IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

<r^

<^1^

1.0

1.1

11.25

■ttljl lU
m Bi g2.2

Sf L£ 12.0

HiolDgraphic

Sciences

Corporation

r 4.

1 -^ •- %

33 WBT MAM STRMT

!WnSTn.N.Y. 14SM

(7U)t73-4S03

V 3^

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

CanMllMl liwtltun lor HiMOfle*! MIcroraproductloiw / Imtitut Canadian da microfaproductiona hiatorlquaa

Technical and Bibliographic Notat/Notas tachniquas at bibliooraphiquat

The Instituta has attamptad to obtain tha baat
original copy availabia for filming. Faaturas of this
copy which may ba bibliographiealiy uniqua,
which may altar any of tha imagas in tha
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

D
D

□

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

I I Covers damaged/

Couverture endommagAe

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurta et/ou pellicuMe

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

I I Coloured maps/

Cartes gAographiques en couleur

□ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bieue ou noire)

I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/

Planches et/ou illustrations an couleur

Bound with other material/
Raiii avac d'autras documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge intArieure

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 ajoutAas
lore d'une restauration apparaissant dans la taxta,
mais. lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas AtA filmtes.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppltmentaires;

L'institut a microfilmi la meilleur exempiaire
qu'il lui a M possible de sa procurer. Les dAtaiis
da cat exempiaire qui sont peut-ttre uniques du
point de vua bibliographiqua. qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la m^thoda normale de filmage
sont indiqute ci-dessous.

Tha
toti

pn Coloured pages/

Pages de couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages andommagAas

Pages restored and/oi

Pages restaurtes et/ou pelliculies

Pages discoloured, stained or foxa(
Pages dAcolorAes. tachet4es ou ,siqu4es

Pages detached/
Pages dAtachAas

Showthroughy
Transparence

Quality of prir

Qualit* inigala de I'impression

includes supplementary matarii
Comprend du materiel suppMmantaire

Only edition available/
Seule idition disponible

I — I Pages damaged/

ry] Peges restored and/or laminated/

r~T| Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/

I I Pages detached/

r~^ Showthrough/

rri Quality of print varies''

|~n includes supplementary material/

I — I Only edition available/

The
poaa
oftr
filml

Orig
bagi
thai
sion,
otha
firat
sion,
or ill

Tha
ahall
TINi
whic

Map
diffa
antir
bagii
right
raqui
mat»

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc.. have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalament ou partiallement
obscurcies par un fauillet d'errata. una palure.
etc.. ont M filmAes i nouveau da fapon A
obtanir la meilleure image possible.

This item is filmed at tha reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est filmA au taux da reduction indiquA ci-daasous.

10X 14X 18X 22X

2tX

aox

12X 16X 20X MX 2BX 32X

Th« copy filmtd h«r« has b««n raproductd thanks
to tha ganarosity of:

Library of tha Public
Archivas of Canada

L'axamplaira filmA fut raproduit grica k la
giniroalt* da:

La bibliothAqua das Archivas
publiquas du Canada

Tha imagas appaaring hara ara tha bast quality
possibia considaring tha condition and laiiibility
of tha original copy and in Icaaping wKh tha
filming contract apacifications.

Las imagas suivantas ont tt€ raproduitas avac la
plus grand soin, compta tanu da la condition at
da la nattat* da l'axamplaira film*, at an
conformit* avac las conditions du contrat da
fllmaga.

Original copias in printad papar covars ara filmad
baginning with tha front covar and anding on
tha last paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa-
sion. or tha back covar whan appropriata. All
othar original copiaa ara filmad baginning on tha
first paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa-
sion, and anding on tha laat paga with a printad
or illuatratad impraaaion.

Las axamplairas originaux dont la couvartura an
papiar ast imprimte sont fiimAs an commandant
par la pramiar plat at an tarminant soit par la
darnlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta
d'impraaaion ou d'iilustration, soit par la sacond
plat, aalon la cas. Tous las autras axamplairas
originaux sont filmte an commandant par la
pramiAra paga qui comporta una amprainta
d'imprassion ou d'iilustration at an tarminant par
la darnlAra paga qui comporta una taiia
amprainta.

Tha last racordad frama on aach microficha
shall contain tha aymbol -^ (moaning "CON-
TIMUED"), or tha aymbol ▼ (maaning "END"),
whichavar appliaa.

Un daa symboias suivants apparattra sur la
darnlAra imaga da chaqua microficha, salon ie
cas: la symbols — ► signifia "A SUIVRE", la
aymbola ▼ signifia "FIN".

Mapa, plataa, charta, ate., may ba filmad at
diffarant raduction ratioa. Thosa too larga to ba
antlraly inoludad in ona axposura ara filmad
baginning in tha uppar laft hand cornar, laft to
right and top to liottom, aa many framas aa
raquirad. Tha following diagrams illustrata tha
mathod:

Las cartas, planchas, tablaaux, ate, pauvant Atra
filmfo A das taux da rMuction diff Grants.
Lorsqua la document ast trop grand pour Atra
raproduit an un aaul clichA, 11 ast film* A partir
da I'angla supAriaur gaucha, da gaucha A droita,
at da haut an baa, an pranant la nombra
d'imagas nAcaaaaira. liaa diagram mas suivants
illustrant la mAthoda.

met

ANHADYERSIOIS

UPON THE

REV. JOHN EOAF'S

TWO SEMOIS ON BAPTISM.

JAMES PYPER,

PASTOR or TBB BOND STREET BAPTIST CHURCH, TORONTO.

i •;!

\ -

TORONTO:
PRINTED BY CARTER & THOMAS, 45, YONGE STREET.

1851.

Uo)

Note. — It will be seen, in tlie following pages, that I have used the phnte
ijifant baplisin,''' in its popular sense.

— ,i . i'P . -A-'it ii4i j L^tv.-

ANIMADVERSIONS.

I propose, in the following pages, to examine " Two Sermons on
Baptism," by the Rev. John Roaf, pastor of the Adelaide Street
Congregational Church, Toronto. These discourses were originally
delivered by Mr. Roaf to his own people, and are now given, in printed
form, to the world. They have thus become public property, and
may, without even seeming to interfere with the pastor in the con-
scientious discharge of his duties to his flock, be subjected to the
ordeal of a legitimate criticism.

The ordinance of baptism has long been a bone of contention
amongst God's people ; and when, or how this much-agitated ques^
tion will bo put to rest, it is difficult to foresee. One thing, however,
I beUeve to be certain, namely, that enlightened discussion cannot
fail to facilitate the accomplishment of this object Taking this view
of the subject, I am glad that Mr. Roaf has published these sermons.
I have read them with care, and, I believe, with candour : still I am
constrained to believe that the arguments oftered by Mr. R. (which, by
the way, are, for the most part, but an echo of Wardlaw, Taylor,
Ewing, and others,) fall very far short of sustaining his positions.

The world hjis been so long under the domination of creeds and for-
mulas, and confessions of faith, that the language of those human pro-
ductions has become so thoroughly blended with the language of the
Bible, and the sentiments which they inculcate, even the most errone-
ous, have become so incorporated in the minds of men with Bible senti-
ment, Bible thought, and Bible association, that it has become difficult
to separate them; and hence it is, that good men urge dogmas with
contidence, as doctrines of the Bible, which, after all, are but the
teachings of some confession of faith. We have evidence of the truth
of this statement in the tirst sentence which Mr. Roaf pens. He sajs
♦' It (baptism) exhibits God's covenant in which we are all interested."
I do not complain here that the phraseology is unscriptural, — my com-
plaint is, that the idea sought to be conveyed is at variance with the
teachings of inspiration. Baptism, exhibits no covenant, human or
Divine. In controversy, especially, such statements should be avoided
or proved.

Mr. Roaf, in his first sermon, discusses — First, " The DrviNB au-
thority FOR ADMITTING Childrjen TO Baptism ;" and. Second, "Thk
Import of it when thus applied." In his exordium he says: —

" There are parties who doubt whether children are admissible for baptism.
Now, the question between them aiid the rest of the Christian world, is uot, whe>

4 ANIMADVBRSIONS UPON MA. ROAP'S

ther children or adults are to be baotised, not whother infunts or believers, but it
is whether intU its, as well as thtiir bL<li(!yin<r parents, ought not to be bapttz«(L
Those who baplise childieu, baptise aUo -udultii."

On this I remark,

1. That our opposition to infant baptism docs not pjrow out of
doubts which wo (iiitortain, as Mr. 11. euppos'js, as to the admissibility
of infants to baptism, but out o{ ajirm conviction that the practice is
unscrijHural.

2. The (jucstion between Baptists and Pcdobaptists relates as dis-
tiuctly to bi'liovers, as it does tu infants.

Mr. K. seems to admit that behev(;rs ox^ght to bo baptised; yet it
is only secinin'g, fur our autlior regards a solemn invitation given to

{)enitent believers to do just what the lledcenier enjoins upon be-
icvers, as a "temptation" which he trusts will never lead those
sprinkled in infancy, " to repudiate;" sonietliing which he calis "this
grace of our covenant Ood." Here then wc liiid an issue of a most
important character between our brethren and (nirsclves. We plead
for the baptism of believers. Tlieir system carried out, would banish
such baptiiiui from the earth. Christ has made it obligatory on every
one who hears the gospel, whether sprinkled in infancy or not, to be-
lieve, to become disciples; and it is His command that such should
be baptised. Jle has made no cxceptinns. \ly what authority, then,
does Mr. II. act in excepting himself, and nearly all his people ? He
cannot pL*ad the law of circumcision in e.xtenuation of this dereliction
from the path indicated by positive enactment ; for many of those :vho
had been circumcised in infancy, were, in the days of the Apostles, and
by their authority, baptized upon a profession of their faitli. No one
becoming a disciple, was excused in those days on the plea of having
received the " Seal of the Covenant " why should they be so now ?
Convince me that infant baptism is divinely appointed and I will prac-
tise it, but never at the expense of a law which no power under God
can abrogate. It is one of the evils connected with infant baptism
that it annihilates believer's baptism. It is a tradition which makes
void the law of God.

Mr. R. says, (p. 4.) " True, faith preceded scripture taptisms, but
that faith led to the baptism of households." This is precisely what
we contend for, and I ask, if faith on the part of the subject preceded
• tcripture baptisms, what kind of baptism is that which faith does not
precede ? Faith " led to the baptism of households ;" but in order
to sustain his views, Mr. R must prove that blood, as well as faith, led
to such baptism. But Mr. R informs us, " that the order in which
matters are stated or described is not a proof of their having taken
place in the same order." A protestant minister using such a sub-
terfuge ! how strange ! Because some matters are mentioned in
scripture without any reference to the order of the occurrence, are
we to infer from this fact that we are at liberty to baptise other sub-
jects than those which the law commands to be baptised. Does Mr.
K believe that the comtuissiou allowed the Apostles, first, to baptise

SERMONS ON BAPTISM.

the worsliippcrs of Jupiter, and afterwards disciple them? The Jesuits
liave acted upon this principle, and have baptised thousands of un-
tutored and unsanrtified savages. A man, must examine himself and
bo able to discern the Lord's body in order to partake of the ordinance
of the supper acripturaUy. But if this principle be correct, infants,
and ungodly adults may be worthy communicants ! With such a
principle I will undertake to upset the entire order of Christ's house.
It is a peculiar infelicity of error that its advocates can never long be
consistent with themselves. Mr. R subverts his own principle on the
same page on which he attempts its defence, "^lle says, "but admit-
ting, as we do, that faith and repentance did precede baptism," &c.
How did Mr. li discover this order ? Just as other men discover it ;
here his common sense triumphed over his theory.

" The question," says Mr. U., "is, did not the iiiith of such as were
parents, lead to the baptism of themselves and their young chil-
dren?" I reply never, in </«// dispensation. Even circumcision was not
administered on account of parental faith, but on the ground of blood
relationship. But Mr. H. says, " under the Mosaic administration the
heathen were to be admitted to the Church of God upon their faith
and repentance ; but this admission included the individuals and their
children." On this I remark : —

1. Faith and repentance were always essential to salvation ; but
that faith and repentance were essential to a standing in the " Com-
monwealth of Israel " is- an idea that few men would be willing to
endorse. Did the Shechemites repent and believe before they were
circumcised? Can the law, referring to aliens, be made, even by im-

f)lication, to .require faith and repentance? Certainly not. That
aw entitled all strangers who sojourned amongst the children of Is-
rael and who were willing to keep the passover together with their
children old and younr/ to all the privileges of that church, as enjoyed
by "home-born" subjects. Ex. xii: 48, 49. Will Mr. R., \ ill any
man in his senses, atiilrm that such is the law of admission into the
Christian Church? If so, where will it lead him? He must baptise
adults and infants on the simple willingness of their parents to walk
with^God's people. But he cannot stop here : he must go on, and ex-
tend to such children all the privileges of the house of God. Nor can
he stop here : those privileges must be extended to their children's
children, not by regeneration, but " in their generations " to the end ,
of time. If this is God's law of admission, we cannot observe a part,
and reject a part ; the whole law must be carried out. With Christ's
law in our hands can such ideas require a formal refutation ?

2. Mr. R ought not to assume that such is the law of admission in-
to the Christian Church ; honest enquirers will ask him for proof of
the fact, and here he must fail.

