IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // €/. V m <: % &?- &?/ :/. 1.0 I.I fa IIIIM ■'' !IM M 1 2.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 ^ 6" — ► v] <9^ /^ ^\ 'e). r* '> / € . ^-i '^^ -> ^1^ "^■w /^ Photographic Sciences Corporation i »^ -4> .fv V \ \ iS^ ;^^ B O^ ^/^ "% 1." ..<«. '^^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy 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. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. r~7\ Coloured covers/ 1^1 Couverture de couleur D D n Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ En I 1 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ n D Cartes geographiques en couleur >loured ink (i.e. other than blue ere de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) _ jloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli§ avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film^es. D D □ D D D D D D □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^color^es, tachet^es ou piqu^es Pages detached/ Pages d^tachees Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualite in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du mat6riel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film6es d nouveau de facon S obtenir la meilleure image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires: This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de r6duction indiqud ci-dessous. fOX 14X 18X 22X C y 12X 16X 20X 26X SOX 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Douglas Library Queen's University L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grSce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Douglas Library Queen's University The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^»- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to botiom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim^e sont filmds en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte una empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent 6tre fi!m6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichd, il est film6 d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 i ; THE Peculiar Principles CF HE pAPTISTS BY REV. C. GOODSPEED, MA. « ♦ TORONTO: DUDLEY &' BURNS, PRl.^TERS, it COLBORNE SIRFET, 1878. "THE GOLDEN BOOT" WILLIAM WEST <& CO., Whi.!i>:i!e and Retail Manufacturers and Dealers in FIRST CLASS WORK TO ORDER. Nos. 198 & 200 YONCE STREET, TORONTO. JAMBS VANNBVAR, BOOKSELLER, 344 YONGE STREET TORONTO. A large variety of New and Second-hand Books, embracing Theology, iMedicine, Marhematics, Classics, Modern Languages Fiction, etc., etc. ' Any book not in stock procured when desired with the utmost despatch Special attention given to School and College Books. All books sent free by mail on receipt of price. REMEMBER THE ADDRESS, JAMES VANNRVAR, 344 YOHGE STREET, TOEONTO. "4 'I >T" T bracing guages, d oilege rTO. DZ«) n ^.n'S'^b THE Peculiar Principles # OF HE APTISTS BY REV. C. GOODSPEED, M.A. TORONTO : ' DUDLEY' &> BURNS, PRi:srTERS, 1/ COLBORNE SlREETr 1878. MM^liiiiiiMHi Dli B and and , the c all 01 as to and ] whici shad( accus separ of ou istenc water tinua] whole and fi us ch uous which growii miasn to the THE DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. BAPTISTS should, and we believe do, recognize with joy and gratitude the broad agreement between themselves and evangelical christians of every faith. But there is a great and growing need that they also have a clearly defined idea of the deep and fundamental differences between themselves and all others, and of the value of their distinctive principles, both as to what they are in themselves, and what they have done, and promise to do, for the world. Members of denominations which are divided into many distinct sections by the smallest shades of belief — shades of belief which involve no principle — accuse us nevertheless of sectarianism, because we maintain a separate existence. False teaching is abroad as to the nature of our peculiar principles, as though our denominational ex- istence grew out of the single belief in a greater quantity of water in baptism. Ignorant brethren of other bodies con- tinually accuse us of that very ritualism against which our whole history has been one long protest, often written in blood, and from which these bodies themselves have been drawn by us chiefly, so far as their skirts are free from its curse. Stren- uous efforts are being made, in the interest of a liberalism which is really license, to belittle all peculiar doctrines. The growing zeal for christian union at any price, like a baneful miasma, is in danger of sapping all healthy and firm adherence to the truth, while there is beginning to be felt, as the logical 14JVr78 outcome of this disposition to trail the standard of truth in the dust, the swelling of a tide of general skepticism which is in danger of sweeping over the land. In view of all this, and of much more which might be noticed, there is great danger that our people, many of whom we fear are not aware of the vital and precious truth which is peculiar to us, may be confused by the various sounds and cries, and be drawn away from their steadfastness. It is very needful, there- fore, to exhibit our distinctive principles in all their lar-reaching influence and consequent importance, so that our people may feel that they have a broad and firm basis for their denomina- tional life — a basis which God and the world requires to be maintained, — that they have a precious heritage to guard and transmit to coming generations, — a heritage which they have received from noble sires, — a heritage in which they should seek earnestly to make all sharers, — a heritage which is too valuable to be bartered away for any fictitious unity in error which God himself is pledged to dash in pieces, — a heritage which God himself has committed to us to possess, prize, and defend, not indeed in the spirit of sectarianism, but through a loving desire that all may be blessed by sharing it. In defining the distinctive doctrines of Baptists, it will be necessary to refer to the beliefs of brethern of other denomina- tions. When this is done, the recognized standards of these bodies will be quoted, v/ith the utterances of representative men. However, therefore, individual members of these denominations may differ from the creed statements to which reference may be made, they cannot accuse us of misrepresent- ing the general belief of the body. The distinctive principles of Baptists can be grouped under three heads. 1. Those which relate to the Scriptures. II. Those which relate to the ordinances. III. Those which relate to the church. I. Baptists have ever held respecting the Scriptures that Christians must be guided and restricted both in faith and :h in the ich is in noticed, we fear peculiar , and be 1, there- each ing )le may lomina- s to be ird and :y have should is too n error eritage je, and )ugh a nil be )mina- these itative these which esent- ciples hose o the that and n yTy>jwPfiw practice by their exact instructions. They believe that God has given to his ordinances the form best adapted by infinite wisdom to serve his own purpose in them. Hence there can be but one form and no change. They also declare that God has fully equipped the church with all things needed to ensure her highest prosperity to the end of time. No new ceremony, therefore, as no new doctrine, is to be added ; for this would be not only a useless burden, but would have a pernicious effect, in diverting the people from what God had ordained, and by influencing belief, and in the end leading into false doctrine. They hold also that for men to be allowed to have the smallest liberty with God's instructions, either by adding to, or taking from, or changing them in the slightest degree, establishes a prin- ciple which sets human reason as the arbitor over God's word, opens the flood gates of unhallowed license, reflects on the wisdom of God and the perfection of his finished work, and abates reverence for what he has '^uched. Hence, Baptists have ever insisted, in reference to ordmance as well as to doctrine, on the rule first announced by Tertullian, that " the Scriptures forbid what they do not m'i'ntion." In this attitude towards the Scriptures, Baptists were, at one time, broadly distinguished from all others, and are still distinguished from the most. The reformers of the sixteenth century, while rejecting the Romish idea of tradition, and insisting on the Bible as the only rule oi faith ^ instead of adhering to the rule thatthe Bible for- bids what it does not require, in reference to what was to be observed, adopted the opposite of this, and taught that it per- mitted what it did not forbid. Luther, leading one great wing of the Reformation, wrote : — " I condemn no ceremonies, unless they are opposed to the gospel, all others I preserve unchanged in our church, .... I dislike none more than those who thrust out ceremonies which are free and innocent, and make a matter of necessity of that mmmmmmtm about which we are to use our liberty." Luther's letters, De Wette's edition, iii, 294). Calvin leading the ether after the death of Zwingle, taught, (Com. on Acts 8:38.) "The church did grant herself liberty, since the beginning, to change the rite (baptism) somewhat, excepting the substance." The Church of England subscribes to its 34th article, which declares " It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies (baptism in- ' eluded) be in all places one, and utterly alike ; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing is ordained against God's word, &c." The Kpiscopalians and Lutherans hold the same ground to- day, and put their belief in practice by using sprinkling for baptism, while the liturgy of the first, and the leaders of both denominations agree that immersion is the act commanded by our Lord. The Methodists have adopted the 34th article, of the Church of England just quoted. Dr. E. De Pressensd, see Bap. Quart. 