i BAP copvT ^ ^ i 1 .^ .5 ! ,^ IE 3 / ^ ,»^^ IE £Z "^ Q. ■ i Xi«r ; 'S, S o ^ $ ^ s a; c c* O bfl r\ •25 ^ |Zi E .to <•> M lO "ivi ^ W CO > 2 ^ Ck ^ ^ t s ^ ^ CL 1^ L J / ^> f Digitized by tine Internet Arcinive in 2011 witii funding from Princeton Tiieological Seminary Library littp://www.arcliiverbrg/details/tlireereasonswliyiOOpe THREE REASONS, WHY I AM A BAPTIST. BT REV. J. M. PENDLETON, PASTOR OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH, BOWTJNGi-GRJELEN, KT. TWELFTH THOUSAND, CINCINNATI: MOOEE, ANDERSON" & COMPANY, 28 "WEST FOURTH STREET. 1 8 53. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1853, by MOORE, ANDERSON & COMPANY, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the District of Ohio. MORQAIT & OVEREND, PRINTERS. CINCINNATI: 0. A. MORGAN & CO., STKRE0TYPER8, HAMMOIID ETREET. PREFATORY NOTE. If any one wislies to know why the following pages are given to the public, the reason is easily furnished. The Author was invited, some months since, to preach a Discourse at the Dedication of a Baptist Meeting-House. He complied with the invitation, and deemed the occasion suitable for giving some of his reasons for being a Baptist. Many breth- ren have expressed a desire that these Reasons should be published, giving it as their opinion, that the publication would promote scriptural views of Baptism and Church Government. In deference to the wishes of those valued brethren, the Discourse has been expanded into the following Treatise, and is now submitted to the public. That the day may soon come when there shall be, as in apostolic times, " one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism," and one form of Church Government, is the Author's fervent prayer. J. M. Pendleton. Bowling-Green, Kt., May 4, 1853. (iii) :% ^^ THREE REASONS WHY I AM A BAP TIS'f . Were I to state that I am a Baptist because Bap- tists believe the Bible to be the word of God, and cordially subscribe to the doctrine of salvation by grace — ^justification by faith — regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and all kindred topics — some other per- son might say, *'I belong to a diflferent religious communion for the same reasons." It is necessary, therefore, that my reasons embrace the distinctive peculiarities of Baptists. In other words, I must show why Baptists differ from other religious de- nominations. 1 0771 a Baptist then, I. Because Baptists regard the baptism of in- fants AS UNSCRIPTURAL, AND INSIST ON THE BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS IN ChRIST AND OF BELIEVERS ALONE. In showing the validity of this reason, I must en- ter into an investigation of the subject of Infant Bap- tism. The investigation will, I trust, not be wanting (5) 6 THREE REASONS, in impartiality and courtesy. May it result in the de- velopment and maintenance of truth ! My position is that there is no Scriptural authority for infant baptism. Neither precept for, nor example of it can be found in the Sacred Writings. In estab- lishing this position I shall, in opposition to the re- quirements of logic, assume the burden of proof and attempt to perform a work of supererogation. That is to say, I shall endeavor to prove a negative. Baptism is a New Testament ordinance. This the Westminster Confession of Faith concedes. The New Testament, therefore, should settle every ques- tion relative to baptism. This is the universal opin- ion of Baptists. Pedobaptists, hoAvever, are not wil- ling — as we shall see — to make an exclusive appeal to the New Testament in determining who are proper subjects of baptism. More of this in another place. My object at present is to show that there is no authority in the New Testament for infant baptism. Let us see. *'To the law and to the testimony." 1. The account given of JolirCs haptism affords no justification of infant baptism. In the third chapter of Matthew it is thus written : ''In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent jo,; for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he sa\y WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 7 many of the Pliarisees and Sadducees come to liis baptism, he said unto them : generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance : And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abra- ham to our father : for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham." From these verses we learn that John preached re- pentance — that those whom he baptized confessed their sins — and that descent from Abraham was not considered a qualification for baptism. There is nothing in the narrative that can suggest the idea of the baptism of impenitent adults or unconscious in- fants. And this is equally true of the account of the Harbinger's ministry given by the other three evan- gelists. Paul,' in explaining John's baptism, says, ''John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, say- ing unto the people that they should believe on him who should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." Acts, xix. 4. Here it is plain that John re- quired repentance and faith in the Messiah in those *he baptized. There is not the remotest allusion to the baptism of any who either did not or could not repent and beheve in Christ. Baptists, so far as the subjects of baptism are concerned, certainly copy the example of the first Baptist. 2. The disciples of Christ baptized no infants during his ministry. 8 TRREE REASONS. The only reference we have to the baptisms admin- istered by them before the Redeemer's death and resurrection is in John iii, 26, and iv, 1, 2. It might be inferred from the third chapter that Jesus himself baptized, but the first two verses of the fourth chapter explain the matter as follows : " When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples tJian John, though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples," &c. Baptism was not administered by the Savior, but as his apostles acted under his authority, he is represented as doing what was done by his direc- tion. The fact, however, which deserves special attention is that Jesus made and baptized more dis- ciples than John. There is a distinction between making and baptizing disciples. First in order was the process of discipleship to Christ, and then bap- tism as a recognition of discipleship. Could infants be made disciples? Manifestly not. Then, accord- ing to this passage, they were not eligible to baptism ; for the inference is irresistible that none were bap- tized who were not first made disciples. The portions of Scripture quoted, taken together, may be considered fair exponents of the baptismal practice from the beginning of John's ministry to the death of Christ. I do not ask whether infant bap- tism is named ; is it even indirectly alluded to ? Let the candid reader answer. WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 9 3. The oft-repeated verse, " Suffer little cJiildreny and forbid them not, to come unto me : for of such is the kingdom of heaven" — does not justify infant bap- tism. For what purpose were these children taken to Christ? That he should baptize them? Evidently not; for he did not baptize. Were they carried to him that his disciples might baptize them ? If so, it is marvelous that the disciples rebuked those who had charge of them. The preceding verse shows why these children were taken to Christ. ''Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and prcty : and the dis- ciples rebuked them." Matt. xix. 13. There was a specific object in view. It was not that tlie "little children" might be baptized, but that the Savior might put his hands on them and pray. Who has the right to infer that these children were baptized or that baptism was named in their presence ? It is often argued that the phrase, "of such is the king- dom of heaven," indicates that those children were "members of the visible church." This does not follow. The Savior does not say that these children were of the kingdom of heaven; but he says, "o/" such is the kinq-dom of heaven." The idea of re- semblance is clearly presented. Rev. A. Barnes, in his notes on the passage, says, " Of such as these — that is, of persons with such tempers as these — is the church to be composed. He does not say of 10 THREE REASONS, those infants, but of such persons as resembled them, or were like them in tempei", was the kingdom of heaven made up. It w-as proper, therefore, that he should pray for them." Mr. Barnes is good Presby- terian authority, and is higlily celebrated as an ex- positor of Scripture. In Matthew xviii, 3, the Savior says, ''Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Here we have again the idea of resem- blance between little children and converted persons, but there is not a word concerning infant baptism. May I not say that the New Testament, from the birth of John the Baptist to the death of Christ, is as silent as the grave in reference to the baptism of in- fants ? However, if Pedobaptists were to admit this, they would still insist, many of them at least, that there is authority for their practice bearing date sub- sequent to the Redeemer's death and resurrection. Let us see whether there is such authority. 4. The commission given hy the Savior to his aj)ostles just before his ascension to heaven, furnishes no plea for infant bai^tism. Tlie circumstances connected with the giving of this commission were replete with interest. The Savior had finished the work which he came down from heaven to accomplish. He had offered himself a sacrifice for sin. He had exhausted the cup of atoning sorrow. He had lain in the dark mansions of the grave. He had risen in triumph from the WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 11 dead, and Avas about to ascend to the right hand of the Majesty on high. Invested with perfect media- torial authority, he said to his apostles: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things whatso- ever I have commanded you : and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.'* Matthew, xxviii, 18, 19, 20. Mark records the same commission thus: "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that be- lieveth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark, xvi, 15, 16. Luke represents the Savior as saying, "Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day ; and that repent- ance and remission of sins should be preached in his name amonof all nations, beo^innins: at Jerusalem,'* Luke, xxiv, 46, 47. Surely the language of this commission is plain. Matthew informs us that teaching, or making disciples (for the verb matheteuo means make disciples) is to precede baptism — Mark establishes the priority of faith to baptism, and Luke connects repentance and remission of sjns with the execution of the commis- sion. No man can, in obedience to this commission, baptize an unbeliever or an infant. The unbeliever is not a penitent disciple, and it is obviously im- 12 THREE REASONS, possible for the infant to repent and believe the gospel. I lay it down as a principle of common sense, which commends itself to every unprejudiced mind, that a commission to do a thing or things authorizes only the doing of that thing or those things specified in it. The doing of all other things is virtually pro- hibited. There is a maxim of law — Exjpressio unius est exclusio alterius.^ It must necessarily be so; for otherwise there could be no definiteness in contracts between men, and no precision in "the enactments of legislative bodies, or in the decrees of courts of jus- tice. This maxim might be illustrated in a thousand ways. Numerous Scriptural illustrations are at hand. I will mention a few: God commanded Noah to make an ark of gopher-ioood. He assigns no reason why gopher-wood should be used. The command, however, is positive and it forbids the use of every other kind of wood. Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac for a burnt-offering. He was virtu- ally forbidden to offer any other member of his family. Ay more, he could not offer an animal till the original order was revoked by him who gave it, and a second order was given, requiring the sacrifice of a ram in the place of Isaac. The institution of the passover furnishes a striking illustration, or rather a combination of illustrations. A lamb was to be *The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 13 killed — not a heifer — it was to be of tlie first year — not of the second or third — a male — not a female — without blemish — not with blemish — on the four- teenth day of the month — not on some otheT day — the blood was to be apphed to the door-posts and lin- tels — not elsewhere, (fee. The constitution of the State of Kentucky supplies many illustrations. I avail myself of but one. It is provided that Judges (appellate and circuit) shall be removed from office by the Governor "on the address of two-thirds of each house of the General Assembly," and pro- vision is also made for their removal by impeach- ment. These are the two metliods of removal known to the constitution. I ask if all other methods of re- moval are not virtually prohibited ? Let every man divest himself of prejudice and answer. In application of the principle I have laid down, and of the law-maxim I have illustrated, I affirm that the commission of Christ to the apostles in re- quiring them to baptize disciples, believers, prohibits in effect the baptism of all others. It will not do to say we are not forbidden in so many words to bap- tize infants. The same may be said of unbelievers ; ay, of horses, and cattle,^ and bells. Rev. F. G. Hibbard, a Methodist minister "of the Genessee conference," in his work on "Christian Baptism," comments with some severity on an ex- tract he makes from " Jewett on Baptism." Jewett, in illustrating the view of the commission already 14 THREE REASONS, presented says, "If I commission my agent to pur- chase for me a lot of Webster's large dictionaries, does he not violate his instructions, if he also buy on my account a lot of the abridgments ? But he says, 'You did not forbid the purchase of the abridg- ments.' Did not forbid the purchase ! I answer, it was not necessary for me to insert in your commis- sion a prohibition against purchasing other books. Your instructions were definite ; and when I directed you to buy the large books, you must have known that you had no authority to buy 5ma7/ books; you have done it at your own risk." Mr. Hibbard says, ''All this shows just how far some authors look into a subject before they pro- nounce upon it. The analogy, however an iinprac- ticed reader may be influened by it, is an unfair and perfectl}'- puerile statement of the case. For in the first place, Pedobaptists do not take their authority for baptizing infants from the mere absence of a ^^ro- hibition of such a practice, as the pretended analogy teaches. We know not, indeed, how a Christian au- thor could make such a representation of the opin- ions of his brethren. All we affirm touching this point is, that the total absence of a, prohibition, in this particular commission, does not 2^rove a universal prohibition ; it proves nothing at all, either j^ro or con. And yet our author attempts to prove that the absence of an express prohibition, in this specific case, does directly prove a general prohibition. Fur- WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 15 therm ore, the analogy is without any just force what- ever, because, although a command to buy large books, is no authority for the purchase of small books ; and a command to baptize believers is no au- thority for baptizing infants, yet as such commands contain no prohibition, there may exist circum- stances, or there may, in another way, be instruc- tions communicated, to authorize the purchase of the small books, alias the baptism of infants ; and this may be such a perfect matter of understanding between the master and the 'agent,' as to render it wholly unnecessary to specify it. And this, we maintain, is the exact state of the case in relation to infant baptism." Pp. 235, 236. Mr. Hibbard has been pronounced by a dis- tinguished Baptist minister, "the Carson of his de- nomination on the subjects and mode of Baptism.'* This is high eulogy ; for Baptists consider Carson's work on Baptism the ablest which the baptismal con- troversy has elicited. Far be it from me to dispar- age Mr. H.'s book. It displays more abihty and scholarship than any Methodist work I have read. With a disposition, therefore, to do him perfect justice, I solicit the reader's attention to the concession made in the foregoing extract. A more comprehensive con- cession could not be expected from a Pedobaptist. It is conceded that "a command to baptize helievers is no authority for baptizing infants.'' Very well. This 16 THREE REASONS, is tlie position Baptisls liave ever maintained. The commission of Christ to his apostles requires the baptism of behevers: therefore it does not, Mr. H. being- judge, authorize the baptism of infants. It may be more satisfactory to present the argument in syllogistic form. Here it is : A command to baptize believers is no authority for baptizing infants : The commission contains a command to baptize believers : therefore the commission is no authority for baptizing infants. If there is a flaw in this syllogism, or if it docs Mr. H.'s concession the least injustice, I am not aware of it. I conclude, then, that Mr. H. will not hesitate to say, with Baptists, that the commission does not authorize infant baptism. Still he insists- strenuously on the baptism of infants, and argues that there is authority for the practice, independent of the comniissipn. This is strange indeed. For it is plain fr.OTO'-^he, consolatory assurance subjoined to the cojii-mission,. that the Lord Jesus intended that it should, re^inain in full force to the end of the Avorld. Here,, then, was a commission given by Christ, which enjoined baptism upon believers to the close of time: — a commission which, according to the general view of Pedobaptists, originated Christian baptism — a commission in which there is no reference to infants at all — and yet infants, as Mr. Hibbard teaches, are to be baptized ! It is strange that his philosophical mind did not perceive that the perfect silence of the WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 17 commission, in regard to infants, furnishes, to say (he least, strong prima facie evidence against the vahdity of their claim to baptism. But, says Mr. H., referring to Mr. Jewett's illus- tration, "there may exist circumstances, or there may, in another way, be instructions communicated, to authorize the purchase of the small books, alias the baptism of infants ; and this may be such a per- fect matter of understanding between the master and the 'agent,' as to render it wholly unnecessary to specify it. And this, we maintain, is the exact state of the case in relation to infant baptism." Mr. Jewett's commission to his agent to buy Web- ster's larffe dictionaries, is intended to represent Christ's commission to his apostles to baptize be- lievers. Mr. H. SRjs, "a command to buy lar^e books, is no authority for the purchase of small books;" but he urges that authority to buy small books may be given in another way. The question, however, arises. Is it given? And Mr. J.'s illustra- tion supplies a negative answer. For if the agent had authority to buy small dictionaries, it is incon- ceivable that the principal should call him to ac- count for buying them, and require him to sustain whatever loss might accrue from the purchase. Thus it appears that while Mr. H. complains of the unfairness of Mr. J.'s analogy, he overlooks one of the most important points in the analogy. The agent, according to the illustration, could have had no au- 2 (8 THREE REASONS, ijhority to buy small books, and yet Mr. H. will have it that the authority was so well understood between the principal and agent, that it was needless to specify small books in the commission of the princi- pal to the agent! ''And this, we maintain,— says he, — is the exact state of the case in relation to in- fant baptism." That is to say, the matter was so well understood betw*een Christ and his apostles that they were to baptize infants ; that it was " "wholly un- necessary " for him in the commission to command them to do so ! A private understanding, apart from the commission, w^as it? If Mr. H.'s view is cor- rect, it is difficult to say why the commission was given at all. If the apostles understood that they were to baptize infants — and if that understanding superseded the necessity of the mention of infants in the commission — surely their understanding that they were to baptize behevers, disciples, rendered it needless for believers, disciples, to be named. More- over, the apostles had baptized the disciples Jesus made during his ministry — and they baptized no in- fants — to say the least, it has never been proved that they did — if, therefore, the Savior had intended that both believers and infants should be baptized, it is much more reasonable to suppose that he would have mentioned infants than believers. The apostles had witnessed many exemplifications of believers' bap- tism — of infant baptism they knew nothing — and it was specially necessary for tlie baptism of infants to WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 19 be enjoined in the commission, if the Savior consid- ered them proper subjects of the baptismal jite. Why was not their baptism enjoined ? Why ? The only answer is, it was not the will of the author of the commission. From this somewhat extended examination of the commission, I feel fully authorized to say that it furnishes no plea for infant baptism. I know it will be said — for it has been said a thousand times — that if infants are not to be baptized because they can- not believe, they cannot be saved because they can- not believe. If the salvation of infants depends on their faith they cannot be saved. They are incapa- ble of faith. They are doubtless saved through the mediation of Jesus Christ, but it is not by faith. It seems to me that our opponents egregiously fail to accomplish their object in urging this objection to our views. They must intend to make us admit the pro- priety of infant baptism, or force us to a denial of infant salvation. But we make neither the admis- sion nor the denial. As soon as we say that infants are not saved by faith, but without faith, their ob- jection is demolished. 5. There is no instance of infant baptism on the day of Pentecost. This fact is worthy of special consideration. The apostles were, on that memorable day, copiously im- bued with the Holy Spirit — they were baptized in the 20 THREE REASONS, Spirit — they were endued witli power from on liigh. All things whatsoever Jesus had said to them were brought to their remembrance. They were required for the first time to show their understanding of the commission of their ascended Lord. How did they understand it? How did they execute it? First, the gospel was preached. The people were pierced to the heart, and said, **Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said unto them, ** Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for thQ remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." No one contends that the command, " Re^ pent," is applicable to infants, and it is certain that the injunction, "Be baptized," has no reference to them ; for it is as clear as the sun in heaven that the same persons are commanded to repent and be bap- tized. It is supposed by some, however, that the phrase, " The promise is unto you and your children," refers to infants. The term children evidently means posterity, and the promise cannot be divested of its relation to the Holy Spirit. This promise w\as not only to the Jew^s and their posterity, but to Gen- tiles — "to all that are afar off!" This restriction is laid upon the promise — "even as many as the Lord our God shall call." And whether the term "call" WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 21 is used in its general sense, as in Proverbs viii, 4, or in its special sense, as in 1 Cor. i, 24, it is in either case inapplicable to infants. Did any obey Peter's command, "Be baptized?" It is written, "Then they that gladly received his word, were baptized : and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." The baptism was limited to those who gladly received Peter's word, and as infants were obviously not of that number, to infer that they were baptized is ut- terly gratuitous. There is nothing in the Pentecostal administration of baptism which intimates that infants were considered proper subjects of the ordinance. 