The law of Christ is certainly plain enough on this subject, Bisciplet,
or believers are to be baptised. Is an infant a disciple or believer ?
But Mr. R says, (and what Pedobaptist ha3 not said it) " if because
a cluid cannot believe, he is excluded from baptism, he must, al8(^

ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAF'A

because he cannot believe, be excluded from heaven ;" supposing we
try this principle with reference to Uie Lord's Supper. Tlie law re-
((uircs, that the wurthy communicant "examine himself" and tbat he
be able to " di.s3ern the Lord's body." Is an infant caniible of doing
tliis ? liut a Greek would say, with e(iual propriety here, as in re-
gard to baptism, " if because a child caiuiot examine itself, nor di»«cern
the Lord's body ho is excluded from the privileges of the Church be-
low, he must also, because he caiuiot examine himself and discern thu
Lord's body be exdmU^tifiom. heaven!" Ufailh is as essential to en-
tering heaven, tks it is to entering the church of Christ on earth, then

1 contend that no infant, idiot, or heathen can be saved. Lifanls can
be saved by the atonement of Christ without the gospel — but by the
gospel, or "good ne\j's," they cannot be saved. The gospel saves
none without personal faith, and it authorises the baj)tism of none with-
out like faith. If it docs, produce the law, and I will bow to suck
authority.

" To say," continues Mr. 11., " that because a child docs not come
to this observance intelligently, he is unfit for it, is to raise an objec-
tion to the ancient circumcising of infants, for they then were as dis-
(jualitied to r«'ceive the initiatory church ordinance as now." I must
be allowed to depricate this wholesale assumption of premises so utterly
untenable.

L Mr. R. here assumes that the law of circumcision and the law of
baptism are identical. Now, what are the facts in the case. The law
of circumcision was : " He that is eight days old shall be circumcised
among you, every man child in your generations : he that is born in
the house, or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy
seed : be that is born in thy house, and he that is bought of thy
money must needs be circumcised." — Gen. xvii. 12, 13. The law
of Christian baptism is : "Go disciple all nations baptising them ; preach
the gospel to every creature, he that believeth and is baptised shall
be saved." How is it possible for prejudice itself to confound these
two laws ? In the one, we have, ns the only prerequisite to its ob-
servance, blood and property ; in the other faith. In the one, uncon-
sciousness is accepted ; in the other, sanctified intelligence. The one
embraces ma/e infants and slaves; the other only the disciples of Christ,
those that the Lord has made free, whether maie or female. Children
were commanded to be brought to the one ; the very terras of the
other exclude them When we deny a child's fitness then for baptism,
we do not "raise an objection to the ancient circumcising of infants;"
male children possessed the requisite qualifications for the rite. But
do male and female infants possess the divinely appointed qualifications
for baptism ? Not ONE of these qualifications. To baptise infants
then, and slaves is to act not merely without law, but contrary to law.

2. Why does Mr. R. object to the unbeheving children of believers,
and to their children's children, " in their generations" being made
partakers of all the privileges of the church of Christ ? Does he not
« raise an objection to the ancient" practice of what he calls the church

BIRUOKg OK BAPTI81L

«of Godi Were not unbelievers " quite »w didqualified" for church
ordinances then as thev are now ? Is nut the gospel an extension,
rather than a diminution of privileges ? Can Mr. R. defend hit
practice, in this respect ?

Mr. 11. snvg, (p. ft.) " it is also often objected, that a child can
get no bcnotit from baptism ; but it may be replied, that though
an infant knows nothing of a legacy which is leit him, yet it will
in due time do him good service ; and though ho may, at the
moment of baptism, not oe the better for it, yet he may afterwards."
Had I found the above sentiment in an Oxford TracC I could hove
deciphered its meaning : as it is, I Confess myself puzzled. I know
what a legacy is, I ctin also understand how "in due time" it can
benefit its subject ; but what legacy is secured to a child by its
baptism, and how it is to be enriched by it " in due time," I wot not
Is it regeneration that is secured to the child, " this grace of the
covenant God " ? What is it ? Mr. R. compares it to a legacy ! Is
there accuracy in the comparison ? If so, Mr. R teaches by a cir-
eumlocution what the Uishop of Exeter teaches directly. So teaches
Dr. Pusey, and the council of Trent confirms the whole.

Mr. R. says, (p. 6.) " norae persons think it an objection to the bap-
tism of children, that when Christ was an infant he was not baptised."
I never urge this as an objection. But did not Christ receive the " seal
of the covenant" in infancy, and was he not afterwards baptised ?

Mr. R. makes Baptists to say, " we have no express command for
baptising children." This is not what we say. We affirm that there
is no command for it of any kind, express or implicit. No example,
such as we have for the observance of the first day of the week, or
female communion ; no legitimate inference from relevant facts. We
give our brethren the whole field. Let them prove " by any means,"
that a rite not once mentioned in the word of God is, nevertheless,
there, and we will yield the point What more can they ask ?

Mr. R. next advances to his " positive proofs," and says : " The non-res-
triction of the ordinance to adults in the original appointment of it by
the Lord, shews that as infants would necessarily be understood to be
appointed recipients, they were intended to be such."

1. The term adtdts is unscriptural, believing children are as proper
subjects of baptism as believing adults. Had Mr. R said, the non-
restriction of the ordinance to disciples or believers, it would have been
too glaring a contradiction of the "original appointment" to have
escaped detection.

2. What does he mean by non-restriction ? Is not the command
to baptise disciples or believers, as pointed a restriction as J^uman
language can possibly indicate ? Is the Lord's table any abetter
guarded ? The restriction is positive, and weighty as the authority
of Him, who will soon judge the quick and the dead, can make it

2. How would infants " necessarily be understood to be appointed
recipients ?" Are they disciples or believers .f V. not, they would
" neceuarily be understood" to be excluded. Ko k2^c nor sophistry

8 ANniADYBRSIONS UPON MR. ROAr'S

on earth can foist uncunscioun infants or slaves into ihta law. The law
of their baptism, if it exists, must bo sought for elsewhere.

But Mr. R infurms us that " our Loru's hearers were all Jews ;"
"that they had been accustomed to sec Gentiles and Gentile children
admitted to the church by circumcision," and that the riuht of the
ehildrcn was never amongst them disputed." To all which I reply :
that the "Jew's religion" and thu Christian religion, ditTered too
widely to admit of being regarded as the same church. Thei/ itood
on different covenants: the one was national; the other, universal
Tfict/ had different Mediators: the one had Moses ; while the Media-
tor of those belonging to the " better covenant established on better
promises" was Christ They had totally different subjects: the one
embraced the children of the flesh ; the other only the children of the
Spirit To be born of a Jew or a Proselyte, entitled male children
not to circumcision merely, but to all the privileges of the Jewish
church or theoracy. To be entitled to any or all ol the privileges of
the church of Christ, parents, children, and slaves " must be bom
again." While then, the righta of the children of the flesh, to all the
privileges of the Jewish church, could not be " disputed," it is clear as
the sun in the heavens, that their title to Christian ordinances, rested
upon their being not youny creatures, but new creatures. Mr. R
asks, " had Christ been appointing the admission of the naUons by
circumcision, instead of baptism, how would he have been understood."
I reply, he could only have been understood to have meant what he
said Had the command been to circumcise disciples or believers, to
have circumcised any others by such a law, would have been to have
violated its precept Baptism, however, and not circumcision, is
commanded.

Mr. R. continues : "no change from the long established
courjfiQ would have been understood other than was expressed."
Very well, what change was expressed? A change from blood to
faitk; from ordinary generation flowing on and on, to regeneration
untransferable.

But, asks Mr. R, (p. 8.) " would they not hav€ seen, that if Christ
meant to exclude any of the parties who were accustomed to be
received upon conversion, he would have named them, and pointedly
drawn attention to the new arrangement ?" On this I remark :

1. That the parties referred to by Mr. R, were not necessarily con-
verted, (if by conversion he means regeneration.)

2. But granting that they were ; to what were those parties received ?
Not to circumcision merely, but to all the privileges of the Jewish
Churclm Is this Mr. R's. law ? Who were the parties received to
circumcision and to those privileges ? The natural male deeendants
of Abraham, together with proselytes and their natural male deeend-
ants and slaves. Is this Mr. R's. law ] Now this law, we are told,
included children. If it did, it would be nothing to the purpose, for it
is not the law of Christ's house. But I call special attention to a
sophism, which I have found in nearly all pedooaptist works on this

BCRMOirS ON BAPTISM. 9

point Men assiimo that tho bnro command to circumcise parents,
tnduded tliuir childrun. This is cuiitrury to fact Tho iduu that the
term parent covered tho wliole jQ;ruund, and expressed child as well as
piu'ont, is Hhear tiutiun. Childiuri were nut included in a general
command given to purents, but on tlio contrary, were specitically
named, and directions given tor their circumcision. When tlie stranger
is commanded to b(! circumciHcd, it is not in pedobaptist style, taken
for granted that his malva would bo " necevaarilt/ understoc/," but a
specitic command is givun for tlieir circumciMon. When Christ then
gave a law demanding of old and young discipleship, or faith, in order
to tho privileges uf his house, he " ])ointedly drew attention" to thib
arrangement.

Mr. li intimates, (p. 8.) that, " tho old statute was not r^'pealed."
Why then does he not act upon it f A knife, not a basin, is his
instrument. Where is his autliority for substituting baptism for cir-
cumcision? Where is his authority for baptising yivwo/eui fan ts ; why
docs ho e.\cludt; slaves ; and why, under a system of "expanded liber-
ality," does he deprive children, and children's children, in their gen-
erations, of their rights in the church ? Not repealed ! Is the law
of slave r.\yorwi«//// repealed J Is the law which made the children
of the priest's />r/t'.»/s, formally repealed f "Tho advocates for pun-
ishing peaceable heretics and idohitors," says Dr. Paul, " find in Deuter-
onomy, chap. xiii. and xvii., that the Jews were enjoined to put idol-
ators to death — to put their dearest friends to death — to stone them
with stoties, till they died.' They find that they were commanded to
destroy whole cities — to put to tlie sword, loen, women, children, and
cattle. They find that this was the law i)^|cr the Jewish economy:
and they ask, where was this law repealed ] They allege, that, if tho
law is repealed, the repeal of it should \)(i as public and explicit as tho
law itself." How would Mr. K. answer such reasoning] I contend
that ho could not answer it at all, without an abandonment of the
unscriptural principle, which he here brings to his 'ud. I presume he
would fall back upon the simple truth, that we liave a new dispensa-
ti<jn, which in its letter and spirit, "disannuls tho cumnuindment
going before."

" Did not," says Mr. R., " the Lord know how his command would be
understood, and sanction the construction which woidd naturally be
put upon it by his hearers ?" Unquestionably, the Lord knew how
nis command would be understood ; but that he sanctioned a construc-
tion of it, subversive of its natural import, is a monstrous impeachment
of his wisdom. This is to affirm, that Christ in giving a law for all
nations, did not mean what he said : that the nations are not to learn
their duty from his words, but from the colouring which they may
fanc}/ Jewish prejudices gave them I This is new Tight indeed 1

3. But after all, Mr. R. does not read the commission through
Jewish, but through pedobaptist prejudices. There is the fullest
evidence that the Jews understood the Lord to mean what he said,
and not to mean sometlung at war with what he said. Did any of

y !

ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAF'S

them ever dream that the commission entitled their male children,
and their slaves, through all generations, to the privileges of the
church of Christ '? Where is the evidence of it? The Jews never
understood their children to be included in any command given to
adults.

Mr. R says, " the converts stickled for Jewish observances, in con-
nection with Christianity; they wished to retain their old ceremonials,
as circumcision ; but never, in one instance, complained of the non-
admission of their children." I wonder that ^tlr. 11. should have
penned this sentence, as it utterly -subverts his theory. How could
tlie Jewish converts understand (Christ and the apostles to teach, that
Christian observances had taken the place of Jewish, and still stickle
for circumcision, &c. By the aid of Jewish prejudices, Mr. R. may
make Jews of us, but not pedobaptists. But asks Mr. R., " how can
we account for the uniform satisfaction of the converts, respecting the
classes admitted to baptism," «fec. ? We can account for it on the
simple principle, that the Jewish converts understood the law of
admission to Christ's liouse, and the spiritual nature of the new dis-
pensation, much better than Mr. R. seems to do. With t/icir views,
it was impossible for them to be dissati^tied with the rejection of their
children and slaves from the church of Christ, as Christ had with
"great e.vplicitness," confined the .right of membership to disciples or
believers.

Mr. R. asks (p. 9.) after quoting Acts ii. 38, 39, " the promise is unto
you and to your children," &c. " Would not they understand this as a
call to be baptised with tl^| children?' Most certainly, if they and
tlieir children would repenfPbut not otherwise. This promise is not
a promise of baptism, but of the Holy Ghost — not to themselves and
tlieir children indiscriminately, but simply "to as many as the Lord our
God should call !" In this part whicti we have examined, where, I ask,
is Mr. R's. positive proof, or proof of any description ?

Our author comes ne.\t to " household baptisms," and says, " the
general character of the apostolic baptisms, was household." This
would prove nothing for Mr. R, were it true; but true it is not
Amid the thousands of baptisms recorded in the N. T., we find only
three households, said to have been baptised respectively at '^"e and
the same time. Mr. R. finds, besides these three, five other believing
households, and very properly speaks of them as being baptised.
From this h6 claims that the " custom of baptising households," was
common.

1. I care not how common it was ; its frequency is in perfect har-
mony with the doctrine of believer's baptism, unless it can be shewn
that infants were baptised in the households. Let this be done and I
will yield willingly. I will not venture to appear before Christ, having
resisted such evidence.

