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\ V 3^ 4% 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. n 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/ D 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/ D 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 X n 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. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 met // / ANHADYERSIOIS UPON THE 'M REV. JOHN EOAF'S TWO SEMOIS ON BAPTISM. I BY JAMES PYPER, PASTOR or TBB BOND STREET BAPTIST CHURCH, TORONTO. i •;! \ - TORONTO: PRINTED BY CARTER & THOMAS, 45, YONGE STREET. 1851. i 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 I N. 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 /r 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 ii y ! 10 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 il r i 12 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. 13 : 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 u 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. ff 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. , \ h 1 I 16 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. ir , 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! !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 9" 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 ? ^ ir K is It 1: 20 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 J^ r 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 24 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 ! 26 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/". . . . , . II ^i' f 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. ^* vi 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 ' 1^ jl. 30 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 u 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 82 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. h 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 c t 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 34 ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MB. ROAF'S * I if ■ ) ! 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. 35 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 T if 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. 1 ' ' ' ■ * . ■ • .',•,.• ■ . ii.i'j .7 '■ ■ ■ ^• I J I . * * J ,'1, 1' ! '. Tii/i;j '• ( . 1 , ,, .,.'p ■; I 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>'-** ,^'