6. There is nothing like infant baptism in the account given of Philip's labors in Samaria. The reader can examine for himself the eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. There it will be seen that Philip began to execute the commission of the Savior hj preaching. He "preached Christ unto them." He doubtless remembered the words of the risen Redeemer, " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," etc. The Samaritans "believed Philip preaching the things concernino; the kino-dom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" — and what then? " They were bap- tized both men and women." Here was a practical exposition of the commis- sion of Christ. Is there anything in this exposition 22 THREE REASONS, which can suggest the idea of infant dedication to God in baptism ? Surely not. Philip's plan of ope- ration was evidently uniform. Hence, when he fell in with the Ethiopian eunuch — as we learn from the latter part of the same chapter — he first ^^ preached wnto him Jesus.'' The eunuch professed /aiV/i in the Messiah. Then Philip baptized him. As ** faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," there must be preaching before faith, and there must be faith prior to baptism, because this is the order established by Christ, in the commission. Alas for those who invert this order ! 7. The household baptisms recorded in the New Tes- tament do not sustain the practice of infant baptism. I will take them in their order. In the tenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, there is an ac- count of Peter's visit to Cornelius. He preached, and the Spirit was poured out. His Gentile hearers spoke with tongues and magnified God. Then said Peter, ** Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptised, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Here was a household baptism, but there are things said of the subjects of this baptism that could not be true of unconscious infants. One fact, however, settles the whole matter. In the second verse of the chapter it is said that Cornelius " feared God with all his hmse." Can infants fear God ? WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 23 The baptism of Lydia and her household is next in order. The reader will please read the narrative, Acts, xvi, 13, 14, 15. No one denies that Lydia was a believer. She was, therefore, a proper subject of baptism. But it is inferred that as her household was baptized, infants must have been baptized. This does not follow, for the very good reason that there are many households in which there are no infants. The probability is — and it amounts almost to a cer- tainty — that Lydia had neither husband nor children. She was engaged in business — was "a seller of pur- ple, of the city of Thyatira " — which was about three hundred miles from Philippi. If she had had a husband and infant children, is it not reasonable to suppose that her husband would have taken on him- self the business in which she was engaged, allowing her to remain at home with the infant children? She evidently had no busband with her ; for it cannot be supposed that she violated conjugal propriety so far as to reduce her husband to a cipher, by saying '*my house/* etc. Nor can we believe that the sacred historian would have spoken of the house of Lydia, in verse forty, if she had had a husband. The most reasonable inference is that her household consisted of persons in her employ — that they be- lieved and were baptized as well as Lydia — and that they were the *' brethren" whom Paul and Silas "comforted," when released from prison, they ** en- tered into the house of Lydia." 24 TRREE REASONS, I have said enough to inralidate Pedobaptist ob- jections to the Baptist explanation of this narrative, and I am required to do nothing more. Pedobaptists affirm that Lydia had infant children. On them then devolves the burden of proof. They must prove that she had infant children. This they never have done — ^this they never can do. And hence the narrative furnishes no argument which can logically inure to their benefit. The same chapter (Acts, xvi,) contains a record of the baptism of the jailer and his household. Here it is necessary to say but little ; for every one can see that there were no infants in the jailer's family. Paul and Silas '* spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his houseJ^ It is also said that the jailer ''rejoiced, beUeving in God with all his house. ^' Surely the word of the Lord was not spoken to infants — surely infants are in- capable of believing. It is worthy of notice that this record shows how Paul understood the commission of Christ. It is only necessary to refer to the house- hold of Crispus (Acts, xviii, 8,) to show what has just been shown ; namely, that a man's house may believe on the Lord as well as himself. It is not said in so many words that the house of Crispus was baptized, but it is said that he "believed on the Lord with all his housed* In I'^Cor.' i, 16, Paul says: **And I baptized also iie household of Stephanas/* etc. Will any one WIIV I AM A BAPTIST. 25 infer that there were infants in this family ? This inference cannot be drawn in view of what the same apostle says in the same epistle, (xvi, 15): "Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted them- selves to the ministry of the saints." Infants could not addict themselves to the ministry of the saints. It follows that there were no infants in the family of Stephanas. I am aware that, to invalidate this con- clusion, a chronological argument has been used. It has been urged that although infants were baptized in the family of Stephanas, when Paul planted the church at Corinth, sufficient time elapsed between their baptism and the date of Paul's first epistle to the church, to justify the declaration — "they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.'* This argument avails nothing in view of the fact that the most liberal chronology allows only a few years to have intervened between the planting of the church and the date of the epistle. I have now referred to all the household baptisms mentioned in the New Testament, and there is no proof that there was an infant in any of them. On the other hand, facts and circumstances are related which render -it a moral certainty that there were no infants in those baptized families. It will not do to say that ordinarily there are infants in households. It must be shown that it is universally the case. Then the household argument will avail Pedcbap- 3 26 THREE REASONS, tists — not till then. But it can never be predicated of all households that there are infants in them. Many a Baptist minister, in the United States, has baptized more households than are referred to in the New Testament — and no infants in them. It is said that thirty entire household baptisms have occurred* in connection with American Baptist Missionary ope- rations among the Karens. In view of facts like these, how sophistical appear the reasonings of Pe- dobaptists, in reference to the household baptisms of the New Testament. 8. The allusions to baptism in the apostolical epistles forbid the supposition that infants ivere baptized. Paul refers to the '"baptized" as "dead to sin" — as rising from the baptismal waters to " walk in new- ness of life" — as "putting on Christ" — as "risen with him through the faith of the operation of God" — as "baptized for the dead," or in the belief of the resurrection — as making "a profession of faith" — a "profession before many witnesses," etc. These phrases are utterly destitute of meaning if applied to unintelligent babes. Peter defines baptism to be the "answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." This is a general definition. And it forbids the idea that baptism was, in apostolic times, administered to any except accountable agents. What conscience has an infant ? There is no opera- tion of conscience prior to accountability. Baptism, WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 27 then, in its administration to infants, cannot be what Peter says it is. This is, for Ped^baptists, an un- fortunate fact — a fact significant of the unscriptur- ahty of their practice. There is, in this connection, another thing- worthy of consideration. Paul, in his epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, exhorts children to obey their parents, etc. It is generally supposed that about ten years intervened between the introduction of the gospel into Ephesus and Colosse, and the writing of those epistles. Now, if those children, or any of them, had been baptized when the gospel was introduced into those cities, is it not strange that the apostle, in urging obedience upon them, presented no motive derived from their ** dedication to God in baptism?" There is no allusion to any "vows, promises, and obligations," made and assumed foi them by their parents or sponsors at their baptism. There is nothing said analogous to the personal ac- ceptance of a draft drawn upon them in anticipation of their intelligence and responsibility. Here I pre- sent a query: Would a Pedobaptist apostle have pursued this course? To bring the matter nearer home ! Would a Pedobaptist Missionary write a let- ter to a Pedobaptist church — making special men- tion of parents and children — urging both to a faith- ful performance of relative duties — and say nothing of the obligations of either parents or children, as connected with, or growing out of infant baptism? 28 THREE REASONS, I suppose no one has sufficient credulity to answer the question affirmatively. The apostle of the Gen- tiles, therefore, did what we cannot reasonably im- agine a Pedobaptist missionary or minister to do ! All whom it concerns may, if they please, consider this a suggestive fact. 9. The language of 1 Cor. vii, 14, — "Else were your children unclean, hut noio are they holy " — has no reference to infant baptism. ' This passage is often quoted with an air of tri- umph, as if it conclusively settled the question. ' There is not the remotest allusion to baptism. What ire the facts in the case ? Simply these : The ques- ion was agitated at Corinth, whether believing lusbands and wives should not separate themselves from their unbelieving partners ? The idea was en- tertained by some, at least, that an imbeliever was "unclean" to a believer, even as a Gentile was, under the Mosaic dispensation, "unclean" to a Jew. Paul corrects this false impression, by showing that " the unbelieving husband is sanctiiSed by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband." Without entering into a critical ex- amination of the term "sanctified," I avail myself of the fact that the sanctification was such as to jus- tify the continuance of the marriage relation between the believing and the unbelieving partner. "Else " — that is, if the sanctification did not remove the sup- posed uncleanness from unbelieving parents — "were WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 29 your children unclean; but now are they holy." The passage is intensely strong against infant baptism. It shows that the children of the members of the Corin- thian church, sustained the same relation to the church that unbeheving husbands and wives did, and that if believing husbands and wives abandoned their un- believing partners, beheving parents might, with the same propriety, separate themselves from their chil- ren. Perhaps a distinguished Pedobaptist's exposi- tion of the passage may be more satisfactory than mine. Mr. Barnes says: "There is not one word about baptism here ; not one allusion to it ; nor does the argument, in the remotest degree, bear upon it. The question was not whether children should be baptized, but it was whether there should be a sepa- ration between man and wife, where the one was a Christian and the other not. Paul states, that if such a separation should take place, it would im;ply that the marriage was improper ; and, of course, the children must be reo-arded as unclean." o Thus it appears that this passage, so often made the basis of sophistical arguments, affords no support to the cause of infant baptism. I have now noticed the prominent New Testament arguments for infant baptism. Is there precept or example to justify it ? Celebrated Pedobaptists shall answer this question. Dr. Wall, in his "His- tory of Infant Baptism," on the very first page of 30 THREE REASONS, his "Preface," says, that "among all the persons thsrt are recorded as baptized by the apostles, there is no express mention of any infant." Neander, un- doubtedly the first church historian of his age, re- ferring to " the latter part of the apostolic age," ex- presses himself thus: "As baptism was closely united with a conscious entrance on christian com- munion, faith and baptism were always connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable that baptism was performed only in in- stances where both could meet together, and that ^he practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period. We cannot infer the existence of infant baptism from the instance of the baptism of whole families, for the passage in 1 Cor. xvi, 15, shows the fallacy of such a conclusion, as from that it appears that the whole family of Stephanas, who were bap- tized by Paul, consisted of adults." Planting and Training of the Church, pp. 101, 102. Professor Stuart, in his Essay on Baptism, in the reference he makes to infant baptism, says : " Commands, or plain and certain examples, in the New Testament, relative to it, I do not find. Nor Avitli my views of it, do I need them." P. 101. Dr. Woods, long a col- league of Professor Stuart, in the Andover Seminary, in his "Lectures on Infant Baptism," remarks as follows : "It is a plain case that there is no express precept respecting infant baptism in our Sacred Writ- WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 31 ings. The proof, then, that infant baptism is a di- vine institution, must be made out in another way." P. 11. These are important concessions, made by men whose celebrity is co-extensive with Christendom. Now if the New Testament does not sustain infant baptism, ought it not to be given up? If, as the Westminster Confession aflfirms, ** Baptism is a sa- crament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus ■ Christ," it is self-evident we ought to go to the New Testament to learn who are proper subjects of bap- tism. If it was ordained by Jesus Christ, we should allow him to decide who are to be baptized, and not refer the matter to either Abraham or Moses. But Pedobaptists, unable to prove infant baptism from the New, go to the Old Testament, and try to sustain it by reasoning, analogy, inference. Was there ever such a course adopted before to establish a divine ordin- ance ? Ask a Jew why his ancestors, for so many centuries, observed the feasts of the Passover, Pen- tecost, and Tabernacles ? and he will tell you that God commanded them to do so. Ask a Christian why believers should be baptized and partake of the Lord's supper ? and his response will be, these are injunctions of Jesus Christ. Ask a Pedobaptist, however.: why infants ought to be baptized ? and he will at once plunge into the mazes of Judaism, and argue the identity of the old "Jewish Church," and 32 THREE REASONS, the Gospel Church, insisting, in the meantime, most strenuously on the substitution of baptism for circum- cision. This is a strange method of proving that infants ought to be baptized. It argues a conscious- ness of the utter absence of New Testament au- thority for infant baptism. It indicates that there is no command to baptize infants ; for a command would supersede the necessity of argument to show the propriety of the practice. No man enters into an argument to prove that believers ought to be bap- tized. The positive injunction of Christ renders it superfluous. Pedobaptists assume the identity of what they call the "Jewish Church," with the Christian Church, and on this ground insist on infant membership. I shall allow some of their distinguished men to speak for themselves. Mr. Hibbard says: "Our next proper position relates to the substantial oneness, or identity, of the Jewish and Christian Churches. I say substantial oneness, because, although in many secondary and adventitious points they differ, still, in all the essential features of the real church of God, they are one and the same. And here it is proper to admonish the reader of the importance of this posi- tion. It is upon this ground that we rest the weight of the Bible argument for infant baptism." Christ- ian Baptism, pp. 31, 32. This language is plain and easily understood, though any one familiar with the WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 33 baptismal controversy, will detect in the phrase *' suh- stontial oneness," an unwillingness to indorse the "identity" theory without qualification. Dr. Miller, for many years a professor in the Princeton Seminary, New Jersey, says: "As the in- fant seed of the people of God are acknowledged on all hands to have been members of the church, equally with their parents, under the Old Testament dispensation, so it is equally certain that the church of God is the same in substance now that it was then.'*' The italics are the Doctor's. Here also is a disposi- tion to recoil from a bold avowal of the doctrine of identity. "The same in substance" — is the felicitous phrase selected to meet the logical exigencies that might possibly occur. Again Dr. M. remarks, " It is not more certain that a man, arrived at mature age, is the same individual that he was when an in- fant on his mother's lap, than it is that the church, in the plentitude of her light and privileges, after the coming of Christ, is the same church which, many centuries before, though with a much smaller amount of hght and privilege, yet, as we are expressly told in the New Testament, (Acts, vii, 38), enjoyed the presence and guidance of her divine Head in the wilderness." Sermons on Baptism, pp. 18, 19. Dr. Rice, in his Lexington Debate, says, " The church, then, is the same under the Jewish and Chris- tian dispensations — the same into which God did, hy 34 THREE REASONS, positive law, 2^'ui believers and their children^ P. 285. Dr. R., it will be seen, is bolder than Mr. Hibbard or Dr. Miller. He says nothing about "substantial oneness" — "the same in substance," etc., but with characteristic fearlessness announces his position, and to attract special attention, italicizes the words in which he expresses it. I think I have now fairly stated the Pedobaptist view of the identity of the Jewish theocracy, and the church of Christ. Can this view be sustained ? It is, as I believe, impossible to sustain it. I shall aim to show that the position is utterly untenable. First, however, let me define the term church. It means a congregation, an assembly. The Greeks used the term eJcMesia, to signify an assembly with- out any regard to the purposes for which the as- sembly met. Hence the tumultuous concourse of the citizens of Ephesus referred to. Acts, xix, 32, and 41, is called in the Greek Testament ekklesia, and the term is translated assemhhj. The word, there- fore, while it denotes an assembly, does not, in its general signification, denote the kind of assembly. This being the case, the Jewish nation or congrega- tion might with propriety be called ekklesia or church. In the New Testament, however, the term ekklesia, (generally translated church), in its appli- cation to the followers of Christ, refers either to a WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 35 particular congregation of saints, or to the redeemed in the aggregate. The sacred writers speak of the churches of Asia, the churches of Judea, the churches of Macedonia, the churches of Galatia, etc., and these churches were evidently composed of persons who made credible profession of faith in Christ. In apostohc times, the members of a particular congre- gation were called "saints," "believers," "disci- ples," etc. They were separate from the world — a spiritual people. Baptists say that in this sense of the term Church, there was no church before the gospel dispensation. There were, doubtless, many pious persons from the days of Abel to the coming of Christ, but there was not a body of true saints separate from the world. The Jewish nation was separated from other nations, but it was not a nation of saints. It was a kind of politico-rehgious body, and circumcision was a mark of nationality. The righteous and the wicked belonged to this body, and were entitled to its privileges. But there wag no spiritual organization composed of regenerate per- sons, called out, separated from the Jews as a people, till John the Baptist came preaching in the wilder- ness of Judea. I have been thus particular in defin- ing the term church, that there may be no misappre- hension as to its meaning. I now proceed to show that the Jewish theocracy and the Christian Church cannot be identical. 1. Because when the Jewish organization had been 36 THREE REASONS, in existence for centuries, the prophets predicted the establishment of a new Mngdom. In Isaiah ii, 2, it is -written, *' And it sliall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the moun- tains, and shall be exalted above the hills ; and all nations shall flow unto it." There is manifest refer- ence here to the kingdom of Christ. It is not in- timated that this kingdom had been established, but it was to be established. The phrase, "Last days,'* means what it signifies when Paul says *' God has in these last days spoken to us by his Son." It desig- nates the period of the gospel dispensation. The prophecy of Daniel, ii, 44, deserves special consid- eration. Having referred in the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream to the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Grecian and the Roman empires, he says : "And in the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and con- sume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." This kingdom was to be set up several centuries after Daniel prophesied. The phrase, "Set up," must in- dicate the establishment of a new kingdom. There is no intimation that the old Jewish kingdom was to be reorganized. This new kingdom was to stand forever. It was not to fall like the secular empires, symbolized by the gold, silver, brass and iron of WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 37 Nebucluidnezzar's image, but it was to be a perma- nent kingdom — maintaining an uninterrupted exist- ence amid the lapse of ages and the revolutions of time. Who does not see that this kingdom must be identical with the churcli of Christ, of which, he said: ''The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." The kingdom, the church, is to stand. Why ? Because the machinations of Satan cannot overthrow it. John the Baptist referred, in his preaching, to the new kingdom. His voice was heard in the wilderness of Judea, saj^ing, "Repent ye; for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Was it the old Jewish kingdom that was at hand? Obviously it was not. Jesus Chiist, in the very beginning of his ministry, an- nounced the same kingdom as at hand. He said, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." The time to which the prophets — Daniel especially — re- ferred, was fulfilled. The new kingdom was at hand. Hence the command was, " Repent ye, and believe the gospel." Such preaching had never been heard before. The injunction, "repent," was new ; and the argument enforcing it was new. There was something so novel and so distinctive in the preaching of Christ and his harbinger, as to indi- ,cate the introduction of a new era. That the preach- .}ing of John was the beginning of a new era, is mani- fest from the Savior's lanouage : "The law and the prophets were until John : since that time the 4 38 THREE REASONS, kingdom of God is preached, and every man pres- seth into it." In view of the considerations now presented, I ask, how can the Jewish theocracy and the Gospel Church be one and the same? If the Jewish kingdom and the kingdom of Christ are iden- tical, how is it that when the former had been in ex- istence for centuries, the organization of the latter was foretold by the prophets ? Can the identity of the two be established? Surely not. And yet, upon this identity, Mr, Hibbard says, "we rest the weight of the Bible argument for infant baptism." It rests, then, on a foundation of sand. Mr. H. is in a dilemma. He may choose either horn of this di- lemma, and it will gore him unmercifully. If such a foundation can sustain the argument for infant bap- tism, there is no weight in the argument: but if the weight of the argument crushes the foundation, there is no solidity in the foundation. 