive churches had them, as have had all efficient ones since; and it may well be doubted if any combination can claim to be a church of Christ without them.

2. The only legitimate officers of the church are Bishops, or Pastors and Deacons. The Church at Philippi is thus addressed, (see Phil. i. 1,) ''Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons." Here we have the true Church of Christ complete, consisting of members, bishops and deacons. In Paul's directions to Timothy, he particularly describes these two classes of officers, and no others. 1 Tim. iii. 1-10. " A bishop, then, must be blameless," &c. "Likewise must the deacons be grave," &c. The character and duties of these officers in the church, are named and

described in the above passage, in a manner to show their importance and permanence. Key. Mr. Crowell has well remarked—" The wants of a chnrch are all provided for in these two offices. They have no more occasion for the services of prelates, or diocesan bishops, to govern churches, and ordain ministers, and administer discipline, than a civil State has for those of an autocrat, or a dictator." It is singular, indeed, particularly in a republican country, that men wiU tolerate in the Church what they will not in the State, especially when Jehovah has forbidden it in the Church, by mal^ng her the responsible power.

Bishops, Pastors and other Preachers of the Gospel^ Their

Equality.

That other names of ministers do occur in the Scriptures, is obvious, but it is also obvious that some of them are limited to particular periods and duties, and some of them are synonyr mous with pastor. It is, in part, because this fact has been overlooked, that we have in some churches, (never in. Baptist churches) more officers than we have named, and they of different grades in the ministry. For instance, the words bishop and pastor are synonymous in the Scriptures, but some churched have assumed that they are not only different offices^ but of different grades, and hence have their bishop over the churches, including their pastors; and, in addition, their pastors over the churches.

Another innovation upon the Scriptures, of more recent origin, and no more culpable, is that of one officer in the church superior to all, called the Pope, from the Greek, ^cwta, a term which does not occur in the Scriptures. The Episcopalians, the« Methodists, and the Presbyterians, for their superior clergy, have adopted scripture terms, all describing, however, one and the same office; while the Papists have brought in a word not before known in church affairs. They

all in common make offices in the clinrcli to suit themselves. The latter introduce a new term with the new office.

3. In eyidence of the correctness of these positions, a brief notice of the different terms applied to preachers of the gospel, is desirable.

Apostle. This term was applied to the early ministers, and they were endowed with the power to work miracles, in evidence of their Divine commission. They were inspired, and in their office were infallible. This was necessary in the commencement of the kingdom of Christ. The office passed awaj with the original Apostles, inasmuch as no provisions were made for its continuance. Ample provisions were made for ministers, unlike the Apostles in these respects, as we have seen. The claim of popes or prelates to be the successors of the Apostles is unfounded, as God has authorized no smees-sion. No claimant of this office since the original Apostles has been able to substantiate his claim by miracles. Claimants of this office have acknowledged the necessity of miraculous power in their profe^on of it; and in their attempts to prove its residence in themselves. But all such attempts have been failures, as all intelligent persons know. In regard to this office, see Matt. x. 1-4; Mark iii 13-19; Luke vi. 12-19; Acts zz. 25-29; 2 Thess. ii 1-17; 1 Cor. zii. 28; 2 Cor. viii. 23, &c., Ac.