2. How does three, or even eight cases of " household baptism,"
prove its frequency ? In the Baptist Church of Bond Street, we have
$Le baptised households, One of those families, consisting of the

SERMONS ON BAPTISM. " II

father and the mother, two children and a servant, were all baptised
in the self-same hour. Now if amongst one hundred and seventy
disciples, (the number of our members) I find six believing families,
is it matter of astonishment, that Mr. R. should find amongst all the
churches of .the Now Testament, with their thousands of converts,
eight such families — amid thousands of converts, eight believing
famihes are found ; ergo, infants W(!re baptised. Can a rational mind
receive such stutemonts as argument ?

Mr, R. reiterates iIks oft rel'uied assertion that Baptists do not bap-
tise families. I am willing to <;ouipHi'e notes with Mr. R. on this point.
I will venture to say that 1 havi; baptised as many households in the
self-same hour as (ivcr ho did, Qui^ry. Did Mr. R., ever thus bap-
tise a whole household in iiis life ? Do Pedobaptist missionaries bap-
tise households? Wiu'ti a man bfilieves, do they baptise his wife, and
liis children, young and old, on the faith of the head of the house ?
Protestants d(» not. Why this parade, then, about fumU// baptism. If
Mr. R. will receive instances of fiunily baptisms amongst ms, as argu-
ments against his practice, I will immerse him in them. It is ^he
usual practice of Pedobaptists to baptise families one by one as they
are born of the flesh ; and it is our usual practice to baptise them as
they are born of the Spirit,

Mr. R. does not doubt (p, 10.) that infants were baptised in the N.
T. household, — " for" says lui, " the word translated hcjusehold in seve-
ral of the cases, means children." I am astonished at such an asser-
tion from such a quarter ! Had it been frt)m the pen of his brother in
London, C. W., w<ho finds by a relined process of induction, 10,000
baptised families, (swarming with babies,) in the N. T., I would not
have been surprised; but from an intelligent scholar, like Mr. Roaf, it
is strange ! The tern) rendered household, never means children. It
includes infants, if infants happen to be in the house ; but it does not
necessity imply their |)resence. Our term household is a fair repre-
sentative of the Greek original. It indicates those dwelling together
in one house. It is employed to d(!signate the house of Stephanas, of
Cornelius, and Cris|)us, and Onesiphorus, and the Jailor. In all which
cases we find helleviufj families; for the baptism of which we plead.

Mr. R. says, " when we read of family after family " [to the enor-
mous number of eight out of thousands of converts] "is it not natural
to undei"Stand a number of children and some quite young," — positive
proof! Does Mr. R. believe that sane minds will receive his conjec-
tures as proof ? It is, or ought to be, M/inatural for Christians to " un-
derstand any thing, not received, as an apology for setting aside a
positive law. Mr. R. takes up the case of Lydia. He dwells upon
the fact, that the house was her house, and her heart was opened.
Well, what does this prove according to Mr. R? It proves, that, " in
the matter of baptism the piety belonged to the individual, and the
baptism to the family "! WouUl not this authorise the baptism of the
worshipers of Jove, on the faith of a parent ? Would it not bring in-
fants and unconverted adults especially In cases where there was a

ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAF'S

church in a house, to the Lord's table ? A mniden lady, with ser-
vants, could speak of her house, with just as nouch propriety as could
a parent But where is the ^jroo/ that infants Vere \\erel Mr. R.
assume^, that Lydia was, or had been, a married woman — that she
had children — that her children were then young — that they were
with her, and that they were baptised ! Wliat could not Mr. R.
prove on the same principle of wholesale assumption? Has he found
a solitary infant in Lydia's house ? JVot one ! This fact settles the
point. Mr. R. also assumes without proof, that the brethren " com-
forted " in Lydia's house, (v. 40,) were not of her househ(jld, but the
" Philippian brethren." When did Mr. 11. learn that at this period
there was, save in Lydia's house, a single brother in Philippi ? So
far as the argument is concerned, T care not if there were ten thou-
sand ; but 1 protest against our brethren taking out of the word of
God whatjt does not teach. Of the Jailor's household, Mr. R. says,
" the original conveys no idea of his house believing, but only of his
believing through all his family proceedings." What kind of believing
would this be ? I regret to find such a criticism in Mr. Roaf's work.
It ismtterly without foundation. Two things are said which indicate
the character of this " household." First, it is said that Paul and
Silas speak the word to him, " and to ALL that were in his house."
Second, it is said, that he rejoiced, believing in God, with all his
house." The adverb, "panoiki," {from pusoikos,) moans, "with all
one's house," as given, faithfully, in our version. But though as a
matter of fact I notice this, I do not need it as an argttment. Our
brethren must prove that there were infants in those households.
Now, if the salvation of their souls depended upon such proof, it could
not be produced.

Mr. R. (p. IL) says, "The house," in other cases plainly means
children ; and refers us to Gen. xlvi. 26, 27 ; 1 Tim. iii. 4 ; and
1 Tim. v. 14. In none of these cases does it mean infants, it includes
them if they were there, but does not bring them there. There may
be a dozen of infants in a household: but this cannot be ascertained
by the word itself. It must be learned from connecting circumstances.
A father, and a mother, with one, or two adult children, is as truly
a household as they would be were the children "very young."
What then, has Mr. R. made of the " households " ? Has he found
one infant in them? I am willing to receive a clear logical inference
on any subject ; but here infants are not in Mr. R's premises ; how
then, I ask, can they by a«y pricess of logical induction, be forced
into his conclusion?

But Mr. R. says, " Throughout the scripture history, not a case is
recorded of an adult being baptised, who was the child of beheving
parents." Let Mr. R. point me to the convefsion of one such child,
and I will point him to its baptism ; and where is there a recorded
instance of their coming to the Lord's table ? Does Mr. R. believe
that such children were converted when they reached the years of
accountability ? Or does he believe that they came legitimately at a

BSRMONS OK BAPTISM.

: n.

d all church privileges? Can Mr. R dis-
in carrying young clnldren to Christ to be

given age into the possession of that legacy ? Positive proof indeed 1 I
Mr. H. comes bacji, once more, to " of such is the kingdom of hea-
ven," circumcision, &c. He says, (p. 12.) " the Lord recognised the
membership of such ch"' : n." Did lie indeed ? Why then exclude
them from the Supper
cover any hkcness hctvtc

blest, and carrying them to a minister to be baptised? The Saviour
does not say, of them, but of such is the kingdom of heaven, implying
resemblance not identity. We learn from this passage, not that Christ
baptised children.but that he blessed children without baptising them.
A glorious truth ! But does Mr. R. receive infants indiscriminately
to baptism. Not he ! Millions of little children are not suffered to
come into the " covenant," according to his theory, simply because
they have the misfortune to be the children of unconverted parents !
Now, I ask, if, because of the want of faith on the part of their par-
ents, such children be excluded from baptism, must they not, accord-
ing to Mr, K's logic, also, be excluded trom heaven ? Where does
Mr. R. tind a place for such little ones when they die ? Does he send
them to the limbus puerorum of Popery ; or straight to perdition ?
Surely, he does neitlier ! If, then, he will inform us how he gets
those rejected children into heaven, I will endeavour to put those whom
we request, in at the same door.

" The Apostles," says Mr. R., " regarded children, one only of whose
parents were believers, as " holy," or set apart and admissible to the
house and presence of God, in distinction from the children of other
or unbelieving parties, who were declared to be "unclean, &c." Mr.
R. mistakes the meaning of this passage altogether. It is against his
practice. Let us look at it. The question before the Apostle was, as to
whether under the gospel, believers might lawfully live together with
unbelievers. This involved a no less serious matter, than the separa-
tion of believing husbands or wives from unbelieving wives or husbands,
and, as Paul intimates, of believing parents from their children. Mr.
R.'8 grand mistake here, consists in regarding the phrase " your chil-
dren," as referring to the children of the mixed marriage parties ;
whereas the Apostle refers to the children of the church members in-
discriminately. Had the Apostle designed to speak of those children
only, who had one parent a believer, and the other an unbeliever, he
would have said their children, instead of your children. In address-
ing the church, and in giving general precepts, he uses the pronouns
ye and you. (See preceeding chap, throughout, and verses 1 and 5 of
this chapter.) But in verse 8, when he gives directions applicable to
particular cases, although he introduces the phrase, " I say to the un-
married and widows," he makes reference to these persons, not by the
pronoun yon, but them : " It is good for them to abide even as I." The
same mode of speaking he continues to use as far down as to the verse
• in question : " let them marry, — let him not put her away — let her
not leave him." After the same manner he would have said, "else
were their children unclean," had he intended only the children of

AKIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAF's

such mixed cases of marriage as are referred to in the preceding part
of the verse ; but his language is, else where your children. Paul's
Yeasoning then, which a Pedobaptist gloss strips of its force, is simply
this : the believing husband, and the believing wife, may d wellt together ;
the heathen husband is holy in regard to the marriage relation, not
unclean (as Judaising teachers would represent) The heathen hus-
bands and wives, because they are unbelieving and out of the church,
are not unclean on this account, — else were your children unclean,
for a similar reason. Or, take Mr. Dagg's paraphrase, thus, — "The
unbelieving husband is not unclean, so that his wife may not lawfully
dwell with him. The unbelieving wife is not unclean, so that het hu»-
band may not lawfully dwell with her. If they are unclean, then your
children are unclean, and not one parent in the whole church must
dwell with, or touch his children until God shall convert them." The
argument, then, of the Apostle in this place, is fatal to infant church-
membership. His argument implies that all the children of the Co
rinthian Christians, had no nearer relation to the church, than the
unbelievino' husband of a believing wife. ' He declares that their
cases are parallel, and that rules of intercourse which would require
the believing husband to separate from his unbelieving wife, would
require believing parents to separate from their children. But there
is no conclusiveness in this argument, if the children had been conse-
crated to God in baptism, and brought within the pale of the church,
for then the children would stand in a very different relation to the
church, and to their parents from that of the unbelieving husband or
wife. Now, if infant baptism and infant church-membership were
things unknown in Corinth and to Paul, ought they to be things
known in Toronto and to brethren here ? " Positive proof," in the
wronjr direction.

In closino- his arfjuments, Mr. R. comes back to the Abrahamic
covenant. He quotes a part of the covenant of circumcision.
Genesis, xvii : V., and says, " Spiritual blessings wore thus se-
cured to the family :" I reply, 1. God was the God of the Jews in
national relationship. He is three times called the God of the wor-
shippers of the golden calf. 2. Whatever spiritual blessings were con-
ferred in the covenant of circumcision regeneration was not one of
them. The cAe'e/" blessing from this source was, that "to them were
committed the oracles of God," Rom. iii : 1, 2. 3. Under Christ, the
old economy, with its ordinances, was annulled, Heb. vii: 18., and a
" better covenant established on better promises " introduced Heb.
viii : G, 13. In opposition to this, Mr. R. quotes Gal. iii: 16, 17:
" Now, to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith
not, and to seeds, as of many ; but as o£ one, and to thy seed which
is Christ. And this, I say, the covenant which was confirmed before
of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years
after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of non-
effects" Now, I ask in all earnestness, what has this promise, con-
cerning the one seed, to do with the covenant of circumcision^ This

8ERM0NB OK BAFTISlf.

ngpart

Paul's

simply
gether;
ion, not
len hu»-
church,
unclean,

lawfully
hei hm-
hen your
rch rmist
n." The
, church-
theCo-
than the
liat their
d require
fe, would
But there
en conse-
e church,
ion to the
usband or
ship were
be things
>f," in the

ibraharaic
cumcision,

thus se-
16 Jews in
I the wor-
i were con-
not one of
them were
Christ, the

18., and a
luced Heb.
ii: 16, 17:
He saith
seed which
med before
thirty years
ise of non-
'omise, con-
imt This

covenant was confirmed, not in Abraham's natural seed, but "IN
CHRIST." The covenant of circumcision was confirmed in Abraham
and his natural descendants. This covenant looked to all the families
of the earth. The covenant of circumcision looked only to Abraham's
family. This covenant was given 430 years prior to the law. Th«
covenant of circumcision was given 406 years pric -. This covenant
secured a way of salvation to Jew and Greek. The covenant of cir-
cumcision had no redemption in it. Paul says, (in the 19th verse of
the chap, just quoted,) " the law was added because of transgressions^
until the seed should come to whom the promise was made." Now,
at the giving of the law, there stood before Horeb, hundreds of thou-
sands of the legitimate subjects of circumcision, and yet the "aeed is
to come, to whom this promise was made." It is painful to notice such
comments on the word of God. Pedobaptists loose sight of the fact
. that Abraham was in two different senses a father, and that be had
two kinds of children. He was a father of flesh and blood ; he was
also, " the father of the faithful." These two discriptions of children ex-
isted togetlier under the ancient economy, but now, the natural
branches are broken off, and Abraham's children stand by faith.
Abraham has ceased in this covenant to be a father after the flesh, and
is now only the " father of the faithful. " It is only in this character,
that he is known in the gospel dispensation. The Jews claimed, in
the presence of Christ, to be the children of Abraham; but our Lord
denied their claim, and informed them, that the devil was their father.
They were certainly the children of Abraham according to the flesli,
but not the children of the father of the faithful. Tlie Baptist, is
the only denomination that acknowledges Abraham in this light ; all
others make him a carnal, as well as a believing father. We claim
Abraham, in the latter sense, as father ; nofcJaeing Jews, we cannot
in the former. There are only two senses m w^ich any one can be
a child of Abraham ; he must either possess his faith or his blood.
The child of a Gentile possesses neither the on^ nor the other, conse-
quently cannot be entitled to any promise given to his seed. We say
with Paul, " if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs
according to the promise ;" but our brethren must read it thus,*— if
your father or your mother be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed,
and heirs according to the promise ! I can not subscribe to such
doctrine. • With me, Abraham's children are believing children —
Christ's house, a spiritual house composed of living stones. To be
born of the flesh, gave a title to all the privileges of the " common-
wealth of Israel." To be born of the Spirit, alone, gives a title to
any and all of the privileges of a gospel church.