2. Another fact fatal to the identity contended for is, that those who were regular meinhers of the old Jew- ish Church, could not hecome members of the Gosioel Church without repentance, faith, regeneration and baptism. The plainness of this proposition renders it need- less to dwell upon it at any great length. A few con- siderations will sufficiently develop its truth. The inhabitants of Judea were, of course, members of the ** Jewish Church." I would prefer the phrase, "Jewish theocracy " or "Jewish Commonwealth" — WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 39 but through courtesy I T\'ill say, ''Jewish Church." The Jews in Jerusalem, and in the land of Judea were members of this church. John the Baptist called on these church members to repent and do works meet for repentance, and believe on the com- ing Messiah as preparatory to baptism. The Phar- isees and Sadducees, two prominent sects among the Jews, were church members. John spoke of them as a ** generation of vipers." The Pharisees had no adequate conception of the necessity of a proper state of heart, and the Sadducees were semi-infidels. They were no doubt recognized as worthy members of the Jewish Church, but they were utterly unfit for the Church of Christ. John let them know that their relationship to Abraham was no qualification for a place in the kingdom of heaven. Nicodemus was a Pharisee, and an official member of this Jew- ish Church, and yet was ignorant of the doctrine of regeneration. Being "born again" was a mystery to him. He was an unregenerate man. The Savior said to him, ''Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again." Kor did Jesus regard any of the Jews as qualified for baptism till they became his disciples. Hence it is said that he " made and bap- tized more disciples than John." The Scribes, law- yers and doctors of the Jewish Church, the great Teacher denounced as hypocrites; "for," says he, "ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither sufi'er ye 40 TRREE REASONS, them that are entering, to go in." This passage proves two things : That the kingdom of heaven was then in existence, and that it was not identical with the Jewish kingdom. If it had not been in existence it could not have been shut up. If it was identical with the Jewish kingdom, the Scribes w^ere already in it. But they were not in it; for the Savior says, **ye neither go in yourselves," etc. If, then, they were in the Jewish kine^dom, and were not in the kingdom of heaven, the two kingdoms cannot be the same. It is almost an insult to my readers to argue a point so plain; but I must meet and refute what Pedobaptists call arguments. 3. It deserves special notice that the covenant of the Jewish Church and the covenant of the Gospel Church are different. The truth of this proposition Pedobaptists deny. They assume that the ** covenant of grace," or ''gos- pel covenant," was made with Abraham, and that the ''covenant of circumcision" was so identified with it that circumcision became the seal of the " covenant of grace." On this subject, Dr. Sum- mers, a distinguished Methodist divine, may speak for the various denominations of Pedobaptists. In his late work on Baptism he says that " infants are specifically embraced in the gospel covenant. When that covenant w^as made with Abraham, his children were brought under its provisions, and the same seal that was administered to him was administered also WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 41 to thcni — including both those that ^vere born in his house, and those that were bought Avith his money. They were all alike circumcised in token of their common interest in that covenant, of which circum- cision was the appointed symbol. That covenant is still in force." Page 23. Here it is assumed that the gospel covenant was made with Abraham — that circumcision was its seal, etc. Pedobaptists have a decided preference for the singular number. They will not say covenants — it is covenant in conversation, in books, and in sermons. Paul speaks of "covenants" — '^ covenants of prom- ise" — ''the two covencmts," etc. Howthe "covenant of circumcision" can be identified with the "cove- nant of grace," or "gospel covenant," defies com- prehension. What Dr. Summers calls the gospel covenant was not made with Abraham. He quotes Paul, but Paul does not say so. The language of the apostle is, " The covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, (that is in reference to the Messiah,) the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul that it should make the promise of none eflfect." This covenant was confirmed to Abraham, not made with him. It was made before. It must have had an existence, or it could not have been confirmed. The confirma- tion of anything implies its previous existence. I shall not attempt to penetrate the counsels of eternity to ascertain the particulars of the origin of 42 THREE REASONS, the covenant of grace. It is sufficient for my pres- ent purpose to say that it is doubtless the result of the sublime consultation of the three persons of the Godhead in reference to the prospective condemna- tion and ruin of the race of Adam. The first inti- mation of the existence of this covenant was given in the memorable words, **And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed : it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." This incipient development of God's kindness to man no doubt cheered Abel, Enoch, and all the pious who lived in the world's infancy. The nature of the covenant recognized when mercy's faint whisperings were first heard, was more fully developed when that covenant was covjirmed to Abraham in the remarkable words, "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Irrespectively of the provisions of this covenant there never has been, and there never will be salvation for Jew or Gentile. There is no salvation except in the Messiah, and Paul informs us that he is referred to as the " seed" of Abraham. *' He saith not, and io seeds as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." The covenant with respect to the Messiah was confirmed to Abraham when he was seventy-five years old, (Genesis, xii,) and the cove- nant of circumcision was made with him when he had reached his ninety-ninth year, (Genesis, xvii). Twenty-four years intervened between the two WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 43 transactions, and yet Pedobaptists insist there was but one covenant ! One covenant was confirmed to Abraham, and one made with him, and there wa^ but one. That is, in Pedobaptist arithmetic, one and one do not make two, but one! Now if, according to Dr. Summers, the gospel covenant was made with Abraham, and if circum- cision was the seal of that covenant, then it had no seal for twenty-four years after it was made. More- over, if the gospel covenant or covenant of grace was made with Abraham, by the provisions of what covenant were Abel, Enoch and others saved who lived before the days of Abraham? This question I submit to all the Pedobaptist doctors of divinity in Christendom. If they will only consider it they will see how absurd it is to say that the gospel covenant or covenant of grace was made with Abraham. If, as Dr. Summers afiBrms, circumcision was the seal of this covenant, what became of females? Was .there no securement of the blessinq-s of the covenant to 'them? or Avere they left to the '•' uncovenanted mercies" of God? The truth is, the sacred writers never refer to circumcision or baptism as a "seal" of a covenant. Circumcision is called a " token of the covenant" God made with Abraham, and a " seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised." It was never a seal of the rigliteousness of the faith of any other man. Cnder the gospel dispensation baptism is not a seal. 44 THREE REASONS, and Pedobaptists know not whereof they affirm when they so represent it. Believers are " sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." But, for argu- ment's sake, let baptism be considered a seal — a seal of the same covenant which, it is said, was formerly scaled by circumcision. Then the perplexing ques- tion arises, Why apply the seal of baptism to both St xes, when the seal of circumcision was applied to but one ? Circumcision, it is argued, was a type of baptism. This is a burlesque on logic. The type liad reference to males alone. Therefore the anti- type has reference to both males and females! Such reasoning makes sad havoc of common sense. There is another absurdity in making baptism the anti-type of circumcision. Baptism is referred to by Peter as a "figure." If, then, circumcision was a type of it, it was a type of a type, or a figure of a figure, which is preposterous. But to be more specific with regard to the cove- nants : The covenant of circumcision made with Abraham received its full development in the cove- nant of Mount Sinai. There was, if the expression is allowable, a new edition of the covenant. The Sinaic regulations were made in pursuance of the provisions of th^ covenant made with Abraham, and on this account circumcision, the "token of the cov- enant," was incorporated into those regulations, and became a rite of the Mosaic economy. Hence Jesus said to the J3ws, "If a man on the Sabbath day WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 45 receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not he broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?" This lano'uao-e shows that the covenant of circumcision was so identified with the Sinaic covenant that the failure to circumcise a m?in was a violation of the law of Moses. The old Jewish Church, therefore, grew out of the covenant of circumcision, > which was the germ of the Sinaic covenant that God made with the Israelites when he "took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt." This cove- nant, entered into at Mount Sinai, was to continue in force, and did continue in force, till superseded by another and a better covenant. It preserved the nationality of the Jews, while circumcision marked that nationality, and indicated a natural relationship to Abraham. This celebrated patriarch was to have a numerous natural seed, to winch reference is made in the covenant of circumcision — and by virtue of the provisions of the covenant confirmed to him in reference to the Messiah, he was to have a spiritual seed also. He was to be the father of the faithful. Hence Paul says, " They who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed." " That he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised," etc. The process of spiritual fili- ation to Abraham is effected by faith. Jews, there- fore, his natural seed, cannot become his spiritual 46 THREE REASONS, seed without^ faith. But if faith creates the spiritual relationship to Abraham, Gtnliles may become his spiritual seed as well as Jews, for they are equally capable of faith. And for the encouragement of Gentiles who were uncircumcised, Paul refers to the fact that Abraham was justified by faith he/ore he was circumcised. I have 4'eferred to the perfect development of the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision in the Sinaic covenant. I may now refer to the full development of the covenant respecting the Messiah in the new covenant, out of which has grown the Gospel Church. This is termed the new covenant in contradistinction from the Sinaic covenant. The development of its provisions was to occur many centuries subsequent to the giving of the law, although those provisions had an embrj-o existence in the covenant confirmed to Abraham concerning Christ. Jeremiah, in the thirty- first chapter of his prophecy, refers to the two cove- nants — the old and the new — and Paul, in the eighth chapter of Hebrews, quotes Jeremiah as follows: "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the cove- n;mt that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 47 house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people : And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying. Know the Lord; for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their in- iquities will I remember no more." This is the ''new covenant" — the "better covenant which was established upon better promises" — the covenant which is pre-eminently spiritual — and of which Jesus is the Mediator. The mediatorship of the Messiah, in connection with this covenant, shows that the gospel covenant grows out of the covenant "con- firmed of God" to Abraham concerning Christ. How essentially different the old covenant and the new ! And yet Pedobaptists insist that the old Jew- ish Church and the Christian Church are the same ! " God found fault with the old covenant," and super- seded it by the new one; and yet, it seems, that the new, which supersedes the old, is substantially iden- tical with it ! It is strange that men do not observe tliat God, in describing the new covenant, says ex- pressl}^ — ^"not according to the covenant that I MADE with their FATHERS" — the old coveuaut. I suppose it will be said that the Sinaic covenant has "vanished away," but that the covenant with Abra- ham, of Avhich circumcision was a token, is still in 48 THREE REASONS, force. Perhaps I ought to leave it for others to say that I have shown that the covenant of ch-cumcision was merged in the covenant of Sinai. This being the case, it must have passed away with it. Several distinctive points of difference between the old covenant and the new may be seen in Galatians iv, 22-31. Mr. Barnes thinks this portion of Scrip- ture rather difficult of exposition. It does no doubt present serious difficulties to the mind of a Pedobap- tist expositor. The wonder is that the man who has anything like a correct understanding of it, can be a Pedobaptist. There are four allegorical personages referred to by the apostle — namely, Hagar, Ishmael, Sarah and Isaac. Hagar was a " bondmaid," and gave birth to a son ** after the flesh" — that is, there was in his birth no departure from the principles of ordinary generation. This "bondwoman" represents the Sinaic covenant, and " answereth to Jerusalem, which now is " — the old Jewish Church. Mount Sinai, represented by Hagar, "gendereth to bondage." Hence ''Jerusalem" — the old Jewish Church — is said to be "in bondao-e with her children." To "gender to bondage" was all that Sinai could do. There was no provision in the Sinaic covenant for anything more. Sarah, the free woman, represents the new covenant, and the Gospel Church, of which that covenant is the charter. She gave birth to Isaac, who was born "by promise" — "after the Spirit" — that is, according to a promise, the fulfill- WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 49 ment of whicli involved a supernatural agency. ''Je- rusalem, which is above" — the Christian Church, represented by Sarah, ''is free, which is the mother of us all" — of all Christians. Believers in Christ are " the children of promise, as Isaac was." They are born "after the Spirit," and "of the Spirit." And thus it is as clear as the sun in his noontide glory, that while the old Jewish Church was supplied with its members by generation, the Church of Christ is furnished with its members by regeneration. This is one prominent difference between the two, and it is o-reat as that betAveen lioht and darkness, or im- mortality and death. " But as then," says the apostle, "he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now." Ishmael persecuted Isaac, and so the children of the Sinaic covenant, Abraham's seed according to the flesh, persecuted, in apostolic times, the beneficiaries of the new covenant, Abraham's spiritual seed. Sinai, in "gendering to bondage," also "gendered" a per- secuting spirit. And it is worthy of remark, that a large infusion of Judaism into the sentiments of a religious denomination, Avill make it a persecuting denomination. This fact is both sio-nificant and suq;- gestive. ^Nevertheless, what saitli the Scripture ? " Cast out the bondwoman and her son ; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." 50 THREE REASONS, Here is authority for keeping all except regener- ate persons out of the church of Christ. " Cast out the bondwoman and her son." The Jews, con- sidered as Abraham's natural seed, had no right to the blessings and privileges of the church of Christ. They had first to become Christ's; then they were Abraham's seed in the most important sense. Paul never forgot one of the fundamental principles of the gospel economy, announced by John the Baptist when he said to the Pharisees and Sadducees, " Think not to say within yourselves we have Abraham to our father ; for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.'* They were, under the new dispensation, to claim nothing on the ground of their lineal descent from Abraham. Religion was to be an intensely personal concern. Daniel Webster once said, **The bed of death brings every human being to his pure indi- viduality." This is true, but Christianity does the same thing before it is done by "the bed of death." The gospel places every one on the basis of his "pure individuality" before God. But enough on this point. I have examined at some length the "covenants," about which so much is said in the baptismal controversy. I think I have shown that the covenant of the Jewish church and the covenant of the gospel church are essentially different, and that the "substantial identity" of the two churches, as contended for by Pedobaptists, cannot be maintained. WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 51 4. The supposed identity of tlie Jewish Church and the Christian Church involves absurdities and impossibilities. According- to this view the Scribes, Pharisees, Sad- ducees, and all the Jews, were members of the church, and yet it is notorious that they procured the crucifixion of the Head of the church. These church members, many of them occupying ''official positions," evinced the most rancorous enmity to Jesus Christ, and said, "We will not have this man to reign over us." They charged him with being in league with Beelzebub in the expulsion of demons. And when he was condemned to death they said, " His blood be upon us and our children." Strange language for church members to employ! Who can believe they were members of a church "the same in substance" with the Christian Church? This view of the matter evidently involves an absurdity. Nor is this all. If the Pedobaptist position is ten- able the three thousand converts on the day of Pen- tecost were added to the church, though they were in it before ! The Lord added daily to the church not only the saved, but those already members! When a great company of priests became obedient to the faith, they joined themselves to the apostles, and were put out of the synagogues, though the Jews putting them out were of the same church ! Saul of Tarsus "persecuted the church and wasted it'* — "made havoc" of it — and when converted 52 THREE REASONS, became a member of the church, though he had always been one! Ay, more, he obtained his author- ity to persecute from official members of the church! These and many other absurdities and impossibilities are involved in the supposition that the Jewish Church and the Christian Church are the same. They are not ithe same. The phrases, "same in substance," "substantially identical," etc., cannot avail Pedo- baptists; for there is no sort of identity. A " sub- stantial sameness" cannot be discovered with a theo- logical microscope. Paul's teaching is that Jesus Christ makes "of twain one new man." That is, regenerated Jews and Gentiles are the materials of which the new man or church is composed. There is reference to an organization, and the descriptive epithet "new" is applied to it. Pedobaptists vir- tually say that the Lord Jesus did not make a " new man." They advocate the claims of- the "old man," admitting;, however, that he is changed in some im- material respects, so that his "substantial identity" remains unimpaired. What effect would have been produced on the minds of the unbelieving Jews in apostolic times if it had been intimated that their church was identical with the Gospel church? They would have been highly insulted. And Paul exemplified the most indignant eloquence whenever false teachers at- tempted to contaminate the purity of the Christian Church with the leaven of Judaism. The old Jew- WKY I AM A BAPTIST. 63 ish Church and the Christian Church were then regarded by behevers and unbehevers as essentially distinct. No one thought of their "substantial iden- tity;" for infant baptism was unknown, and there was nothing to suggest the "identity" doctrine. The truth is, it is as easy for a camel to go through the eye of a needle as for the identity of the Jewish Church and the Christian Church to be maintained. And if there is no identity, infant membership in the Jewish commonwealth is no authority for infant membership in the gospel church ; and it is perfectly gratuitous to insist that baptism has come in the place of circumcision. Still the advocates of infant baptism argue that circumcision is superseded by baptism, and that as infants were circumcised under the old, they should be baptized under the new dis- pensation. Hence Dr. Miller says, "Our next step is to show that baptism has come in the room of cir- cumcision, and, therefore, that the former is rightfully and properly applied to the same subjects as the latter." Again: " There is the best foundation for asserting, that baptism has come in the place of cir- cumcision Yet, though baptism manifestly comes in the place of circumcision, there are points in regard to which the former differs materially from the latter." Sermons on Baptism, pp. 22, 23. Here the doctrine is stated unequivocally that baptism comes in the place of circumcision. How it takes its place, and yet "differs materially from it" on some 3 54 TRREE REASONS, ** points," must ever be ii m3^stery to all men who have not a large share of Jesuitical penetration. Dr. Rice says: *'It is certain that baptism came in place of circumcision — that it answers the same ends in the church now, that were answered by cir- cumcision under the former dispensation." Lexing- ton Debate, p. 302. Dr. Summers affirms, "that baptism is the ordi- nance of initiation into the church, and the sign and seal of the covenant now, as circumcision was for- merly, is evident." Summers on Baptism, pp. 25, 26. I have now presented strong Presbyterian and Methodist authority, and in the f^xce of it I fearlessly deny that baptism has come in the place of circum- cision. The argument for infant baptism derived from the supposed substitution referred to is, in view of the following considerations, altogether incon- clusive. 