1875, P- 146, a representative man of the Reformed Church of France, declares " To comprehend the value of this august symbol (baptism) we must consider it under its primitive form (immersion). I declare at the outset that I admit the right of the church to- modify a form and rite according to times and places." The Presbyterian and Reformed Churches generally, however, while deriving sprinkling from Jn. Calvin, on the ground of the church's right to change ordinances somewhat, and while retain- ing this practice, have disavowed the principle of its introduction^ and claim that their baptism is according to Scripture. Many of other denominations, also, now seek to uphold that practice as Scriptural which became the usage through the assumed right of the church to change the form of the ordinances. Thus there is afforded an instance of the danger of introducing an unscriptural ceremony, lest, in the end, men seek to tack their ^^m own erroneous devices upon the perfect work of God. The great majority of Pedobaptist scholars of all denominations, however, being compelled to admit that immerson was the primitive form of baptism, are forced to take the ground of Luther, Calvin, and Dr. Pressens^, and assume that we are at liberty to change this rite. Even of those who, from want of scholarship, or from want of candor, do not admit that im- mersion was the original baptism, the most prove that they do not think themselves confined to the scriptural baptism by arguing with wavering adherents that though immersion were the primitive baptism, sprinkling will do as well, while even those who assume that baptism means to sprinkle or pour, will admit the immersed to all the privileges of the baptized. Thus we find that Baptists aione, at one time, held the ground that no change must be made in what th« Bible enjoins — that nothing must be added to this nor taken away from it, — and that they alone maintain this position firmly and con- sistantly to-day. Thus we find, also, that beneath the little difference about the form of baptism which appears on the surface, there is a deep and vital principle dividing us, — a principle which affects our whole attitude toward God's word, and determines whether we shall be strict and firm, or lax and weak, — a principle, therefore, which involves, in no small degree, the best and highest interests of the church and the world. If we could dig down deep enough into the history of the past, it may be that we should find in this principle the germ of all our peculiarities. An attentive perusal of such records as we have, makes it moderately clear, at least, that the assumption of liberty to tamper with what God has instituted, was the evil fountain from which flowed the poisonous stream of false doctrine which corrupted the church, and left it the mass of putridity it became under the Papacy. Let us proceed to notice the distinctive principles of Bap- tists : — n. As they relate to the ordinances. 8 Baptists have held in the past a peculiar position in reference to the efficacy of the ordinances; although the distinction has been lessened by other denominations coming nearer our view, there is still quite a broad difference. I. The doctrine of Baptists concerning the ordinances has even been that they have no efficacy, either in themselves, or as channels of communication from God, or as the condition of anything saving, and that they are means of grace only as they teach or enforce truth. In opposition to this, all other denominations held until long after the Reformation, and many of them hold to-day, that there is a saving effic?ry either residing in the ordinances, con- ditioned by them, or communicated through them. So far was the Reforniation from cutting up this tap-root of Romanism that the Augsburg Confession taught, as the belief of the Lutherans that " baptism is necessary to salvation," and that " the Ana-baptists are to be condemned who disallow the baptism of infants, and say that they may be saved without it " and in the shorter Catechism of the Lutherans " remission of sins, life, justification, and salvation," are said to be given in the Lord's Supper. To reconcile this irea of the saving efficacy of baptism with his noble enunciation of the doctrine of j ustification by faith, Luther assumed that baptism planted the germ of faith in the infant's heart, and so saved because it secured the faith which justifies, see Hagenbach, Hist. Doc. ii. 365, Hodge Theol. iii, 606. 608. This doctrine the Lutheran church holds to-day. Zwingle held baptist sentiments respecting the effijacy of the ordinances, but when Jn. Calvin became leader of the reformed wing which did not submit to Luther, he taught th'^t " in baptism, God, begetting us again, doth graft us into the fellowship of his church, and by adoption doth make us his own," see Ins. B. iv. Chap, i and he declares respecting the Lord's Supper. " Now this sacred communication of his flesh and blood, by which Christ transfers his life into us, just as if He penetrated our bones and marrow, He testiries and seals in the holy supper ; not by the exhibition of a vain and empty sign, but by putting forth such an energy of his spirit as fulfils what He promises," Ins. iv. xvii. lo. Dr. Hodge, Theol. ii. 632, thus summarizes the teaching of the " Consensus," the most anthoritative symbol of the Reformed Church. Its authors '* did not regard the sacraments as mere signs, or as simply badges of a Christian profession, but as means of grace, ap- pointed, not only to signify and seal, but also to convey the benefits of redemption." With these utterances the creeds of the Reformed Churches still agree. The Catechism of the Church of England teaches that by baptism the child is made " a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven," and that the sacraments are " generally necessary to the salvation." The Presbyterian church, or the church of Scotland, originally had no hesitation in affirming the saving efficacy of the ordinances, for, in a confession prepared by Jn. Knox, and ratified by the Scot's parliament of 1560, are the statements that " by baptism we are engrafted in Christ Jesus to be made partakers of his justice, by which our sins are covered and re- mitted and " we confess that believers in the right use of the Lord's Supper thus eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus Christ, For as the eternal Deity gives life and immortality to the flesh of Christ, so also his flesh and blood, when eaten and drunk by us, confer onus the same prerogatives," Art. 21. Such being the articles of faith to which this church was subject when the Westminster Confession and Catechism were pre- pared in 1643, there can be as little doubt of the intention of the authors, as there is of the plain meaning of the words, when it is declared chap. 28, 5 and 6, "Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance (baptism) yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no - lO ?s==N person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that c*\\ that are baptized are undoubtedly saved. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered, yet notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the council God's own will, in his appointed time." These passages, and others which might be quoted, declare as plainly as words can, that baptism is usually the channel through which salvation comes to the elect from God, although it may reach them in another way. Thus whatever our Presbyterian brethren may believe or affirm to the contrary, they are committed, both by the plainest meaning of their symbols, as well as by the obvious intention of their authors, to the pernicious doctrine of baptismal re- generation in one of ils forms. Long after John Wesley had organized his '• society " and written his "services," he declared in his " Treatise on Baptism:" ** By baptism we who are by nature the children of wrath, are made the children of God. And this regeneration, which our church in so many places ascribes to baptism, is more than barely being admitted into the church, though commonly con- nected therewith. Being grafted into the body of Christ's church, we are made .he children of God by adoption and grace, John, 3, 5. By water then as a means, — the water of baptism, we are regenerated and born again, whence it is called by the apostle, * the washing of regeneration.' In all ages the outward baptism is a means of the inward. Herein we receive a title to, and an earnest of, a kingdom which cannot be moved. In the ordinary way, there is no other way of en- tering into the Church, or into Heaven. If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism, seeing; in the ordinary way, they cannot be saved unless this »> wnr^. II ,.» >>^ be washed away in baptism." Among the last things he wrote, he declares, Notes on Acts, 22, 16: " Baptism is both the means and the seal of pardon, and God did not ordinarily, in the primitive church, bestow this grace upon any, save through this means." Richard Watson, who is scarcely second to Wesley as an authority among the Methodists, and who died only 44 years ago, declares in his Institutes, Art. baptism, that " Baptism is the sign and seal of the covenant of grace under its perfected dispensation — that it is the grand initiatory act by which we enter into this covenant, in order to claim all its spiritual bles- sings, and to take upon ourselves all its obligations : that it is now the means by which men become Abraham's spiritual children, and heirs with him of the promise, &c." And again *' It (baptism) conveys also the present blessing of Christ, of which we are assured by his taking children in his arms and blessing them ; which blessing cannot be nominal, but must be substantial and efficacious. It secures too, the gift of the Holy Spirit, in those secret spiritual influences, by which the actual regeneration of those children, who die in infancy is affected ; and which are a seed of life in those who are pared to prepare them for instruction in the word of God, as they are taught it by parental care, to incline their will and affections to God, and to begin and maintain in them the war against inward and outward evil, &c." Such being the sentiments of these princes in the Methodist Church, we are not surprised that it was provided by a stand- ing rule of this church, that baptism, as well as the Lord's Supper, " shall always be administered in England according, to the form of the established church." — Rules of the Society of the People called Methodists, V. 6, 9. Neither are we left in much doubt, in view of all this, what is the meaning of such passages as the following in the present revised ritual : " Foras- much as all men are conceived and born in sin ; and that M 12 which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and they that are in the flesh cannot please God, but live in sin, committing many actual transgressions : and our Savior Christ saith " Except a man be born of water and the spirit, &c. : I beseech you to call upon God .... that of his boundless goodness he will grant unto these persons that which by nature they cannot have ; that they, being baptised with water, may also be baptised with the Holy Ghost, and being received into Christ's Holy Church, may continue lively members of the same." John Robinson, the father of Congregationalism, says: " We must not conceive of baptism as of a charm, or think it effectual to all it is put upon, but must judge it available, and of use, according to the covenant of promise which God hath made to the faithful and their seed." The Cambridge Platform adopted by the Congregational church in America in 1648, states that those who are made church members in infancy have the advantage over those who are not, because " They are in covenant with God, have the seal thereof (baptism) upon them ; and so, if