IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) V // [/ ^ ^ c ^ 1.0 I.I 1.25 lire llM '^ lii ||l||22 1^ 1.4 12.0 1.8 1.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 \<^^^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian institute for Historical IVIicroreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notaa/ Notes techniques et bibliographiquea The Institute has attempted to obtain the beat original copy available for filming. Features of this cupv which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. G D n n D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couieur [~~| Covers damaged/ D Couverture endommag -« l w iiM a>wWV 1 1111 1 )11 il'iW WBMj IU l ii II WiH PREFACE. This pamphlet contains the substance of an address delivered in the Baptist Chapel, Brantfbrd, on the evenin«r after the author's baptism, to one of the lar^^est, if not the largest, congre'kifs.'* and/mtr ; hncimj n yooU commence; thut whereas they speak of you as of atil (l(m-s, they may he ashamf(f lha(/alg''/i/ accuse yonr f/ood converstftion in Christ." — 1 "KTKtl iii. 1'), 10. T»i. e/rnts wliicli have recently transpired, the position -^ T ./hit.'i I now find myself placed, arc of so solemn a i ^ ..uracici, and .soociuted with so many important interests, ':al dy ir.e most weighty reasons could have justified liie !«*ept''u I have taken. Could I have avoided the issue whic! for sornn time back I have dreaded, I certainly would iiavo done so, for no consideration sliort of what I felt to be the requirement of God's Word, and the claims of my own conscience (if I know my own heart,) have in- fhi' need mo in this change. After months of anxious and trust prayerful study of the divine Word, I have been most reluctantly compelled to renounce a system which from childhood upwards, I have been accustomed to regard as scriptural, and fraught with benefits to the church of Christ ; to separate ecclesiastically from those with whom for so many years, I have associated in the Lord's work ; and to many of whom I am bound by the strongest ties of kindred and of Christian and ministerial brotherhood : and now to cast in my lot among a people from whom hitherto I have been more widely separated than from others, by educational and ecclesiastical prejudices. But, whatever men may say or think, it has been purely a matter of con- V ;»a ( Mil DECOMINO A UAI'TINT. science, the tcslimony of which I ilarL- not gainsay or re»i«t nave tit my peril. I have stmliod the testimony of God's Word on the subject of baptism, endcuv(»u;ing to " prove all tliingx, and to hold fast that which is good." The regult is, that I have been cotnpcrllcd to give up infant bapiisin, as unsupported by Scripture, and as opposed to Scripture — a tradition of men, whereby the commandment of God on this Hubjt!ct has been made of none ell'ect. I am constrained to accept that inunersion is the only mode, and those who make a credible profession of faith, the only subjects to whom this ordinance should be administered ; and conse- quently that the immersion of a believer on a profession of his faith, is the onlij valid baptism. With these views, I have felt it my duty to conform to the revealed will of the Great Head of the church, and to profess my faith in the Lord's appointed way, *' Being buried with Ilim in baptism," &c. My object in this pamphlet is, " to give a reason of the hope that is in me ;" and I pray (Jod that I may be able to do it " with meekness and reverence." There are two considerations which I believe prevent thai earnest attention to this subject which \U importance demands, and to which I would call attention at the outset. I do so, because I felt their influence upon my own mind, and am persuaded that, like threshold diiliculties, they ar- rest free enquiry on ihe part of many whose minds are far from being satisfied, but who are too ready to yield when the possible result is so painful to contemplate. First, — it is often said, and perhaps an unseltled conscience is sometimes quieted with the idea, that baptism is not an ordinance essential to salvation, and that it does not matter much whether we conform to the one view or the other. Now to this I have to reply, that it is a matter of great importance that we should conform in every particular to the revealed will of our heavenly Master. A regard to the supreme authority of Christ, as Lord and Head of his church — a regard to our own comfort and the influence of I Tor IlKroMINCi A HVPTIHT. f our c'vampip on ottuTM, jinistcr, I had no liberl> or discretion in this matter. The standards of my church prescribed the limits of my liberty. I could only admit to the com- munion of the church those who had been baptized, and whose baptism the church arcc/ited as valid and scriptural. 1 was not at liberty to admit a candidate into the church, on the ground that he believed himself baptized, if the church could not recognize his baptism as being such as the Word of God enjoined. I shall suppose a case, by ^\ay of illus- tration. A brother whom I have long known and esteemed and loved as a Christian man, and with whom I have spent many an hour in profitable Christian fellowship, comes to me as a Presbyterian minister, and says, "Mr. A., I very much desire to unite with you in fellowship at the Lord's wm RIANCitS rOA IIKCOMINU A lAPl'kVT t table, hut I liavu never been baptixc I with water, (or I Jo not re^"ird »uch hupiisin n» obligatory on me. I belii've I have received thf^ baptiitn of the Spirit, all thm in my viuw of Stripturr, the M»ti»ler ri*<|iiiri'»« of me. Will you admit me?" To Hiich a re<|ueiit I would bo uompellfd to reply, " My dear brother, I have the fuih-si eotifulence in you us a Ch-iMtian. I know that you bilieve yourself baptized aec<»rdin^ It) tin- rf(|uironient» of the Word of (iod, and that you cannot hoc llu* necetisity of water baplisin. Hut however inueh I rri^pcct your Pons(ii**nli.>u» eonvictions, and oilierwise would gladly wclcuurie you as a brother in Christ, one whom the Lcf I believe, Iium rtec-ived, my ehurc^h r(M|utret4 in hi>r hUum' trd:*, and titat I believe agree- ably to S. tist brt'ihren. We must udndt them, either us bap»'/ea or as unbapti/cd Christians. Suppose, (I ) That we admit them to the table of the Lord as baptized Ciifistiuns, what is the consequence? VVhy, we s'.ultify ourselves. We prcfess to regard believers' iran it- sioii as the only baptism warranted by Scripture. If believers' immersion is the only baptism, tricn infant sprinkling cannot be baptism at all, and we are conisistent in rc(juiring the immersion of all rec^-ived into church fellowship, whether lliey have or have not received what b regardod by Pedo-Baptists as baptism. But if we admit to the Lord's tsible as baptized persons, those sprinkled in infancy, or sprinkled u;.vn a profession of their faith, vve at once bear testimony against our own piinciples, and con- demn our own practice, which we believe to be acco.ding to the Word of God, of retjuiring immersion on a profession of faith, even of those who have received the ordinance m infancy. You may find fault, then, with the Baptists' views of the ordinance. Prove to your own satisfaction, if you 10 REASONS FOR BEfOMINO A BAPTIST. can, that infant sprinkling \s the baptism enjoined in the Word, and that believers' immersion is fn *, the only baptism; but don't, so long as you yay the Baptists are right, or may be right in their views of baptism, censure them for dealing with Pedo-Baptists as those whom they cannot but regard as unbaptized persons. (2.) But can we not admit them as unbaptized persons to the table of the Lord ? To this we reply, that an almost unanimous negative is given to the question by the voice of Christendom, uttering what we believe to be die testi- mony of the Word of God on this point. The terms of our Lord's commission to his disciples are such as to imply that the baptism of believers should precede the commu- nion of the church at the Lord's table. In the formation of the Apostolic churches, we find that men and women on repenting and believing were first baptized, and then continued in doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread. (Acts 11. 