1. It was necessary for the circumcised to he haptized before they could lecome members of the Church of Christ. How was this, if baptism came in the place of cir- cumcision, and is a seal of the same covenant? Was the covenant first sealed by circumcision, and subse- quently sealed by baptism? Were there two seals? If so, away goes the substitution theory. If the same persons were circumcised and baptized, there was, so far as they were concerned, no substitution of baptism for circumcision. In their case circum- WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 56 cision was not abolished, and nothing could take its place. It occupied its own place, and that place had to be vacated before anything else could occupy it. Dr. Miller speaks of baptism as coming ''in the room" of circumcision; but there w^as no ''room'' till the non-observance of circumcision made "room." Why, then, were those who had been circumcised baptized? Why was Jesus himself both circumcised and bap- tized ? These are unanswerable questions, if, as Pe- dobaptists insist, baptism came in the place of cir- cumcision. Dr. Miller's views involve another diffi- culty. He says, p. 74, " The children of professing Christians are already in the church. They were born members. Their baptism did not make them members. It was a public ratification and recogni- tion of their membership. They were baptized be- cause they w^ere members." It is easy to see that these are sophistical assump- tions. One fact scatters them to the four winds of heaven. That fact is that the New Testament sub- jects of baptism are never represented as baptized, because they are in the church, but that they may enter into it. Dr. M.'s reason for administering bap- tism labors under the misfortune of being remarkably unscriptural. By the way, if the infants of profess- ing Christians are in the church by virtue of their birth, this is a very good reason for not baptizing them at all. Any one who is skilled in the baptismal contro- 56 THREE REASONS, versy can see that Dr. M.'s Abrahamic anu Judaisttc notions vitiate his logic in its application to evangeli- cal subjects. He reasoned in this way: The natural seed of Abraham were members of the Jewish national Church by virtue of their birth. And so far his rea- soning was correct. They were circumcised because they were by natural generation made beneficiaries of the covenant of which circumcision was the "token." Genesis xvii, 11. Dr. M.'s next step was this : The children of professing Christians are born members of the Christian Church, and are entitled to baptism, even as Abraham's natural seed were entitled to circumcision. But is this true? It is not. Whatever rational analogy may be traced between circumcision and baptism must inure to the opponents of infant baptism. How plain this is ! Abraham's natural seed were circumcised because they had a birthright interest in the 'covenant God made with Abraham. Christians are Abraham's spiritual seed. They become so by faith in Christ, and are bene- ficiaries of the new covenant, the provisions of which are eminently spiritual. There is a recognition of their interest in the blessings of this covenant in baptism. It Avas proper to circumcise Abraham's natural seed — it is proper to baptize his spiritual seed. But who are his spiritual seed ? Believers in Christ, and believers alone. Infants, therefore, have no right to baptism, because they are not Abraham's spiritual seed. Jewish infants were tit subjects for •WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 67 Circumcision, because they were Abraham's natural seed ; but neither Jewish nor Gentile infants can be his spiritual seed — because of their incapacity to exercise faith — and therefore they ought not to be baptized. I insist, then, that correct analogical rea- soning from circumcision to baptism, saps the very foundation of Pedobaptism, and furnishes Baptists with an argument, of the strength of which they have never fully availed themselves. This may be considered a digression. If so I return to the subject of which I was treating. I was aiming to show that baptism did not come in the place of circumcision, and referred to the well known fact that multitudes of circumcised persons were also baptized. This, it seems to me, could never have taken place if bap- tism came in the room of circumcision. The circum- cision of Timothy is, in this connection, worthy of notice. His mother was a Jewess, and his father a Greek. Owing to the latter fact, doubtless, he remained uncircumcised. After his conversion and baptism, Timothy was circumcised by Paul. This was done to conciliate the Jews — which shows that they considered circumcision a mark of nationality. Now, the question arises, Why did Paul circumcise Timothy, who had been baptized, if baptism came in the place of circumcision? Thus, in the New Testa- ment, we have baptism administered after ciicum- cision, and circumcision performed after baptism, and 58 THREE REASONS, yet Pedobaptists say that the one came in the place of the other. 2. A second fad wortlnj of notice is that circum- cision was confined to one sex. Premises and conclusions are often the poles asunder. Of this we have a striking illustration in the reasoning of Pedobaptists from the circumcision of children under the old dispensation to the baptism of children under the new. The fact they begin with is of course this : Male children were circum- cised under the Old Testament economy. The de- duction is, Therefore male and female children ought to be baptized under the gospel economy! Is this logic? If but one sex is recognized in the premise, how is it that there is a recognition of both sexes in the conclusion? There must be something wrong- in the reasoning, which brings out more in the con- clusions than is contained in the premises. This is the infelicity of the Pedobaptists' argument in refer- ence to the matter now und^r consideration. They most gratuitously infer, that as children of one sex were formerly circumcised, therefore children of both sexes should now be baptized. I maintain that if baptism came in the place of circumcision, ii ought to be administered exclusively to males. But it is by divine authority administered to females ; therefore it did not come in the place of circumcision. Pedobaptists must admit that, so far as females are WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 59 concerned, baptism did not come in tlie place of cir- cumcision ; for circumcision occupied no place, and therefore could not be displaced by anything else. This, however, is so plain as to need no elaboration. 3. The eighth day was appointed for the circumcision of infants. Is this true of infant baptism? The thing itself is not commanded, to say nothing of the time. But I meet Pedobaptists on their own ground. They say baptism has come **in the room of circumcision.'* If they believe this, consistency requires that they baptize male children alone, and that they be bap- tized on the eighth day. Do they pursue this course? They do not, and their failure to do so might, by the censorious, be construed into a want of confidence in the correctness of their sentiments. 4. Jewish servants of any age were circumcised by virtue of their relation to their masters. Abraham circumcised his servants as well as his children. The Jews, no doubt, copied his example. The relation servants sustained to their masters, en- titled them to circumcision, and made it incumbent on the masters to perform the rite. Now, if bap- tism has come in the place of circumcision, all Pe- dobaptist masters are under obligation to baptize their male servants, without regard to age. Those born in their houses ought, of course, to be baptized on the eighth day, and those "bought with their money/* ought to be baptized if they are eighty 60 THREE REASONS, years old. When Pedobaptists adopt this practice, Baptists, it is true, will smile at their credulity, but respect their sincerity. Who beheves that servants of any age are entitled to baptism in consequence of the relation they sustain to their masters ? Some few may probably be found who beheve it, and they — they alone — believe that baptism came in the place of circumcision. I have intimated that masters ought to baptize their own servants. On Pedobaptist principles, they ought to baptize their servants and children too. Jewish fathers and masters circumcised their children and servants. There were no persons corresponding to modern "baptizers," called on to perform the ceremony. Every father and master had the right to ofificiate, and it is well-known that in one instance, (Exodus, iv, 25,) the mother "cut off the foreskin of her son." If baptism has taken the place of circumcision, it occupies its place; and fiathers and masters, mothers and mistresses have an undoubted right, and it is their imperative duty, to baptize their male children and servants. Who, in view of this fact, can believe that baptism has come in the room of circumcision ? 6. The council of Apostles, Elders and brethren at Jerusalem,, virtually denied the substitution of bai^tism for circumcision. In Acts XV, we have an account of this council. The reason for its convocation was this : " Certain men" went from Judea to Antioch, and ''taught the WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 61 brethren," saying: "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." Paul and Barnabas joined issue with these "men,'-' and after much disputation, it was determined to send a deputation to Jerusalem, to consult the " apostles and elders about this question." Paul and Barnabas be- longed to this deputation, and upon their arrival at Jerusalem, hefore the council met, some of the believ- ing Pharisees urged the necessity of circumcision. The same question, therefore, was agitated both at Antioch and Jerusalem. That question was whether the believino- Gentiles ouo-ht to be circumcised. The council met, and after due deliberation and consulta- tion, "it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church," to decide against the circumcision of the Gentiles. K^ow, if baptism came in the place of circumcision, the apostles knew it; and this was the time to declare it. A simple statement of the fact would have superseded all discussion. Why did they not say, "circumcision is unnecessary, because bap- tism has taken its place?" This is what Pedobaptists would have said if they had been in that council. The inspired apostles, however, did not say it. In- deed the decision of the council had reference to the believing Gentiles alone, and the understanding evidently was that believing Jews were at liberty to circumcise their children. This we may learn from Acts, xxi, 17 — 25, and it is a fact utterly irrecon- cilable with the substitution of baptism for circum- 6 62 THREE REASONS, cision. When circumcision was reiifarded as a mark to designate nationality, Paul made no objection to it, but when its necessity to salvation was urged, he considered the great doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, disparaged and shorn of its glory. To all circumcised with this latter view, he said: **If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." But to return to the council at Jerusalem : If baptism came in the place of circumcision, the very reason which called that council together, must have led to a declaration of the fact, and it is infinitely unac- countable that it did not. The truth is, baptism was not, in apostolic times, considered a substitute for circumcision. Hence the Jerusalem council could not, and did not say it was. Its decision involved a virtual denial of the very thing for which Pedobap- tists so strenuously contend. I have .now given a specimen, and but a speci- men, of the considerations which show that baptism has not come in the place of circumcision. I might write a volume on this one point ; but it is needless. He who will not be convinced by the five facts already presented, would not be convinced "though one should rise from the dead." The Scripture argument on infant baptism is now closed. I have examined the supposed New Testa- ment claim of infants to baptism, and also the Old Testament claim, and can perceive no mark of validity in either. My readers will, therefore, allow WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 63 me to indorse what the North British Review, the Organ of the Free (Presbyterian) Church of Scot- land says, in its August No., 1852 — "Scripture KNOWS NOTHING OF THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS." From the word of God, Pedobaptists go to Church History and seek ''aid and comfort" from its records. What does Church History say of infant baptism ? Much, I admit, but there is no proof that it was practiced before the latter part of the second century. The proof is, by no means, conclusive that it was practiced before the third century. This the reader will see as I proceed. I quote from Dr. Wall, of the Church of England, w^hose "History of Infant Baptism" is in high repute wherever the English language is spoken. Referring to the well- known passage in Ireneeus, he says: "Since this fs the first mention that we have met with of infants baptized, it is worth the while to look back, and con- sider how near this man was to the apostles' time," Irenaeus, according to Dr. Wall's chronology, lived about the year 167. It is well to give the disputed passage. Here it is : " For he [Christ] came to save all persons by himself: all, I mean, who by him are regenerated unto God ; infants, and little ones, and children, and youths, and elder persons. Therefore he went through every age ; for infants being made an infant, sanctifying infants," etc. It is needless to quote farther ; for the controversy in reference to this passage is about the meaning of the term regen- 64 THREE REASONS, erated. It is renascor in the original. This word signifies to regenerate, and the advocates of infant baptism affirm that by regeneration, Ireneeus meant baptism. This is what Dr. Wall terms the "first mention," etc. There is one objection fatal to the Pedobaptist interpretation of the language of Ire- nseus. It makes Jesus Christ the administrator of baptism — who "by him are regenerated," etc. It cannot possibly be proved that there is an allusion to baptism in this celebrated passage. The learned Winer, speaking of infant baptism says, " Ireneeus does not mention it as has been supposed."* Dr. Doddridge says: "We have only a Latin translation of this work ; and some critics have sup- posed this passage spurious ; or, allowing it to be genuine, it will not be granted that to he regenerate, always in his writings, signifies baptized.'^\ Pedobaptists must deeply feel their need of some- thing to sustain their practice when they attempt to extort from Irenaeus testimony in favor of infant baptism. He says nothing about baptism in connec- tion with infants. Tertullian, who lived about the year 200, is generally referred to by Pedobaptists, as the first opponent of infant baptism, but they argue that his opposiLion proves the existence of the practice. If * Christian Review, Vol. 3, p. 213. t Miscellaneous Works, p. 493. WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 65 Tertullian alludes to the baptism of infants, it is strange that his opposition to it can avail those whose views are in direct conflict with his. I insist, how- ever, that it is by no means certain that Tertullian refers to the baptism of infants at all. The term which he uses, and which Dr. Wall translates "little children," is "jjarvulos." Irenseus speaks of ''in- fantes, 2^arvulos," etc. He makes a distinction be- tween "infantes" and " parvulos." If Tertullian uses the latter term as Irenseus did, he does not re- fer to the baptism of unconscious infants, but to the baptism of "little children." Whether these "little children " were capable of excercising faith in Christ, is a question into which I shall not enter. The only- fact which concerns me is that Tertullian advised a delay of the baptism of liitle children. Having now come down to the beginning of the third century, may I not say that if infant baptism rests for its support on the practice of the first and the second century, it rests on a foundation of sand ? If any man alludes to it during the first two hundred years, Tertullian is that man, and Pedobaptists con- cede that he opposed it. From Tertullian, Dr. Wall comes to Origen, whom he represents as living A. D. 210. Origen wrote in Greek, and his works in the original were chiefly lost. Hence Dr. Wall uses the following language : "But concerning the authenticalness of 'em there does need somethini? to be said. For the Greek — €0 THREE REASONS, which is the original — of all Origen's Works being lost, except a very feAv, there remains only the Latin translations of 'em. And when these Translations were collected together, a great many spurious ones were added and mixt with 'em, and went under Origen's name. But upon the renewal of Learning, the critics quickly smelt 'em out, and admited none for his, but such as appeared to have been done into Latin either by St. Hierom or else by Rvfinus. * * * * * *. But these two men used several methods in translating. For, whereas Origen's Books con- tained in them several expressions not consistent with the Faith in some points, St. Hierom changed noth- ing, but expressesed everything as it was in the original, as he owns himself: but Rvfinus altered or left out anything that he thought not orthodox. * * * * -^ * Whereas now in these Translations of Rufinus, the reader is uncertain (as Erasmus angrily says) lohether he read Origen or Rufinus." History of Infant Baptism, chap. 5. Rufinus, Dr. Wall con- cedes, translated Origen's Homilies on Leviticus, and his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Here we have Origen's strong testimony, as is sup- posed, in favor of infant baptism. In his eighth Homily he is represented as saying, ** Infants also are hy the usage of the church baptized." In his Commentary on Romans, this language is attributed to him : "The church had from the apostles a tradi- tion [or order] to give baptism even to infants.** WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 67 This is Dr. Wall's translation. He was very anxious to translate the Latin word traditlo, order. His con- science, however, would not allow him to do so. He therefore put the word order in brackets. Let it not be forgotten that the translation of these portions of Origen's Works, was made from Greek into Latin, by Rufinus, who "altered or left out anything that he thought not orthodox." Who knows, therefore, who can ever know, whether Origen wrote what is here attributed to him? What alterations were made in his writings ? Such as Rufinus, in his orthodoxy, thought proper. What things were "left out?" Only those that Rufinus thought ought to be left out ! Erasmus, a prodigy of learning in his day, was uncertain whether he "read Origen or Rufinus." But if Origen did say what Rufinus represents him as saying, what does it amount to? Absolutely nothing with those who recognize the word of God as the only rule of faith and practice. The " usage of the church," and "a tradition from the apostles" are referred to as authority for infant baptism. There is no appeal to the Holy Scriptures. Who but a Romanist is willing to practice infant baptism as a tradition, and not a divine ordinance? Origen's testimony is valuable to a Papist — worthless to a Protestant. Leaving the "uncertain" writings of Origen, Dr. Wall conducts us into the Council of Carthage, A. D, 253. This council was composed of sixty-six Bishops, 68 THREE REASONS, or Pastors, and Cyprian presided over it. One of the questions submitted to its consideration was whether a child should be baptized before it was eight days old ? Fidus, who presented the question, was in the negative, and rightly too, if the law of cir- cumcision was to regulate the matter. The very fact that such a question was sent to the council, shows that infant baptism was comparatively a new thing. If it had been practiced from the days of the apostles, does not every sane man believe that the matter would have been settled before A. D. 253, whether infants should or should not be baptized before the eighth day ? The council decided against the delay of baptism to the eighth day, assigning this weighty reason : *' As far as in us hes, no soul, if possible, is to be lost." Here it will be seen that the necessity of baptism, in order to salvation, is recognized. In this supposed necessity, infant baptism doubtless had its origin. This will be clear when I present the testimony of the great Neander. This stupid council of Carthage attempted to justify infant baptism by reference to the fact that when the son of the Shuna- mite widow (mentioned in 2 Kings, chap, iv,) died, the prophet Elisha so stretched himself on the child as to apply his face to the child's face, his feet to the child's feet, etc. By this, said the council, " spiritual equality is intimated" — that is, a child is spiritually equal to a grown person ! A conclusive reason for infant baptism, truly ! The members of this council WHY I AM A BAPTIST, 69 were so ignorant of the very Scriptures to which they referred, that they seem not to have known that it is said, " and when the child was grown'' etc. This was said before the child's death and miraculous res- toration to life. The cause of infant baptism must be desperate when the decision of such a council is in- voked to sustain it. Dr. Wall refers to other ** christian fathers," as they are termed, a^d quotes largely from Augustine, who hved in the latter part of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century. He died A. D. 430. Baptists do not deny that infants were baptized from the days of Cyprian. They believe, however, that from the days of the Apostles till now, God has had a people in the world who have protested against in- fant baptism as a human tradition. They consider the woman mentioned in Revelations xii, the repre- sentative of the Church of Christ. She fled into the wilderness, etc. The corrupt organization which de- veloped the deformities and atrocities of the Romish hierarchy is not, in the estimation of Baptists, any part of the Christian Church. Ecclesiastical histori- ans, generally, use the term ** church," to denote that organization. And they say truly, the "church" practiced infant baptism. Augustine speaks of the whole church — "universa ecclesia" — as favoring in- fant baptism. No doubt what he called the " church" did. But was it the Church of Christ ? Baptists say it was not. Before I dismiss Augustine, it is 70 TRREE REASONS, proper to say that he refers to infant baptism as an "apostolic tradition." " Apostolica trad Itlo," is the phrase he employs. He meant, doubtless, that it was handed down from the apostles by tradition, that in- fants were to be baptized. And this implies the silence of the New Testament on the subject. No one would say that it was handed down by tradition, that believers were to be baptized. Why ? Because the baptism of believers is taught in the New Testa- ment, and hence tradition in regard to it is absolutely precluded. Not so in reference to infant baptism. Here there is room for tradition, because the Scrip- tures are silent. Romanists and Protestants believe that a thing authorized by tradition is not authorized by the word of God. Romanists, however, take the ** traditions of the church," in connection with the word of God, to constitute the rule of faith and practice, while Protestants professedly repudiate "traditions," and yet indorse a most mischievous "tradition," in the baptism of infants. Let any sober-minded man say whether Augustine would have expressed himself as he has done if he had be- lieved that the New Testament authorized the bap- tism of infants. And nothing but New Testament authority will ever satisfy Baptists, It is the greatest folly to talk to them of tradition. Dr. Summers, in his late work on Baptism, repre- sents Augustine as saying, that the " Catholic Church," and every " sect" and "schism" practice WHY I AM A BArTIST. 71 infant baptism, and hold that "baptized infants do obtain the remission of original sin, by the baptism of Christ." There must be some mistake about this, because it not only conflicts with historical facts, but stjultifies the Council of Mela, in Numidia, A. D. 416 — a council over which Augustine presided, and which decreed as follows: "Also, it is the pleasure of the bishops to order that whoever denieth that infants newly born of their mothers, are to be baptized, or saith that baptism is administered for the remission of their own sins, but not on account of original sin, de- rived from Adam, and to be expiated by the laver of regeneration, he accursed.'" Now, if the ** Catholic Church," with every " sect" and ** schism" practiced infant baptism, against whom was the anathema of the Council of Mela fulminated? If no one denied that infants ought to be baptized, the Council decreed a superfluous malediction, not more creditable to the intellect than to the hearts of its members. There were opposers of infant baptism. Hence, the curse denounced with so much bitterness, and carrying with it the influence of Augustine's mighty name. And here it may be said that the advocates of infant bap- tism have often evinced a persecuting spirit. It will never be known till the revelations of the. last day, what multitudes have been put to death for denying the rio-ht of unconscious infants to the ordinance of o baptism. Babylon! drunken with the blood of the saints and the martyrs of Jesus, a fearful doom 7^ THREE REASONS, awaits tliee. During the dark ages, the spirit that prompted Augustine and his coadjutors to anathema- tize the opposers of infant baptism prevailed, and be- came intensely rancorous. Could the martyred Paulicians, Waldenses, and Albigenses rise from the dead, they would tell a tale that would send a thrill of horror through the heart of humanity. But I must not enlarge. It has been intimated that infant baptism had its origin in the supposed necessity of baptism to salva- tion, and I have promised to present the testimony of the celebrated Neander on this point. He says, **That not till so late a period as (at least certainly not earlier than) Irenseus, a trace of infant baptism appears, and that it first became recognized as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather against than for the admission of its apostohc origin ; especially since, in the spirit of the age when Christianity appeared, there were many elements which must have been favorable to the introduction of infant baptism, — the same ele- ments from which proceeded the notion of the magical effects of outward baptism, the notion of its absolute necessity for salvation, the notion which gave rise to the mythus that the apostles baptized the Old Testament saints in Hades. How very much must infant bap- tism have corresponded with such a tendency, if it had been favored by tradition !"