Mr. R asks several questions which I will now answer.

1. Was the covenant (of circumcision) made with Abraham, made
in Christ ? I answer, it was not

2. Did it involve a spiritual relation between God and believers ?
Ans. It did not.

3. Did it bear as its sign or seal, the rite of circumcision ? An&
Cu'cumcisioQ was attached to that covenant. ,

AKIMADVBRSIOKS UPON MR. ROAF'S

4. Was this seal put upon the infants of believers ? Ans. It wat
put upon the male infants and slaves of the descendants of Abraham,
"whether their parents were believers or not.

6. Was this covenant confirmed at Christ's appearance in the
flesh 1 Ans. No. It was confirmed ages before, and if it still has
force, the Jews will go back to Canaan ; but in this, Gentiles are not
at all interested. What then becomes of the "clear right of believer's
children to a church standing," as infered fiom such data ?

Mr. R assumes just such premises as he needs ; this may satisfy
some of his readers — but the intelligent and honest inciuirer, will
demand proof instead of assumption. He assumes, that baptism has
taken the phice of circumcision. I could admit this, were it a fact,
(for it would be enough for me to know that disciples or hrlieversv/ere
now its subjects, and not niule infants eight days old, and slaves young
and old,) but it is not a fact. Where is tlie proof? He assumes,
that baptism is a seal. Where, in the word of God, does he learn this?
I say that it is not a seal — if it is, let us have the proof. Mr. R
speaks of infants having a church standimj. Have infants and young
children a church-standing in Adelaide Street ? Are the children of
the flesh, and the children of the spirit, there mingled together in
church relationship? This, from a Protestant minister of the nineteenth
century ! Mr. R calls circumcision "the badge of faih !" Where
does he learn that it was in any way connected with faith ? Abraham
received the sign of circumcision as a seal of tile rigliteousncss of the
faith which he had ; but from that hour it became the badge of Hood
and property. Surely every reader of the Old Testament is acquaint-
ed with this fact ! Mr. R says, "when Christ sent out his Apostles
to baptise, he placed no restriction upon their practice ! !" How could
Mr, R, with God's #uth before him, say this? No restriction! —
Christ commanded the baptism of disciples or believers. Did he ever
enjoin the baptism of any other class ? What stronger restriction, I
ask again, guards the Lord's table ? I have now examined Mr. R's.
positive proofs, and what are they ? Has he in command, or example,
or inference, found one case of infant baptism in that Book, by which
he and I will soon be judged ? In full view of my responsibility, I
aflirm, that his argument is a mere dream, which can only ser^e to
lead God's people to substitute for a plain law of Christ, a human
invention. ' .

Mr. R next speaks of the import of baptism, when applied to child-
ren, and gives us five specifications. Those who invent ordinances,
must also furnish them with an import ; but the import will usually
be as unscriptural as the invention. Mr. R may have hit the import
of infant baptism — of this I am not prepared to speak, for my Bible
is silent on the subject ; but one thing I can say, that the import of
Bible baptism is not found in one, or all of his specifications. How
obvious that, Bible baptism, and infant baptism, are two things. Mr.
R calls his ceremony " an act of dedication." Here he abandons
even the law of circumcision. He must know, that, after that rite
was performed, the mother and the child were unclean for three and

SERMONS ON BAPTISU.

, It was
braham,

in the

Btill has

are not

ieliever'8

y satisfy
rer, will
tism has
it a fact,
vers were
cs young
assumes,
larn thisi

Mr. R
id young
lildren of
gether in
incteenth

Wliere
A-braham
;ss of the
3 of blood
acquaint-
Apostles
[ow could
ictionf —

I he ever
riction, I

Mr. R'8.
■ example,
)y which
sibility, I

serve to
a human

to child-
■dinances,

II usually
le import
my Bible
import of
IS. How
)gs. Mr.
abandons
that rite
hree and

thirty days, and that the ceremony of dedication (by appointed sacri-
fices) was a totally different transaction. Baptists bring their children
morning and evening, to the <freat sacrifice offered for sin, and thus
never feel the want of a baptismal "legacy."

I have thus followed Mr. U., step by step, through his discourse,
and witli kindness in ray heart towards him, and those who think with
him on this subject, 1 have faithfully, according to my ability, exposed
the fallacy of his reasoning. I regret to iind such principles of inter-
pretation avowed by Protestants, as are some of those relied on in this
work, to bolster up this human tradition. Concede the correctness of
such principles to Papists and Puseyites, aiulyou may as well think to
arrest the surge of tiuj ocean by logic and eloquence, as think to resist
with eliect, the rapid murch of tliese soul -destroying systems. May
God soon lead his people back to the siuplicity of the Bible.

SERMON II.

In this discourse, Mr. li's. motto is " Si'kinklino, a proper mode of
Bai'tism."

In reading a discussion of an afHrmative proposition like the above,
one would naturally expect to Iind a direct appeal to usu;/e, m estab-
lishing the niiianing of the word in (^leslion. This course, however,
so iiidiapemahlij iiecensart/ to the establishment of his premises, Mr.
11. declines pursuing, and seeks to prt>ve that sprinkling is baptism, by
throwing dilhculties in the way of immersion! But will this serve his
cause ? By the same process, 1 will undertake to upset the entire
canon of inspiration. If I could not, at this period of time, solve one
of the dilUoulties which Mr. 11. suggests, it would not in|alidate the
testimony of Crod's S[)irit. If that Spirit has employed fperm in this
case, which always, in literature, sacred, and profane, means literally
to immjrse, and if Mr. li. proves that immersion in many cases was
impossible; he does not thereby prove that ba[)tism means sprinkling,
but simply that the Bible is false. A dilHculty can never be lawfully
urged to set aside a positive d(!claration, but must be solved in har-
mony with such declaration. Mr. ll's. ditficulties are im,a;^inari/, but
were they real they could nc>t serve his purpose.

Mr. U. regards, " the mode of administering an ordinance," as of
small importance. In this I agree with him; but it is not about the
moleol an ordinance that I contend, but about the commanded action.
The rites instituted by Jehovah, which required sprnkling, pouring,
washing or bathing, could only be performed by strict attention in
each case to the prescribed form, to neglect the form, Wcis to neglect
the rite, to substitute another form for the one commanded, was
rebellion, and it is so still.

Mr. R. says, "the Lord's Supper eMen/i'oZ/y requires that we discern
the Lord's body." This is not accurate. It essentially requires that
we eat bread and drink wine, in remembrance ot Christ, while in " the

!l I

H!l I

18 'ANIMADVBRSIONa UPON MR. ROAF'S

breaking of breadl' wo are required to "discern the Lord's body."

He continues, "it (the Lord's Supper) dues not depend essentially
on the part of the day in which it is administered," 6ic. So baptism
is "the answer of a good conscience toward (lod ;" and that answer or
response to the gospel promise (wliat promise ?) may be truly made,
whether its utterer stand to receive water from above, or be plunged
backwards into water beneath. Wliiciiever be the form employed,
there is baptism when this answer is sincerely made; and thi-re is not
baptism when this answer is not intended. On this I remark:

1. The answer of a good conscience has nothing more to do with
the action of baptism, tlian discerning the Lord's body has to do with
the eating and drinking in the supper. A man might look at the
bread and wine, and clniin that he thus discerned the Lord's body.
Would Mr. II. think tliat he had obeyed the command to eat and
drink ?

2. But what is here said to be '• the answer of a good conscience ?"
The Bible says baptism, not pouring, or sprinkling, or any thing that
human caprice may suggest, but uai'tism. This, nnd this alone, is
said to be the answer of a good conscience. Now we can only learn
what baptism is by a reference to the vy.itcip of the language.

3. Where, in the word of God, is it ever intimated that one human
being's good conscience, can stand for the conscience of another
human being] As well might we affirm, that a parent "discerns the
Lord's body" for a child; and thus constitutes it a proper subject of
the Lord's table, as to aflirm that his good conscience prepares it for
baptism. Infants then cannot "intend this answer," consecjuently on
Mr. R's. premises, it is simply mposnihle for them to be baptised.

The first proposition which Mr. H. discusses, is, "the validity of
baptism d(||B not depend upon the form in which it is administered "

He says^Ufp. 18.) " baptism is a spiritual act." If I believed this, I
should go over to the Quakers. Baptism, with me, is a physical act,
to be attended to only by disciples or believers. Is the sprinkling of
an infant a spiritual act?

Mr. R. says, "Christian baptism is wetting or washing for religious
purification." Supposing we try this delinition on our author's text:
"I indeed wet or wash you with water unto repentance" — he shall
wet or wash j'ou with the Holy Ghost and \;\i\\fire! What sort of
a wetting or washing would that be ? Baptism is no where said to
be for religious puriiication, and if it were, the question would still
come up: what is the divinely appointed action or actions to be per-
formed in order to such a result? Mr. R. says, wetting or washing
by any means. This I deny. lie offers, in proof of his definition,
Heb. ix. 10: "we read of divers washings, or divers baptisms, as it is
in the original." Well, divers does not indicate a variety of actions,
but various repetitions of the same action in different cases. Divers
flocks of sheep, would not indicate that some of the flocks were goats,
the term sheep would define the character of ecah flock. So in this
case, the term baptisms confines us to immersions.

body."
?8t<entialljr
bnpti^ni
answer or
jly made,
plunged
employed,
UTc is not
rk:

to do with
to do with
ook at the
id's body.
cat and

iiscience

thing- tliilt

is alone, is

only learn

jne human
of another
liscerns the
• subject of
paies it for
(juently on
iptised.
validity of
litiistercd "
eved this, I
hysical act,
jrinklhig of

or religious
thor's text :
— he shall
Mmt sort of
ere said to

would still

to be per-
or washing
definition,
ms, as it is

of actions,
es. Divers
were goats.

So in this

SERMONS ox BAPTISM. 19

Mr. R continu'^s, " thesq baptisms were employed upon oups and
pots," «Scc. If ' . li will produce one instance from the Bible or tho
classics, where v/ator, or blood, or any thing else is said to be baptised
upon any object he will do more for the cause of sprinkling and pour-
ing, than all iiis predecessors put together have accomplished. But I
defy him, with all the Icjwning of Toronto at his back, to produce ONE
such instance. We find vpon, following sprinkle or pour, but never
baptise. Now if baptism meant to pour, ov to sprinkle, it would cer-
tainUj be followed in some cases at least by this preposition. An
object sprinkled or poured, is always governed by a preposition ex-
pressed or understood, — an object baptised, never.

Mr. K. continues, " the administrator used a portable vessel of brass,
which stood on one foot. Did he, suppose ye, immerse the tables, or
CKUches, or beds, in the vessel, or did he, with the bunch of hysop,
sprinkle them ?"

1. Here is an attempt to establish the meaning of a word, by sup-
posim; a dijjicultij. I wish tlie i-eader to notice, as we proceed, the
kitul of proof offered in behalf of sprinkling.

2. When Mr. R. spoke of a "portable vessel," he surely must have
forgotten, that for the purposes of purification, the Jews had in the
Temple, ten lavers, and a sea for the priests to bathe in, out of the
Temple they hail wattn* pots of stone, baths and pools. In Itiose the
divers immersions were performed

3. The o)j,e-t'ooted vessel, referred to by Mr. R., was simply for the
washing of the hands and feet of Aaron and his sons. (See Exodus
XXX. 18. 21.)

4. Of the purifications under the law, we read, Lev. xi. 32, that,
"any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack; whatsoever vessel it
be wherein any work is done, it must he put into toater, (in the origi-.
nal baptised) and it shall be unclean until the even," (fee. Again,
Num. xxxi. 23, "all that abideth not the fire, ye shall make go through
the water." Here we have divers baptisms, but not sprinklings!

5. Of the baptism of couches, Maimonides, the famous Jewish
Ribbi, says:

" A b(!(l that is wholly defiled, if he dips it part by part, it is pure. If he dips
a bed in the pool, allliou^h tlie feet are plunijed in the tiiici< clay at the bottom of
the pool, it is clean. Wiiat shall he do witli a pillow or bolster of skin 1 He
must dip them and lift them up by the fingers." Hilchoth Call,, ch. 16, § 14.

Thus do Mr. R's. difficulties evanish into thin air; and thus his
sprinkling is here overthrown. I must again maintain that I am
under no obligation to meet such difficulties — they are not arguments.

Mr. R says, (p. 19.) "the temple baptisms, were a sprinkling with
blood, oil, ashes, and water." With all who believe in the infallibility
of our author, this must forever settle the question! For myself, 1
regard it just as "great a solecism," as if he had said .the immersions
of the Temple were all sprinklings. What, under this first head, has
Mr. R proved? He rests on difficulties, which, were they real, could
not serve him legally ; but even this foundation is swept away, and
wHkt remains ?

It 1:

AKIMADTIRSIOKS UPON MR. BOAF'S

Mr. R'» second head, is, — " 7 here it nothing obligatory in imrneraion
as the mode of baptism." He infui'm.s uh, "ilmt inimcriiion is para-
dud as an act uf exuniphiry »ult'-dunial on the part uf the recipient,

and hu is sent away as luivinsjf dunt; "t»ome great ihinfjf,"

Surroundini"' followers of Clirist are bantered as refusing to be im-
mersed meieiy from a vVant of couraye, they are dared to come and
be immersed," Is all this juxt? Is it kind? la it true? Such
charges brought against a people who, repudiating the dogma of a
baptismal "k-gacy," earnestly contend for the doctrine t»f justitication
by faitii alone, without the deeds of the law, cannot injure thom on
e;u'th or in hi-aven.