41, 42; viii. 12;xvi. 15, 33; xviii. 8.) This was the order observed, baptism after a profession of faith had been made, taking precedence of the other ordi- nance. We also find the chuiches to whom the inspired epistles were addressed, spoken of as composed of baptized believers. (See Rom. vi. 3, 4 ; Col. ii. 12; Gal. iii. 27; 1 Cor. XV. 29.) It is clear, then, that in Apostolic days, all who partook of the Lord's supper had been baptized, and as Baptists are persuaded from the Word of God, that their baptism was immersion on a profession of their faith, they can find no scriptural example to authorize them in admitting persons to the Lord's table, who have not been so baptized. But it is sometimes objected, that cases did not occur in Apostolic days such as existnow, of persons who though not baptized, yet believed themselves so ; and consequently, that no provision has been made to meet such cases. Now to this I have simply to reply, that if the Spirit of God, who foresaw what would take place, has made in His Word no I fmmmm' REASONS FOR BECOMING A BAPTIST. n I provision for sucii an emergency, it is not safe for mo to do so, when in doing it, my practice would not be conrormed to Apostolic practice. "But you admit," it is urged, "to other acts of com- munion and fellowship, and why not to this?" I reply that other acts and forms of communion do not, while this does involve the question of chuvh organization. Any Iwo or three meeting together, can hold communion in every other way in which Christian love and fellowship are expressed. They can speak one to the other, read tugcther, pray together, sing together. Now, could J adopt the ;)rin- ciples of the Plymouth Bretliren, (many of whom J dearly love, and with many of whose views I have a close sympa- thy,) who ignore all church organization, I could extend this fellowship atthe Lord's table to all Christians, baptized orun- baptized. Were I merely consulting my own feelings this would be indeed the most agreeable course to me. But when I consult the Word of God, I find the grand outlinesof church constitution therein defined, giving visibility to the church. I find the churcii vioible to be composed of saints, or such as profess to be saints, and give credible evidence of their being such. I find that they have made a profession in bap- tism, and thai these baptized professors, seeking the guidance of the Spirit of God in the exercise of their judo-- ment, select their elders and deacons, who preside over the church. This church organization, moreover, expediency demands as necessary to the exercise of discipline, and the doing of things decently and in order. It is cnly within the church, or in a church capacity, that the ordinance of the supper can be celebrated. (1 Cor. xi. 18-22.) This then, makes a clear distinction between this ordinance and all other social acts or means of religious fellowship. While we cheerfully hold and would seek to cultivate the most friendly and intimate fellowship with all who love the Lord Jesus, we are debarred (painful though we feel it to be so,) from fellowship at the table of the Lord, if the r ■» 18 REASONS FOU BKCOMINd A IJAPTIST. ordinance of ihe supper is exclusively' a church ordinance, and the scriptural constitution of the church requires that all its members have been immersed on a profession of their faith. But hero again the objection is urged, " By your narrow and exclusive view you unchurch a'l Christian denomina- tions but yourselves." No, my dear friend, we do no such a thing. VVe regard them as part of the church of Christ, but irregular and unscriptural at least on this one point. But the objection equally applies to every Christian denom- ination that claims Divine warrant for its peculiar ecclesi- astical organization. Presbyterians and Episcopalians plead a Divine right for their respective forms of church government. Now, in this plea they as much unchurch the Baptists as in the other case it is said the Baptists un- church them ; for if either Presbyterianism or Episcopacy be the authorized constitution of the visible church, Con- gregationalism cannct be so. Or, when Congregation- alists say that the church is composed of believers and their infant offspring, the Baptist churches cannot be, correctly speaking. New Testament churches, for they do noL embrace, according to that view, all the elements which the New Testament enjoins the church to embrace. And the " Brethren," who cannot commune with any branch of the church, and some of whom would not even hear the Gospel in any denominational place of worship, do surely as much unchurch all these Christian denomina- tions, and far more than the Baptists do ! 1 trust that the unreasonableness of the objection will appear, or at least that it is equally applicable to the objector, be he Presby- terian, or Congregationalist, or Episcopalian. But it is fur;her urged — "By your close communion policy you exclude many good people from your church, far better men and women than some of those who are bap- tized " Yes, my friend, I know it, I feel it, I docply deplore it. But the objection, like others, ii equally applicable to REASONS FOR BECOMINQ A BAPTIST. 18 i others as to the Baptists. The doctrinal and ecclesiastical peculiarities of Presbyterian ism, Episcopacy, Methodism, &c., equally exclude many good men from their sereral communions, far better men in some cases than numbers embraced. p]ven tiie " Brethren," the most unrestricted in their communion, though th^y freely invite all Christians to break bread with them, necessarily exclude many who cannot homologate their principles. The fact is that we here meet one of the evils incident to the present slate of the church, and for which man can devise no remedy. There is, I believe, no possibility, under existing agencies, of again uniting the poor broken church of Christ, and of perfeciUj restoring it in unity and practice to exact Apostolic model. Oh ! for the advent of that promised time when all shall be one — one fold under the one Great Shepherd ! "But you hope to meet y./ur Pedo-Baptist brethren in heaven, and to sit down with them in the future kingdom of glory ; why not meet them at the table of the Lord on earth?" Simply because the purely spiritual communion of heaven will be a very different thing from any ritual communion of the church on earth. I have no doubt that I shall meet and enjoy everlasting communion in heaven with many whose errors debar them from the communion of the Lord's table in evangelical churches now. But, would the hope of meeting them in heaven justify us in admitting them to the Lord's table in our churches now ^ All who knew him best, regarded Ed- ward Irving as unquestionably an experimental Christian, notwithstanding his gross heresies. But what evangelical church would have admitted Edv.'ard Irving into fellow- ship on the ground that they hoped to meet him in heaven ? Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, and Congregationalists, wo. !d not in this case act upon the principle involved in the objection. Who has not heard of George Muller, of Bristol, that man of wondrous faith, 14 REASONS FOR HKCOMINO A BAPTIST. and what Christian has not, thanked God for the grace beatowcd upon hinri? He is admitted to be as sound in doctrine as he is strong in faith. And yet, because of a real or supposed inconsistency in ecclesiastical proce- dure, a large proportion of his own brethren — the Plymouth BrUhren — decline fellowship with him in the breaking of bread. Do they admit the principle of the objection? Assuredly not, for they hope to meet him in heaven. But more than this, the objection is of equrd force against all ecclesiastical organization VVc hope to be one body in hiaven, and to be no longer separated by those little non-essential matters which now divide us ; \\ hy, then, cannot we be one body now, and agree to ignore every mtUter that ecclesiastically separates us from each other ? The answer to the one query and the other is, that the state of things in that world, where we shall know, believe, and act in perfect harmony, without the inter- vention of ritual observances, cannot regulate our conduct in a condition so characterized by imperfection as the present is. No cluirch organization acts, or can act, upon the principle oi admitting all to the Lord's table whom they hope to meet in heaven. I feel this aspect of the subject to be so important, and to such an extent the occasion of dilFiculty, that I may be pardoned for dwelling longer on it than I otherwise would do. I believe that if the prejudices arising from a misapprehension of this so-called "close communion" question were removed, that in many cases the greatest obstacle to an open avowal of Baptist sentiments would be taken out of the way. It is sometimes alleged that Rom. xv. 7 is opposed to the principles of the Regular Baptists. But, not to dwell on the fact that it is not any positive institution of Christianity, which cannot be made a matter of for- bearance, of which the Apostle is there speaking, but of the abrogated rites and customs of Judaism, that text REASONS FOR BECOMING A BAPTIST. IS enunciates tin principle on which tiie Baptists profess to act. They don't profess to receive a man because he has been baptized, but they receive iiim because they believe the Lord has received him; and they receive hitn, as faras church fellowship is concerned, in what they believe to be the Lord's appointed way— first to baptism and then to the supper. As to what is said about the Apostles having never received Christian bapti^iin before they partook of the eucharist, it does not seem to me to aflect, in the least, the question. Whether John's baptism was Christian bap- tism or not — whether the Apostles ever received Christian baptism or not, the fact is the same that they received their authority direct from Christ, and their commission clearly defined the order of their procedure in the or- ganization of churches, and the adminisiration of ordi- nances, I'hey were to teach, and when men had received their instructions, ihey were to baptize ; but they had no authority in that commission to dispense the Lord'i supper to any who had not been first baptized on a profession of their faith. This view is corroborated by theii practice, as far as we know anything of it fro.n the New Testament history. If any man could show me a commission direct from the Great Head of the Church, I would not ask him whether he had been baptized or not. If that commission recognized him as a member of the church, and authorized him to administer the ordinances, while bound to see that he followed the order of his instructions, I must both receive him and wish him God-speed in his work. The question is not, were the Apostles baptized or not ? but, were they instructed to administer baptism to believers as the initiatory ordinance of the visible church? To this question I believe only an afiirmative answer can be given. Then, if immersion on a profession of faith is the only baptism, immersion on a profession of faith is required of all belie 'ers before they sit down at the Loid's table I Iti REASONS FOR UECOMINU A DArTI8T. From a careful consideration of wimt lins been so imporfectly said in llic fongoing pages, it will, I trust, appear to the reader thai Baptists, in the matter of church fellowsiiip, only act upon the principle regarded and received as scriptural by all evangelical denomina- tions, that baptisui is a prereciuisite to communion; and that every objection brought against theui on the score of " close-communion," may with equal force be urged against every evangel ieal denomination. The only dif- ference is that Pedo-Haptists seldon encounter the diffi- culty which must test their principles, because there are so few who have not been baptized in infancy, or who are not willing to submit to sprinkling in adult years, as a mode which involves neither reproach nor self-denial. But Baptists are compelled by their principles to require of all who seek communion in their churches, submission to an ordinance which the world dislikes, and every administration of which is virtually a protest against the practice of so large a portion of the Christian church. It is not, then, you observe, against the doctrine of baptism as a scriptural prerequisite to the table of the Lord, that the objection really lies, (for on that we are nearly all agreed,) but it is against the doctrine that immersion, on a profession of faith in the Lord Jesus, is the only baptism warranted by Scripture. But of this doctrine I am fully convinced ; and any Pedo-Baptist convinced of it has only to apply his principles, received and avowed as a Pedo-Baptist, to make him a Strict Baptist. My object now is to shew you the grounds on which I was compelled to relinquish Pedo-baptism, and those on whioh I received the views of which I have already a-ade an open avowal. It will be acknowledged, I presume, that the main support of infant baptism is mainly derived from the ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. The substance of the argument from this source I shall briefly state. It is said, " That the covenant made with i 4 i REASONS FOR IlKCOMiNO A HAPTI8T. 17 Abmharn was the c.vennnt of grace ; that under this covenant a divinely-inHtitutcd connection obtained between parents and children ; that in virtue of this connection the children received the token of the covenant, and, with their parents, were embraced in the visible church • and that, as no repeal or alteration has been made in the New Testament church, founded on the same covenant of grace, the children of parents within the church are to receive the New Testament token of the covenant, and so to be embraced within the church visible " J think I have correctly given the outlines of the argument by which infant baptism is supported. My reasons for relinquishing this argument, which I will now give you, must of necessity be brief. 1— The covenant made with Abraham, confirmed to Isaac and Jacob, and afterwards renewed at Koreb and on the banks of the Jordan, though founded on the covenant of grace, (for apart from that covenant God could have no dealings with fallen man,) is not itself the covenant of grace. True, it contained promises of spiritual blessings and secured gr^at religious privileges but that fact no more made it the covenant of grace than the fact that rich promises of spiritual good are held lorth in offer to the people of Canada, and great religious privileges enjoyed by them, proves them to be all within the covenant of grace. The covenant made with Abraham was different i)oth in the class of persons embraced and in iis pro- visions, from the covenant of grace. All natural-born Israelites wore within the Abrahamic covenant. Only the regenerate spiritual Israel are within the cove- nant of grace. Those who perished in the wilderness and the convicted, but as yet impenitent hearers, whonJ Peter addressed on the day of Pentecost, (Acts ii. 38 ) were "children of the covenant."