* * Planting and Tnvining of the Church, p, 102. WHY I AM A BAPTIST, 73 Dr. Wall, referring lo the "ancient Fathers," says : "They diifered concerning the future state of infants dying unbaptized : but all agreed that they missed of Heaven."* In view of this testimony of two distinguished Pedobaptists, who does not see that infant baptism originated from its supposed inseparable relation to salvation ? A fundamental misconception of the truth of the gospel gave it birth, while misapprehen- sion of the teachings of the New Testament prolongs its disastrous existence. The " Historical Argu- ment" for infant baptism affords very little " aid and comfort" to Pedobaptists. But suppose it was a thousand times stronger. Suppose every writer from the death of the last apostle had expressed himself in favor of it; even then it would be nothing less than an act of will-worship, while the Scriptures are silent in reference to it. The perplexing question, " Who hath required this at your hands ?" ought to confound its advocates. "The Bible, the Bible alone," said Chilbngworth, "is the religion of Pro- testants." Arguments from antiquity, to be avail- able, must penetrate the antiquity of the apostolic age, and rest on the teachino-s of the New Testa- ment. All other arguments are worthless. before dismissing the subject of infant baptism, I must present a few of the many objections to it. * History of Infant Baptism, part 2, chap. 6. 7 74 THREE REASONS, 1 . A decided objection to it is that its advocates can- not agree why it should be practiced. How conflicting, liow antagonistic their views! Roman Catholics baptize infants in order to their salvation. They consider baptism essential to the salvation of adults and infants. They have some- times shown the sincerity of their belief by attempt- ing to baptize children before they were born. If Episcopalians believe their " Prayer Book," they baptize infants to make them children of God by re- generation. Calvin, as may be seen in his ** Life, by Henry," vol. 1, pp. 82, 83, maintains that infants are capable of exercising faith, and that their bap- tism is an exemplification of believers' baptism. This seems also to have been Luther's opinion. Wesley, in his " Treatise on Baptism," says : "If infants are guilty of original sin, they are proper subjects of baptism : seeing, in the ordinary way, that they can- not be saved, unless this be washed away in bap- tism." The "Directory" of the Westminster As- sembly, places the right of the infants of believers to baptism, on the ground that they are ''federally holy.'' The opinion most generally entertained among Pedobaptists, probably is, that infants should be baptized to bring them into the church. But Dr. Miller insists that the children of professing Chris- tians are born members of the church, and are bap- tized because they are members. And Dr. Sum- WHY I AM A BAPTIST, 75 mers derives the right of infants to baptism from '* their personal connection with the second Adam." These are a specimen of the reasons urged in favor of infant baptism. How contradictory ! How an- tagonistic ! It seems that infants are baptized that they may be saved — that they may be regenerated — because they have faith — because their parents are believers — because they are involved in original sin — and because they are holy — because they ought to be brought into the church — and because they are in the church by virtue of their birth — and because of their ** personal connection" with Christ, in con- sequence of his assumption of human nature ! It would certainly be well for the various tribes of Pe- dobaptists to call a general council, and try and de- cide why infants should be baptized. The reasons in favor of the practice are, at present, so contradic- tory and so destructive of one another that it must involve the advocates of the system in great per- plexity. Many, though, would object to such a council because, for obvious reasons, the Pope of Rome should preside over it, and others would ob- ject because it would probably be in session as long as the council of Trent. Still, if one good reason could be furnished for infant baptism, by the united wis- dom of Catholics and Protestants, it would be more satisfactory than all the reasons which are now urged. 76 THREE REASONS, 2. A second oljectlon to infant baptism is that its tendency is to unite the church and the world. Jesus Christ evidently designed the church to be the light of the world. His followers are not of the world, but are chosen out of the world. If any- thing in the New Testament is plain, it is plain that the Lord Jesus intended that there should be a dis- tinct line of demarkation between the church and the world. I need not argue a point so clear. Now the tendency of infant baptism is to unite the church and the Avorld, and obliterate the line of demarkation which the Savior has established. Let the principles of Pedobaptism universally prevail, and one of three things will inevitably follow. Either there will be no church — or there will be no w^orld — or there will be a worldly church. The universal prevalence of Pe- dobaptist sentiments would bring all *'born of the flesh" into the church. To he generated, not regen- erated, would be the qualification for membership. The unregenerate members would be in a large ma- jority. The world would absorb the church, or, to say the least,- there would be an intensely worldly church. Is this not true of the national churches of Europe? The time has been, whatever may be the case now, when in England, '' partaking of the Lord's Supper" was a qualification for holding the civil and military offices of the kingdom. Thus a premium was offered for hypocrisy. In Germany, WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 77 it is said, that women cannot be licensed as prosti- tutes unless they are members of the State Church, while the tax they pay goes into the treasury from which the clergy draw their salaries !* In the United States of America. there are so many coun- teracting influences that infant baptism cannot fully develop its tendency to unite the church and the world. Indeed, in some respects, Pedobaptists practically repudiate their own principles. They do not treat their "baptized children" as church- members. If they did, there would truly be a deplorable state of things. 3. Another objection to infant haptism is, that it cherishes in ^'bajyiized children" the delusive belief that they are better than others — thcd their salvation is more hopeful. In many instances, it is to be feared, they are led to consider themselves in a saved state. The chil- dren of Romanists must so regard themselves, if they attribute to baptism the efficacy ascribed to it by the Papal hierarchy. If the children of Episco- palians believe the ** Book of Common Prayer," they must grow up under the false persuasion that in bap- tism they " were made members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of Heaven." If the children of Methodists believe the ''Disci- pline," and that the prayer offered at their baptism * See Dr Maclay's Letter to Dr. Aydelotte. 78 THREE REASONS, was heard, they must recognize themselves as bap- tized not only ''with water," but **with the Holy Ghost." If the children of Presbyterians believe the "Westminster Confession" and "Directory," they look upon themselves as " federally holy " — "in covenant with God" — and that the "covenant is sealed" by their baptism. Will not all these classes of children consider themselves better than others ? Will they not, under the teaching they re- ceive, view other children as consigned to the " un- covenanted mercies of God," while they occupy a high vantage ground ? And will not their delusive belief present a serious obstacle in the way of their salvation ? I would not needlessly give offense, but it does appear to me that there is no rational proba- bility of the salvation of Pedobaptist children, unless they disbelieve the dogmas inculcated in their bap- tism. Will the children of Romanists ever be saved while they regard their baptism as having placed them in a state of salvation ? Will the children of Epis- copalians become the "children of God" while they entertain the absurd notion that they were made his children by baptism ? Will the children of Method- ists be regenerated while they ignorantly imagine that they have been baptized "with the Holy Ghost?" Will the children of Presbyterians re- pent — acknowledge their guilt and condemnation as sinners before God — while they lay the pernicious, though " flattering unction to their souls," that they WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 79 are "federally holy," and "in covenant witli God?" Alas for the children of Pedobaptists ! I see not how their salvation comes within the limits of possi- bility or probability, until they consider the teach- ings of their "Prayer Books," "Disfeiplines" and " Confessions of Faith," on the subject of baptism, as absolutely false. They must take the first step in the pursuit of salvation, by denying the truth of what they have been taught concerning their baptism. It will be asked, Are not thousands of the children of Pedobaptists converted to God? I concede it. But why is it so? One prominent reason, doubtless is, that on the part of their ministers and parents, there is a practical repudiation of their baptismal theories. The "baptized children," whatever the baptismal formulas may say, are taught that they are sinners, unregenerate, lost, condemned, and exposed to the wrath of God, for the very reason that they are not " in covenant " with him. Thanks be to God, that the preaching and teaching of Pedobaptists do not accord with their " Confessions of Faith," so far as the sub- ject of infant baptism is concerned. The dis- crepancy is vital to the welfare of their offspring. 4. A fourth objection to infavi baptism is that ii in- terferes with the independent action of the minds of those baptized in regard to baptism, and in numberless instances prevents baptism on a profession of faith in Christ. Suppose, when "baptized children" grow up to be men and women, they are annoyed with doubts, as is 80 THREE REASONS, often the case, in reference to the validity of their baptism. They feel at once that they cannot enter- tain these doubts without virtually calling in question the propriety of what their parents had done for them in their infancy. Filial respect and reverence present almost insuperable barriers in the way of an impartial investigation of the subject. The question comes up, "Shall we reflect on the wisdom of our parents, by declaring their act null and void?" If the parents are dead and gone to heaven, the diffi- culty is often still greater. The question then as- sumes this form : " Shall we repudiate what our now glorified parents did for us when they * dedicated us to God' in our infancy? **It often requires a great struggle before the repudiation is resolved on. The man is not to be reasoned with who will deny that infant baptism interferes with the independent, un- biased action of the mind in reference to baptism. And then, how many would now be baptized on a profession of faith in Christ, were it not for their infant baptism ! They hesitate to say tliat the " in- fantile rite " was worthless. They knoAv that great and good men have practiced infant baptism. Their minds are perplexed. They wish it had so happened that they had not been baptized in infancy. Still the sprinkling of the baptismal (!) waters upon them in babyhood now prevents an intelligent immersion into Christ upon a profession of faith in his name. Is it not an objection to infant baptism that it prevents WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 81 SO many from obeying Christ, and even fosters a spirit of disobedience ? 5. The tendency of infant hajytism is to siqjplani helievers^ bajytism, and banish it from the world. This is the last objection I shall urge, not because there are not many other objections, but because the limits I have prescribed to myself forbid their presentation. It is admitted on all hands that the Xew Testament enjoins the baptism of believers. The universality of the admission precludes the necessity of proof. The baptism of believers is a divine ordinance. Is it reasonable to suppose that tAvo divine ordinances antagonize with each other? Pedobaptists say infant baptism is a divine ordinance, and they are slow to allow its antagonism with the baptism of believers. But the antagonism is direct, positive. The tendency, the inevitable tendency of infant baptism, is to supplant the baptism of believers. .Y supposition will make this plain : Let it be sup- posed, then, that the principles of Pedobaptists pre- vail throughout the world. All parents come into the church, and have their children " dedicated to God in baptism." If this supposition were realized, where would believers' baptism be? It would, in one generation, be banished from the world. An ordi- nance established by Christ, to be observed to the nnd of time, would be abohshed. There would be no gospel baptism on earth. One of the institutions of the Head of the church would not be allowed a 82 THREE REASONS, place in the world which lie made, and in which he laboix'd, toiled, suffered, and died ! How horrible is this ! A human tradition arraying itself in deadly- hostility to an ordinance of Heaven, and attempting, with all the energy of desperation, to destroy it, and leave no memorial of its existence on the face of the globe ! If there were no other objection to infant baptism this is amply sufficient to induce all who love the Savior, and revere his authority, to wage against it a war of extermination. The considerations whicli I have presented satisfy me that infant baptism belongs to the " traditions of men." There is no authority for it in the New Tes- tament, and there is none in the Old. The argument from Church History amounts to nothing, and there are very decided objections to the practice. / am a Bajiiist, then, because Bajjtists regard the huptlsm of infants as unscriptural, and insist on the baptism of believers in Christ, and of believers alone. II. I AM A Baptist because Baptists consider THE IMMERSION IN WATER, OF A BELIEVER, ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM SO ESSENTIAL THAT THERE IS NO BAP- TISM WITHOUT IT. While the term baptize does not decide who are to be baptized, it indicates the action to be performed. That action Baptists say, with strongest emphasis, is immersion. In maintaining their position, tliey con- fidently refer to the following facts : WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 83 1 . Greek lexicons give, hnmerse, dip or plunge, as the primary/ and ordinary meaning of baptizo. Here it is proper to state tliat haptizo and haptisma are, in King James's version of the Scriptures, angli- cized, but not translated. This is invariably true of the latter term, and it is true of the former whenever the ordinance of baptism is referred to. Baptismos is used four times. In three instances it has no reference to the ordinance of baptism, and is trans- lated "washing," which washing was evidently the result of immersion. In the other instance it is not translated, but anglicized. BapAo is employed in the Greek New Testament three times, and emhapAo three times. Both are translated *'dip" in the common version. There is no more difference in their mean- ing than there is between the term "dip" and the phrase "dip in." These verbs are never used in connection with baptism as a religious ordinance. Baptizo is the verb invariably employed. I have alluded to haptizo and haptisma as anglicized words. By this it is only meant that their termination is made to correspond with the termination of English words. In baptizo the final letter is changed into e, and in haptisma the last letter is dropped altogeth.er. Tv make this matter of anglicism perfectly plain, it i>s only necessary to say, that if rantizo'\\^<\ been sub- jected to the same treatment by the King's trans- lators which baptizo received at their hands, we would have rantize, in the New Testament, wherever we now 84 THREE REASONS, have sprinkle. King James virtually forbade the translation of baptize and haptiam. This has been often denied, but it is susceptible of conclusive proof. The King's third instruction to his translators reads thus : " The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church not to be translated cono-reo-ation." It is absurd to say that this rule had exclusive refer- ence to the term ''church;" for this term is mani- festly given as a specimen of "old ecclesiastic words." And why should plurality of idea be conveyed by the phrase "ecclesiastical words," if the rule had respect to only, one word? The question, then, in dispute is : Are baptism and bapitize "old ecclesias- tical words?" They certainly were words when the Bible was translated, or they would not be found in it. They had been used by church historians, and by writers on ecclesiastical law, and were, therefore, ecclesiastical. And they had been in use a long time, and were consequently old. They were " old eccle- siastical words." Such words the King commanded "to be kept" — "not translated." It is worthy of remark, too, that the Bishop of London, at the King's instance, wrote to the translators, reminding them that his Majesty "wished his third m-id fourth rule to be specially observed."* This circumstance must have called special attention to the rule under con- sideration. In view of these facts, it may surely be » Lewis's History of Translations, page 319. WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 85 said that the translators knew what were *'old eccle- siastical words." Let their testimony, then, be ad- duced. In their " Preface to the Reader," they say that they had, *'on the one side, avoided the scru- pulosity of the Puritans, who left the old ecclesiasti- cal words, and betook them to other, as when they put washing for baptism, and congregation for church; and on the other hand had shunned the obscurity of the Papists," etc. Is not this enough? Here there is not only a contemporaneous admission that ''bap- tism" was included in the old ecclesiastical words, but this admission is made by the translators them- selves — made most cheerfully — for it was made in condemnation of the Puritans, and in commendation of themselves. My position is certainly established by the fore- going considerations ; but to fortify it, so that it may forever defy the assaults of polemic ingenuity and wrath, reference may be made to the King's fourth rule. It reads thus: ''When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent Fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the anal- ogy of faith." Suppose I Avere to admit, for argu- ment's sake, what many Pedobaptists contend for, that bajytizo has divers significations — every man of intelligence knows that from the days of the apostles to the reign of King James, immerse was its com- monly received meaning. Was not immersion ordi- 86 THREE REASONS, narily practiced for thirteen hundred years? Dr. Whitb}^ Dr. Wall, Professor Stwart, and I know not how many other Pedobaptists of distmction, make this concession. Far be it from me to say that haptizo is a word of many significations; but even if it were, the King's translators, if they had rendered it at' all, would have been compelled by the fourth rule to translate it immerse ; for it was most commonly used in this sense by the most eminent Fathers. But it will be perceived that the King's third rule renders inoperative his fourth, so far as old ecclesiastical words are concerned. Whether such words have one meaning, or a thousand meanings, they are "to be kept — not translated." The translators Avere not at liberty to refer to the signification immemorially attached by the Greeks to haptizo — a signification which received the cordial indorsement of ''the most eminent Fathers." They might have examined the indorse- ment if the royal decree had not said, ''hitherto, hut no farther — the old ecclesiastical words to be kept." The fact that haptizo is an anglicized, and not a translated word, makes an appeal to Greek lexicons necessary in ascertaining its meaning. Lexicoiis indeed do not constitute the ultimate authority, but I first avail myself of their testimony. I have made it a point to examine all the lexicons I have seen (and they have been many) in reference to the sig- nification of haptizo. There is a remarkable unanim- ity among them in representing immerse, or its equiv- WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 87 alent, as the primary. and ordinary meaning of tlio word. According to lexicographers, it is a word of definite import, as much so as any other. It is as specific as rantlzo, and it might be argued just as plausibly that rantlzo means to immerse, as that laptizo means to sprinkle. I have seen no lexicon that gives sprinkle as a meaning of baptizOy and but one that makes *' to pour upon" one of its significations. In Liddell & Scott's Greek and English Lexicon, edited by Mr. Drisler, of New York, "with corrections and additions," "to pour upon" is given as the seventh meaning of haptizo. It is a significant fact, however, that while passages in classic Greek authors are referred to as illustrative of the ordinary meaning of the word, there is no mention of any passage that sustains the unscholarly definition, "to pour upon." There is another thing which it is painful to relate. It is stated — and so far as I know it has not been denied — that in the English edition of Liddell & Scott, "to pour upon," is not to be found as a mean- ing of laptizo.* Mr. Drisler, it seems, anxious to aid the cause of Pedobaptists, has, on his own authority, represented haptizo as signifying "to pour upon." He must be a man of nerve ! He is surely the incarnation of temerity! He is obnoxious to the charge of literary forgery! He represents Liddell & Scott as saying what they have not said. He de- » See Western Baptist Review, Vol. Ill, pp. 437, 438. 88 THREE REASONS, ' serves the contempt of the literary world, and the indignant hissings of all the truth-loving portion of mankind. When the unpardonable liberty taken by Mr. Drisler was made the subject of newspaper anim- adversion in the year 1848, it was intimated — whether at his instance I know not — that in the next edition of the lexicon, the interpolated definition, '' to pour upon," would be expunged. This, however, has not been done; for in an edition that bears date 1850, the apocryphal phrase is to be found. So much for this explanation, which Mr. Drisler's want of con- -scientiousness has rendered necessary. I now repeat that there is among Greek Lexicons a perfect concur- i rence in assigning immerse or its equivalent as the ordinary meaning of haptizo. This ought to settle the baptismal controversy. For what says Black- stone, who is almost the idol of the legal profession ? "Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification ; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and 'popu- lar use.'"