not regenerated, yet are in a more hopeful way of attaining regenerating grace, and all the spiritual bless- ings of the covenant and the seal." While thus Congregationalists formerly attributed spiritual efiicacy to baptism, recently there has been little concurrence of opinion in the matter. While Prof. Pond, of Bangor, says : Lectures on Christian Theology, p. 680, that the infant in bap- tism, " is promised to the church, and the promise, unless an- nulled by parental unfaithfulness will, sooner or later, be ful- filled." Prof. Wright of Andover, Bib. Sacra, July 1874, re- stricts baptism to a sign, i, of the universal need of salvation, 2, of the hope that children dedicated to the Lord, and the subjects of Christian nurture and watch-care, will be regener- ated, — though where he finds any scripture warrant for such a notion of baptism, he prudently omits to inform us. Generally, however, it may be said that Congregationalists do not now »3 attach spiritual efficacy to baptism, and, as a consequence, three-fourths of the whole body have abandoned infant baptism. Thus it is seen that we are broadly distinguished in our ideas about the efficacy of the ordinances from all denominations ex- cept the Congregationalists, so far as their avowed articles of faith are concerned, and are less broadly distinguished from this body. The grand importance of this distinction, as it has been revealed in the history of the church, will be noticed in its place. Two words of explanation need to be given, however, before closing the consideration of this point. The first is that it must not be understood that in many of the creeds and writings from which we have quoted, there are not found clear state- ments of belief in what Baptists hold respecting the efficacy of the ordinances, although they state as clearly their Delief in what'we abhor. These different, if ' it contradictory, declara- tions about baptism, are the consequence of holding to both infant and believer's baptism. As these two baptisms must be essentially different, and unable to serve the same purpose, they cannot make a statement of the one, which will hold equally of the other. Hence two distinct descriptions of baptism are given, to serve the two different and distinct cases. The second word of explanation is that we must not suppose that all who belong to the denominations whose creeds teach sacramental efficacy and baptismal regeneration hold this belief themselves. Very many of all these denominations, and the majority, it is to be hoped, of some of them, reject the doctrine to which they subscribe by becoming members. How they can thus avowedly assent to a creed whose teachings they reject, we find not, especially when they must know that while the creed remains as it is, thousands will be influenced by it to be- lieve a pernicious and damning error. Yet there is cause for joy that better doctrine is leavening the minds of the people. The significance of the fact that as the idea of baptismal efficacy is 14 h\ I abandoned, the practice of infant baptism decHnQs par/ passu, will be noticed hereafter. 2. The second distinctive feature of Baptists respecting the ordinances relates to the purport and subjects of baptism. They hold that baptism is to signify and declare that a work of regeneration has alreaby been wrought in the soul, and to make the consequent profession of taith and subjection to Christ. They believe that baptism must serve this purpose in every instance, so far as its use and meaning is concerned, since, otherwise, there must be different baptisms adapted to these various cases — an idea which would be inconceivable in itself, and which has not the least shadow of support in the word of God — an idea which is forever forbidden by the declaration Eph. 4, 5: " One Lord, one faith, one baptism." Since, then, bap- tism is, in every case, to signify and declare that a work of re- generation has been wrought in the soul, and as faith is the only sure, as it is the necessary and immediate evidence, of re- generation, baptism, both by its nature, and by the teaching of the N. Test, is always to be conditioned on faith. Leaving out of the question infonts who die, and whose natures God changes, and whose souls He saves, as it pleases Him, the re- mainder are not regenerated in infancy ; for they invariably grow up in sin, neither can they exercise faith. Baptists, there- fore, hold that they are not to be baptized. They claim that baptism cannot in them, in any case, signify death to the old life and resurrection to the new. Rom. 6:3, 4; " putting off the body of the sins of the flesh," Col. 2 : 1 1-13, purification, (not purity merely) Acts 22 : 16 ; Heb. 10 : 22 : neither can it ever be to them a putting on of Christ, Gal. 3:27; or "the answer of a good conscience toward God." i Peter 3:21. As these are all the descriptions of the significance and purpose of baptism which are given in scripture, infants, in no case, can have ful- filled in their baptism any one part of that purpose, every part of which, God intends to be served in every instance of baptism. V i IS Baptists hold, also, that the practice of the apostles conformed to their own teaching, and that there were no infants baptized by them or by John, John's was the baptism of repentance, and those who submitted to it confessed their sins. Acts 13 : 24, Matt. 3 : 6. Infants can neither repent nor confess sins, therefore they were not baptized by John. Those who were baptized by our Lord were disciples, and had been made dis- ciples before their baptism, John 4 : i, and hence there could have been no infants among them ; for discipleship implies in- struction. Unless, therefore, the great commission made a change, the apostles must have continued to baptize adults only, after our Lord's death, as they had done before. So far was the great commission from requiring them to change, that it plainly included only believers, disciples. Matt. 28: 19, 20. Mark 16 : 15, 16. That they so interpreted it is evident from their practice, since in every case, Lydia's household excepted, those whom they baptized are declared to be responsible and believers. Acts 2 : 41, 8 : 12, 38, 10 : 47, 16 : ^^, 34. (i Cor. 1, 16 : compare i Cor. 16:15.) In the case of Lydia's house- hold, everything is against the idea that she had a young family ; for she was far from home engaged in trade. We do not know whether she was married, the evidence being all against the idea, since it was not the custom in the east, for ladies to take charge of business establishments if they had husbands. If she was married there is no evidence that she had children, much less that she had young children. Under such circumstances, Baptists hold that it is simply absurd for Paedo-Baptists to argue that infant baptism mus/ have been the apostolic practice, because there is a remote possibility that there mig/it have been an infant in Lydia's household. Equally unreasonable do they think the assertion that infants must be received into the spiritual church of Christ by baptism, unless expressly forbidden, because they were formerly born into the Jewish non-spiritual nation, when, to receive them to baptism i6 I' i would fulfil no one of its declared demands, and meet no one of the N. Test, descriptions of it , and be contrary to every scriptural precedent. Equally untenable is the argument that infants must be received into the new covenant as into the old because the two covenants are the same : for does not Paul say, Heb. 8 : 8-13, that the new is " not according to the old," and what avails all fine spun reasoning in the face of this plain and explicit statement. Besides was not the covenant of cir- cumsicion made with Abraham and his natural seed. Gen. 17 : 7, 14, and is not that of grace made with the spiritual seed of Abraham through Christ? John 3 : 3, 7. Gal. 3 : 28, 29. The covenant of circumcision was not saving, while that of grace is, Heb. 8, 10, 12. Did not the covenant of ciicum- Acts 15: I, 5. cision include the law ? John Acts 21 : 20, 21. Rom. 2 : 25. 7 ' 22, 23. Gal. 5 : 2, 3 ; and does not the covenant of grace exclude the law? Rom. 6 : 14, 15. Rom. II : 16. Gal. 5 : 4. Was not the condition of the one covenant circumcision? Gen. 17 : 10, 14, that of the other faith? Rom. 4: 16. How strange then to assume that the covenants are the same, and that, therefore, infants must ha e baptism, the seal of the latter as they had circumcision the seal of the former ? Besides all this, baptism clearly does not take the place of circumcision. In the case of adults, circumcision was given regardless of moral character. Gen. 17 : 12, 13, while baptism requires faith and regeneration. Matt. 16: 16. Acts 2:41 &c, circumcision was for males only, baptism for both sexes. Acts 8:12. Gal. 3 : 27, 29. Circumcision was expressly abrogated, and not merely changed in form. Acts 21 ; 20, 25. Besides, if baptism is virtually circumscision by being its substitute, how are we to explain such passages as Acts 15 : 10. Gal. 5 : 2, 3, &c.; and how inconceivable, if this were so, that Paul never explained to the Judaizers who were bitterly hostile to him because they thought he rejected cir- cumcision, that he did no such thing, but only put another 17 form in its place, or that the council at Jerusalem should have given no hint of this which would have settled the question at issue in a manner satisfactory to all parties? See Acts 15 : i, 30. But, instead of this, they expressly abrogated circumci- sion Acts 21 : 20, 25. Baptists believe, finally, that the utter weakness of the arguments for infant baptism, and their sophistical nature, are seen in the fact that Piedo-Baptists are at perpetual discord among themselves on the subject. Some holding as absurd the strong reasons of others, and so on, all around the circle of their ablest men. See Dr. Stuart, Dr. Halley, Dr. Hodge on baptism. III. Finally : let us notice the peculiar doctrine of Baptists in reference to the church. Th6y hold that the church is a spiritual body, and, therefore, no one is qualified to be a member unless possessed of spirit- ual life through regeneration and savinsj faith. Hence the New Hampshire Confession, which is generally adopted by our churches, declares that "a visible church of Christ is a congre- gation of baptized believers." In support of this position they affirm that the Scriptures plainly teach that all church members were baptized, and that all who were baptized were believers; Acts 2: 41, Acts 16: 14, 15, Acts 18 : 8, (i Cor. i: 16, compare i Cor. 16 : 15) (Acts 19 : 2-5, compare Eph. 4 : 5,) Rom. 6 : 3, 4, Gal. 3:27, Col. 2: 12. The apostles also addressed the first churches in such terms as are utterly inconsistent with the idea that unbelievers and the unregenerate were permitted to become members. The whole membership of the church at Jerusalem, (Acts 9: 13, Rom. 15: 25, 26, 2 Cor. 8: 4), at Lydda, (Acts 9: 32), at Rome, (Rom. I : 7), Con'nth, (i Cor. 1:2, 6:1, 2), Ephesus, (Eph. i : i), Phillippi, (Phil. 1:1), and at Colosse, (Col. i: 2), are all ad- dressed as saints, a term which is never used of any but such i8 as are cleansed by the blood of Christ, and set apart for God's service. The whole membership of the churches in Rome, Thessa- lonica, and Galatia, are greeted by Paul as brethren (Rom. 12: I, I Thess. i: 4, Gal. i: 11). The members of the churches in Thessaionica, and among the Hebrews, he calls " holy " and " holy brethren," (i Thess. 