— (Acis iii. 25.) But all within the covenant of grace are penitent believers 2* ' t 18 RIAfONS FOR BECOMINO A KAPTfHT. and their eternal salvation is secured in the covenant, for " they cannot perish, &c.," being " kept by the power of God through faiili unto salvation." In confirtnation of this view we have only to look at Jleb. viii. 8, 1 1, where the two covenants are contrasted ! I can easily understand how every Israelite was "a child of the covenant." The privilege was hereditary — he was born within covenant bends. But I cannot under- stand how or in what sense the child of Christian parents is necessarily a child of the covenant. Of what covenant is he a child? Under the Gospel dispensation the only covenant I know of is the covenant of grace. The child of Christian parents may be within that covenant, regenerated and sanctified from the womb. Hut I cannot know that fact, nor presume upon it, till by his profes- sion and conduct I have some credible evidence on which to act. The infant Israelite received the token of the covenant by God's command, because at his birth it was a known fact that he was within the covenant. But shall the infant of Christian parents receive the token of the covenant of grace, when it cannot be known whether he is or is not within that covenant? But more, if he is within the covenant of grace it is not because he is the child of Christian parents, but because freely chosen of God's sovereign grace ; and even could this fact be ascertained it would not warrant the administration of baptism to such an one, because God has not commanded us (as He did th • Jewish parents to circumcise,) to bap- tize such, but the reverse, inasmuch as our instructions confine the ordinance to such as do make a credible pro- fession of their being of the spiritual Israel, and within that covenant wiiich is ordered in all things and sure, and which shall never wax old and vanisii away. The fact, then, that the infant oftspring of .Jewish parents received the token of the Abrahamic covenant, which embraced a clearly defined people, each known to be of the chosen people even I REASONS von BKfOMINJI A BAPTIHT. 19 (t from his birth, is no reamm why thr infant children of profes^in^' Christians should be admitted to an ordinance which is exprepsivc of a presumed interest in that covenant, the subjects of which can only be known by their prujtssims nnd lives. 2.— Hut in the next place, my examination into this subject has led me to the conclusion that the church, (for I do not object to that word as applied to the Jewish theo- cracy,) founded on the Abrahamic covenant, is not the same in its constitution as the New Testament church. There is a sjnse in which the assertion about .'" identity of the church is correct. It is true of the invisible church, embracing in all ages th^.- same class, saved through the same gracious medium. But it is not true of the church, viewed as an outward and visible organization. The Jewish theocracy embraced the whole nation of Israel, and Abraham was commanded to circumcise his servants as well as his children, and equally to recognize them as members of the church then existing. But the New Testament churches are spoken of and addressed, as being composed of "saints," the "called," "elect," &c., and only t,uch are recognized as having a right to their membership. Now, does the fact that infants were by Divine insiitution members of a church which God declared should embrace the whole nation of Israel, as the peculiar and separated people, afford countenance for the admission of infants into a church restricted in its elements to those who are called to be saints, and profess to be such .? I could not, and cannot see that it does, and hence I have been compelled to abandon my argument from the identity of the church. But 1 cannot pass from this topic, on which I might enlarge, without adverting to the consequences to which " the argument from analogy" must lead, if its friends are consistent in tiie application of its principles. All the circumcised children of the Jewish theocracy [ 20 RBA10N8 rOR BECOMINd A lUFTlMT. had, in virtiu; of tlu-ir circumcision, wimt aneminont Pcdo- BupliNt writer calls "ult-iral right to th« Pansovor," and simply an circumci«cd ohihlren were they ndmitlcd to that and other privile^res ol the old economy. Now, if you admit the infant children of Christian church members into the church, because the infants of Jewish parents were ac'mitted into the Old Testament church, you must give the former the ^ame standing and privileges as the latter. That is, the mere fact of baptism, which constitutes the child a member of the church, must bo to him a passport to the Lord's table, unless cancelled by iimnorality or gross ignorance. I know that this conclusion is admitted by many Presbyterians and others, and that many Pedo- Haplist churches, whose principles and practice ^re consir^tcnt with each other, receive their baptized members to the Lord's table on the ground of " knowledge and moral character." The same [)remi8e8 led for many centuries to the practice of infant communion. I would call special attention to this subject, that the reader may see the unacriptural anu dangerous issues to which Pedo- Baptist premises legitimately lead. If you admit to the church by baptism, because the Jewish child was admitted by circumcision, you cannot consistently demand profession or evidence of a change of heart befoic admitting to the Lord's table ; and the result is that you must admit persons avowedly incapable of eating the Lord's supper in faith, and who make no pretensions to the character in the New Testament attributed to the members of the church. The right of baptized persons to the Lord's table, (provided that right is not negatived by immorality or some other breach of Christian conduct,) is perfectly scriptural. In the Word of God baptized persons are manifestly regarded as entitl-d to all the privileges of the church. Bat the error is found in investing those with that right, by admitting them to baptism, who are unquali- t^ REAIONt rOI BBCOMINO A nAPTIff, 21 m fied A»r thai onlinante. If we Implizf, nml admit any clusii of giihjfciH into the ineinluTsfiip of the church, nn wc do hy buptlMin, then we have no right to debar from the priTJk'geM of member.'*, nnle.v« ihey prove ihenmelvcii unworthy. No ar^nimcnt derived either from the conMi- tut^un of the Old TcMtamenl church, or the precepts and example of the New Testament, Honctioni* the recognition of any claMs aH rnember», who, no h)ng an they are not excinded fn)m th': church, or fonually NUM|.cn justify infant comumnion or admiwHion to the Lord's tabic of baptized persons on the ground of Know- ledge and moral character, without evidence of a change of heart. 3.