^ Immerse was the "usual and most known signification" of haptizo, among the Greeks. It was its " general and popular use," as we shall see in the proper place. To return to the argument derived from lexicons : All English dictionaries give immerse or its equiv- alent as the ordinary meaning of dip. It would, * Chitty's Blackstone, Vol. I, page 59. WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 89 therefore, be very unreasonable to deny that dip ordi- narily means to immerse. Greek lexicons give im- merse as the ordinary meaning of bapiizo. Is it not, then, just as unreasonable to deny that haptizo ordi- narily means immerse as it would be to deny that dip has this signification? Indeed, there is no argument employed by Pedobaptists to divest haptlzo of its usual meaning, which may not be as plausibly employed to divest dip of its ordinary import. The truth is, though dip is a definite and specific term, haptlzo is more so. We speak of ** the dip of the magnetic needle," and ''the dip of a stratum, in geology." Pope speaks of ''dipinng into a volume of history." And in some places there is a practice which, the ladies call "dipping snufF." If Pedobaptists could find hapiizo used in such connections there would be rejoicing from Dan to Beersheba. They would aim to extract sprinkle, pour, and I know not what else, from such uses of the word. The man who would attempt to prove that dip means sprinkle and pour, would be laughed at ; but he could make a more plausible and respectable efibrt in adducing his proof than if he were to attempt to prove the same thing in reference to haptizo. Let us see : Such a man might say, Johnson and Webster, in their large Dic- tionaries, f-ive "moisten" and "wet," as meanino-s of dip, and refer to Milton as authority, wlio uses the- language which follows: "A cold shuddering dew dips me all o'er." 90 TRREE REASONS, Talking with himself, such a reasoner might say, **It is a fixed fact that dip means to * moisten' and * wet.' Who will dispute what Johnson and Webster say, sustained, as they are, by the * Prince of British poets ?' Very well. Dip means to moisten and wet. Everybody knows that a thing can be moistened or made wet by having water poured or sprinkled on it? Therefore dip means to pour and sprinkle !1" Now I affirm that this argument is more plausible than any I ever heard from a Pedobaptist minister to • prove that haptizo means pour and sprinkle. And yet who does not see that it is replete with sophistry? It assumes as true the obvious fallacy, that if a pro- cess can be accomplished in two different ways, the two verbs employed to denote those two ways mean the same thing. An object may be moistened by being dipped in water, but moisten and dip are not synonymous. The same object may be moistened by having water sprinkled or poured upon it, but neither moisten and sprinkle, nor moisten and pour, are identical in import. And though the moistening may result from the dipping, sprinkling, or pouring, the three acts are clearly distinguishable, and definite terms are used to express them. It is proper to say of the Greek Lexicons to which I have referred, that they were all made by men who had no partialities for Baptists. A regard for truth, therefore, and no desire to give currency to the practice of immersion, elicited from them the definition they have given of WHY I AM A BAPTIST.- 91 baptizo. Baptists may well felicitate themselves that their opponents bear strong testimony in their favor ; for I proceed to say, 2. That not only Lexicographers, but distinguished Pedobaptist scholars and theologians, admit that bap- tizo means to immerse. Here I shall probably be told that it is unfair to take advantage of Pedobaptist concessions. I insist that there is nothing unfair in such a course. No one can maintain that there is without implicating the x\postle Paul ; for in his triumphant argument on "Mars Hill," he availed himself of the declaration of certain Greek poets — recognized the truth of the declaration, but did not attempt to prove it. I shall aim to do nothing that is unjustified by the example of Paul. Pedobaptist concessions are of great value; for it may be said, in the language of another : " This testimony of theirs, to me, is worth a thousand others; seeing it comes from such as, in my opinion, are evi- dently interested to speak quite otherwise J^ I ask the reader's earnest attention to the followinof extracts : T begin with John Calvin, a learned Presbyterian, who lived three hundred years ago. He was very decided in his opposition to Baptists, or "Anabap- tists,^^ as he contemptuously called them. He wrote in Latin, and I avail myself of Pedobaptist trans- lations of the original. In his Institutes, Book IV, chapter 15, paragraph 19, he expresses himself thus: (I adopt Professor 92 THREE REASONS, Stuart's translation:) "It is of no consequence at all (minimum refert) whether tlie person baptized is totally immersed, or whether he is merely sprinkled by an affusion of water. This should be a matter of choice to the churches in different regions; aUhough the word baptize signifies to immerse, and the rite of immersion was practiced by the ancient church." This translation might have been made stronger. Professor S. might have said, "the word baptize" itself, or the very "word baptize," etc.; for the origi- nal is "ipsum haptizandi verhum,^* etc. So, also, as Calvin uses the word ''constat'' as an impersonal verb, the translation should be, "it is evident," or "certain that the rite of immersion," etc. Dr. George Campbell, a distinguished Presby- terian of Scotland, in his " Notes " on Matthew, iii, 2, says, "The word haptlzein,'' (infinitive mode, present tense, of haptizo,) "both in sacred authors, and in classical, signifies, to dip, to plunge, to im- merse, and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, tlngere, tlie term used for dying cloth, which was by immersion. It is always con- strued suitably to this meaning." In his " Lectures on Systematic Theology and Pulpit Eloquence," Lecture x,. he expresses himself thus : " Anotlier error in disputation, which is by far too common, is, when one will a.dmit nothing in the plea or arguments of an adversary to be of the smallest wei^cht. ******. I have heard a WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 93 disputant of this stamp, in dejiunce of etymology and use, maintain that the word rendered in the New Testament baptize, means more properly to sprinkle than to plunge, and, m dejiunce of all antiquity, that the former method was the earliest, and for many centuries, the most general practice in baptizing. One who argues in tliis manner, never fails, with persons of knowledge, to betray the cause he would defend ; and though, with respect to the vulgar, bold assertions generally succeed, as well as arguments, sometimes better ; yet a candid mind will disdain to take the help of a falsehood, even in support of the truth." Witsius, "Professor of Divinity in the Univer- sities of Franeker, Utrecht, and Ley den," says in his work on the "Covenants," "It cannot be denied, but the native signification of the words, haptein and haptizein, is to plunge or dipJ^ Chapter on Baptism. Professor Stuart, so long an ornament of the An- dover Seminary, Massachusetts, in his work on the "Mode of Baptism," says on page 14, " Jjupto and baptize mean to dip, 'plunge, or immerge, into any- thing liquid. All lexicographers and cridcs of any note are agreed in this. My proof of this posiiion, then, need not necessarily be protracted ; but for the sake of ample confirmation, I must b<'g the reader's patience, while I lay before him, as briefly as may be, the results of an investigation, which seems to leave no room for doubt." It will be seen that Pro* 94 THREE REASONS, fessor Stuart fully sustains what has been said of Greek Lexicons. I now quote from the greatest man, as I think, that ever belonged to the Presbyterian denomination. No one will question his scholarship. I refer to Dr. Chalmers. In his Lectures on Romans, he says, Lecture xxx, on chap, vi, 3 — 7: "The original meaning of the word baptism, is immersion, and though we regard it as a point of indifferency, whether the ordinance so named be performed in this way or by sprinkling — yet we doubt not, that the prevalent style of the administration in the apostle's days, was by an actual submerging of the whole body under water. We advert to this, fur the purpose of throwing light on the analogy that is in- stituted in these verses. Jesus Christ, by death, underwent this sort of baptism — even immersion under the surface of the ground, whence he soon emerged again by his resurrection. We, by being- baptized into his death, are conceived to have made a similar translation.'* But why proceed farther with the testimony ot distinguished Pedobaptist scholars and theologians ? What I have adduced is surely sufficient. These witnesses testify that laptizo means to immerse ; nor do they say that it means to sprinkle and pour. Tru».' it is, that Calvin considered it a matter of " no con- sequence " as to immersion or sprinkling, and Chal- mers regarded it a "point of indifferency;" but WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 95 they are both clear as to what the word bajJtizo means. This is all I want — their testimony as to the meaning of the word. Their opinion as to the admissibility of sprinkling, I reject ; for it is utterly gratuitous and absurd, unless haptizo means to sprinkle. This they did not say, and could not say. I hope it will be observed that I make a distinction between a fact and an opinion. He who, acquainted with the U8US loquendi of a term, testifies that it means a certain thmg, bears witness to 2k fact: but if he says it is not important to adhere to the mean- ing established by the U8us loquendi, he expresses an opinion. It may be asked why those Pedobaptist scholars who have conceded that haptizo means to immerse, have not become practical immersionists ? This is a question difficult to answer. That they ought to have shown their faith by their works, does not ad- mit a doubt. Some, perhaps, have failed to do so, on account of the strength of early predilections — others have not felt willing to disturb their denominational relations — and others still have had a horror of the charge of fickleness. Probably, however, the greater number, like Professor Stuart, have persuaded them- selves that as the Christian dispensation is eminently spiritual, provided the heart is right, it is a matter of but little moment as to a particular observance of ** external rites." Such persons seem to forget that the way to show that the heart is right with God, is 96 THREE REASONS, to do the very thing lie has commanded. The lea- sons suggested for the failure of those Pedobaptists who make such concessions as have been referred to, to do their duty, are, I acknowledge, altogether un- satisfactory. I cannot give satisfactory reasons: I cannot perform impossibilities. I am glad it is not incumbent on me to present adequate reasons. Those who admit that Jesus Christ commanded his disciples to be immersed, and, at the same time, array them- selves in practical opposition to immersion, are ac- countable to him. 3. The classical usage of baptizo establishes the posi- tion of Baptists. I have said that Lexicons are not the ultimate au- thority in settling the meaning of words. The truth of this remark can be readily seen. Lexicographers are necessarily dependent on the sense in which words are used, to ascertain their meanino-. But it is not impossible for them to mistake that sense. If they do, there is an appeal from their definitions to the usus loquendi, which is the ultimate authority. I shall now show how classic Greek autliors used the word baptizo — not that I am complaining of the Lexicons — but that I may show that the usage of the word fully justifies the Lexicons in giving immerse, or its equivalent, as its ordinary meaning. It is pleasant to go back to the ultimate authority. Few men have ever examined the classic import of baptizo, so unweariedly, and so extensively, as the WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 97 late Dr. Carson ; but as he was a Baptist, I decline availing myself of the results of his investigations. For obvious reasons, I prefer that Pedobaptists shall say what is the classic meaning of haptizo. I quote from Professor Stuart's work on the ** Mode of Bap- tism." He makes extracts from the followino: Greek o authors : Pindar, -who was born five hundred and twenty years before Christ, says, ''As when a net is cast into the sea, the cork sivi7ns above, so am I unplugged (^ahaptistos) ; on w^hich the Greek scholiast, in com- menting, says : As the cork, on dunei, does not sink, so I am abajjtistos, unplunged, not immersed. The cork remains ahaptistos, and swims on the surface of the sea, being of a nature which is ahaptistos ; in like manner I am ahaptistos,'^ etc. Pindar was describing the utter incompetency of his enemies to plunge him into ruin. It is only necessary to say to the English scholar, that the letter a, (in Greek, Alpha,) prefixed in the foregoing extract to haptistos, conveys a nega- tive idea. Ahaptistos, therefore, means unplunged, undipped, or unimmersed. Unsprinkled or unpoured is perfectly out of the question. Heraclides Ponticus, who lived about three hun- dred and thirty-five years before the Christian era, says, '* When a piece of iron is taken red hot from the fire, and plunged in the water, {iidati haptizetai,) the heat, heing quenched hy the peculiar nature of the water , 98 THREE REASONS, ceases.'^ Baptizo certainly signifies immerse, in this passage. Plutarch, who died about A. D. 140, refers to a Roipan General " dipping {baptisas) his hand into blood," etc. Again he says, ** Plunge (boptison) yourself into the sea." And again, ** Then plunging ibaptbzbn) himself .into the Lake Copias" etc. 'LuciAN, who. diedj^. D. 180, *^' represejits Timon^ the man-hater, as saying : If a winter's fto'od should carry away any one, and he, stretching out his hands, should beg for help, I would press down the head of such an one when sinking, [bap)tizonta,) so that he coidd not rise up again" Hippocrates, who lived about 430 years before Christ, says, "■ Shall I not laugh at the man who sinks {baptisonta.) his ship by overloading it, and then com- plains of the sea for ingulfing it with its cargo?" Strabo, the celebrated geographer, who died A. D. 25, a very short time before John the Baptist be- gan to preach in the wilderness of Judea, " speaking of a lake near Agrigentum, says : Things that else- where cannot float, do not sink (^mee baptizesthai) in the water of this lake, but swim in the manner of wood." Again: ^^ If one shoots an arrow into the channel, [of a certain rivulet in Cappadocia,] the force of the water resists it so m.uch, thai it will scarcely plunge in (baptizesthai)." Again: '* They [the soldiers] marched a whole day through the water, WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 09 PLUNGED IN (^baptizomenon) up to the waist.'' Once more : " The bitumen Jioats on the top [of the Lake Sirbon] because of the nature of the water y which ad- mits of no diving, nor can any one who enters it, PLUNGE IN, (baptizesthai,) but is borne up.'' JosEPHus, wlio died A. D. 93, aged fifty-six, and was, therefore, cotemporary with the Apostles, "speaking of the ship in which Jonah was, says, mellontos baptizesthai too skaj)hous, the ship being about to sink." He also uses the expression, " Our ship being immersed or sinking (boptisthentos) in the midst of the Adriatic." Referring to the youth Aristobu- lus, who was drowned by order of Herod, he says: '* The boy was sent to Jericho, and there, agreeably to command, being immersed in a i^ond, {baptizcmie- nos en Icohanbethra,) he perished." Again: "As they [the sailors] swum aioay from a sinking ship {baptizomenees neos)." Once more: "The wave be- ing raised verg high, overwhelmed or immerged them [ebaptise). Aristotle, w^ho died 332 years before the Chris- tian era, " speaks of a saying among the Phenicians, that there were certain places, beyond the pillars of Hercules, which, luhen it is ebb-tide, are not over- flowed [mee baptizesthai). DiODORUs Siculus says : " Most of the land ani- mals that are intercepted by the river [Nile] perish, being overwhelmed (Sop^i^omewa)." Again: "The 100 THREE REASONS, river, borne along by a more violent current, over- whelmed (ehaptlze) many." Plutarch " speaks of Galba, as ophleemasi behap- tismenon, overwhelmed Avitli debts. He also uses the expression vjm toon pragmatoon haptizomenous, OVERWHELMED witk buslness." The reader, by referring to Stuart, on the "Mode of Baptism," pp. 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, can test the accuracy of these quotations from that work. It will be seen that I have used the Roman instead of the Greek letters. I have done this for the satisfac- tion of a large majority of those who will peruse these pages. It will be seen that immerse is the classical mean- ing of bap)tlzo. In all the preceding quotations, it might be employed with propriety. A ^'sinking ship," for example, is a ship about to be immersed. Nor is it any abuse of language to say that places ** not overflowed," are not immersed. As to being immersed in business, with cares, with debts, etc., the}'- are common forms of expression. I solicit special attention to the fact, that of the Greek au- thors referred to, some lived before the coming of Christ — some during the apostolic age — and some at a period subsequent to that age. Seven hundred years intervened between the birth of Pindar and the death of Lucian. During those seven centuries, usage shows that baptizo meant to WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 101 immerse. Most of the classic Greek writers lived before baptism was instituted, and, consequently, knew nothino: of immersion, as a relioious ordinance. Those who lived after this institution cared nothing o for it. There was no controversy as to the meaning of baptlzo, during the classic period of Grecian his- tory. There was no motive, therefore, that could so operate on Greek writers as to induce them to use the word in any but its authorized sense. That sense was most obviously to immerse. Even Dr. Edward Beecher, though perfectly infatuated with the notion that baptizo, **in its religious sense," means to ** purify," admits that in classic usage it signifies to immerse. He says: " I freely admit that in numer- ous cases it clearly denotes to immerse — in which case an agent submerges partially or totally some person or thing. Indeed, this is so notoriously true, that I need attempt no proof. Innumerable ex- amples are at hand." Beecher on Baptism, p. 9. No man who has any reputation to lose, as a Greek scholar, will deny that baptlzo, at the introduction of the Christian era, meant to immerse, and that usage had fully established this meaning. Even Dod- dridge and Barnes virtually admit this is its mean- ing in the New Testament, when used as descriptive of the sufferings of Christ. Hence the former para- phrases, Luke, xii, 50, thus : " But I have, indeed, in the meantime, a most dreadful baptism to be bap- tized with, and know that I shall shortly be bathed, 102 THREE REASONS, as it were, in blood, and "plimged in the most over- whelming distress," etc. Family Expositor, p. 204. Barnes, in his Notes on Matthew, xx, 22, comment- ing on the phrase, "The baptism that I am baptized with," represents the Savior as saying to his dis- ciples, "Are ye able to snffer y^\\\i me — to endure the trials and 'pains which shall come upon you and me, in endeavoring to build up my kingdom ? Are you able to he plunged deep in afflictions, to have sorrows cover you like watery and to be sunk beneath calamities as Jloods, in the work of religion ? Afflic- tions are often expressed by being sunk in the floods, Sind plunged in the dee]) waters." These passages are well explained, but they cannot be explained at all, unless baptism means immersion. Baptizo literally means immerse ; therefore, in its figurative applica- tion, it is used to denote an immersion in sorrow, suffering and affliction. But, say some, though hapiizo, in classic Greek, means to immerse, it does not follow that it is to be understood in this sense in the New Testament. They discourse learnedly on the difference between classic and sacred Greek. They insist that baptizo has, in the Scriptures, a theological sense. In short, they feel quite a contempt for Ernesti's " Principles of Interpretation." They forget that "when God has spoken to men, he has spoken in the language of men, for he has spoken by men, and f??' men." WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 103 For the special benefit of these ivise critics, I quote from the ablest Methodist work I have seen, (Wat- son's Theological Institutes, Vol. II, p. 153). The author is showing, in opposition to the Socinian view, that the apostles employed terms in reference to the death of Christ which convey the idea of expiation. He says: **The use to be made of this in the argu- ment is, that as the apostles found the very terms they used with reference to the nature and efficacy of the death of Christ, fixed in an expiatory signifi- cation among the Greeks, they could not, in honesti/f use them in a distant figurative sense, much less in a contrary one, without due notice of their having in- vested them with a new import being given to their readers. ***** In like manner, the Jews had their expiatory sacrifices, and the terms and phrases used in them are, in like manner, employed by the apostles to characterize the death of their Lord ; and they would have been as guilty of misleading their Jewish as their Gentile readers, had they employed them in a new sense, and without vjarning, which, unquestionably, they never gave.''* Dr. Hodge, in his "Way of Life,'* expresses the same sentiment. To all this I cordially subscribe. The apostles found certain terms in use among the people, which conveyed the idea of expiation. They used those terms, and evidently in that sense. As honest men, they could not do otherwise, without giving information of the fact. So reasons Mr. Wat- 104 THREE REASONS, son. Very well. The same apostles found the term haptizo jSxed in its meaning, and that meaning was to immerse. Could they then **in honesty" employ it to denote sprinkle and pour without notifying their readers of the fact? Richard Watson being judge, they could not. "Unquestionably" they never' inti- mated to Jew or Gentile that they used the word in a new sense. Now I insist that Methodists ought either to admit the validity of this argument in refer- ence to laptizo, or reject as inconclusive Watson's reasoning against Socinians. It is to be remembered, however, that those who say that the sacred mean- ing of haptizo differs from its classic meaning, must prove it. The burden of proof is on them. If they say it means sprinkle, let them show it. If they affirm that it means pour, let them establish this signification. And if Dr. Beecher can do anything for his ''purification theory," let him do it. Baptists occupy a position which commends itself to every unprejudiced mind. They say that haptizo, among the Greeks, meant to immerse, and that John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and the apostles, used it just as the people understood it. I think it has now been shown that the classical signification of haptizo is immerse, and that it is per- fectly gratuitous to assert that its Scriptural differs from its classical import. 