Mr. It. coniL's to tlie subject, and says, " there is nt)t an instance
yet piodueei), where the word " biipiisc," in classical uuihore, means
the act performed m imnnn^ij n." Tni.-- is a piLiful evasion ! The act
performed in iniiner-^ior.," is iranuT ion itsfU". JJare Mr. R. deny
that scores of instances have been produced, where the \Tord means to
dip, to plunge, to immerse ?

He continues, "There is not an instance in the J/u/i/ Scriptures,
where the word necessarily means that act." \\ hat tict? We gather
Mr. K's. meaning from the following assertion : — " We are told that to
baptise means to plunge under and raise up another from the water

there is no known instance of the word denctting that act ut

all." True, the ?«o;v^ simply does not denote these acts. And, I must
be excused for anirming, that no man on earth, or now under the
earth, ever told Mr. K. that it did. Th^ word means to dip, to plnnge,
to immerse, the risinr/ (I'jnin, is kiunvn by perlVctly independent evi-
dence. Still, as an apj)n)priated term, as we shall see shortly, it
indicates both burial and resufrectlon. Circumcision means to cut
around, and never appears (literally) without this meamng ; yet the
word alone, is put for the wluile rile. Wlint, therefore, Mr. R. calls
his " strong assertions " on this point, are utterly without value. Hw
is flghlini>- a Hn'ment of his own creation.

He contiime.s, " In the classical authors, the word often means to sub-
merge and keep down a per.son or thing under the water." This is
not correct. The vxtrd never has such a signilication in classical usage.
It means to submei'ge, but whether the person or thing submerged
goes to the bottom or comes to the top; whether the person or thing
be purified or deliled, washed or polluted, drowned or sunken, must be
learned from the circumstances in each particular ca.se. The word
itself has neither washing, nor wetting, nor sinking,, nor drowning in
it. Indeed, it has no reference to water at all. It expresses a specific
action, namely, dipping, but whether this action takes place in water
or oil, in mud or in wa.x, the word testifieth not. When, then, Mr.
K represents us as saying that the loord itself means both puttin;*
under and rai.sing up again, he errs. We prove that the word
means to dip. or plunge, or immerse. And we prove that by ellipsis
and appropriation, in classical and scriptural usage, the idea of rising
a;j;ain was understood, and thus, iu familiar eircumstancea^ formed a

8ERM0KS Olf BAPTISM. IT

part of its mctining. Ono or two examples will illustrate and establish
this fact Homer snys :

_•' As when'a smith to harden an iron hatchet, or polc-ax dipt it in cold water."
Here the circumstances of the case are so familiar, that the word in-
dicates both immersion and emersion. Again, Plutarch quotes a
Sybilline verse, tlms:

" Thou mayust be dipped, bladder ! but thou art not fated to sink."
Hero it will be seen, that bajytiitimj and sinking are contrasted ; and
that rising to tlie top is implied in the word baptise.

In the Hible, the primary word is frequently employed in connection
with ritual purilication, and in all such cases it denotes, the lifting up
from the element, the thing baptised, as truly as it does its dipping,
see Exodus, xii: 22. Lev. iv: (5, 17; ix: 0; xiv: 10,51, ttc. We
do not find it said in these and similar cases, that the hyssop, or priest's
finger, was first dipped into and then drawn out of the blood, water, or
oil m order to the performance of the act or acts of purification. The
baptism in every case denotes both the immersion and emersioa
Again, Naaman dipped (baptised) himself seven times in the Jordan.
Now, if baptism did not imply, raising from the water, how could
Naaman have be(,'n said to have baptised himself seven times? The
first baptism would have settled his account on earth.

In the New Testament the word is employed in the same manner,
" dip the tip of his finger in water, — he to whom I shall give a sop
when I have dipped it, — a garment dipped in blood." In all these c.nses
the word brings the subject from underneath the clement into the
open air. Here, then, we have specimens of both classical and Bible
usage before us. I have stated facts, and not fancies, given strong
proofs, and not made " strong assertions." If such evidence is not
conclusive, where, on any subject, shall we find conclusive evidence?

Mr. 11. sUys, " There is no example in the Holy Scriptures of bap-
tism meaning the dipping of another in water." Does Mr. R, or any
other sane man expect to find the word, either in or out of the Scrip-
tures, denoting the administrator, the subject, the action, and the
water ! !

To express what Mr. R. demands, we have the words — John, and
Christ, and immersed in the river Jordan. Every baptism of the New
Testament is an example.

Mr. 11. says, (p. 20,) " It would only be to ascribe to you a famili-
arity with the Greek language which even classical scholars will not
pretend to, were I to read out passages from this pulpit ; I will go
with you to the Bible where we can stand upon a level." On this I
remark :

1. Mr.R hero assumes his ability " to read out passages " from the
classics to sustain his practice of sprinkling. He must excuse me for
affirming it to be my conviction, that the true reason ;of his having
declined to " read out passages," is to be found in the withering fact,
that he could not, because no such passages as he would need exist

3 I

22 ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAC'S

2. If an English uudience cannot be miide to undiirstand the teach*
ings of the Greeks, because they wrote in Greek, liow can they b«
made to under>«tand the Apostles who wrote in the same language 1
If the common people can occupy a conimun level with Mr. R on 'a
translation of the Bible, why may they not also occupy a common
level with him on a translation of the clashics? 'I his looks hko
evasion.

3. The masses both can and ilo understand examples of the use of

any word, when examples are produced. Can they not for example

understand the following: — Lttcian, in Timon, the man-hater, makes

him say :

" If I should spp any one floatinjj toward me upon the lapid torrent, and h«
should with oiitHti'i'tc'lird hiimlN hcscccli me tuHssiNt him, 1 would ihiiuit him iiuiii
me, baptising hiui, until lit would rise no more."

Was not Timon's baptism immersion ?

Polyhius, volume iii: piigo311, speaks of soldiers passing through
water, immersed (baptised) up to the breast. Can any tiling be inure
decisive than this? Mark! the soldiers arc not said to have been
baptised any further than the water reached.

Porphynj, page 282, says:

" The person who has heen a sinner, havinjr'jronc a little way into it, (the fabu-
lous river of Hell,) is buplisod up t(» the head."

Here, again, the subject of this baptism is not said to be baptised,
but only baptised as far as he is immersed, " vp to the head."

Strabo, Goog. page 809, speaks of a river, whose wat«'rs are so
buoyant, that if an arrow be thrown in, it would scarcely be immersed,
(baptised).

He mentions, also, a lake, page 1108, on the top of which bitumen
floats in which •' a man cannot he baptised, but is forcibly kept above."

Now, is there a man of common discerrijiont in any congregation
that cannot, without comment, understand, and feel the forbe of these
examples ? Here, sprinkling, and pouring, a'ld wetting, and wash-
ing, are all simply out of the question.

Josephus, who was himself a Jew, who lived in the apostolic age,
and who certainly knew how the Jews employed the Greek, always
employed this word, literally and figuratively, just as the Greeks did.
He says, Antiq. L. 9, concerning the ship in which Jonah attempted
to flee fro ' the presence of the Lord, " the ship was about to be bap-
tised." it was wetted, washed, poured, and sprinkled in the stormy
ocean, but not baptised. He uses the same word twice concerning
the death of Aristobulus, who was drowned at Jericho, by rcr niri
Greeks, who enticed him into the water to vim, and then, baptis!»n
him as in sport they did not leave oflf until they entirely d.>''i"fJ
him." Surely such examples may be understood by any miud yet
free to thi.ik or^ this subject !

I have introd iced the above instances, (mere specimens selected
from scores of ex ,;mplef3 lying before me) for the double purpose of
exhibiting the truo ;>eamog of the word baptism, and of shewing

J teach*
ihuy b«
Huuge 1
li. un'a
ummun
jks like

c use of
L'xainple
■, mukvs

it, niitl hfi
him lioiii

through
be imuo
ive bten

(the fiibu-
bapUsc'd,

■rs are so
nmerbcd,

bitumen
t above."
^regation
2 oi ilu'se
nd wash-

tolic age,
(, always
ceks did.
ttempted
be bap-
le stormy
)ncerning
»y for <\ir
bapfis''»f?

miuu yet

s selected
lurpose of
shewing

SERMONS UN liAl'TIBM. 28

that plain men can decide this (piostii n fur tlicmafilvcc, if they choose to
wui^j^h facts, utid repudiate ansertiotu. if tlio word, dipped every
thing wliich tlie Greeks wished to dij), and never sprinkled nor
poured water, or any thing else, upon tht? [)er8on or thing baptised.
If the word, under the law, di])ped hyssoj), .xiid Kcarlet yarn, and birds,
and fingers, ntid feet, but never, amid all tlie pouriit^H and tiprinkliugs
mentioned, iioated one of them — how < >incs it lluit (liis same word,
(ill ut once, by some mysterious process a!«sui)tes u 7M', n '('fining in '
fhe conunission of Ciirist? A ineaning tno, winch sdbvcrts its estab-
lished Mpocitic character. How comes ii, that tin- word, without
cavil, dipped Naanuui seven times in tlie Jordan, and yet, with l)i»'
same syntiix, refuses to dip Christ in the same rive/? Do not men
forget, that there is at haiid u resurrection morning, and a judgntiiit
day !

Mr. R proceeds and asks, " To what methods of applying water
does the t'Jiiii I<aj>tise refer," 1 reply, that it refers to no methods
whatC'T ' I . <\<l '. ig water;" but to a method of applying asubject.
It, is :i!\»ay.i the siibject tliut is said to be baptised — never the water.

Mr. ir^ lirst proof that immersion is not essential to baptism is
gl\i'n in thcf (Ilowing quotation from scripture, "And he commanded
I'li chariot to stand .still: and they went down both into the water,
both I'liill'p ;ind the Euimch; and he baptised him. And when they
were cumu up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away
I'liillip." VVliat tliink you, reader, of such evidence. Mr. K toils hard
to get out of the grasp of this plain pfussagc. He struggles hard to
silence its honest testimony; but in vain. This passage is of itself
sullicient io settle the dispute. Look at its various parts —

L They came to (epi) a certain water.

2. They went both down into (eis) the water.

3. The Eunuch is baptised.

4. They come up out of (ek) the water.

Did Mr. It ever imitate this example in his life. This is Baptist
practice precisely ; and no man, woman, or child, who ever witnessed
the immersion of a believer, can fail to perceive the resemblance.

But Mr. 11. is certain that the going down into, and coming up out
of the water, did not plunge the Eunuch. If Mr. li. supposes that we
imderstand the prepositions to mean immerse, and rise again, he errs,
nnd ought better to inform himself. I go down into the water with a
subject, and wc both come up out of the water; but I do something
more than this, I do what Philip did to the Eunuch, I baptise the
subject "But why," asks Mr. R, " did they go down into the water and
come up < Jt of it, unless for immersion ?" And I repeat the question
. iiphatically. Common sense will never be able to discover another
reason ? ^ Mr. R is aware of this, hence he tries another tack. He
says, " It is not said in the orignal, that they went into the water and
came up out of it, it is only said that they went unto, and came from
it." On this,.! remark:

L Mr. R ,^ here abandosed his common level ; left the English

ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAF'S

Bible, and dipped into the Greek, and has after all misrepresented
its teaching. Had ho said as some Pedobaptists have said before him,
that eis, and ek, have sometimes the meanings for which he con-
tends, and therefore, prove nothing, 1 would not have been surprised,
but to affirm without qualification, that the prepositions do not express
into, and out of, but unto, and from, is sheer misrepresentation.

2. The primaiy and ordinary meanings of these prepositions are
into, and out of Like most other Avords, they have secondary mean-
ings ; but no critic or transhUor is at liberty to employ the secondary
meaning of tliese or other terms at random. He is bound to give
them thoir primary or ordinary signification, in every instance when
circumstances do not demand a secondary meaning. For example, I
can prove tliat the word Gotf, in the orignal language, has a second-
ary meaning, and rt • s to finite objects, but am I at liberty in read-
ino- the Bible to tauc at random the meaning that suits me?
Unu rians do so, and thus rob Christ of his glory. Everlusting lias
a secondary meaning, and Universalists, seize it lawlessly and get rid
of everlasting punishment. In the same lawless manner, I might say,
CIS, signifies against, and quote in proof, "if thy brother sin {eis),
against thee," — I might then affirm tliat ek means through, and quote
as proof, 2 Corinthians, xiii: 4; Having thus established my premises
as righteously as Mr. R. has done his, 1 might read the j)assage thus:
" they went down arjainst the water and came up throv(ih it."
Adopting this lawless mode of procedure, I might prove, that God
never put the man into the (larden oi Kden, only to it; and that he
never drove him out of it, but onlj' from it, I might prove, that
Daniel Avas not cast into the den of lion.s, but only to its edge, and
that he did not come out o/'thc den, but only from it. That Joseph
Avas not cast into a pit, nor taken out again ; that the wicked do not
c:o into hell, nor the riuhteous into heaven. The Avord of God mijiht
be reduced to chaos on such principles.

3. What other prepo'^itioiis Avould, or co?/W the inspired penmnn
have employed to indicate into and out of, than eis, folloAved by ek?
Can an example be produccnl where these; prepositions ever mean any
thing else than intonud out o/'\vhen thus sittiated?