— I have only to add, in this particular connection, that baptism has not taken, and does not occupy, the place of circumcision. If it had, it would have afforded an unanswerable argument against the .fudaizing teachers who insisted on the necessity and obligation of circum- cision to the Christian converts. But neither in the proceedings of the council at Jerusalem, (Acts xv ,) nor in any of the Apostolic epistles, do we find the remotest hint <)f such being the case. The reverse, indeed, we do find, for Paul tells us what has taken the place of the f'eshly circumcision of the natural Israel. It is the "circumcision made without hands," "the circumcision of Christ," (Col. ii. II,) by which the sinner is introduced into the commonwealth of the spiritual and anti-typical Israel- is made an htir of the anti-typical inheritance —and is permitted and privileged to partake of the anti-typical Paschal Lamb, even " Christ our Passover," on whom the true Israel feed by faith, and through whom their deliverance has been effected from spiritual bondage. Baptism has not taken the place of circumcision. There i 19 RIAIONt POH HECoMIMi A IIAI*TI«T. U no Scripture warrant for my'in^ & u it han, for in the posiago in ColonHian«, refcrrtnl lo in proof of tliJH, tlit: Apoitle (locH not Bjiy that it hiiM ; but hu tlooM (li»tinclly fell UK, thut thonu who have mnile u profe»Hion in boptisni, ar«?, according to their pr»)fcMnion, th'j subjects of the ••piritutil firoumei«ion. Ab a Pedo-Iiapiijjt my strong holu)usehold«, is that jMSsihly the Apostles did baptize soino infants on these occasions. Hut a l)are possibility in itself could not be a sutlicient warrant for the practice, and even that possibility utterly disappears before other portions of the IVew Testament, which clearly restrict the ordinance to professed believers. Acts ii. 38, 39, affords no proof for infant baptisr.i, for repentance is insisted on by the Apostle tis a prerequisite to baptism, and the children to whom the promise (i. e. the promise of the Spirit— Joel ii. 28,) is made, are not children considered as children, but as descendants, and who, accor'ing to the same promise, were to be old enough to prophecy. (See Barnes on the passage, who observes that it " should not be adduced to establish the propriety of infant baptism.") Mark x. 14 does not say one word about baptism, and in itself does not suggest ihe iden of baptism at all, and is just as full of encourr:;fMr uf to the liiptist as to the Pedo-Baptist praying mollier. I Cor. vii. 14 has nothing to do with baptism, for, whatever may be the moaning of the Apostle's statement, (into which I have not time to enquire now,) it is clear that the holiness predicatetl of the chilaren, where one parent is a believer, is equally pre- dicated of the unbelieving husband or wife ; and, conse- tiuently, if you must admit that child a member of the I iHAnom rok moomixo a baitiht » el.u«,l,, b.e.„«, I,. „„,h„ 1. , believer, y„u inu.t, o„ ,ho oine ^und, ■dmii iho unbelieving fath,.,, " who i. «-.ir.,.d .,, hi. Wife;. 0„ee I g.ve'up ,1,., 'a,,:, „ o covea,n,, wilh i, I w« obliged .., „.li„,|„H, ,„..,.. ,„d other p,..age. m which I only c„„ld ., „„;,„, ,,„p,i„„ "."ehl^gt '■ "■" "'"*'"' '" "'" ''»'" "' "- •"l'l'"-J The wl,„l,. nrgu;..ent from the Abrah.mio covenant i, eon,|m.„..a ,„„, ,he ,emence, .'there i. no repeal of the law ol ,„funl ,„emh,.r.hip." Hut if I „„, correct in the v.ew, I hnvo advance!, -.Lere ccrminly i, „. „|ear „„d expre,, n repeal u, u„y „ne coul.l .h^sire. |h<. theccratie •-•<.n»t.li.:mn .-repealed. The church of ihcOldTciameit c<..npo,cd indi,eri,ninately ,f all character., entitled to a place within i,., pale because they were f,raeli.e. ha, g,vcn place to the chuich of the New T«ta,nc„>, com-' elect of (.od ; and mto which no one ha, a right to enter leV ?"•;"'""" """"'^"■""-'"fS'-ee-inlowMch no onchoud be received, of whom it cant.ot churitahly be presumed that he i, a child of tha. covenant, and"^ ,o a new creature m Chri,, Je,u,. Ilovin,. ,h», ut we know from the Word of God, that children may be regenerated, before they can believe, and that David's child was happy in heaven, though it had never believed. Neither infant nor adult can I u REASONii FOR BECDMING A DAPTIST. be admitted into heaven wilhout being born again. In the adult, faith, the necessary fruit of regeneration, mu^t be exercised, for unbelief- proves a nnan still unregenerate. But such Iruit, in the very nature of the case, cannot appear in the iu.ant. There is no similarity in the two cases. The indispensable qualification for baptism insisted on in the commission is a belief of the truth, and the evidence of this alone can warrant its administration. In the next place, let us examine the practice of the Apostles, as recorded in the insi)ired narrative, and see whether this corroborates or contradicts the views we have advanced. Peter only baptized those " that gladly received the Word." [Ads ii. 41.) Philip at Samaria only baptized " men and women," who " believed the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ." {Acts viii. 12?) The same evangelist baptized the eunuch, when satisfied that " he believed wit)) all his heart." {Ads viii. 37.) Annanias bapiized Saul as a converted man.) Ads ix, 15-18.) Lydia, the lailor, Crispus, Stephanus, were all believers before being baptized. " Many of the Corin- thians, hearing, believed and were baptized." {Ads xviii. 8.) But I need not specify further. The uniform practice of the Apostles was that indicated and enjoined by the commission. But it is objected here, 1.— That these instances prove nothing, because they refer to individuals who could not have been baptized in infancy. " There are no cases recorded," says the objector, " of the children of Christian parents, who have grown up under religious instruction being baptized," implying that such had been baptized in infancy. To this we reply, that there was nothing so singular in such cases, to require special mention. Besides, we only have the record of the planting of the early ch-irches; and the interval between the narrative of their formation, and their furthest history, so far as the inspired narrative is concerned, embraces brief periods of from two to ten or twelve years. On this REASONS FOR BECOMING A BAPTIST. 27 so account, there was scarcely time for the aj)pearance of that particular class, as candidates for baptism. But on the other hand, had it been the practice of the Apostles to bap. tize infants with iheir parents, there must have been thousands of such ; and yet strange it is, if this theory be true, that there is no mention whatever of their ever havin<^ done so. Three thousand believers were baptized on the day of Pentecost, many of whom must have been parents ; yet there is no mention of their infant children being bap- tized, and that too, under circumstances in which, accord- ing to Pedo-I3aptist views of Peter's words, (Acts ii 39,) they would certainly have insisted on the rite for their little ones. "Men and women" were baptized by Philip at Samaria, but we are not told ♦heir children were in- cluded. 2. — But another objection is here urged, founded on the baptism of households by the Apostles. The argument in favour of infant baptism from this source is so generally known that I need not stale it here. The most that is pleaded from it amounts to no more than a bare possibility that some infants were baptized. But an examination of the three instances given, and a comparison oi these with other parts of Scripture, would, I am persuaded, forever dissipate the idea that even the remotest countenance is afforded to the practice of infant baptism, by the cases of household baptism mentioned. Of the Jailor it is said that "he rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." {Actsxvi. 