5: 27, Heb. 3: i). Those who were added to the church at Jerusalem were such as were, or were becoming, saved, (Acts 2: 4). Churches were called the body of Christ (Eph. i: 23), "the temple of God which is holy" (i Cor. 3: 17), and their members had "received the Spirit," (Gal. 3: 2), were " fellow citizens with the Saints, Eph. 2:19. Hence Baptists hold that as unbelievers cannot ' be called saints, holy brethren, etc., and have not received the the Spirit, etc., and as believers only can be described by these terms which are applied to all the membership of the New Testament churches, believers only were members of these churches, and should therefore be the only members of churches in our day. and until the end of time, as far as care and discipline can secure this result. Pedobaptists have ever differed from Baptists on this funda- mental doctrine of the constitution of the church. They hold with no exception as to articles of faith, and with but few ex- ceptions as to individuals, that baptized infants are church members. For centuries this belief was not supposed to carry with it the denial of a regenerate church membership ; for the baptized infant was considered regenerated by his baptism. So they were admitted to full membership, and, until the twelfth century, received the Lord's Supper. At this time, through the rise of the doctrine of transubstantiation, it was refused to infants, (see Neander Ch. Hist. vol. IV, ps. 341, 342). Lat- terly, however, as some denominations have become more evangelical, they have had to choose between a denial that baptism makes all who submit to it church members, and the 19 assertion that the church is not to be kept as free as possible from the unregenerate. The most have adhered to the belief that by baptism, infants, as well as adults, are introduced into the visible church, if they do not already belong to it by virtue of their innocence. They have, therefore, been compelled to reject the Baptist doctrine that the membership of churches is to be restricted as far as possible to believers. The millions of the Roman, Greek, Lutheran, and Episcopalian churches all hold that baptized infants grow up in the church, and thus the visible church includes all, so far as they can secure this end by baptising all in infancy. Presbyterians declare. West. Con. XXV, that the church is composed of " those who profess the true religion, together with their children." Dr. Hodge, than whom there is no higher authority in this body, lays down the law that this profession does not necessarily require the one making it to be regenerate, much less does it require this of his children ; for he gives six arguments to prove that " the church is not called upon to pronounce a judgment as to the real piety of applicants for membership." Theol. vol. Ill p. 576-8. The children who have been baptized also grow up in the church, unless they are expelled for scandalous living, for, " It (the church) includes also all who having been baptized have not forfeited their membership by scandalous living, or by any act of church discipline." Theol. vol. Ill p. 578. So, mere morality at most, is enough to maintain the membership of the baptized infant as he grows up, or of one who has be- come a member without the church judging him really pious. It is no wonder then that Dr. Hodge, Theol. vol. III. p. 548, and the church which he represents, contends that " the visible church does not consist exclusively of the regenerate." Richard Watson, in his Theological Institutes which are prescribed as a part of the regular course of study of the Meth- odist ministry, after declaring that " the church of Christ, in its largest sense, consists of all who have been baptized in the 20 I i name of Christ," states that, " It is obligatory on all who are convinced of the truth of Christianity to be baptized." The church, then, according to this recognized authority in this body should include " all who are convinced of the truth of Christianity " — that is, all who are nominally Christians — and as all in this land are thus " convinced," all should be bap- tized, and become members of the church in its " largest sense." The discipline of the Methodist Church declares that " there is only one condition previously required of those who desire admission into these societies, a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins," sec 33, and these are exhorted as a duty to partake of the Lord's Supper, sec 36. It is further declared sec. 49, " Let no one be received into the church until such person .... shall, on examina- tion by the minister in charge, before the church, give assu- rance both of the correctness of his faith and his willingness to observe and keep the rules of the Church." These comprise all the qualifications insisted on by the discipline, and none of them, except " correctness of his faith," refers to believing on Christ, necessarily includes regeneration. In the ritual for the re- ception of members, however, is the question, ** Have you saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ ? " to which the candi- date is expected to reply " I trust I have." Baptized children are regarded " as placed in visible cove- nant relation to God, and under the special care and supervision of the Church " sec. 54. These must grow up as members of the church in some sort : for they are after .vard to be received " mXo full membership " sec. 57. While thus among the Metho- dists there is an honest attempt to keep the inner circle of the church for the regenerate, there is an outer circle iti the church which takes in all who have been baptized in infancy, and as they seek to baptize all infants, they would fain bring all the world, bad or good, into this outer circle of the church. Un- ax fortunately for them, however, the Scriptures recognize none as members but such as are full members ; there is no outer and inner circle ; it is all inner circle. As to the belief of the Congregationalists, Dr. Hodge, vol. III. p. 568, declares that the " Half Way Covenant " is ''ap- proved by the general practice of the Congregational churches of New England," and that it is founded, among others, on these principles, " That baptism being a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, all who are baptized, whether adults or in- fants, are properly designated *■ fixderatt^ members of the vis- ible Church, believers, saints, Christians," and " That those baptized in infancy remain members of the visible Church until they are discovenanted, as the Congregationalists express it ; or, separated from it by a regular act of discipline." It is easy to see how the church ceases to be a body of regenerate persons, under such a rule. Dr. Hodge also declares, vol. HI. p. 574, that it is the common doctrine of Protestants " That the visible Church has always consisted of those who profess the true religion, together with their children." He should have said Pedobaptist Protestants. It may however be said that while the creeds of all Pedobap- tist bodies are thus explicit, a variety of opinions prevail among the rank and file of the Methodist and Congregational denom- inations. It will generally be found, however, that a doubt as to the church membership of those who were baptized in in- fancy, and that the church is to include the unregenerate, exists chiefly among that class which now forms the majority of these bodies in America, — the class which rejects infant baptism as scriptural, and practices it, if at all, as a dedication service, or to give the name. Among those who maintain its scriptural authority, it is still believed that baptized infants grow up in the church. Indeed they make a grand and path- etic charge against our practice, that we shut the children out of the church, and leave them to the mercy of the world, — a 4a charge to which we reply that our children are as well cared for as though ♦hey had been baptized, and that to make them see that they are out of the church is the first step to leading them to seek a rta/ entrance into it. Growing out of these more fundamental distinctions between us and Pedobaptists are two others which have been very marked in the past, but which are less evident to-day through the spread of our principles. The first is in the relation of the church to the state. Bap- tists believe that church and state are to be altogether distinct, neither attempting to exercise any authority over the other. They think this follows as a necessary consequence of the separate, if not opposite, constitutions, spheres, and scriptural representations of the two, so that there need be no conflict, and hence no subjection or lordship. The one is composed of the regenerate, the other of bad and good. The sphere of the one is in things material and temporal, that of the other in matters spiritual and eternal. The state is to compel obedi- ence by force, whereas, within the sphere of the church, there can be no compulsion, because in spiritual matters the soul has •to do immediately with God, and no power is to step in be- tween these two. The church as an organized body, then, has, strictly speaking, no relation to the state. It is only the mem- bers of the church in their individual capacity who bear such -a relation in common with all others, as they have claims up- on the state for protection, &c., and the state has claims upon *them for that support and obedience which does not violate any higher principle of duty to God or man. Hence Baptists have ever been the most unflinching opponents of any union of church and state, direct, or indirect, and they have resisted unto death the assumption of the civi' power to regulate reli- gious belief. AH other denominations have, in the past, been united with the state as the state church, and the most still maintain that 23 Bap- Telation in some country. The Roman in Spain, Austria, &c., the Greek in Russia, the Lutheran in Germany, Sweden, &c., the Episcopalian in Great Britian, and the Presbyterian in Scotland, are still state churches, so called, and are supported from the national treasury. The Congregationalist was formerly the state church of New England, and ceased to be so only because compelled. The Methodist Societies in England re- mained as a part of the Church of England, and it was not the idea of their founder, probably, that they should ever become separate, and the Episcopal Church