4. This first preposition takes men into gardens, seas, pits, dens,
fiery-furnaces ; into fields, countries, villages, cities, synagogues,,
temples, houses, heaven, and hell, <fec ; and yet, is it not passing
strange, that by no force of circumstances, can it be made to take a
willing disciple into the Avater for baptism ! ! What a fearful responsi-
bility rests upon the souls of learned men I Our version gives us
here a literal rendering of the original, and I ask again, why did they
both go doAvn into the water, unless for immersion? Nay ! why
should they go near the water at all. Dr. Doddriije well remarks on
this passage : — " It would be very unnatural to suppcise, that they
went doAvn to the water merely that Philip might take up a little
water in his hand to pour on the Eunuch. A person of his dignity,
had, no doubt, many vessels in his baggage on such a j<girney through

sented
re him,
le con-
prised,
express
n.

ms are
• mean-
jondary
to give
e when
mple, I
second-
in read-
its me?
ting has
1 get rid
ight pay,
in (c»s),
nd qiiote
premises
loe thus :
w(fk it."
that God
i that he
pve, that
dge, and
it Joseph
d do not
od might

1 penman
(1 by ek?
mean any

its, dens,
nagogues,.
)t passing

to take a
I responsi-
n gives iis

did they

ay ! why
eniarks on

that they
up a little
lis dignity,
ly througk

SERMONS ON BAPTISM. ' 25

a desert country ; a prccHution absolutely necessary for travellers in
those parts, and never omitted by them. Fam. Ex. But what Mr. R.
fails to do by criticism, ho attempts to accomplish by supposing diffi-
culties. He says, "in a desert, it was not likely that there would be
a stream ample enough for plunging in. No history or geography
speaks of a river there — there is now no trace of any old river-bed
there," &c.

1. I have the highest authority in the imiverse for Jiffirming that
there was " a certain ivatar " there, whether river, or pond, 1 know
not, and care not. My geogtiipliy, here, is the New Testament —
my historian the Holy Spirit. 1 <(nvy not the mental condition of the
man, whoever he may be, who cainu>t believe this historian -without a
human endorser.

2. The principle here advanced is an infidel one. Gibbon affirms
'that the 13ihl(! is fulsc bi'cause it makes Palestine a fertile land,
whereas it is notoriously s/irl/c. We tell him that he cannot judge of
Vfhat it was by what it is. Th<* curse of (J<»(1 is nowupon it, and earth-
quakes and storms have produced vast pliysical changes. So say I
to M-. R.

Mr. li. proceeds, " when we read of baptism in houses and cities,
nothing of goinn' down into water, or coming up out of water is found."
Did not Mr. 11. perceive that this cavil miglit be turned against him-
self ? Miglit I not say, " when we read of baptism in houses and
cities, notlung ni /H'/c./ifrs or fxmliis, or tmrc/s or hnndkerchiefti to wipe
the minister's JiHiivrx or the hidii/Hf^T, is found;" tliose " great feat-
ures" of a sprinlvling tor baptism ! Mr. U. supfUesi>wo\\ circumstances
as belong to sprinkling, instf/id of sii|iplying the legitimate circum-
stances. The Spirit nrrvhj gives a dclaileil account of tlie circum-
stances connected with the pcfrforniance of any rite.

Mr. 11. says, " not a word is said about the eunuch changing his
clntlies: or of i'liilip producing a ha[)tismal suit: or of the eunuchs
driving away th(jr(»uglily drcnclud." A contemptible sneer will go
further, with some minds, than an argument. Our author seems to
understand this. Mr. M. ca'i conjecture certain waters out of the way;
and certain cups or basins, tiiwel-* or handkerchiefs into the way; lu)
can conjtjcture that llu- eunuch's iwX needed refnisliing in the bap-
tismal water! and yet he dare not hazard the bold supposition, that
after his baptism, the eunuih had coimnon sense enough to take care
of himself. I never bef<»r<! heard of such a string of imaginary
difficulties being od'ered to an iiitellig(!nt people as arguments.

Mr. 11. ne\t takes up John's baptising, and does a large wiiolesale
business in the line of assumptions anil difficulties. He makes John
select places of much water, to fundsh the people with facilities "for
refreshment and cleanline.ss." He tells us also, that, "in that arid
region, wells were commonly twenty miles apart." Now does it not
seem strange, that those peoole who lived all the days of their lives,
seven, eight, nine and ten mdes from the well, should need so much
water, when they carao together to be sprinkled! But Mr. R. says,

i i

m !

ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAF'S

"John had in view a 2>^'otracted meeting !" Where does he learn,
that the same people ever spent a whole day or night with John?
When conjectures are brouglit to set aside the tesiiniony of the Spirit,
we must repudiate them. What rational reason, I ask, can be given
for John's selecting places of much water, unless for immeroion. The
tribes of Israel did not meet in their triennial gatht;rii!g.s, at Jordan,
but at Jerusalem, a place where Mr. II. linds an alarming scarcity of
water. The testimony of the Spirit is, — not that John wns preaching
(or holding a protracted meeting) at Euon, because there was much
water there; but it is said, he was hoptidng, because there was much
water there. Can a child of God need other testimony than this?
Must we here, too, have a historian or geographer to endorse for the
Spirit ?

But, Mr. R says, "Enon was a well in a cave, like that of Samaria,
where water was drawn, and into which it would neither be decent,'
lawful, nor possible to plunge a human body." Ergo, the word bap-
tise means to sprinkle ! ! What do we know about Enon ? Con-
flicting conjectures are the only data from which we can judge of its
character. But whether it was a natural spring called the ''Dove's Eye,"'
or an artificial "f(juntain of the sun," or something else, matters but
little. The ]3ible says, there was " much water" there. But here
again, we are thrown aback. , Mr. K. says, "much water there, means
many waters, and it expressed the fact of their being several small
springs and rivulets round about." Kather a watery phice after all,
in an "arid region!" By what process of philological legerdemain,
does Mr. R. metamorphose "many waters" [polla hudata) into many
" small springs and rivtdets." There la nahlmr spring \)or riindet in
the phrase. " It is observable," says Robinson, '• that the river Eu-
phrates, at Babylon ; Tiber, at Rome ; and Jordan, in Palestine, are all
described by mang waters. The thunder which agitates clouds,
charged with floods, is called the voice of the Lord upon many waters.
And the attachment that no mortifications can annihilate, is a love,
which many waters cannot quench, neither can the foods drown.
How it comes, that a mode of speaking, which on every other occasion
signifies much, should, in the case of baptism, signify little, is a ques-
tion easy to answer."

But it seems we have other diJicuUies to encounter, before we can

be permitted to suffer John to proceed quietly with his work of

immersing repenting sinners. If Enon is too shallow, Jordan, it seems,

is too rapid and deep. Mr. R. says, "the Jordan is six or seven feet

deep close to the shore." Why did he not say tliat it was twenty

feet deep; it would have been just as true (referring to some turn in

the river) as what he has said. libhinson says:

" The river banks are generally wooded ; channel sometimes broad and shallow,
sometimes rapid and deep, &c."

Burcl:hardt says:

" The river where we passed it, was about eighty paces broad, and three feet

deep." ? . I ■ , . i ; V ■ ' ^- :;i''. • -i\ril-

SERMONS ON BAPTISM. . ''27

A writer in the Dublin University Magazine, as quoted by the
Qlobe, November 23rd, 1850, says, (speaking of a certain point in
the river) :

" Nor is it improbable that here John the Baptist was baptising, and that here
our blessed Lord, as he came up out of tlie waters, received the public seal of his
ministry, when the Holy Ghost came upon him," &c.

He represents the stream as rapid, but " shallow near the bank."
Here men and women can bathe without difliculty. Why, I ask, did
Mr. R. in this case, omit an important part of the trutli ? He obvi-
ously felt tlie need of ndijficult}/ to silence the testimony ui' the Jordan.
I quote one more author on this point, and leave it; Murk says, " they
Were all baptised of him in the river of Jordan."

But Mr. il. luus yet more difficulties. The people had no changes
of raiment. He says, " they came out to hear, and not expecting to
be baptised." Who told Mr. K. this? Muttheiv says, "but when he
saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees, come to his LajHism."
Now these classes came for the same purpose that others did, and
they came to his ha^itism.

Mr. II. says tlie people must either have been baptised and remained
saturated in their ordinary clothes, or stripped; and adds, "lliey clearly
did neither, and therefore were not immersed." This is demonstra-
tion iistilf I Mr. li. is certainly right in supiiosing, that ii the people
were neither baj)tised in their clothes nor out of them, that they were
not immersed ! His argument here, is simply this : it is not stated in
detail, that those whom John baptised, diti ail that was necessary to
preserve health and decency, therefore they were not haptised, but
sprinlded! ! And this is pi-oof !

But Mr. It. finds yet another difficult!/ move formidable than its
fellows. He tells us, that John must have baptisid, in six months,
" two millicins" of people, and says, "if he occupied the whole six
months in the (operation, he passed through his hands 12,800 a day,
a number which it was physically impossible to immerse, but which
he could have sprinkled in large numbers with great ease." How, I
ask, could he have spriidded them I Perhaps the Salopian Zealot
can inform us. Ho says:

" The Jews in Jordan were bapliswl,

Therefore, ingenious John devised

A scoop, or squirt, or some siicii thing,

Willi which some water he might fling

Upon the Ions; extended rank

Of candidates that lined the bank ;

Be careful, John, some drops may fall

From yonr rare instrument on all,

But point your engine ne'ertheless

To those who first their sins confess :

Let no revilers in the crowd.

The holy sprinkling be allowed."
I remark on Mr. K's. calculation :

1. That John wsis not a Jewish priest, and might therefore have
baptised six years, instead of six mouths b Are Christ. On this point
we have no jjroo/". . . . , .

^i'

1 1

•I

i hi
4

28 ANIMADVER3I0XS UPON MR IIOAF'S

2. Two things are affirmed in relation to John's candidates: first,
they confesaed their .sins; second, they were baptised. ISow, ho"vr
csould men confe.ss their sins at the rate of eighteen a minute? It
was " physically impossible." Mr. ll'.s. calculation, then, reduces the
scripture recuid of ilie fact, to a falsehood. Can a just cause demaud
tliis I

3. Mr. R. makes the phraseology, "Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all
Uio reu'ion round about Jordan," to mean all the inhabitants of these
places. Tills is erroneous — for if John baj)tised alt the inhabitants in
Jordan, why in the name of common sense was he shortly afterwards
baptising laigo numbers at Enon ? Besides, all that came to his bap-
tism were not received. Ci^rtain classes rejected the council of (Jod
a^'ainst themselves, not being baptised with the ba])tism of John.
His business was to prepare a petjple for the Lord. And to assume
tliat he baptised any but those wIm confessed their sins, is to contra-
dict the lii/jt'e. Thus sink, one after another, our uutlior's fearfiU
difficulties, liut supposing we try Mr. U's. mode of leasoning for a
moment, on another subject. Ibiw could Abraiiam "in tiie self-same
day," Oen. xvii. 'j;J, circumcise more than three hundietl and eighteen
uidividuals ? It took longer time to circunu'ise one, than to immerse
six. Was not the thing " physicallv impossible {" And then, not
oiie word is said about flowing blood, or binding up of wounds, nor arc
the candidates said to have covered themselves afier the rite! The
difficulty in the numbers, then, together with the absence of those
drcurastances y^hich heaith and decency would have demanded — the
absence of those "great features" i:i every circumcision, prove,
according to ^Ir. li's. logic, that they were not circumcised. Abraham,
perhaps, touched their foreheads with his finger, for it is not even
s^iid that he had a knife! I could upset revelation itself, on such
principles !

But the people were baptised in the river Joidan, Ave are told.
N< ' so, says Mr. R., "it would be as correct a reading of the original
to ul at Jordan, or with Jordan, for these are as ordinary meanings
of the pre|iositions used by the Scripture historians, as in, or into."
What will tiie reader think of such a statement, when he is informed,
tliat by a careful examination, it has be^n ascertained that the pre-
ptjsition {f)i) "ill'" occurs in the New Testament 2()00 times, and that
out of this immense number of occurrences, it is translated " in" iOA't
times; aiul amongst the remaining instances, in manj- cases, it should
have been rendered " m." In the origiiud, it is said, 1 baptise you
{en) "in," not with water. lie shall baptise you {en) "in" not tviih
the Holy Ghost. G. Campbell, (Principal of Marischal College^
Aberdeen) says:

" So inconsistent arc the intflrprptors last mentioned, that nniu; of them have
scrupled to render en to Jonianec, in Jordan; thout^h nothini? can he plainer than
that, if there be any incon>;iuity in tiie expression in water, this in Jordan must
be equally incon^jruous. But Aty have seen, that the preposition in could not be
avoided tnere, without adopting cirrnmlocution which would have made this
deviation from the text too glarint?. Tfie true partizan of vjiatever denominationf
always inclines to correct tlie diction oftfie Spirit by tliai of the party. ^*

EERMONS ON BAPTISM. .80

At water, and at the Holy Spirit, is inadmissible — while with tba
Jordan (seven feet deep and one hundred and titty wide,) is a supep-
lative absurdity.

But Mr. R. asks, " what was the mode of baptising with the Holy
Ghost and with tire, clearly by the descent of the Holy Ghost and
cloven tongues of tire which sat upon them." On this i remark:

1. Th(i descent of the Holy Ghost is nowhere called hoplism. And
a partial application of divine influence, such as is set forth in the
sprinkling uf a babe, is a cruel mockery. On Pentecost,'they were
overwhelmed hi divine influence. Who doubts this?