34.) But infants, that is, those too young to make a profes- sion of faith, could neither rejoice nor believe with him, and hence his household who were baptized with him could not have been infants but were such as believed and rejoiced with him. Of the household of Stephanus (1 Cor. i. 16,) it is said by the Apostle that they "had addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints," and were such as the Corinthian believers should submit them- selves to, as those who helped and laboured in the gospel. r UEA80NS FOR Br,COMlN(» A BAPTIST. There were no unconscious infants baptized in the household of Slephanus. Many considerations might be advanced to show the very strong probability, almo«t amounting to a demonstration, that there were no infants in Lydia's househohl— that there could be none m lier circumstances, far from her home, and herself spoken of as the head of the house. (See Acts xvi. 15, 40.) Hut we shall satisfy ourselves with a reference to the indication given us in the narrative, as to the composition of Lydia's household. After being released from prison we are told that Paul and Silas "entered into the house of Lydia; and when they I'.ad seen the brethren, they comforted them and departed." Is not the strong probability that these brethren whom " they co.nforted " and from whom " they departed," included the members of Lydia's household.? There is only one other source whence these brethren could be derived— that is, from the household of the Jailor ; and certainly the nariative suggests that whether the members of the latter household were present or not, that th )se of Lydia's were. This view of the case is still fu ther confirmed by the likelikood that the business m wnich Lydia was engaged would recpni-e a number ot employees. The strong probabilities in this case are decidedly against the presence of infants at all in the hou'.ehold But even could it be proved that there were in- fants it would still remain to be proved that Paul baptized them' the burden of which proof would rest upon the Pedo- Baptists-a burdeu of which they could not ease themselves. The cases of household baptism, we conclude, are no deviation from the recorded practice of the Apostles, who baptized upon, and only upon, profession and evidence oi faith Therefore we have no right to administer the ordinance upon any other principle, and the admiuist:-ation of it to any oti.. class than those who do make a credible profession of their faith in the Lord Jesus, is both destitute of Scripture precept and example. f t T nEAHONS FOft BECOMINO A 1«AI'TI> infants I in her token of Hut we dication Lydia's are told I" Lydia; ted them lat these Ti " they usehold ? brethren e Jailor ; ;ther the not, that e is still isiness in umber of case are all in the i were in- l baptized the Pedo- emselves. J, are no slles, who adence of nister the iuist:'ation a credible h destitute We shall now glance at some of tlie inoidcnial allusions to baptism in the Word of God, whic;!), as de- cidedly as any oilier class of proofs, limit the ordinance tr L ''evers. There is not a solitary passage in the Word f <'^, that even appears to suppose the case of persons baptized in infancy. But there are many passages which clearly regard baptism as involving a personal and voluntary profession of faith. The terms in whicli the churches, composed of the baptized, are addressed, are such as to exclude infant members. They are regarded as made up of saints and faithful or believing brethren. Hut what proporti(.in of the membership of Pedo-Baptist churches, (where all baptized children are members,) could be treated, in the judgment of charity, or upon their own professions, as believing brethren ? Assuredly the lives of a very large number of the baptized members of Pedo-Baptist churchcsi, never suspended or excinded from the church, proclaim them destitute of all claim to the character implied. In writing both to the Roman and Colossian churches, (Rom vi. 3, 7; Col, ii. 12,) the Apostle regards their baptism as involving both a voluntary profession, and an avowal of privileges received and obligations assumed. " Having been baptized," he virtually says, " you profess to have been buried with Christ — to have risen with Christ, a risen Saviour, that you might walk in newness of life, as those qnickened from a state of death, and by this assured thrtt you shall yet be planted in the likeness of His resurrection." This, and more also, was implied in their baptism. But neither of these tests can be applied to those baptized in infancy. They cannot profess in that ordinance to have died ■»'':th Christ, to be quickened together with Chri.st, that they might walk in newness of life, unless the dogma of baptismal regeneration be true. The leading idea in both these texts is that baptism involves a profession of vital union to Christ. But this is 3* _vt at all ? is clear urs, the ighteous andidate that the )olic act lile this ms and he mode clearly Ciirist, irish the fdinance It. The ented is J uncon- f such a lich has rie grave 5 Christ, does not put on proving sm was t cannot at in his I Pedo- 1 REASONS FOR BEroMINO A HAI'TIST. 81 IJaplist churches may have put on Christ—that is, professed to have received the righteousness of Christ and the mind of Christ, when first he avowed himself a believer by some other act than ba))li«m. Hut only to those who have professed their faith in baptism, can these, like the preceding texts, apply. ^ » There is only another text to which I would call attention in this connection: "The like figure where- unto," or " the antitype to which, even baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away the filth of the ilesh but the answer of a good conscience towards God ) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter iii. 21.) Whatever 'the answer of a good conscience" may mean, it is evi- dently something that can only be exercised by an intelli- gent believer. It is not a mere washing of Uie body in the baptismal waters that saves the soul. But that baptism which IS associated with " the answer of a good con- science » does indicate a man to be in a saved state. But can "the answer of a good conscience," be connected with baptism when adminiBtercd to an unconscious babe? No it cannot. This can only belong to one who is baptized as a believer. As baptism can only be of any benefit when associated with the answer of a good conscience, (and infants cannot have this,) baptism can be of no benefit to infants, and should not be administered until there is profession and evidence of this inward spiritual grace • that is, this text limits the ordinance to those who profess to have had their consciences purified by the application of .he atoning blood, and to be the subjects of the renewing, of the Holy Ghost. * I shall now, in a few words, sum up the arguments, which fully convinced my mind, and led to the renuncia- tion ol Pedo-Baptist sentiments, and my withdrawal from the Presbyterian church. 1— I found that the Abrahamic covenant afforded no warrant whatever for the administration' of baptism to inlants-that there existed now no external covenant, T 32 REASONS KOR UEroMINO A HAI'TIST. embracing a whole nation, with which the church was co-extensive, and every individual of which as an Israelite, both had a right and was obligated to be circumcised— that the .pirilual Israel had taken the i)l-ice of the typical and natural Israel, and they, bein^; circumcised with the circumcision of Chri«t, were the only |)ersonH entitled to a place in the church of Christ, and to the ordinance of Christian baptism, the door of entrance into the visible Christian connnunity. , 2_I was persuaded that the commission restricted bapUsm to believers, and made it the imperative duty of every believer to be bai)tized as such. 3.— The example of the Apostles I found restricted to the baptism of believers; and, while hundreds of infants mu-t have been baptized if such had been their practice, I found not ihe slightest trace of their ever having baptized one. , ,. 4.— Ail the incidental references to the ordinance most distinctly implied the great experimental change, and a profession of faith before baptism. 