4. The design of baptism furnishes an argument in favor of the proposition I am establishing. WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 105 It represents the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul says: "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death ; that, like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." Romans vi, 3, 4, 5. *' Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Col. ii, 12. "The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 1 Peter iii, 21. It is clear from these passages that baptism has a commemorative reference to the burial and resurrec- tion of Christ. The two ordinances of the church symbolically proclaim the three great facts of the gospel. These facts, as Paul teaches,(l Cor.xv3,4,) are that Christ died, was buried, and rose again. The Lord's supper commemorates the first fact. All are agreed in this view. At the sacramental table the disciples of Christ are solemnly reminded that their Redeemer submitted to the agonies of death. They weep over him as crucified — dead. In baptism they see him buried and raised again, just as they 106 THREE REASONS, see him dead in the sacred supper. Baptism is, therefore, a symbolic proclamation of two of the three prominent gospel facts — the burial and resur- rection of Christ. These facts are infinitely worthy of commemoration, and there is no evangelical com- memoration of them, unless the ordinances of the church are observed with the proper design. This by the way. Baptism also expresses in emblem the behever's death to sin, and resurrection to newness of life. In ''repentance toward God and faith to- ward our Lord Jesus Christ," there is a spiritual death to sin, and a spiritual resurrection to newness of life. These two facts are emblematically set forth in baptism. Hence the absurdity of baptizing any who are not dead to sin. We are baptized into the death of Christ. We profess our rehance on his death for salvation, and we profess, also, that as he died for sin, we have died to sin. As burial is a palpable separation of the dead from tjie living, so baptism is a symbolic separation of those dead to sin from those living in sin. And as a resurrection from the dead indicates an entrance into a new sphere of existence, so baptism, in its similitude to a resur- rection, denotes an entrance upon a new life. Hence Dr. Chalmers, in his Lecture on Romans, vi, 3-7, remarks that we '* are conceived in the act of de- scending under the water of baptism, to have re- signed an old life, and in the act of ascending, to emerge into a second or new life." There is an WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 107 emblematic renunciation of " the old life," and there is an emblematic entrance upon *' the new life." Wm. Tyndale very appropriately remarks : " The plunging into the water signifieth that we die and are buried with Christ, as concerning the old life of sin, which is Adam. And the pulling out again signifieth that we rise again with Christ in a new life, full of the Holy Ghost." Baptism likewise anticipates the believer's resur- rection from the dead. This we learn from 1 Cor. XV, 29 : ''Else what shall they do, who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? Why are they then baptized for the dead?" These questions are proposed by Paul in the midst of an argument on the resurrection of the dead. Some of the Co- rinthians, it seems, denied the doctrine of the resur- rection, and yet it does not appear that they ques- tioned the propriety of an observance of the ordinance of baptism. Paul virtually tells them that baptism has an anticipative reference to the resurrection on the last day. It has this reference because it has a commemorative reference to the resurrection of Christ. It anticipates, because it commemorates. The reason is obvious. The resurrection of the Lord Jesus procures the resurrection of his followers, and is an infallible pledge of it. The two resurrec- tions are inseparable. Baptism, therefore, while it commemorates the resurrection of Christ, anticipates, of necessity, the resurrection of his followers. Dr. 108 THREE REASONS, A. Clarke, in his commentary on the verse under consideration, says : ** The sum of the apostle's mean- ing appears to be this : If there be no resurrection of the dead, those who, in becoming Christians, ex- pose themselves to all manner of privations, crosses, severe sufferings, and a violent death, can have no compensation, nor any motive sufficient to induce them to expose themselves to such miseries. But as they receive baptism as an emblem of death, in vol- untarily going under the water, so they receive it as an emblem of the resurrection unto eternal life, in coming up out of tlie water : thus they are baptized for the dead, in perfect faith of the resurrection.'* Now, if these views of the design and emblematic import of baptism are correct, it follows inevitably that the immersion in water of a believer in Christ is essential to baptism- — so essential that there is no baptism without it. If baptism represents the burial and resurrection of Christ, it must be immersion. Do the sprinkling and pouring of water bear any analogy to a burial and resurrection? Absolutely none. They would never suggest the idea of burial or resurrection. Immersion, however, bears a striking resemblance to a burial and resurrection. We are "buried by baptism" — that is, by means of baptism. When the baptismal process is performed there is certainly a ** burial." The two are inseparable; and therefore, where there is no "burial," there is no baptism. Were it necessary, I might show that WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 109 Wall, Whiteiield, Wesley, Doddridge, Chalmers, Barnes, Macknight, Bloomfield, and many others, all Pedobaptists, admit that the phrase, "buried by baptism," alludes to immersion. It is quite common, however, for the Rabbis of Pedobaptist Israel, in these latter days, to insist that there is no reference to "water baptism," Spiritual baptism, say they, is spoken of. They think in this way to nullify the argument for immersion. But do they accomplish their object? Let us see. I will meet these Rabbis on their own chosen ground. Let it be conceded, then, for argument's sake, that " buried by baptism " denotes spiritual baptism. Then there is a spiritual burial. Now it is a well settled point among Pedobaptists that the outward baptism is a sign of the inward. If, then, the in- ward baptism involves a spiritual burial, the outward baptism should involve a burial in water, that it may adequately represent the inward. Men may torture and put to the rack the phrase, "buried by bap- tism," but it will testify of immersion. It cannot be divested of its allusion to Christian immersion. To conclude the argument from the design of bap- tism : — How stands the matter ? If baptism com- memorates the burial and resurrection of Christ, it must be immersion. If it is an emblematic repre- j^sentation of death to sin, and resurrection to newness of life, (and to this view Pedobaptists do not specially object,) tlie representation is essentially incomplete 10 110 THREE REASONS, without immersion. If there is something in it which anticipates and resembles the resurrection of the dead, still it must be immersion. Sprinkling and pouring are as infinitely unlike a resurrection as they are unlike a burial. Even if Dr. Beecher's "purifi- cation theory" were to receive the countenance which he no doubt thinks it deserves, immersion would be more suitable than sprinkling or pouring. Is not the whole soul defiled with sin? Must not the whole soul be cleansed from sin? If, then, baptism is re- ceived (some take this view) as a symbol of the necessity of purification, something that affects the whole body is required to indicate the totality of that necessity. Or if baptism is regarded as a sign of the purification already accomplished, then the immersion of the body in water is appropriate to show that the soul has been washed from sin in the blood of Christ. 5. The places selected for the administration of bap- tism, and the circumstances attending its administration y as referred to in the New Testament, afford an addi- tional argument in proof of the position of Baptists. John baptized in Jordan. That the Jordan is a suitable stream for purposes of immersion is manifest from the testimony of one of the most distinguished of modern travelers and scholars — Dr. Edward Rob- inson. Speaking of the Jordan, he says: *'We esti- mated the breadth of the stream to be from eighty to one hundred feet. The guides supposed it to be WHY I AM A BAPTIST. Ill now ten or twelve feet deep. I batlied in tlie river, without going out into the deep channel."* Even Dr. Lightfoot, who was quite' conspicuous in his opposition to immersion, in the Westminster Assembly, expresses himself thus: "That the bap- tism of John was by plunging the body, seems to appear from those things which are related of him; namely, that he baptized in Jordan; that he baptized in Enon, because there was much water there ; and that Christ, being baptized, came up out of the water ; to which that seems to be parallel, (Acts, viii, 38,) *^ Philip and the eunuch went down into the water,'' etc.f I am aware that Pedobaptists argue that John's was not Christian baptism — that he did not live under the gospel dispensation, etc. Dissenting, as I cer- tainly do, from these views, I waive a consideration of them as foreign from my present purpose. It is suflQcient for me to say, that even if it could be shown that John's was not Christian baptism, it would avail Pedobaptists nothing. "Why ? John performed an act called baptism, and various circumstances, as well as the meaning of the word, indicate that that act was immersion. Pedobaptists attempt to invali- date the force of those circumstances by denying that John administered Christian baptism. But they admit that the apostles, after the resurrection of * Biblical Researches in Palestine, Vol. II, p. 256. t Quoted in Clarke's Commentary, Vol. V, p. 325. 112 THREE REASONS, Christ, administered Christian baptism. Very well. The same term used to denote the act performed by John, is used to designate the act performed by them. It must, therefore, have been the same act. For surely no sane man will say that the term baptize means one thing in its connection with John's min- istry, and a different thing in connection with the ministry of the apostles. Hence I repeat that if it could be shown that John's was not Christian bap- tism, it would amount to just nothing at all. There is another Pedobaptist sentiment which de- serves exposure : It is that Jesus Christ was baptized to initiate him into the priestly office. To show the absurdity of this view, I need only ask a few ques- tions : Was not the Messiah ''made a priest after the order of Melchisedec, and not after the order of Aaron?" How could he be a priest, according to the law of Moses, when he belonged to the " tribe of Judah?" Was not the priestly office confined to the tribe of Levi, and to the family of Aaron, in that tribe? Did not the law say: "The stranger that Cometh nigh shall be put to death?" All that Pedobaptists say about the baptismal initiation of Christ, into the priestly office, is at war with the Scriptures. And why this attempt to show that the Savior was made a priest by his baptism? The object must be to evade the moral power of his example. For no man can lay aside his prejudices, and deny that Jesus Christ was immersed in the WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 1 1 3 Jordan. But if the people can be made to believe that the baptism of Christ had special reference to his sacerdotal consecration, they will feel compara- tively exempt from obligation to follow his example, as they are not baptized that they may become priests. The truth is that Jesus, in his baptism, as well as in other respects, has "left us an example, that we should follow his steps." The Jordan was, unquestionably, a suitable stream for purposes of immersion, and John baptized in Jordan, and Jesus, when baptized, ** went up straight- way out of the water." John also baptized *'in Enon, near to Salim." John iii, 23. Why? Let Dr. Miller answer. He says : ** Independently of immersion altogether, plentiful streams of water were absolutely necessary for the constant refreshment and sustenance of the many thousands who were encamped from day to day to witness the preaching and the baptism of this extraordinary man; together with the beasts employed for their transportation. Only figure to yourselves a large encampment of men, women and children, etc. * * ^" * * As a poor man, who lived in the wilderness, whose raiment was of the meanest kind, and whose food was such alone as the desert afforded, it is not to be supposed that he pos- sessed appropriate vessels for administering baptism to multitudes by pouring or sprinkling. He, there- fore, seems to have made use of the neighboring stream of water for this purpose, descending its 114 THREE REASONS, banks, and setting his feet on its margin, so as to admit of his using a handful, to answer the symboli- cal purpose intended by the application of water in baptism." Miller on Baptism, pp. 92, 93. What to call this extract, I really do not know. It is not argument — it is not logic — it is not common sense. There seems to be a mixture of assertion, supposition and fiction. No man was more compe- tent to prepare such a mixture than Dr. M.* Where did he learn that ** plentiful streams of water ward' absolutely necessary" for the purposes which he specifies? What he says about the ''large encamp- ment," must have been a day-dream — and so must * I refer to Dr. Miller's work on Baptism on account of his prominent position in the Princeton Seminary for a long series of years. The book itself is remarkably unworthy of notice. It substitutes assertion for proof. "/ caii assure you," is the dogmatic phrase often used where otlier men would have attempted to adduce proof. There are blunders that would be unpardonable in any student that ever was, is now, or ever will be at Princeton. For example, Dr. M. says: " The evangelists tell us that the Scribes and Pharisees in- variably washed ("in the original baptized) Ihoir hands before dinner." Any Greek scholar, by turning to Mark vii, 3, may see that nipto is used in the original. Again: Dr. M. sa,ys, Judas " is said by Christ himself, to baptize his hand in the dish (as it is in the original, Matthew, xxvi, 23"). Baptizo is not in the original. The word used is emhapto. These may serve as specimens of the unscholarly errors of the book. Its author's position is surely the only thing that has ever brought such a hook into notice TVHT I AM A BAPTIST. 116 have been the beastly portion of his statement. The evangehsts say nothing of the "encampment," and make no allusions to the "beasts." Poverty is a misfortune, but not a crime; and, therefore, I shall not take ofiFense at the reference to the indigence of the first Baptist preacher. However, it may be questioned whether John was not able to own " ap- propriate vessels" for purposes of "pouring or sprinkling." But admitting his extreme poverty when he went to the Jordan to baptize, he then became so popular that an intimation from him that he would like to have " appropriate vessels," would have secured as many as all those ''beasts" could have transported. Why did he not, then, get ''ves- sels," and supersede the necessity of his going to "Enon, near to Salim," where there was "much water?" Would not Herod, also, have furnished "appropriate vessels," at the time he "did many things, and heard John gladly?" But enough of this. And what does Dr. Rice, in his Lexington Debate, page 193, say of the "much water?" Here is his language: "John, it is true, was baptizing in Enon, near Salim, because there was much water there. But did he want much water to baptize in ; or did he want it for other purposes? As I have already stated, multitudes of the Jews who resorted to him, remained together several days at a time. They must observe their daily ablutions. For these and 116 THREE REASONS, for ordinary purposes, they needed mucli water; but it cannot be proved that John wanted the water for the purpose of baptizing." Doctors of Divinity should, of course, be wise men. They ought not, however, to be "wise above what is written." Where did Dr. Rice learn that the " multitudes" who went to John ''remained together several days?" Who told him about those ''daily ablutions?" By what sort of tortuous logic can he show that the Jews "needed much water" for other purposes, but not for baptismal purposes, when bap- tism is the only thing requiring water mentioned in the controverted passage ? Who authorized him to fabricate premises that he might draw from them such a conclusion as he desired? It is humiliating when such men as Drs. Miller and Rice "handle the word of God deceitfully." I have allowed these gentlemen to answer the question. Why did John baptize in Enon, near to Salim, where there was much water? They have given their answers — and such ansivers! It is time for the Evangelist to speak, and for Doctors of Divinity to keep silence. What does he say? "And John, also, was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came and were Ja^j^i^d?^" Is there anything here about "encampments," "beasts," "daily ablutions," etc.? Did not the people go to John to be baptized — not to encamp — not to water their beasts — not to "observe their daily ablutions?" WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 1 17 Did not John select Enon as a suitable place for his purpose, because there was much water there ? And did he not need "much water" in baptizing? And is not this a powerful circumstantial argument in favor of immersion ? I speak in plainness and sor- row when I say that those who expound the passage under consideration as Drs. Miller and Rice have done, assign a reason for John's selection of Enon as a baptismal place which the Holy Spirit has not assigned. There is not an angel in heaven who would not tremble at the very thought of doing such a thing. Alas ! presumptuous mortals do many things from which angels would instinctively recoil. Were it not a solemn matter, it would be amusing to present a parallel to the reasoning that has now passed under review. If it were said that a man has erected a " merchant mill " on a certain stream because there is much water there, most persons would say that he wanted much water for purposes of grinding. Such men as Drs. Miller and Rice, however, would say: "You totally misconceive the man's object. He has built his mill on that stream, not because he needs the water to turn his machinery, but that those who " encamp " at the mill may have water to drink, and perform their " daily ablutions," and that their "beasts" may drink also." This would be the reasoning ; and most people would say, if the authors of such reasoning are not sent to a Lunatic Asylum, there is no use for Lunatic Asylums. 118 THREE REASONS, After all, I must say that Dr. Lvlce is a logician — a conclusive reasoner — and an admirable preacher. I refer now to his ordinary pulpit ministrations. But put him on the wrong side of a question, as he is in the baptismal controversy, and he is at once like Samson, shorn of his locks. It is the cause, rather than the man, that is weak. To demolish all that has ever been said about John's selecting places where there was much water for other than baptismal purposes, I need only state a few facts : We are told that in the early part of the Savior's ministry, "great multitudes followed him" — subsequently he miraculously fed at one time "four thousand," and at another "five thousand men, beside women and children " — and on anothei occasion " an innumerable multitude gathered to- gether, so that they trod one upon another." But there was nothing said about water. It is not said that "seeing the multitude, he went Avhere there was much water, that they might be refreshed — but he went into a mountain. Why is water not men- tioned in connection with the crowds that so often thronged about the Savior? When, however, John's baptism is referred to, (John, iii, 23,) it is said he was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was muck water there. Did he select that place that the people and their beasts might drink, be refreshed, etc. ; and was the Savior less considerate? The truth is — and it is vain for men or devils to deny WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 119 it — much water was required in baptism. This would not have been the case if baptism had not been im- mersion. There is nothing said about baptism in connection with the multitudes that often crowded around the Savior, and therefore there is no mention of water — "much water." The baptism of the Ethiopian (referred to Acts, viii, 38,) is worthy of consideration. The sacred historian says: "And they went down both into the watrer, both Phihp and the eunuch ; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water," etc. It has been often said that going into the water does not necessarily imply immersion. And who supposes that it does ? It would surely be pos- sible to "go into water," and " conie up out of it," without being immersed. But suppose, as "in the case before us, between the two movements the act of baptism occurs. What then ? Evidently the word baptize must determine the nature of that act. This is the view entertained by Baptists. They say the term baptize shows what act Philip performed after he descended with the eunuch into the water. And they confidently appeal to all Greek literature, profane and sacred, in support of the position thai hoytizo means to immerse. Hence they would be as $ully satisfied as they now are of the eunuch's im- mersion, if not one word had been said about the descent into the water. Still they regard the going dovvn into the water and the coming up out of the 120 THREE REASONS, water as furnishing a very strong circumstantial proof of immersion. They assume that Phihp anci the eunuch Avere men of good sense, and, if so, they did not go into the water for purposes of "pouring or sprinkling." Persons of good sense coiild not do so foolish a thing. But it is said that the Greek preposition, eis, trans- lated i72to, means to, and that Philip and the eunuch only went to the water. As sensible men, they would not have done that, if pouring or sprinkling had been the act to be performed. Why go down to the water? Why not have a cup full, or a spoonful, taken up to the chariot? In reference to eis, Dr. Summers, in his book on Baptism, p. 100, says: "When eis means i7ito, it is before the noun, as well as before the verb." The argument based on this statement is, that as eis is used but once in Acts, viii, 38, Philip and the eunuch did not go into, but only to the water, and the con- clusion is, that " the eunuch w^as not immersed." Did Dr. S. ever read the second chapter of Mat- thew, in Greek? If so, he knows that in verses 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, we have the phrases, "into the house," "into their own country," "into Egypt," "into the land of Israel," and "into the parts of Galilee." He knows, also, that eis is translated iiito, in all these places, and that it is used but once. If, then, the statement of Dr. S. is true in regard to eis, the "wise men" did not go ''into the house," did WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 121 not return ^'inio their own country." Joseph was not reqmred to " flee into Egypt," etc. Again, if the philology of Dr. S. is worth any- thing, the devils referred to, Matthew, viii, 31, 32, 33, did not enter *' into the swine," and the swine did not run ** into the sea," and the keepers of the swine did not go "into the city," etc. In all these places, eis is used but once. It seems, also, that the Savior, in Matthew, ix, 17, did not speak of putting wine into bottles, but only to bottles ; for eis is used but once. Query: How could the " new wine" break the ''old bottles" without being put into them ? Once more : It is said, Matthew, xxv, 46, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." Here, also, eis is used but once, and according to the criticism I am exposing, the wicked do not go "into everlasting punishment," nor the riohteous "into life eternal." But in all these o passages, Pedobaptists very readily admit that eis means into. They have no objection to this meaning, unless baptismal waters are referred to. This little word eis, is a strange word, indeed, if what they say of it, is true. It will take a man into a country, into a city, into a house, into a ship, into heaven, into hell — into any place in the universe, except the water ! Poor word ! afilicted, it seems, with hydro- phobia. It will allow a person to go to the water, but not into it. However, where baptism is not re- ferred to, it may denote entrance into water, as in 122 THREE REASONS, Mark, ix, 22. But laying irony aside, I affirm in the face of the hterary world, that Greek writers often use eis twice, to express tlje idea of entrance into a place — once in composition with the verb, and once before the noun or pronoun — and th'ey often use it but once to denote the same idea of entrance into a place. The man who does not know this, ought to rehnquish all pretensions to Greek scholarship. A Freshman, in any of our colleges, would deserve rebuke, w^re he to make such statements in refer- ence to eis, as Pedobaptist Doctors of Divinity, frequently make. Suppose the following facts were published in any Pedobaptist paper in America: **An officer of the United States' Government was travelino- — ridino; in a carriage, and reading in the prophecy of Isaiah. A minister Avas going on foot, in the same direction, and was invited by the officer to ride with him. Having accepted the invitation, the minister preached Jesus to the officer; and as they journeyed, the officer said, See, here is water ; what doth hinder me to be bap- tized? And the minister said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And the officer said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the carriage to stand still : and they went down both into the water, both the minister and ihe officer, and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water," etc. Let such a narrative as this be published in a Pedobaptist paper. WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 133 and the readers of that paper, without an exception, would say : That minister was an immersionist, and chat officer was immersed. Now, I ask, if such a narrative as this, would not be substantially the nar- rative we have in Acts, viii, 27 — 39 ? Let the reader determine. When will men learn to exercise a little common sense in reference to religious matters ? Pedobaptists are exceedingly unreasonable in their management of the baptismal controversy. They insist that it is utterly improbable that suitable water could be found at Jerusalem for the immersion of three thousand persons, on the day of Pentecost — that there is no reference to a stream of water in con- nection with the baptism of Saul of Tarsus, the jailer, etc., etc. One would imagine that if there was anything said about a "river," "much water," etc., it would be conceded that these baptisms were immersions. But it would not be so. For when Baptists refer to the Jordan or Enon, where there was "much water," or to the water into which Philip and the eunuch went down, Pedobaptists argue that an abundance of water, by no means, indicates that the act of immersion was performed. We cannot please them at all. They are like the Jewish children in the markets : If we pipe to them, they will not dance ; if we mourn to them they will not lament. If there is no mention of a " river " in connection with a baptismal narrative of the New Testament, the cry is, "no immersion, scarcity of water," etc. If th€ 124 THREE REASONS, river Jordan is named, the same cry of " no immer- sion," is heard. So that, according to Pedobaptist logic, scarcity of water, and abundance of water, prove the very same thing ! How are we to meet in argument, men who draw the same conclusion from premises as far apart '-'as from the center, thrice to the utmost pole?'