2. The communication and reco[ition of the influences of the Spirit,
are represented by a variety of ligures. By the springing up of
water: by blowing like the wi'id: by tlowing like a river: by ihc emis-
sion of breath: by the drinking of water: by the pouring out of water,
and by baptism in water. Now why is "pouring out" sfizttd, without
a warrant, and applied to baptism, while tiie otiic-rs are rejected? Is
not llie reason trans[)ar{!nt '? Why, I as!:, are not ^prir.ging up,
blowing, flowing, breathing, drinking, &.c., regarded as so muiiy modes
of baptism? Wiuit claim lias ^j>oMr/>jy, that tliese have not.' Why
confound [)i>uring and baptism, any more than blowing and baptism,
or pouring and drinking? The Spirit is never said to be hqilmd
UPON men.

3. On the day of Pentecost, we are told, "there came a sound from
heaven, as of a I'usliing mighty wind, and \i Jilted alt the house wlwre
thei/ were sittiw/, and theie appeared cloven tongues like as of fire,
and it sat on each of them. Here, we perceive, that the emblems of
the Spirit were above and around them. They were enveloped in
those emblems, as they hud been in water at their baptism. Mr. li.
confounds what is perfectly distitict, the descent of the Spirit, with
the baptism of the disciples. Previous to a baptism in our chapel,
water is poured into the baptistry ; this pouring is in order to the
baptism; but what would you think of the man who should make it
the baptism itself? Not more incongruously would such an one
reason, than does the man who calls the descent of the Spirit, the
baptism of the disciples.

4. The copiousness of the Spirit's gifts, is indicated by the baptism
in the Spirit. Destroy this idea, so beautifully presented by the tigure
of submerging into divine influence, and you dishonor the work of
the Spirit.

Mr. H. next says, "our Lord himself, received the baptism of John,
to which I have just referred the descending of the element upon him."
With my views, I would not be the author of this assertion for the
universe. Did John baptise the water upon Christ ? The Bible says :
not merely that our Redeemer was baptised " in" the Jordan, but
(eis) " into" the Jordan. It is just as certain that Christ was immersed
into the Jori^an, as it is that language has a meaning. The same pre-
position which took him into houses, synagogues, temples, cities,
villages, and ultimately into heaven itself, took him into the Jordan.

Mil

l|i

f .'

4 '

jl.

ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAF'S

May the time soon arrive when all who love Christ, shall be led to
follow his example. To justil'y his assertion, that Christ might go
into Jordan wiihuut being immersed: Mr. li. says, "in the Greek
church, it has been customarif lor the recipients of baptism to kneel in
a font, while a priest litU'd up water and poured it on the head." I
can only here save ^{\:Vi'\i, honesty at the expense uf his intdUgcnce,
The Greeks jjo«/* upon and call it baptism! ! ! On the contrary, they
liave from hrst to last, practised /r/z/c immersion, and that, too, in the
coldest regions on ihcfa<;oof the earth. Can it be necessary to prove
this? 1 will give one authority, which no I'edobaptist will accuse uf
unfairness, i mean Professor iStuart, of Andover, (a Presbyterian.)
He says:

" The mode of b;n)ti.sm by immersion, tlic oiifiital cIiuitIi hits iiKvays con-
tinued to [no!ieiv(',cv(iuli)\vii1oilie jno.sLMit tiiiit'. Tile niLnilMTsoI'lliis cliuich are
accustomed to call the nu'iiil)crs of the wi'slcrn church, sprinkled C/iristiuns, hy
way ol' ridicule ai.d contfinpl. They maintain thai baptizo can moan notliini; l)Ut
immcrue, and tiiat /»i(y>/is/;i 6// ,s^)r/ViA7i/i^', is as 1,'ical a .st)lL('i>m as iiiniivrsion b\j
sprinkling; ami they claim to themselves, tic; honor of havii'y; piest ntd tiic
ancient sacred rile of the ijiurcli free from change, and from con nplion, which,
would destroy its siji;nilicaiicy."

On this subject, W. Judd makes the following remark :

" The testimony of the Greeks is conclusive. It puts the quesUon beyond
reasonable dispule. I cannot see liow tia; man who has the perversness to rise
u]) and contradict them, can he entitled in this matter, either to respect or courtesy;
foi ho ontray;es reason and conuiioa sense. Il the Greeks themselves are not com-
petent judges of a Greeic word, where shall we (nut tliose \vlio are i"

The Greeks cliarge those who speak of baptism by sprinkling, with
uttering an absurdity. iSurcly Baptists are on this point, in safe
com{)any.

Mr. H. speaks of anwont pictures representing pouring as bnptism,
in the case of C!hrist. The trouble with the pictures is, that they are
not, by very many centuries, ancient enough. 1 commend to his
notice, the langiiaoe of Pone Benedict XIV". When Paul Afaria
Paciandi presented those pictures, with others, to his holiness, the
Pope exclaimed:

" Nothing can be more monstrous than these emblems ! Was our Lord Christ
baptised by aspersion { This is so far from being true, that notliins; can be more
opposite to truth : and it is to be attributed to the ignorance and rashness of
workmen."

The idea that Christ was poured tipon, it will be seen, is ascribed
by Benedict, who believed in sprinkling, to ignorance and rashness.

Mr. R. next makes the strange remark that, " Aaron and his sons
were baptised Avith water at the door of the tabernacle (Lev. viii. 6.)
and with oil, (Lev. viii. 12,) and with blood, (v. 23,24.)" It is with
extreme reluctance that I say, that there is no truth in the above
assertion. Every man capable of deciphering the (ireek character,
and who has looked into tlie chapter referred to, MU§T know, that
baptism is not once named in it. Take one of Mr. R's. examples
of baptism, Lev. viii. 23, " And Moses took of the blood of it, and
put it upon the tip of Aaron's right ear, and upon the thumb of

led to
j,ht go
Greek
iieel in
d." I
'igcnce,
y, tlu'y
, in tlie
> prove
:use of
terian.)

\ys con-
,mrh aie
Hans, by
lliiny; but
L'csion by
ivkI the
n, which.

1 beyond

;ss to rise
courtesy;
nut com-

ng, with

ill sale

baptism,
they are
d to his
(/ Afaria
ness, the

,onl Christ

m be more

ushness ol"

i ascribed
shness.
J his sons
V. viii. 6.)
It is with
the above
character,
enow, that

examples
of it, and

thumb of

SERMONS ON DABTISM. 'S\

his right hand, and upon the great toe of liis right foot." So it
seems, smearing the tip of the ear, the thumb, and the great toe, is
BAPTidMl! What shall we have next? I raise my humble protest
against such trifling with God's word, and the consciences of dyin^'
mortals.

Mr. II. next refers to the case of Cornelius ; " can any man /orlid
water." Now, says Mr. li, "if any could forbid water, that water
must have been wliat could bo moved to Cornelius." How, I ask,
can this serve the cause of .s])rinkling ? If Mr. K. can ' move ' enough
of water to till a cup, 1 can as righteously move enough to lill a bath.
If the Holy Wpirit had intended to say, who can forbid a cup of water
to be brought in for the purpose of sprinkling, he would have done
so. But nothing of the kind is said. The phrase simply implies, —
can any object to the baptism of thesre persons? As a matter of fact,
water was, and is brought in to till baths. 1, myself, have had water
brought into a private bath, and in it baptised with great ease, a joy-
ful! disciple. IJaptism and not sprinkling took place here. Mr. K.
next conies to Hamaria, and conjures up another difficulty to establish
the meaning of a plain word, lie finds not one drop of water in
.Samaria, exce[it in Jacob's well. Now, the truth is, Mr. R. knows
nothing at all about the water resources of Samaria in tlutse days.
This, I again say, is an intidel argument. If Mr. R. may use it, so
may Gibbon. But is it not marvellous, that Mr. R. can lind enough
of water for purposes of refreshment and ablution for all the people;
enough of water for all their cattle, .365 days in every year, atui yet,
on one jo3'eus occasion, can find no water in which to baptise the
happy discij)les! A strange process this by which to evade tile
established meaning of the word! If Samaria had water enough for
the ordinary pur|)oses of man and beast, it had enough for baptism.
Mr. R. next speaks of Paul's baptism, and we have more difficulties
to establish the meaning of a word. He thinks " it is not likely " that
immersion was here practised, — "not probable " that their baths were
large enough. What, in the name of reason has Mr. R's. "not lik-elies"
and "not probab/es''' to do in a cpiestion of this character? Is it not
very "likely" that Paid obeyed God? ]5ut he was exhausted, we
are informed, and Mr. R. says: Paul "arose" to be baptised; the
act which he woidd have to perform, for receiving baptism from
Ananias." IVhy, I ask, was it necessary for an exhausted man to
arise to be spi'inkled? The commaiul to arise in ord(!r to immersion,
was necessary, while to arise in order to b sprinkled was »io< neces-^
sary. Such phraseology is frequently employed in scripture as an
incitement to some course of conduct, as, Artse, go over this Jordan,
— arise, shine ; aiise, and stand upon thy feet, <fec. Besides Paul'.s
baptism was an emblematic wa.sb/jig, — sprinkling is never in figure or
in fact a washing. Lastly, Paul himself tells us that he and others
were buried in baptism.

The Jailor comets next, and Mr. R. says, " it cannot be supposed
that he had a bath in a heathen prison." One thing is in evidence

ANIMAOVSRSIONS UFON MR. ROAF'S

I I

\ r

'■1

ho had a river close by, and the cloud of midnight was a sufficient

fuard for him. Look at the circumstances of this case. First, the
ailor, witii his light in his hand, brings them out. Second, they
preach to all in tlie house. Tldtd, he takes them, (it does not men-
tion where) the same lumr of the night, washes their stripes, and is
baptised, he and his. Fourth, he biings them into the house and sets
meat before them. Now, wlij/ did they leave the house at midnight,
unless for immersion? Jlr. R's. diilicullics not unl'iccjuently testify
against him, and unikr the rack of his torture cry out nnmcraion,
Mr. K. next tak(;s up the baptism uf the 13,000. Tlie sum of his
argurnod is, tiiat twelve men cuuld not have acctimi)li.>h('d the work!
Kow, 1 should like lo bo one of twelve who sliould ag;iiu jiave such a
privilege. A lew years ago, i baptised 85 individiuils "dcciiitli/ inid
iiiordtr" in just iiO minuies. At this rate, four hours W(..uld have
been amply suiiiciiMit, in wiiich to have baptised the w liole 13,000.
But we learn from Acts, x: 4tf ; tliat the Aposilcs conuuanded assist-
ance even on small Lajsiisiiig oJcasion^, tind why not lieie? All will
admit then, that the s(\emy di.-eiples liail a right to baptise. TheEC
added ti> the 12, Would give us i^2 b;ipti.^ers, and tlii:< Lumber would
accom})lish the woik wltii ea^e in 40 minutes. l;apti?t ministers can-
cot fail to smile at such calculations.

Bui we have still another dijfinillii. Is'o water ! iNo water ! Mas
for the teeming iidial itaiilsoi' Jerusalem ! Alas, for the p,arclied and
tliirsty tribi's of l.-rael ! Alas, fui-miin and beast ! Bul^to{) I my com-
miseration ismirsapplied, totally ! 'J liere was enough ot r-ater lor all
tlie ordinaiy purj)o>t^s of the tens of thousands of m* n and beasts in the
dty, enough for ox, en aigh hi- a^s, but there Avas not enough in
Vfhieh to baptise ilio^e li,000 believers. lJesj[)e;ate must be the
cause that demands auch a defence.

We iind, however, that wati'r was not so scarce an article in Jerusalem
in those ilays, as many seem to imngine. 'Jo say nothing of the
numerous ])rivate baths, and |)laces in ihe Temple, (iuid the disciples
had access to the Temple and "had favour ^^ith vW the jicople,")
there was the jiool oi Stioom and Hcthcudu. This last pi.iol, Maundrell
makes 120 paces long, 40 broad, and 8 deep — "wliieh basin" says
Culmet, "being deeper in some places than in others, uneven at the
bottom, might be deej) enttugh to swim in in sonn' iir.rts, Avhile in
others it might merely serve to wasii the sheep." According to
the dimensions given by Chatvaiihriaud, it measures " 150 feet long,
and 40 wide, or 380 feet around ! Kow, taking this hnvest mea-
surement, 80 administrators of baptism might stand within its verge
4 feet apart, and, in 40 minutes or less, baptise the 3,000.

I notice these quibbles, not because 1 regard ilicni as allectingmy
practice as a Baptist, that practice rests uj)on the Divine record.

The xoord finds water enough in every instance, with as much
certainty as the word circumcision finds a knife ; but I notice
them simply because many honest-hearted enquirers suppose

them to have force. As to the hackneyed idea that the converts

SSRM0N8 ON BAPTIHH.

Scient
t, the
they
, men-
and is
id sets
dnighl,
testify
\eriiion,
11 uf Ilia
i work!
; Bueli a

Id huvo
! y,ouu.
d assist-
All Avill
Tlusc
Lv v.ould
steib can-

I- ! Mas
oiu'd and
luy cdin-
UT l*Ji" iiil
i>lsin the
iHiuyh ill
t be the

Jcnisalem
ig uf the
c disciples

|,COpU',")

I^lauiidrell
iisui" says
veil at the
s, vliilein
urding to
J fuet long,
Avest inea-
in its verge
)00.

lectingmy
ine record.
h as much
1 notice
suppose
16 converts

had no changes of raiment, at a feast of the Jews, the assump-
tion is most gratuitous. And again, I say, that there is just as
much evidence to prove that they had common sense enough to
decently take care of themselves, as there is t( prove, that cir-
cumcised persons had to take care of themselves.