5 —When infants are received into the church by bar ism, we can neither define their position nor the extent of the church's authority over them. They are members, yet cannot be treated as members. They are members, vet beyond the reach of discipline The position ot this cla'^s in the church appeared to me altogether at variance with the position, privileges, and obligations of the mem- bership of the New Testament churches. In the New Testament I neither found this class of persons, nor any provision made for dealing with them. I think 1 have advanced enough to justify me m the .ten I have taken, as far as the subjects of baptism are concerned; and I shall now offer a few remarks on THE MODE. In this department of enquiry I became satisfied that the etymology of the word used to denote the ordinance, the practice of the Apostles, and the nature and meaning 'It i ^w REAaONd FOR BECOMINU A BAI>TIgT. 88 of the baplismal riff, wurrnnted immersion and only im- mersion as the mode. I. — I first examined into the meaning of the word as given in the best Greek Lexicons I could lay my hand upon. It has been said lately, publicly, when my own case was under decision, that the word means to dye. I beg to "ay, and appeal ir j)roof to all the Lexicons that have ever been published, Uiat the word always used to denote the t)rdinance of baptism, never means to dye. It is another word, (/^/?r:..) the root of (//«rr:C<«) haptize, which some- limes signifies to dye. And even of that word, the primary meaning given is to dip, plunge, immerse : to dye, being only a meaning by implication. As I must be brief here, I cannot give all the shades of meaning attached to the word ; but any one who can examine a Greek Lexicon, will find that tlu; radical mean- ing given is to imtnerse, and that the idea of covering all over with the baptizing element is invariably present. (See Robinson and Ewing in proof of this, both decided advo- cates of spriiikling, and the latter a gentleman who ran- sacked the range of classical literature in vain, to find any application of the word which would afford the slightest countenance to sprinkling.) The word used to express the ordinance of Christian baptism, moreover, never signifies to sprinkle or to pour, noi anything like sprinkling or pouring. No Lexicon gives it this meaning. There are many words in the Greek language, that do express sprinkling or pour- ing, but these words are never used to denote, or in refer- ence to, baptism. When I found, then, that the word by which in the New Testament the ordinance of baptism is designated, is one which never means to sprinkle or pour, and that no word which docs express these actions is ever applied to I Dtisin, 1 could not but conclude that sprink- ling or pouring could not constitute I hat outward baptism enjoined on all believers. When I found that the word by which the ordinance is described, means according to r 34 MAIONM >'(>R nr.COMINd A BAPTIST. Pedu-Haptiftt uuthorities tnirnin(!rHe,(in(l that in noinMttOt of the word cited, is the idea of immorMion iib' ^nt, I could not but conclude that irniner«ion was the modo and the only mwle, and that to spe.ik of baptism by sprinkling was simply to ppeak of an imme/sion by sprinkling. Ah bound in the sight of (Jod to receive and speak and act honestly in this matter, I am compelled to regard immersion as essential to the ordinance, and sprinkling as in no wise meeting the Divine command, " Cio, baptize or be baptized." 2. "Hut perhaps," I rea.soned, "the ordinary meaning of li.vi word had been departed Irom, and a diHeient and specific meaning attached to it, in its association with the Christian ordinance." Hut it seemed strange to me that if such had been the case, that Lexicons of the New Tes- tament, compiled by IV(lo-Ha[)tists, never gave sprinkling as a meaning of the word. Hut I went to my New Testa- ment again and read over the inspired narratives of the various baptisms recorded, and rose persuaded that not one of them would naturally suggest to the mind the idea of sprinkling, but many of them could not be satisfactorily explained on any other hypothesis than that of immersion. (See Matt. iii. G, 16; Mark i. 9, 10; John iii. 23; Acts viii. 38; Acts xxii. 16.) Do these passages not suggest immersion ? But even had the circumstances attending these baptisms not in any case suggested the idea of im- mersion, I had the meaning of the word baptize (//arnCw) as <»iven in my Greek Lexicons, which in no case is said to be sprinkle, but always inr merse, the occasional figurative application of the word clearly implying immersion. Had I or any one else, ignorant of the baptism controversy, sat down to translate the narratives, with the aid of any Greek Lexicon, we could not have dreamed of sprinkling, but would have i. dered the original word for bapti -o, either by immerse or .ome word conveying the same idea ; and no idea but that of immersion could possibly be carried away, from the perusal of the Greek Testament account of apostolic baptisms. ll ElAtONt rOR UCCOMINO A BAPTUT. 36 3. — In tho next pluoe I vnchmvuurtui to lind liglu on the Nubject of iiuxle, by a con^iderulion of the «yrnbo!ical tnetining of baptiMtn. This is clfiirly ml forth in those imtiNiigcM already <{uotcd from II mil vi. 4, ami Col, ii, 12. BaptiHtn NupposcH the vital union of the candidate with Christ, and, as a result of thi?*, our dciilh and burial to Min with lliin, and our resurrection with our risen Lord lo a new and juMlified life, as well an the rcMurreetion ol our bodies at UIh glorious appearing in virtue of the same vital union. The ordinance of baptism thus embodies a full and distinct confession of fuith, on points of funda- mental and vital importance, and when intelligently imdt!rstood, and prayerfully improved, is fraught witli precious truth and rich encouragement to the candidate.. It speaks of my living union with the unseen Saviour — of sin forever washed away in the baptismal Hoods through whii;!j lie passed as my glorious substitute — of a life into which I have been ipiickened by the Holy S|)irit — and of the certain consummation of my widest and highcMt h()j)es, in the resurrection of this poor (rail body, fashioned like to Christ's glorious body, on tho morning of the first resur- rection, when the last enemy shall be vancjuished and complete redemption ellectcd. These are the teachings of this holy ordinance, which sprinkling has notitncss to sym- bolize, but which arc emphatically and beautifully set forth in immersion. Sprinkli' cannot represent death and resurrection, but imini . i does, and h» nco the blessed teachings and encouragements of tho o dinance are wholly lost to the church, where a human innovation has taken the place of a Divine institution. I have to add to what I have already said, that I found such copious, spontaneous testimony from numbers of the most learned, pious, and eminent Pedo-Baptist divines, of all the various denominations, corroborating the correctness Ci' these views, that, if I had any doubt of th J correctness of my own conclusions, it would have been g$ |ir,\«ONi» loR nWJOllfllO A HAI»TI»T. •umtlcnt 10 removn thai il.mbt. Tlu»liu U, one of the mo»t loftrmul iind iv!inK.'licnl of Cummn tlivin.'*, retimrki on K»m. vl. 4: ** In onh-r to uruh'r-ldiul tho fi'4»ir«»tive uim» of bfiptiiim, wr uiu^i in at in mind fhr inlUmnm Out thai Ihn candiilal.' in tin yuuuU\o vhrnch irn.ummt'rml in irntf'r, and rai^rd out ..f it a-ain." W.-sh'y May« in a n..t.. on tho Haii.'^ i..^«at?i., »' H jrird with llim in Hupiism, alluding to tho ancient tiianni-r of baptizing l)y imnuTHion." harncs: '* It IH alto^'t'tlu•r |»robai)U' that tho allusion here in to the (Hstom of hapthimr /,,/ irwwimmw " I >«liall only luld tho tof^timcmy of |)«'rhaps llio mof»t brilliant lii^httlu' inodcrn Presbyterian olmrch can boa-t—the late lamented Chal- mers— who obsorven, in hi« lectures on Homans, refer. in^ to this verj^e •. " The nrii^inal meaninff of Ihr word imftlim is inufirrsioH, and though we regard it as a point of in- diftereney whether the ordinance so named be perlorujed in this way or by sprinkling, yet we d..nbt not that the prevalent style of administiali'm, in the Apostles' days, iviLS hif an (Uliinl s„hm>'nj;inii; of llw whole hodif nn.hr irater:' A large volum.; tnight be compiled of concessions of candid Pepo-Haptists, who for a moment do not dispute the srn/durahn'ss of the Baptist position, whwtever they may plead in support of ti-eir own practice. I found, then, as th' result of my emiuiries into this subject, that my (ired^ Lexicons, many of the narratives of the New Testament baptisms, the phraseology used, and many of the circumstances attending these baptisms, and the declared tigu-ative teaching of the ordinance, while perfectly silent on the subject of s|)rinUliug, bore a most decided testimony to immersion as the only mode. As a believer in sprinkling I could not aeconnnodate my theory to such expressions a^ these : " Jesus was baptized ofjohn in Jordan.' {Mai/c i. 9.) " Buried with Him by baptism, &c." I could not find the w -rd sprinkle given in any Lexicon as the meaning, or a meaning, of the Greek word for baptize, and I could not preach a sermon on the Divine i RIAIONa rOR BIOONINU A IIAPTIIT. he ttioflt tirkfi on ive uiM» lilt thut n irntfr, Diitf* on iltiiding harnt?s: is tt) the Illy luUI modern >d Glial- r^'f^•r.in^ hafUism \\ of in- crlortm'il tliiit the »h' days, r trater.