of England still claims that there has been no separation, and that ihey are a part of itself, while the Methodist societies were united with the Epis- copal in Maryland and Virginia as the State church, and re- mained so until forced to separate, notwithstanding their pro- test. (Dr. Hawk's Hist. Prot. Epis. Ch. p. 133-153.) It is to be doubted, also, in view of the earnestness with which other •denominations seek government patronage, and the avidity with which they accept it, whether these churches are preven- ted from becoming state churches to-day, by principle, or by^ want of power. The second distinction growing out of the more fundamen- tal ones is in reference to religious liberty. Baptists have ever held that the use of force to restrict or compel religious belief is worse than useless, even though it -were admissible ; because outward con formity is all this can effect, while it prejudices the mind against the very opinion to which assent is given, thus inducing hy- pocrisy which is an abomination to men and to God. They believe, also, that the sphere of religion is between the soul and God, which no person has a right to invade, — that compulsion here is but an attempt to make a man sacri- fice conscience and duty to expediency, and thus overthrow the very corner — stone of his moral constitution, — that it seeks to make a man obey men, and disobey God, while he is con- a4 scious that he should obey God rather than men, — and that such compulsion, therefore, should be resisted with all the energy of which a man is capable, as an invasion of rights which are sacred, of a liberty which is inalienable, of interests which are too grand to be sacrificed at any bidding, and of claims made by God himself, claims which must be kept inviolate even at the loss of property, or limb, or life. So we hear stout old Hubmeyer the Baptist pastor of Waldshut, in the first half of the 1 6th century declaring: " Faith is in the heart, and you cannot force that by threats and chains. Thought and belief may not be obstructed by violence, or fettered by disabilities, but are to toll free, in all travel and commerce of mind." In 1611 the London Baptist Confession of Faith was published in which are these grand words : "We believe that the magistrate is not to meddle with religion, because Christ is king and law- giver of the church and conscience." In 16 14 Baptist Leonard Busher published the first modern " Plea for Liberty of Con- science." Roger Williams, a Baptist, was the first to raise the standard of religious liberty in the New World, and Baptists have ever been true to this principle of their grand old fore- fathers. In their stand on this principle they were alone for centuries, while they nourished the tree of liberty with their blood. The reformers of the i6th century, while themselves writhing in the bloody fangs of Rome, applied the scorpion scourge of persecution to Baptists, Luther, (Dr. Sears, Life of Luther) in a letter to Menius and Myconius, could say, *' Let the sword exercise its rights over them." Zwingle condemned to death those who submitted to immersion after having been sprinkled. Martyrology vol. I. p. 164. Calvin taught the same doctrine of religious intolerance. Com. on Luke 14:9, and practiced his own teaching by burning Servetus. The Pres- byterians of the 17 th century agreed with their founder, and taught that certain ecclesiastical offenders were worthy of death, ?ind that the observance of certain feasts and fasts " ought not ^iiSi&^tMiliim. ind that all the ts which s which claims nviolate ar stout irst half md you d belief bilities, i." In blished jistrate id law- eonard )fCon. ise the aptists 1 fore- ne for their selves )rpion ife of Let mned been : the and Pres- and sath, ; not »5 to escape the punishment of the civil magistrate." The Puri- tans, fleeing from intolerance themselves, had scarcely found an asylum when they kindled the fires of persecution on the wild New England shore, (Lorimer's Great Conflict p. 34-40.) The Methodists claimed to be a part of the Episcopal church, when, in Virginia, it was seeking to crush all dissent under the iron heel of the civil power. The Roman, Greek, Lutheran, and Episcopal, churches are still, for the most part, as intolerant as their control of the magisterial powers will permit them to be. Well then may John Locke say, "The Baptists were the first and only propounders of absolute liberty — ^just and true liberty — equal and impartial liberty " : and Bancroft (Hist, of U. S. vol. II, p. 66, 67. " Free- dom of conscience, unlimited freedom of mind, was, from the first, the trophy of the Baptists," and Principal Cunningham, " The Anabaptists of the Reformation seem to have been the first, if Donatists be excepted, who stumbled upon the volun- tary principle." And Skeat's (Hist. Free Churches of England, p. 24) : " It is the singular and distinguished honor of the Baptists, to have repudiated from their earliest history all co- ercive power over the consciences and the actions of men with reference to religion." Thus we have attempted to give some idea of our peculiar doctrines as a denomination. We have found that Baptists alone maintain the obligation of all christians to adhere to the exact rule of scripture, in reference to ordinances as well as doctrine — that they alone reject all idea of sacramental effi- cacy — that they alone restrict membership in the church of every sort to believers — that they alone maintain the absolute se- paration of church and state — and that they alone have been always the champions of religious liberty. But the question may arise, are these distinctive doctrines and principles of sufficient importance to justify and require Bap- tists to adhere to them firmly, avow them boldly, and press s6 I I them vigorously as well as kindly upon the attention and acceptance of all ? Especially may it be asked, is the Pcedo- baptist position responsible for the rejection of the principles in which we glory, and for the acceptance of those which we abhor, and are ve therefore to seek to overthrow this position, as a means of abolishing these associate errors ? In answer to these questions we propose to show : • ' T. That the errors against which our peculiar principles are arrayed, are the natural, and, logically, the necessary out-growth of paedo-baptism. • • • ■ • ' * J.-t^ (i.) The writings of the church fathers clearly show that in- fant baptism was justified only on the ground of its sacramental efficacy, in the earliest ages of its practice, and that it took its rise in this idea. In quoting from the fathers, I shall give Dr. Wall's translations ; Origen, after giving Ps. 51, 5, as a proof that " every soul that is born in the flesh is polluted with the filth of sin," exclaims, as though adducing an argument which would settle all the question. " Besides all this, let it he con- sidered, what is the reason that whereas the baptism of the church is given for the forgiveness of sins, infants are also by the usage of the church baptized ; when if there were nothing in infants that wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of bap- tism would be needless to them," Leviticus 4. Hom. 8. Also Hom. in Lucam 14, " and it is for that reason, because by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants are baptized." Cypian and 66 bishops in reply to Fidus, reject the idea that infants are not to be baptized until the eighth day, after the rule of circumciscion, on the ground that " as far as lies in us, no soul, if possible, is to be lost." Gregory Nazianzen (Oratio de Baptism,) in reply to the ques- tion, — " What say you of those who are yet infants ? Shall we baptize them too ? " replies : " Yes by all means, if any dan- ger make it requisite. For it is better that they be sanctified «7 ition and le Poedo- )rinciples vhich we position, nswer to iples are It-growth V that in- ramental took its give Dr. a proof vith the t which he con- 1 of the also by thing in 3f bap- ?. Also by the 1 away, • i- lea that ter the in us, i ques- ball we ly dan- ictified without their sense of it, than that they should die unsealed, uninitiated. As for others, I give my opinion that they should stay three years or thereabouts, when they are capable to hear and answer some of the holy words, &c." Chrysostum, though rejecting the doctrine that infants have original sin, yet bases the practice upon its assumed benefits, and not upon any command of Christ, " You see," he says, " how many are the benefits of baptism. For this cause we bap- tize infants also, though they are not defiled with sin ; that there may be superadded to them, saintship, righteousness, adoption, &c." (Quoted in Augustine's Book i, against Julian.) Augustine himself, Sermo lo de verbis Apostoli, after argu- ing that infants have sin, and are baptized for it, adds : " This •the church has always and ever held; this it has received from the faith of its ancients, and this it keeps constantly to the end, that the whole have no need of a physician but those who are sick. What need then (of baptism) has an infant, if he be not sick ? " Indeed Augustine's great argument against Pelagius assumed that there could be no other purpose, in the baptism ■of infants, but the forgiveness of sins, and as they had no sin of their own, it proved that they had original sin. Pelagius, holding to infant baptism himself, could not evade the force of this argument, Wall. Inf. Bap. xix, 32, thus proving that he, in common with all who held this practice in his day, believed that there was no possible ground for infant baptism unless for for- giveness of sin ; for, could Pelagius have found any other reason, he would not have been vanquished. Jerome (Dialogue against the Pelagiaus III, 17,) in reply to the question, "for what reason are infant's baptized ? " replies : " That in baptism their sins may be forgiven." .. , Indeed, Dr. Wall, who has left little to be lound out respect- ing the teachings of the father's about infant baptism, declares Inf Bap. vol. i, pp. 69 & 70 that from John 3 : 4, the fathers concluded that without baptism no one could come to heaven. 