We have next brought under our notice, Romans, vi : 4j and
Collossians, ii : 12, buried with Christ by baptism. These pas-
'sages, one would naturally suppose, place our practice beyond the
reach of even cavil itself; but Mr R. says, "there is nothing
in immersion like burial !" I appeal to the common sense of every
man, woman and cliilJ, who has eyes to see, or intelligence to
discover the resomblance between an object and its well defined
shadow. Surely, we bury our candidates in baptism. And surely,
we raise them again ! But. says Mr. R., "when a body is buried
it is not dipped and raised again, or rather, the feet and legs first
placed in the ground, and the rest of the corpse plunged and raised

Besides, if our Lord's burial is to be imitated, there must

be a baptising horizontally, for the cave or tomb in which he was
buried was in the side of a rock ; and bodies were put into it laterally,
and not by lowering or dipping." On this I remark :

1. Bodies are buried in the ground ; and my Bible teaches the
sublime doctrine that they shall be raised again.

2. Christ was buried and rose again. These are facts !

3. Mr. R. reasons here just as might a person totally ignorant of
the nature of symbolical language. The mere circumstances con-
nected with any transaction symbolized, are never in the symbol.
Thus, the paschal lamb, was r\oi crucified, yet it was o. perfect sym-
bol, it was a lamb slain. On the great day of atonement, the goat
was not crucified, but its blood was spilt, and it was sacrificed. Now,
as in these cases, had not the victims been put to death, they could
not have symbolized the death of Christ; so, unless baptism be a
burial in water aud a resurrection out of it, it is absurd to say, that
" we are fiwrjerf with him, bi/ and m baptism, that, like as Christ
was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we
also should walk in newness of life." Again, in the Supper we
have an emblematical representation of Christ's death. But Mr. R.
might say, " if our Lord's death is to be imitated, there must be a
crucifixion/^^ He can perceive without difficulty a beautiful emblem
of Christ's death in the breaking of bread, and in in the pouring out
of wine; but cannot discover any likeness to his burial, and resur-
rection, in a burial in, and resurrection from water. Here he must
have all the circumstances of a funeral, connected with the burial
else it is no burial! Was ever triffling with a solemn subject more
apparent? But Mr. R. makes us say, "that the mode, not the
result, is essential to baptism." This is a mistake ; we make the
divinely appointed emblems essential to baptism. But Mr. R. con-
founds the ordinance with its concomitants. The Lord's Supper
may be attended to, in the evening, in a house, or a chapel ; but

I- IT

ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MB. ROAF'S

* I

■ )

! I

the bread must be broken; so in baptism, the candidate may be
dressed in white, or in black, baptised backwards or forwards, to
the right hand, or the left, mode is nothing, provided, the subject
be buried and raised ajfain. The Spirit has left us in attending to
these divinely appointed symbols, to select circumstances, most con-
venient. Uncomminded concomitants may vary, but the Iking com-
manded never, until the heavens pass with a mighty noise.

4. No sophistry can ever take away from these passages, burial
and resurrection, and as we have in the Supper, a real, (not a
spiritual), breaking of bread, so in baptism, we have a real burial.
In this ordinance, wo not only, exhibit the iar*V// and resurrection
of our Lord, but also, profess to be dead to the world, to be buried
wil/i Christ, and to rise to newness of life. Dr. Chalmers thus
reasons on the verse :

" Jesus Christ, by death, underwent this sort of baptism — even immersion under
the surface ot" tiie ground, whence he soon emerged again by his resurrection.-^
Wo, by being baptised into his death, are conceived to have made a similar trans-
lation. In the act of descending under the water of baptism, to have resigned an
old hfe ; and in the act of ascending, to emerge into a second, or new life ; along
the course of which, it is our part to maintain a strenuous avoidance of that sin
which as good as expuntred the being we had formerly ; and a strenuous prosecu-
tion of that holiness which should begin with the first moment that we were
ushered ir.to our present being, and be perpetuated, and' make progress toward the
perfection of full and ripened immortality."

Planted together in the likeness of his death, and being in the
likeness of his resurrection is a similar figure. Paul employs the
burying of grain in the earth, and its springing up again to pre-
figure the resurrection of the body. The old man, is said to be
crucified; but we are never said to be buried with Christ in cruci-
fixion 1 Who would not feel the incongruity of such a figure.
And who does not feel the incongruity of being buried with Christ
by sprinkling.

Mr. R. next notices the baptism of the Israelites in the Rod Sea,
and conjectures that they were ^'probably sprinkled by the spray."
This was not a case of christian baptism, but it was a burial, and
resurrection. They went down into the sea, — the waters stood like
walls on both sides, '■^congealed in the heart of the sea," the guar-
dian cloud covered them— and thus, they were all immersed unto
Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea.

He next notices the baptism of Nebuchadnezzar in the dew of
heaven, and says, " This dew must have decended upon him." Yes,
but the dew is not said to have been baptised upon him. It was the
body of the ill-fated monarch that was baptised and not the dew.
The passage is literally, his body was immersed in the dew of
heaven. Destroy this beautiful figure, and you upset the meaning,
and force of the passage. Our own Milton, has a similar phrase, it
is this :

" A cold shuddering dew dipt me all o'er." •'■ i

And Spencer says : J >' ^

i. • . ri "With verses rftp<m dew of Caatalie." - j^Jv v?" >' '»'

o may be
rwards, to
the subject
ttending to
most con*
thing com-
e.

jes, burial
eal, (not a
real burial.
esurrection
M be buried
aimers thus

imersion under
resurrection.—
similar trans-
ive reKigned an
ew life ; along
ice of that Bin
nuous prosecu-
t that we were
ress toward the

being in the
employs the

again to pre-
is said to be

[irist in cruci-

nch a figure.

id with Christ

. the Rod Sea,
y the spray."
f a burial, and
iters stood like
a," the guar-
nmersed unto

a the dew of
jnhim." Yes,
n. It was the
d not the dew.
n the dew of
t the meaning,
nilar phrase, it

BERMONS ON BAPTISM.

Wl ' i.

Jin %<^

Could any man fail to feel the force, and see the beauty of these
figures? Would any man argue from them that dip meant to
sprinkle 1 Yet these are cases parallel to the one before us. The
King was overwhelmed in the dew.

Mr. R. comes next, to his last head, which reads, "Affusion,
Pouring, or Sprinkling, is in accordance with tiik Holy
Scriptures." Here, I did expect, to meet the writer in a plain
common sense argument ! I did expect, to find n strniglU-forwnrd
appeal, to the usage of the language ! I had n right to expect, tlint
at least ONB passage would bo produced where baplizo or its cog-
nates, were rendered ST^r/wAZe ; or where water, or blood, or oil,
was said to be baptised vpon some person, or thing. Rut such a
passage has not yet been '-readout," and, mark, reader! Nkver
WILL BE I Let Mr. R. tell why f

Our author's first and main argument, is simply this : I have
proven immersion to have been impossible, in many cases ; there-
fore, sprinkling is baptism ! ! I deny, that Mr. R's. conclusion is
in his premises. A learned infidel would adopt Mr. R's premises,
and effectually resist his conclusion. He would say with Professor
Stuart, "the word means to dip, to plunge, to immerse, all critics
and lexicographers of any note are airreed in this'' — and the
Greeks themselves thus understand it, therefore, Ibe liible is false !
But I have anniliilated Mr. R's. dijficulties, (tJiough not hound to
do it,) and have thus sustained both the ordinance and the Bible.

But Mr. R. says, ^^ pouring is more suited to the representation,
and significant purpose of baptism." What likeness. I ask, is tliere
between pouring and a burial and resurrect ion ? Where Christ's
death and resurrection is not set forth in baptism, and the believer's
union with him in these, there can bo no christian baptism. Now,
is pouring, a burial? Where then is its ^^ significancy.^^ Mr. R.
says, "baptism is a sign of tlie cleansing away of sin by Christ's
blood." In the emblematical waters, sins are said to be " washed
avoay,''^ but this part of the emblem is as fatal to the pretentions of
sprinkling, as is the burial or resurrection. Sprinkling is no more
a mode of washing than it is of immersing ; and if it were, it would
not affect this question. Leviticus, vi : 27, we read, " when there
is sprinkled of the blood thereof on any garment, thou shall wash
that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place." Here, sprinkling
and washing are presented by the Spirit, as two very different
aflfairs. Sprinkling, then, preserves no part of the "significant pur-
pose of baptism." God has not ordained this as an emblem, but
something else; and who has a right to change his enactments ?
Christ sprinkles the heart from an evil conscience, while the body
on the contrary, is said to be washed with pure water.

Mr. R. says, " plunging into the blood of Christ is inconsistent
with the phraseology of scripture." Let us see — it is said. Revela-
tion?, i: 5, "to him that has washed us from our sins in his own blood;''*
— " washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the

i >

^ ANniADVBIUIIOMI UPOV Ma ROArM

Lamb ;" the " washing of regeneration," &c. Is immersion tneon>
sislcnt with such phraseology ? Let the dullest apprehension judge I
Cowper snys :

" There is n fountain filled with blood
Drown from Inimnruiel's veins,
And Hi nners p/Mm^firr/ beneath that flood
Lose all their guilty etains." ''

Cowper, obviously, did not see through Mr. R's. optics.

Mr. R. quotes some instances, in which the word sprinkle occurs
—but what, I ask, have those to do with bopliam? He ought to
have informed the common reader, that in the original, not one of
those sprinklings are indicated by the word baptitm. They are all
rantisms. We know ns well as Mr. R., that every mode of *he
motion of water is spoken of in the Hible. Pouring, sprinkhng,
flowing, runing, springing up. We also rend of drinlting unto one
spirit, of drinking the blood of the Son of man ; why are not all
these modes of baptism. My reply is, simply because there is no
baptism in any one of them — no burial, and resurrection with our
glorious Redeemer. Mr. R. has one argument left, which will weigh
more with some souls than all his other arguments combined. It is
as follows; — "Immersion in baptism involves a changing of dress,
an attention to its sinking in the woter, and a close clinging of
saturated clothes to the person, from which delicacy shrinks."

This caricature is a low appeal to the pride of the human heart.
Mr. R , and " Punch in Canada,^' may join hand in hand, in ridi-
culing Christ's ordinances, but that resurrection, so beautifully sym-
bolized in baptism approaches, when the Lord will plead his own
cause. Had I met with the obove language in the writings of some
low infidel, whose associations, when he ''looketh on a woman "in
the water, or out of the water, are eternally the same, it would not
have surprised me; but from a minister of the gospel, it is startling.
My reply to this argument, is as follows: *' To the pure all thing are
pure ; unto them that are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pute ;
but even their mind and conscience is defiled." How differently
does Mrs. Sigourney speak of the baptism of a lovely young
lady, she says, —

" Then with a firm unshrinking step,

The watery path she trod : . .

And gave, with woman's deathless trust.
Her being to her Gcd.

And when, all drooping from the flood, ,

She rose like lilly's stem : • '

Methought that spotless brow might wear
An angel's diadem."

I have now examined Mr. R's. arguments. I have met his diffi-
culties one by one, and I now submit the whole to the friends of
Christ, who must Suon meet me before the great white throne, and
I ask them to say, whether truth on this subject is with Mr. R. or
myself. Every human being is accountable to God. He has given

n tneoti-

a judge I

le occuro
ought to
lot one of
y are all
je of 'he
)rinkling,
unto one
re not all
icre is no
with our
vill weigh
ed. It is
r of dress,
linging of
iks."

nan heart,
d, in ridi*
ully sym-
id his own
^ of some
Oman " in
would not
startling.
I thing are
^ is pure ;
differently
ly young

■BRMOIfS OR BAPTlSMi 8t

oi his wofd, and by that word we must all be judged. What then, are
the teachinffs of the Bible on this subject ? We learn that Christ
commanded the baptism only o^ believers or disciples. The Apostles
commanded Jews and Gentiles ' > repent and be buptincd. 'J'liey that
gladly received the word, were baptised. Thoy hearing, believed,
and were baptised. They bflieved Philip preaching and were baptised^
both men and women. They believed with all their heart, and were
baptised. It was a putting on of Christ, and the answer of a good
conscience toward God. Again, baptism was performed in the
River Jordan, and at Enon, because there was much water there,
and we never read of the employment of a cup or basin. They went
down into the water, were buried with Christ in baptism, and raised
again in the likeness of his resurrection, thoy came up out of the
water and went on their way rejoicing. In view of these simple
Bible facts, together with the fact that infant sprinkling is not once
mentioned in the word of God, I cannot resist the conviction that
Pedobaptism is not according to the mind of the Redeemer — and
that sprinkling is subversive of the Divine law.

v.-

et his diffi-
friends of
I rone, and
Mr. R. or
I has givMi

^*i*HiWs4W.c*.i>'Mat^-J*«"l

ki mrtiff'v---mx.

'^♦"♦■•li. ■" ?r.- fi;^r ■;/,•».«!*

. I

■ ,i"v'! *r''. '!

■r- "•¥•:

'.., '-; (;

. ! ,

. !.'

\ .u-A:v'..r)

.,!,".

• t > ; ..

» . - .*;

' 1 ;

!■, •■•;(, ;r:--'

r.i

. , .'.'.,

■ Vr

,,,^.,

->^ ,,\'^ A.

' ' ' ■

* . ■

• .',•,.•

■ .

ii.i'j

'■ ■ ■ ^•

. * * J

,'1, 1'

! '. Tii/i;j

'•

(

. 1

, ,, .,.'p ■;

1 .;(.;. ii ■; J/

Note. — A few unimportant typographical errors have been over-
looked in the first part, such as — when, for wherej these, for those;
is, for are; and on page 11, eight lines from the bottom, received,
for revealed.

■>i-K>'-**

,^'