^^ nHwrn* of •I dispute jver they into this larrutives used, and isms, and L'f, while re a most :le. As a my tiicory _*d of John r baptism, n in any reek \\'ord he Divine 8T authority and NyiulM>lleal teuehinK>t of iiprinkling from nny text in the Mihh^ that had thi! reinote»l eonneetiun with haplism. Hut an u believer in iinmerMion, th' re iM not a text in the Wonl of (iotl bearing on llie wubject, narrative or doetrinal, whieh In not in perfeet harmony with thin mode; and I can ttearcli my (ireek liexieonH, all com piled hy believers in sprinkling', without enerounlering any cullisitm with my theory, or meeting a single instnneo from elassieii or Now Testament manifestly at vari.4nee with the doetrine of immersion. On which sith;, my reader, does the truth appear to be ? For an honeni examitiution, and eorrespijuding ac'tion on the subjeet y(»u and I shall have? to answer one day belure an iniinitely higher tribunal than that of pnblif. opinion! But the (piestion might her(> be put to me, " If the evidcnr; for immersion is so clear, how eoidd you no long praetisi; the opposite mode?" I iv reply, in answer to this (piesiitm, that i never did ♦ i Juffi/ satisfied as to the evidence for sprinkling ; and, lience, though I have I'recpiently prtsu'lied on the subject of infant bap- lisiii, or iho right '!' -"fants to the ordinaino, I have n«!v<;r preached a sermon on the mode. In .»mmoa wi*h I'll INMlo-hapfists, I always admitted the lawfulneisS of imm rsion, but jusliliod the practice of s[)rinkling on the iL^Tound of expt!di(!ney, the ligurative baptism ol the Holy (iliost on iIh' day t>f Pentecost, and that of Israel in the eloud a!id in the sea — (I Cor. x. 2) — the "divers baptisms of J Feb. ix. It), which seemed to include certain ceremonial sprinklings. And in addition I looked upon th(! mode as a very secondary matter, not of much importance. Willi regard lo the first and last of these positions f am convinced that we have nothing to do with ex})ediency or inexpediency in regulating our pracitict;, but simply itu't/t iHint the Lortl has comnitindal ; and what lie has enjoined should be most rigidly adhered to. If lie has commanded iiiiiiiersion, then inniiersion is eaaentidl to the ordinance 4 r 3S REASONS VOR nECOMINO A BAPTIST. as far as tl.e outward ami visible is concerned, and I have no right to accept of anythin.^ else as a substitute because it is n.ore convenient. And I am i)ersuaded that He ha. enjoined nnmersion as the only mode, and has given us in His Word no warrant whatever lor sprinUlmg. As to the baptism of the Holy Ghost, it is amazing to thnik how we are deceived by a ])erverted educational bias, and what blindness of mind is the result. I would ask any one lo read the lirst part of Acts ii., and say whether there is anything to suggest the idea of sprinklmg. 1 he Spirit is poured out, and the symbol of His advent an( His presence in "a sound from heaven as ot a rusinng, ini-hty w-.nd," fdh Ih^ hoim where they wen; sitlmg. In^he baptistry of His blessed influences they are immersed, and wholly s.ibjected to those influences, as the baptized person is to the baptizing element. Th.re is no idea whatever of sprinkling here, but only of total subjection to the Spirit's influence, which cannot be symbolized by the sprinkling of a few drops of water As to 1 Cor. X. 2, the Israelites were not sprinkledtn llif cloud and in the sea, but they were immersed, being covered all over, like the Inotized person when immersed in the water. As to Heb. ix. 10, one thing strikes me very forcibly. If the application of the word baptism in that verse, ren- dered "washings" in our version, is authority for applying the word to express sprinkling, why do none of the learned Pedo-Raptist lexicographers give the word the meaning of sprinkling in their dictionaries? Must it not be because, however ''anxious to prove that baptism may mean sprink- ling, that they could not with a clear conscience set that down as one meaning of the word {'to.r:u,r!w,) bapiismos. The most learned Pedo-Baplists, as Whitby, McKnight, Grotius, translate the (expression ''divers immersions," thus excluding from it any of the ceremonial sprinklings. The immersions of which the Apostle speaks in verse REASONS FOB BEOOMINO A HAPT[ST. 39 I have jcause le has von u« As to k how s, and sk any r there The nd His iishing, sitting. ey are ces, as ^h^re is jf total not be water. ed in Ihf , being imersed forciblv. rse, ren- ipplying learned aning of because, nsprink- ; set that aptismos. :cKnight, crsions," •inklings. in verse 10 of chapter 9, are clearly distinguished by the Apostle from the sprinklings, another class of ceremonial purifica- tions of which he speaks in verses 19 and 21, where he is careful not to use the word (/»'«-r^r;/.-,-) Oaplismos, but {f>a>7i:;io) rantizo. What the " divers immersions " were, and the general rule by which they were conducted, we may learn by referring to Lev. xi. 32; Num. xxxi. 23. The things to be boplizcd were to be ^'•piU into ivnter,'''' and ^'■vtadc to 1:^0 lli?(mut tliciii to 1 Divine liat they td ill its rdinance d surely the will account waters, md only cive lilt Lord, long the hjch you will not find such? IJiit it is not men, but principles and iriilli about which we ask you to jiid;(('. It would scarcely be a matter of wonder, if Maptistw should have to struggle against the tendenctv 1o this extreuie, considering the opposition they encounter on every side, and the constant reiteration against them, of the charge of bigotry and ex- cliisivencss, with a confidence and persistency almost enough to make them think at length that it must be true. Hut this I {^an say, that I have found as warm, large- hearted Christians among them, and in as great proportion, as in any body of Christians with whom 1 have had inter- course. The idea that what is called their "close conunii- nion" views contract their sympathies is utterly unfounded. They simply believe, in co'iimon with the great body of Christians, that a professing (Christian >hould be baptized before coming to tJie Lord's table ; and in common with all evangelical denominations, they do not admit to the table of the Lord those wIk ii they regard as unbaptized. Lit your minds, my readers, be divested of prejudice from these and other sources, and let the questions before you for solution be, " Who are the proper subjects of Christian baptism?" and, " fn what mode is this ordinance to be ad- ministered?" Be not turned aside from your main enquiry by any side issue. Satisfy yourself as to the testimony of the Word of (Jod on these points, and minor difliculties will soon vanish. Above all, reverently and in the spirit of humble dependence on the Spirit of God for guidance, seek to know what saith the Lord in his word of truth. If you really desire to know the Lord's will, and submit to His teaching, you shall not l)e disappointed.