38 " And so did all the writers of these 400 years, not one ex- cepted." He might have added that no church father during this time urged infant baptism on any other ground than its saving efficacy, or supposed it served any other purpose. If it were not saving, or necessary to forgiveness of sin or the gift of righteousness, they could see no reason for its use. So plain does it appear from these and kindred facts that in- fant baptism had its origin in the idea of its saving efficacy that such princes among Paedo-baptist scholars of the past and present, as John of Bohemia, Suicerus, Salmasi js, Bp. Barlow, Dr. Jacobi, Kurtz, Neander, Meyer, Prof. Hahn, Dresser, Dr. De Pressens^, and many others, expressly trace its introduc- tion to the belief that baptism was necessary to salvation, and to the consequent desire to secure infants from the danger of losing their souls from the want of it. We quote from a few. Neander, who has no equal as a church historian, declares, Ch. Hist, vol I, p. 313. "When . . from want of distinguishing between what is outward and what is inward in baptism (the baptism of water, and the baptism by the spirit) the error became more firmly established that without baptism no one could be saved . . and when the notion of a magical in- fluence, a charm connected with the sacraments, continually gained gound, the theory was finally evolved of the unconditional necessity of itifant baptisfn^ Meyer, a prince of excgetes declares. Com. Acts 16: 15. "The baptism of children arose from the idea of the necessity of baptism to salvation." The great theologian Prof. Hahn. Theol. p. 556, declares. " It, (infant baptism) arose from false views of original sin, and of the magical power of consecrated water." Dressier, Work on Bap- tism, p. 152 remarks: " The immediate occasion for infant bap- tism, it cannot be denied, was extravagent ideas of its necessity to salvation." Dr. De Pressens^, the ablest living divine of the Reform church in France, says : " Its (infant baptism) ultimate triumph was caused by the doctrine of baptismal regeneration,, b it b I 29 one ex- ;r during than its 5e. If it the gift > that in- :acy that •ast and Barlow, 5ser, Dr. ntroduc- ion, and mger of n a few. res, Ch. juishing 5m (the e error no one ical in- inually iitional ccgetes arose e great (infant the 1 Bap- t bap- :essity of the imate ation,. which, under Augustine, became a part of the orthodoxy of the 4th century." And so we might continue quoting from the best scholarships of the age, but we forbear. Infant baptism having thus had its birth in the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and having been so long based upon it as its only reasonable and sufficient ground, these two must be vitally united, so that while the doctrine of baptismal re- generation issued in the practice of infant baptism, this practice must ever tend to introduce and preserve the doctrine as its own only natural and adequate rep on. Not only does the past history of infant baptism prove its dependence upon baptismal regeneration for its existence and continuance, and its tendency to issue in this doctrine, but baptism must, in case of the infant, be regenerating, if it is to agree in any particular with the New Test, descriptions of this ordinance. Baptism is called a " bath of regeneration," Tit. 3:5, a washing away of sin, Acts 22:16, death to the old life and resurrection to newness of life, Rom. 6:34, Col. 2:12. Unless these passages are explained metaphorically, and baptism is viewed as merely signifying and so declaring what it is said to effect, then this ordinance must cleanse from sin, must re- generate ; for there never has been any third method of in- terpr etation attempted. But, in case of infants, baptism cannot merely signify either of these changes, for there has been neither purification nor regeneration wrought in them, so far as our knowledge extends. If, therefore, Augustine's definition of baptism as " an outward and visible sign of inward spiritual grace " which Pedobaptists generally accept, as well as we, holds of infant baptism, this baptism can be an outward sign of inward purification (not purity, mark) and regeneration, only as it first effects inwardly what is signifies outwardly. Well may Dr. De Pressens^ declare ," any defence of infant baptism not based on this (baptismal regeneration) is illogical and 1^ lame." Those then who practice infant baptism must either accept the doctrine that baptism confers saving grace upon the infant, or else continue a practice which fulfils none of its New Test, purposes or descriptions. Such being true, it is readily perceived how strongly all Pedobaptists must be pressed to attach saving efficacy to baptism that they may have some shadow of scriptural support for their practice. Finally, consistency with the chief and only specious argument for infant baptism requires baptism to be regenerating. It is, asserted that the covenant of circumcision is the same as the covenant of grace — is the covenant of grace, indeed, — that infants must be included in the last because they were in the first, — and that baptism, the changed form of the same seal must be given to infants because they were circumcised. But with out circumcision no one could share in the blessings of the covenant of which it was the token, for God said, Gen. 17:14, " the uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his fore skin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people ; he hath broken my covenant." If that covenant was the covenant of grace, or included it, as our Pedobaptist friends assume, not only were the uncircumcised excluded from its blessings and so lost, but the unbaptized, for the same want of the new seal which serves the same purpose as the old, must be also ex- cluded from these blessings, and likewise lost. What a terrible conclusion ! And yet there is no possibility of escape, logically, from this conclusion which consigns to perdition all who are unbaptized, merely because they are unbaptized, if this argu- ment for infant baptism be sound, — a conclusion to which there was almost no dissent forages, while infant baptism held nearly universal sway, and the reason of its introduction continued to be the reason for its practice. And this argument from circumcision still, so far as it is really and intelligently held as well as used for a purpose, must inevitably impel its adherents al wl 31 t either pon the its New 5 readily :ssed to e some gument :• It is as the I,— that : in the al must at with of the 17:14, skin is )le ; he venant le, not ?s and vv seal so ex- errible ically, 10 are argu- i there nearly led to from 2ld as irents almost irresistibly toward this belief that men cannot be saved without baptism. But if this reasoning as to the necessary logical connection between infant baptism and baptismal regeneration be true^ it might be expected that where baptismal regeneration is held most fully, there the practice of infant baptism would be most unshaken, and that where it is rejected, there infant baptism would be on the wane. This is precisely what is the case, and the validity of our reasoning is thus confirmed. In the Roman, Greek, Lutheran, and Episcopalian churches, in which the , saving efficacy of baptism is taught with least reserve, or with no reserve, infant baptism maintains its hold. Among the evangelical denominations, the symbols of the Presbyterians teach the efficacy of baptism most strongly, while the Con- gregaiionalists have almost altogether rejected this doctrine. In exact harmony with this we find the decline of infant baptism • least and least rapid in the former body, one infant being baptized in the United States to every 22 members in 1853, and one to every 27 in 1872, while the decline is greatest and the most rapid in the latter body, only one infant being baptized to every 68 members in 1872. These facts speak volumes as to the vital and necessary logical relation between baptismal regeneration and infant baptism. (2.) It is also a necessary logical consequence of infant bap- tism that the unregenerate be received into the chuich and grow up in its membership. , Baptized infants must become members of the church, or one of the scriptural purposes of baptism cannot be fulfilled in them; for Paul says, i Cor. 12-13. " ^X (i^) one spirit we are all baptized into one body," meaning the visible church, as the whole connection shows ; and all whose baptism we have re- corded in the New Testament, received by it the last qualifica- tion for church membership. Also, Pedobaptists must reckon baptized infants church members to be consistent with their 3« S .1 own grounds for their practice. If they assume that infant baptism is based upon household baptism, it is upon the principle that the child is federally in the parent, and, as a consequence, has the same religious standing. If it be based upon the assumed identity of the two covenants, and that baptism as the seal of the latter takes the place of circumcision the seal of the former, the baptized infant must be a church member ; for the circumcised child became a member of the Jewish Nation, which is thus assumed to be identical with the church in constitution. So evident is this that two of the chief Pedobaplist writers who have latterly discussed the church re- lation of baptized infants, (Dr. Nadal, Meth. Quart. Jan. 1871, Mr. Grout, Bib. Sacra, April, 1871), in refuting the idea that baptized children are not church members, push their opponents to the wall with the very arguments used to support infant baptism, thus proving that the baptism of infants and their church membership after baptism, must stand or fall together. In exact agreement with this, among the Methodists, and especially among the Congregationalists, where there is the most general denial of the church membership of infants, there infant baptism is declining pan' /assu. But when all are thus admitted to the church in infancy, it becomes impossible to insist upon a regenerate adult member- ship, for these grew up in their state of nature, and continue members, until, at least, they commit some great sin, or pursue a life of such iniquity as to compel their expulsion. If they pre- serve any moderate degree of mere morality, their church stand- ing must remain. In addition to this, it is inconsistent to require in an adult, as a condition of membership, a state of nature which is not demanded in a child. So it follows that mere morality and not evidence of regeneration becomes the condition of membership for all. Dr. Hodge virtually admits that infant baptism and a regenerate church are incompatible ; for he thinks it needful to establish the proposition. " The visible 33 church does not consist exclusively of the regenerate," as a necessary step in his argument for infant baptism. Theol. vol. Ill, p. 548. (3.) The union of church and state is also a natural result of infant baptism. If Pedobaptists had the power they would introduce all into the church in infancy by baptism. It is the idea, then, of pedobaptism to make the church identical with the state in membership, and, as a consequence, in character and spirit. What more natural, under such circumstances, than that the governments of the two should largely, at least coalesce. This is the very argument used by the " judicious Hooker " to defend the union of church and state. Besides, consistency with the great argument for infant baptism requires this ground to be taken. For if the Jewish commonwealth and the christian church are identical, and because infants were circumcised into the former, so must they be baptised into the latter, must not the christian church and the state be united because the political and religious were united in the govern- ment of the Jewish people. Very significant in view of all this, is Dr. Walls statement, that "all state churches have practiced infant baptism." . (4.) Finally ; intolerance has been the result of infant bap-- tism, and is still logically associated with it. Is any thing plainer than that it is responsible for the persecutions of the past which have been kindled by professed Christians ? Did it not introduce all into the church in infancy, and thus made the cruel spirit of the world the ruling spirit of the church ? Did it not open the way for the union of church and state, and thus bring to the enforcement of church rules and doctrines all the compulsory rigor of civil law 'i Had it not associated with it the idea that mere rites are necessary to salvation, and were not even good men impelled, from the mistaken belief that good could be forced upon men in them, to secure the eternal happiness of the soul, even by putting the body to death 1 3 34 Finally, was not infant baptism dependent for its support upon the assumed essential identity of the two economies, and was not all schism in the old punished with unsparing sternness, and must it not then, if this assumption be true, be thus punished under the new ? John Cotton uses this very argu- ment against Roger Williams, and if the latter had been a Pedo- baptist he could not have evaded its force. We know also that this same argument has been ever used in the interests of in- tolerance, and to Pedobaptists it seems unanswerable. And so also we believe that to-day, so far as pedobaptlsm tends to make church members of all, to unite church and state, to attach saving efficacy to rites or make them necessary to salvation, or to make the New Test, church but the antitype of the Jewish nation, it has in its very nature the virus of intoler- ance, and Pedobaptists ;.ie not intolerant only when they are not what their system would permit them to be. In harmony with this reasoning are the facts that all Pedobaptist bodies have been intolerant in the past, and that no church which has rejected infant baptism has ever persecuted. Thus we have attempted to show that it has not been by chance that baptismal regeneration, an unregenerate church, church and state, and intolerance, have been associated with pedobaptism, but that they all have sprung from it naturally, and are its logical results. Need we proceed to affirm II. That these consequences of pedobaptism have wrought dire and widespread evil. In which of her offices and works is not the church crippled when the unregenerate are openly admitted into her member- ship, or allowed to remain there ? How can such a church be as a city set on a hill whose light cannot be hid ? What is the power of her influence to lead men to religion and a higher life ? Nay ; a church which receives to the most sacred of its privileges those who are preying upon the vices of others — SB those who are ungodly — or those who, at best, have but a form of godliness without its power, is but exhibiting tiarkness, and repelling men from a religion which does not require more of its votaries. Nor is it any wonder that many, in view of a church thus constituted, should despise and rail at a religion which makes such lofty pretensions, and yet bears such fruits in the lives of its avowed and recognized possessors. Nay : further, knowing that God calls the church His own peculiar treasure, is it any wonder that such a church should lead many into skepticism, and induce irreverance toward a Being who could accept such a people as His own, and call them mem- bers of Christ, and his own temple ? Besides, when men grow up as members of a church, the distinction between the saved and unsaved is obscured or obliterated, and so multitudes meet death and go into eternity trusting that they are secure because they have been judged worthy of the solemn ordinances of the gospel, and a place in the church which Scripture declares is composed of the saved alone. What pastor has not had his spirit burdened and his heart saddened time and again, when ministering to the sick and dying, to find them relying upon their li < long membership in a church, to have his efforts to conv>.*>-j them of their lost state rendered vain, and to see them pass away trusting to a false hope ? Yes : as long as the full tide of human depravity and sin keeps pouring into the visible church through the open door of infant baptism, and remains within, casting up its mire and dirt, so long will the church be shorn of her strength, be a by word and reproach to many, and the anti-chamber to per- dition to multitudes more. Again : are any words of mine needed to disclose the deadly nature of the doctrine of sacramental efficacy ? What more awful libel on God's own character than the teaching that He conditions salvation upon a mechanical act, especially when that act is performed upon the unconscious ? What more JiMHW&I S6 fitted to degrade our ideas of His moral government than thus making Him* chiefly solicitous about forms, rather than moral realities ? What more adapted to destroy all sense of moral guilt, and lessen or prevent all effort after vital godliness ? Bunsen's remark (Hippolytus and His Age, vol. HI. p. 198) of the early church holds good to-day ; " When the church," he declares, "attached rights and promises of blessing to anything except the conscious abandonment of sin, and to the voluntary vow of dedicating life and soul to the Lord . . . the con- sciousness of sin, and the longing for real truthful reformation died away in the same proportion." What, most of all, is a more certain barrier to the soul's salvation than this reliance upon the sacraments ? When we think that the myriads of the Roman, the Greek, the Lutheran, and the Anglican, churches for the most part, and many of other Protestant bodies, are clinging to their baptism and their consequent church mem- bership instead of to direct and personal trust in Christ as their chief ground of hope, is it not enough to rend with grief all thoughtful Christian hearts, and lead Baptists to lift up their voices and not spare that practice which is the great buttress of such a dishonouring and destructive belief. Once more : who can say but that the union of church and state is an evil ? To bring that bodv which should know no law-giver but Christ into subjection to the legislation of what Christ called the world in contrast with the church,- — to make the " body of Christ " bow its neck to a ruling power which is not subject to Him, — to bring the church down from her lofty height of moral and spiritual superiority to be yolied in with all political partyism, chicanery and corruption, — to make her a pensioner upon a power which bestows aid to secure sel- fish and temporal ends, — to thus bring into the church of God the ambition, the scheming, and the mercenary spirit of pol- itics — all this is a degradation of which apostolic Christianity never dreameo. Time would fail us to speak of the evils of in- 37 tolerance, as it turns the merciful spirit of Christ into rage and demoniac cruelty, and stands revealed with the stains of its past blood shedding upon its hands. We come now to our last proposition — that for which the two thus far considered have prepared — that which is to com- plete the argument for the importance of our distinctive prin- ciples. We remark, then, finally, III. That the Baptist position is the only, as it is the perfect, security of the church against these evils which have been shown to exist germinally in the very nature of pedobaptism. Need it be said that it is impossible for Vue Baptists to fall into these errors ? What are their peculiar doctrines but the direct denial of the first two of them ? Is not their fundamen- tal position the assertion that the ordinances have no efficacy in themselves, and are only signs of what is effected indepen- dently of thern ? Hence a belief in baptismal regeneration in any of its forms is a direct rejection of the chief doctrine which constitutes them Baptists. Believing thus, that baptism is a sign and declaration of a saving work already done, and hold- ing also that none but the baptized are entitled to church membership, the true idea of a spiritual regenerate church must necessarily be preserved. With this idea of a church, there can be no reason from its constitution that it should be aUied v/ith the state — the world — but every reason against it. Holding that no mechanical act is of any value, but only the voluntary submission and obedience of the soul to Christ, ths use of force in religion becomes not only a useless folly, but a positive outrage. Neither do they have any practice which can only be upheld by making the church identical with the commonwealth of Israel, and, therefore, which requires them to punish all sch'sm in the former as it was in the lattei, or else be inconsistent with their own fundamental position. So we find that it is through no mere chance that the Baptists have ever been free 38 from these errors. It is the necessary consequence of the doctrines which constitute them Baptists. While thus Baptists have alone been free themselves from these evil results of pedobaptism, their principles and protest have been chiefly instrumental in leaumg pedobaptists them- selves to cast off the deadly spawn of their own doctrine, so far as this has been done. The following facts speak volumes on the point. So long as Baptists were regarded as the offscour- ings of the earth, and only fit to be tortured and slain, and could not, therefore, exert any denominational influence upon others, so long did baptismal regeneration and an unregenerated and corrupt church go hand in hand with church and state and poison fanged persecution. Even when the great reformation shook the old world, Luther held to infant baptism, and, in order to maintain it, his glorious doctrine of justification by faith alone must be laid a lifeless sacrifice on the altar of ritualism, as he taught that baptism secured this faith to the infant. The Baptist voice was not yet heeded, as it was only heard in wailing from dungeons and from martyr fires. It has only been within little more than a century that the Baptists have emerged from the foul aspersions of their enemies, and compelled a respect which has given them a power to influence denominations. It has been only within this time also, that Pedobaptists ha"e begun to throw off these unhallowed results of pedobaptism, and the progress in this direction has about kept pace with Baptist growth. In respect to intolerance and church and state, it is a fact of history that Baptists, by their endurance and firmness, secured the overthrow of these in what is now the United States, and their influence in leading to the rejection of sacramental efhcacy and an unregenerate church cannot well be denied. Still further, among the de- nominations which have been shut out from Baptist influence by pride or other reason, as the Catholic and the Episcopal, there these evils remain unbroken -, but among the Methodists and 39 Congregationalists, especially the latter, who are most open to it, there these evils have been most abandoned, and infant bap- tism itself seems s^oing by the board. Finally ; in countries where Baptists are the fewest, there these evils remain most in- tact among all denominations ; whereas, where Baptists are most numerous, and the social condition of the people raises the fewest barriers between them and other denominations, as in America, there the decline of these errors and of the infant baptism itself, has been the greatest. How these facts can be known and it be not admitted that Baptist influence has been chiefly instrumental in leading Pedobaptists to cast off" bap- tismal regeneration etc., — nay, that but for this they would not have rejected them, — I cannot imagine. Finally, while the peculiar principles of Baptists have done so much in the past, they must be maintained to continue the work so well begun, and to prevent a relapse. When Baptist doctrine is not grappling the evils which are the outcome of Pedobaptism, this practice tends to lead back into them. To ordinary minds which take a common sense view of the matter, as the child cannot signify or profess or do any thing in baptism, baptism must do something in or for the child, to be really anything but a senseless form. Besides, if there is any force in what has been advanced to show that infant bap- tism must be supposed to effect regeneration and make the subject of it a church member, to make it at all consistent with the New Test, descriptions of baptism and the Pedo- baptist appeal to the old economy to support it, then Pedo- baptism, left to itself, must be in continual danger of gravitat- ing back into these evils from which the power of Baptist principles has partially lifted it. Hence the Baptist position is to be maintained, if what has been effected by it is to be assured against overthrow. Besides, the work is but just begun. It is chiefly among the Congregationalists, the Methodists, and the Presbyterians, that anything much has 40 been done. The millions of the Roman, Greek, Lutheran, and Episcopal churches are still, for the most part, trusting to their baptism and church connection for salvation, while they still cling to their union with the state and their intolerance. All these myriads are dependent chiefly upon Baptists and their principles to free them from deadly error. Thus we find how egregiously many Pedobaptists friends ex- pose their ignorance when they throw at Baptists the charge that the} must believe immersion saves, since they will not admit anything else to be baptism, as though our whole history were not a continual struggle against this doctrine as it has been held by Pedobaptists generally, and as if Baptists must believe baptism saving because they will not admit anything to be baptism but what Christ has enjoined. Do these friends think we can tamper with every thing which God has com- manded, when we do not thereby endanger our souls ? Do they admit no obligation in a command as the expression of the divine wish, or is tl^^re no obligation but in a selfish desire to profit ourselves? Will they never see that the source of all the obligation of the command is in its being from God, and not at all in its benefit to us, and that hence all God's com- mands have the same obligation ? Thus also it may be seen that we are not contending for mere forms and names, as some superficial people seem to suppose. We are contending for the principle that men are to take no liberty with anything that God has instituted or taught, but that we must abide by his instructions in all things with equal strict- ness, believing that in what is leist as well as in what is greatest God has a purpose which can only be served by exact compliance. And who can tell what is depending upon our stand on this ground, as we set our faces against that unhal- lowed daring, which, beginning with the assumption of liberty to mutilate what is not necessary to salvation, is threatening to paralyze regard and respect for all God's teachings and demands. 41 Are we not then opposing one of the strongest and most dan- gerous tendencies of this age oi liberty run mad ? Are we not thus silently doing a great work for the church and the world ? We are contending almost alone for the doctrine that God's favor and covenant blessings are not conditioned upon any natural descent, upon any mechanical act, — upon anything done for us or to us in our infancy, but only upon a personal and conscious act of faith in Christ. In the warfare against ritualism which is putting form and ordinance in place of the Saviour, and so deluding myriads with a false hope to the destruction of their souls, we must lead the van of the host which we are bringing toward the place where we have stood so long alone, — toward I say, for those who have been raised from the death of ritualism are still, many of them, bound hand and foot in its grave clothes. God has committed to us, then, brethren, the grave responsibility of tearing off the last wrap- pings of this curse, as it exists in the very nature of infant bap- tism, as well as to release the myriads who are still unawakened from its deadly chill and stupor. And who can' estimate what is depending upon our firm adherence to this principle of our denominational life ? Finally we are contending against all others for a church of regenerate men and women, who shall reflect the life of Christ and be as a city set upon a hill, sepa- rate, conspicuous, shining. It has been the emergence of this idea of a church from the corruption and darkness of the past which has made the difference between this and the dark ages. As we alone have held this idea in the past, and as the very nature of pedobaptism is the negative of this, on us devolves the mighty responsibility of keeping the truth about the constitu- tion of the church before men, and of pressing it, until the body of Christ shall no longer receive into itself the children of the wicked one, or allow them to remain there, but shall purge itself of its unhallowed elements, and become what God in- tends it to be, — the light and hope of a lost world lying far 42 :P beneath its feet. So we see that we are contending for prin- ciples which are vital to the integrity, the purity, and the power, of the church, which are the very hope of the world, and which involve the eternal weal or woe of countless myriads. Let us recognize the wide reach and vital nature of the truths which are our peculiar heritage ; let us rise to the dignity of our high calling as a denomination ; let us feel that our principles are too precious and important to be sacrificed upon the altar of feeling and sentiment ; let us be worthy of our sacred trust, and be firm, and stro ig, and true. One or two facts have been brought out in this examination which deserve notice. It will be remembered that we have found by reference to the creeds of other denominations that they all, Congregationalists possibly excepted who have no recognized doctrinal statement, acting in harmony with their idea that the church is to include others than the saved, and that the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance, receive the unsaved to the Lord's table. If our open com- munion friends were but to consider this one fact, they would see that a stronger sentiment than that which now holds them to their loose communion really shuts them in to our strict practice. For surely they would feel that they were under a higher obligation to deny themselves the gratification of com- muning with a few real christians, to commune with whom there is no command, in order that they may not countenance the systematic desecration of the sacred elements by sinful unbelieving hands, and the overthrow of the consti- tution of the church by the admission of these as members, than to refuse the self denial, and support the desecration and the overthrow by their presence and participation. One remark more. Three facts have been brought out in- cidentally in the course of the investigation. Baptist have been the same, in their essential doctrines, since the earliest twilight dawn of their history. Pedobaptists, on the other hand, have 43 for prin- e power, id which Let us ^s which our high iples are : altar of ust, and nination ve have )ns that lave no ly with lan the iinance, !n com- ^ would is them r strict mder a )f com- whom ly not enients consti- ;mbers, on and been continually changing. Finally; all the progress which evangelical Padobaptists claim to have made latterly is but an approach toward that position which Baptists have ever held. What are the plain inferences from these undeniable facts ? Are they not that Baptists have been stable in their doctrines because they have the truth which alone changes not, but is eternal ? — that Pedobaptists have been unstable because they hold an admixture of error which must ever vary and waver, until it falls before the truth like Dagon before the altar of Jehovah ? — and that when Pedobaptist progress is ended they will see eye to eye with us ? May the Lord hasten it in his time? out in- e been (vilight L have Mi • J jL JrdL H ! IIIU CAPITAL, TWO MILLIONS STERLING. CBAIRMAN, ALEXANDER CRUM, Esq., of Thornliebank, GENERAL MANAOER, PEEDERICK J. HALLOWS, Esq. CANADA BRANCH. HEAD OFFICE: 5 & 7 TORONTO ST. TOE^OnSTTO. BOARD OF DIRECTORS: JOHN L. BLAIKIE, Chairman, President Canada Landed Credit Company, JOHN S. PLAY.FAIR, Esq., of Bryce, McMuriich & Co. WILLIAM ALEXANDER, Esq.. Vice-President Federal Bank of Canada. INSPECTOR: ROBERT McLEAN, Resident Secretary and Chief Agent for tbe Dominion : Licei 'd by Ooveniment to transact business throughout Canada. i'his ( >nipany issues Policies of insurance against loss or damage by fire or lightanin; Morcantle, Manufacturing, Farm and Houseliold Risks, at current rate>i. Policies are issued from and losses settled directly by the Toronto Office, without delay Agencies in all places supplied witlreflfectual means for extiniririshing fires. D. W. KARN, Manufacturer and General Dealer in ORGANS, PIANOS, MUSIC BOOKS, SPREADS, &c. &c. &c. EVERY OEGAN WAEEANTED FOR SIX YBAES. Pronounced by competent judges to be equal to beat Ameri- can manufacture. Satisfaction guaranteed or no sale. All new styles of cases, and all the latest improvements. Receiving all first prizes wherever placed in competition. Catalogues and cuts furnished on application. All Ministers, Churche and Schools furnished at lowest wholesale rates: also needy churdhes and schools will be granted a donation off wholesale rates. Agents wanted in sections where not already established. Organs sold on monthly, quarterly, or yearly payments, to suit parchasers, WOODSTOCK, ONT. First door West of Post Office.