* They repudiate all the laws of logic, and trample under their feet, all the principles of common sense. But I will not indulge in severity of remark. Such men probably have enough to suf- fer from the accusations of conscience, if, indeed, conscience has not ceased to perform its office. John Calvin felt the force of the argument in favor of immersion, derived from the places selected for the administration of baptism. Hence, in his Com- mentary, (translated by Rev. William Pringle, Edin- burgh, and printed for the Calvin Translation So- ciety,) he remarks, on John, iii, 22, 23, ''From these words we may infer that John and Christ ad- ministered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water." On Acts, viii, 38, he says : ** Here we see the rite used among the men of old time, in baptism ; for they put all the body into the water. Now the use is this, that the minister doth only sprinkle the body or the head. But we ought not to stand so much about a small difference of a ceremony, that we should, therefore, divide the church, or trouble the same with brawls, * * * * * *. Wherefore the church did grant liberty co •WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 125 lierself, since the beoinnino-, to change the rites somewhat, excepting the substance." So much for the testimony of the Founder of Presbyteiianism. Before I proceed to the historical argument in favor of immersion, I will say that if baptizo means to immerse, it does not mean sprinkle or pour. If it means sprinkle, it does not mean immerse or pour. If it means pour, it does not mean sprinkle or im- merse. It is nonsense to say that the word can de- note three actions so dissimilar. It is an outrage on the philosophy of language. Did not Jesus Christ, in enjoining baptism, give a specific com- mand? If he did not, it is impossible to know what he requires, and the impossibihty releases from all obligation to obey the requirement. I say boldly that it is not the duty of any man to be baptized, if he cannot know what baptism is. All candid per- sons, upon examination of the subject, must admit that the Savior gave a specific command, when he enjoined baptism on believers. And if so, he did not require them to be immersed in water, or that water be poured or sprinkled on them. He did not require any one of three things ; for on this sup- position, the command loses its specific character. The matter then comes to this point : Did Christ re- quire believers to be immersed in water, or to have water applied to them by sprinkling or pouring? Now, if the word baptize, in the New Testament, means sprinkle or pour, as Pedobap lists insist; and 11 126 THREE REASONS, if baptism is an " application of water," is it not in- finitely remarkable that -svater is never said to be baptized upon the subject of the ordinance, and that the water is never said to be applied? If baptize means sprinkle or pour, the water is baptized, not the person. We cannot speak of sprinkling a man without an ellipsis or figure of speech. And no rational person would expect to find either an ellipsis or figure of speech in the apostolic commission. Sprinkling implies the separation and scattering of the particles of the substance sprinkled. A man cannot be poured, because pouring implies a continu- ous stream of the substance poured. I say again, if baptize, in the New Testament, means sprinkle or pour, the water is baptized. But nowhere is water found in the objective case, after the verb baptize, in the active- voice, and nowhere is it the nominative case to the verb in the passive voice. AVe never read, I baptize water upon you ; but I baptize you. It is never said : Water was bajHized upon them ; but it is said : ** they were baptized, both men and women." The subjects of the ordinance are baptized, the water is not. And, therefore, baptize, in the New Testa- ment, signifies neither sprinkle nor pour. But sub* stitute immerse for it, and how plain and beautiful every baptismal narrative ! I immerse you, not the water. They were immersed, that is, the *'men and women'* Those who do not look upon this state- ment of the matter as conclusive against sprinkling and WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 127 pouring, ought (even if they are Doctors of Divinit}^) to apply themselves at once to the study of EugUsh Grammar. A knowledge of this science, coupled with candor and common sense, would extricate them from the mazes of error. 6. History bears testimony to the practice of immer- sion, except in cases of sickness and urgent necessity, for more than thirteen hundred years. I avail myself, as I have done, of Pedobaptist wit- nesses : My first witness is Richard Baxter, author of the ** Saints' Rest." He says: "It is commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists, as our commen- tators declare, that in the apostles' times, the bap- tized were dipped over head in the water, and that this signified their profession, both of believing the btirial and resurrection of Christ; and of their own present renouncing the world and flesh, or dying to sin and livinf? to Christ, or risino' ao-ain to newness of life, or being buried and risen again with Christ, as the apostle expoundeth, in the fore-cited texts of Col. ii, and Rom. vi."* The celebrated Dr. Samuel Johnson refers to the Roman Catholics as giving the sacramental bread to the laity, and withholding the cup from them. He remarks: "They may think that in what is merely ritual, deviations from the primitive mode may be admitted on the ground of convenience ; and I think * Quoted in Booth's Pedobaptism Examined. 128 THREE REASONS, they are as well warranted to make this alteration, as we are to substitute sprinkling in the room of the ancient baptism."* John Wesley, in his Journal of Feb. 21, 1736, writes as follows: **Mary Welch, aged eleven days,' was baptized according to the custom of the first church, and the rule of the Church of England, by immersion." Dr. Miller, with his bitter opposition to immersion, says: **It is not denied that, for the first few cen- turies after Christ, the most common mode of admin- istering baptism was by immersion. "•{• The learned Mosheim, in his Church History, says of the first century : " The sacrament of hui^ism was administered in this century, without the public as- semblies, in places appointed and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by an immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font." Of the second century, he says: **The persons that were to be baptized, after they had repeated the creed, confessed and renounced their sins, and par- ticularly the devil and his pompous allurements, were immersed under water and received into Christ's kingdom," etc. Of the fourth century, he says: "Baptismal fonts w^ere now erected in the porch of each church, for *Bosw'ell's Life of Johson, Vol. II., p. 383. t Miller on Baptism, p. 116. WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 129 the more commodious adminislration of that initiating sacrament."* The celebrated Church Historian, Neander, in his Letter to Judd, expresses himself thus: "As to your question on the original rite of baptism, there can be no doubt whatever, that in the primitive times, the ceremony was performed by immersion, to signify a complete immersion into the new principle of life divine, which was to be imparted by the Messiah. When St. Paul says, that through baptism we .are buried with Christ, and rise again with him, he un- questionably alludes to the symbol of dipping into, and rising again out of the water. The practice of immersion, in the first centuries, was, beyond all doubt, prevalent in the whole church : the only ex- ception was made with the baptism of the sick, hence termed baptisma clinicorum, which was performed merely by sprinkling."f I might quote other testi- mony like this, from Neander's " Church History/* and his ** Planting and Training of the Clii istian Church," but the foregoing is suflScient from the great Lutheran. Dr. Whitby, of the Church of England, in his Commentary, says, on Rom. vi, 4, "It being so ex- pressly declared here and Colos. ii, 12, that we are 'buried with Christ in baptism,* by being buried • Maclaine's Mo:rheini, (m 2 Vols.,) Vol. I,, pp.46, G9, 121. tSee Appendix to Judd's Review of Stuart, 130 THREE REASONS under water ; and the argument to oblige us to a con formity to his death, by dying to sin, being taken hence and this immersion being religiously observed by all Christians for THIRTEEN CENTURIES, and ap- proved by our church, and the change of it into sprinkling, even without any allowance from the au- ♦Jior of the institution, or any license from any coun- cil of the church, being that which the Romanist still urgeth to justify his refusal of the cup to the laity ; it were to be wished, that this custom mioht be ao-ain of general use, and aspersion only permitted, as of old, in case of the clinici, or in present danger of death." And what says Professor Stuart? Quoting Augusti, who refers to the ancient practice of immersion as "a thing made out," he says : "So, indeed, all the wri- ters who have thoroughly investigated this subject, conclude. I know of no one usage of ancient times, which seems to be more clearly and certainly made out. I cannot see how it is possible for any candid man who examines the subject, to deny this." Again: ** The mode of baptism by immersion, the Oriental Church has always continued to preserve, even down to the present time. The members of this church are accustomed to call the members of tlie western churches, sprinkled Christians, by way of ridicule and contempt. They maintain, that hajjtizo can mean nothing but immerge ; and that baptism hy sprinHi7if/ is as great a solecism as immersion by asjyersion ; and they claim to themselves the honor of having pre- WHY 1 AM A BAPTIST. 131 served the ancient sacred rite of the church free from change and from corruption, which would de- stroy its significancy."* Coleman, in his recent work, entitled ** Ancient Christianity Exemplified," referring to immersion, says : **In tlie primitive church, immediatelj^ subse- quent to the age of the apostles, this was undeniably the common mode of baptism. The utmost that can be said of sprinMing in that early period is that it was, in case of necessity, permitted as an exception to a general rule. This fact is so well established that it were needless to adduce authorities in proof of it. ****** It is a great mistake to suppose that baptism by immersion was discontinued when infant baptism became generally prevalent : the prac- tice of immersion continued even until the thirteenth or fourteenth century. Indeed it has never been formally abandoned ; but is still the mode of admin- istering baptism in the Greek Church and in several of the Eastern Churches."! This testimony is worthy of special consideration ; for Coleman often takes occasion to express the opin- ion that immersion 'is not essential to baptism. He sometimes steps out of his way to do this, but the undeniable facts of history prompt a reluctant decla- ration of the truth. * Stuart on Mode of Baptism, 75, 76, 77. t Pages 395, 396. 132 THREE REASONS, As immersion was the general practice for more than thirteen hundred years, the reader may be anxious to know how it has been, to so lamentable an extent, superseded by sprinkling. The following quotations explain the matter : Dr. Wall, in his** History of Infant Baptism," speaking of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, which continued from A. D. 1558 to 1603, says : *' It being allowed to weak children (tho' strong enough to be brought to church) to be baptized by affusion, many fond ladies and gentlemen first, and then by degrees the common people would obtain the favor of the Priest to have their children pass for weak children, too tender to endure dipping in water. Especially (as Mr. Walker observes) if some instance really were, or were hut fancied or framed, of some child's talcing kurt by it. And another thing that had a greater in- fluence than this, was ; That many of our English Divines and other people had, during Queen Mary's bloody reign, fled into Germany, Switzerland, etc., and coming back in Queen Elizabeth's time, they brought with them a great love to the customs of those Protestant churches wherein they had so- journed : And especially the authority of Calvin, and the rules which he had established at Geneva, had a mighty influence on a great number of our people about that time. Now Calvin had not only given his Dictate, in his Institutions, that the difference is of no moment, whether he that is baptized be dipt all over; win' I AM A BAPTIST. 133 and if so, whether thrice or o?ice ; or whether he be only wetted ivith the water poured on him : But he had also drawn up for the use of his church at Geneva, (and afterward pubhshed to the world,) a form of administering the sacraments, where, when he comes to order the act of baptizing, he words it thus : Then the minister of haptlsm pours water on the infant ; say- ing, I baptize thee, etc. There had been, as I said, some Synods in some Dioceses oi France that had spoken of affusion without mentioning immersion at all ; that being the common practice : but for an OfiSce or Liturgy of any church ; this is, I believe, the first in the world that prescribes afiiision abso- lutely." Dr. Wall also refers to the influence of the West- minster Assembly, in substituting pouring and sprink- ling for immersion. That Assembly not only made a " Confession of Faith," but a " Directory for the public Worship of God," in which "pouring or sprinkling" is declared *'not only lawful, but suflfi- cient, and most expedient." Such a declaration surely would not have been made, if "pouring " and •'sprinkling" had not been of comparatively recent origin in England. This, however, by way of pa- renthesis. Dr. Wall says : " So (parallel to the rest of their reformations) they reformed the Font into a Basin. This Learned Assembly could not remem- ber that Fonts to baptize in, had been always used by the primitive Christians, long before the beginning 12 134 THREE REASONS, of Popery ; and ever since churches were built : But that sprinkling', for the common use of baptizing, was really introduced (in France first, and then in other Popisli countries) in times of Popery : And that accordingly all those countries in which the usurped power of the Pope is, or has formerly been, owned, have left off dipping of children in the Font : But that all other countries in the world (which had never regarded his authority) do still use it : And that Basins, except in case of necessity, were never used by Papists, or any other Christians whatsoever, till by themselves. The use was ; The minister con- tinuing in his reading Desk, the child was brought and held below him : And there was placed for that use a little Basin of water about the bigness of a syllabub pot, into which the minister, dipping his fincrers, and then holdino- his hand over the face of the child, some drops would fall from his fingers on the child's face. For the Directory says, it is not only lawful, hut most exjjedient to use pouring or sprink- ling."* My last quotation, in vindication of the *' truth of history," is taken from the Edinburgh Encyclopedia, edited by Sir David Brewster, a distinguished Pedo- baptist. It contains the following account of ** sprink- ling." '' The first law for sprinkling was obtained in the following manner : Pope Stephen II, being * History of Infant Baptism, Part II, Chapter ix. WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 1 35 driven from Rome by Astolphus, King of the Lom- bards, in 753, fled to Pepin, who, a short time be- fore, had usurped the crown of France. While he remained there, the monks of Cressy, in Brittany, consulted him, whether in case of necessity, baptism performed by pouring water on the head of the in- fant would be lawful. Stephen rephed that it would. But though the truth of this fact should be allowed, which, however, some Catholics deny, yet pouring or sjDrinkling was admitted only in cases of necessity. It was not till the year 1311, that the legislature, in a council held at Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent. In this country, [Scot- land], however, sprinkling was never practiced in ordinary cases till after the Reformation; and in England, even in the reign of Edward YI, trine im- mersion was commonly observed. But during the persecution of Mary, many persons, most of whom were Scotsmen, fled from England to Geneva, and there greedily imbibed the opinions of that church. In 1556, a book was published at that place, contain- ing * The form of prayers and ministration of sacra- ments, approved by the famous and godly-learned man, John Calvin,' in which the administrator is en- joined to take water in his hand and lay it on the child's forehead. These Scottish exiles, who had re- nounced the authority of the Pope, implicitly ac- knowledged the authority of Calvin ; and return- ing to their own country, with John Knox at their 136 THREE REASONS, head, in 1559, established sprinkhng in Scotland. From Scotland, this practice made its way into Eng- land, in the reiun of Elizabeth ; but was not author- ized by the established church." Article Baptiam. If I have not now shown that immersion was practiced for more than thirteen centuries, except in cases of sickness and necessity, it is impossible for any thing to be shown. The man who is not con- vinced by the testimony adduced in support of this fact, would not be ''persuaded though one should rise from the dead.*' Such a man, if he had a pur- pose to accomplish by it, would deny that the sun shone for the first thirteen centuries of the Christian era. What then is to be thought of those Pedobap- tist ministers who say that " it cannot be proved that immersion was practiced before the sixteenth cen- tury?" They are remarkable men — remarkahle either for ignorance or a want of candor. I do not deter- mine the point of their remarhahleness. They ought to study, at least, the alphabetical portions of Church History. They would then know, that until the last few hundred years, immersion was the general rule, and aspersion the exception. They would learn that at one period the propriety of a copious pouring of water on the entire persons of the sick, on their beds, instead of baptism, was seriously called in question, and, by some, most positively denied. They would ascertain (though the fact would greatly asionish them) that many more infants have been "VVMr 1 AM A BAPTIST. * 137 immersed than ever had ine operation of sprinkhno- o-r pouring performed on them. The man who de- nies this fact, knows comparatively nothing of eccle- siastical history. Immersion, however, so far as un- conscious infants are concerned, is no better than sprinkling. Both are uncommanded in the word of God, and belong to the large family of human tradi- tions. My readers must decide whether my second rea- son for being a Baptist, is valid. To me, its validity appears perfectly unquestionable. I am a Baptist BECAUSE Baptists consider the immersion in water, OF A believer in Christ, essential to baptism — so essential that there is no baptism without it. Before I proceed to give my third reason for being a Baptist, it is, perhaps, proper that I briefly notice the most prominent Pedobaptist objections to immer- sion. A brief notice is all that is necessary. 1 . John, it is argued, ha'ptized not in, hut at Jordan. Episcopalians and Methodists are precluded from a resort to this argument ; for the "■ Book of Common Prayer," and the " Discipline," both teach that Jesus was baptized ''in the river Jordan." John baptized in the wilderness. Here we have the same word iw, the representative of the Greek en. How would it do to say John baptized at the wilderness? The Greek is surely a strange language, if it has no preposition which means in. If en has not this meaning, there is no word in the language that has. 138 THREE REASONS, Let any Greek scholar try to express, in Greek, the idea of being in a place, in a house, in a river, etc., without the use of en. The ordinary meaning of en, is in, and of eis, into. 2. John, it is said, baptized ''with water." It is insisted that "with water," denotes that the water was applied in baptism. It is enough to say, in reply to this objection, that Baptists never immerse without water. John speaks of baptism in water, in the Holy Ghost, and in fire. King James's Transla- tors, no doubt, rendered en, with, to make, what they considered, an emphatic distinction between the bap- tismal elements. They were wrong. Every scholar knows that the proper rendering is, in water. The little preposition en, acts a conspicuous part here, also. It is the same word already defined. It is as proper to say that John baptized with the wilderness, and with the Jordan, as that he baptized with water. En is translated in, in the first two instances, and why should it be rendered with, in the last ? Can any scholar give a good reason? But, as I have said. Baptists do not immerse without water. If I say, "the clothes were washed with water," does it follow that they were not dipped into it ? Surely not. 3. It is urged with great confidence that three thousand persons could not have been immersed on the day of Pentecost. It is supposed that water could not be had for the purpose. Indeed ! Where now is the ''much water " Wnr I AM A BAPTIST. 139 that Dr. Rice found necessary for the "daily ablu- tions " of the Jews ? They certainly performed their " ablutions " at home, if they could not be dispensed with when they went to John's baptism. Jerusalem, according to Robinson, "would appear always to have had a full supply of water for its inhabitants, both in ancient and modern times. In the numerous sieges to which, in all ages, it has been exposed, we no- where read of any want of water within the city."* Where people can live there is water enough for purposes of immersion. But why dwell on this point? If Jerusalem had been situated on the Mediterranean sea, Pedobaptists woulli not allow eis to take the three thousand converts into its waters. They are no more willing to admit immersion, where there is an abun- dance of water, than where there is a supposed scarcity. But it is insisted that it was impossible for the three thousand converts to be immersed on the day of Pentecost, and therefore water must have been sprinkled or poured on them. I answer, it takes about as much time to sprinkle as it does to immerse. Much the greater portion of time, in modern baptisms, is occupied in repeating the words of the baptismal ceremony. If it is said, that sprinkling was more expeditiously performed in ancient than in modern times, I have an equal right to say the same thing * Biblical Researches, Vol. I, p. 479. 140 THREE REASONS, of immersion. If the apostles alone baptized on the day of Pentecost, (which, however, cannot be proved,) they could have easily immersed the three thousand.* If Pedobaptists deny this, let them account for the historical fact that Austin the monk, sent by Pope Gregory the Great into England in the year 597, to convert the inhabitants, ** consecrated the river Swale, near York, in which he caused ten thousand of his converts to be baptized in one day." They were immersed. 4. It is thought to militate against immersion that the Holy Spirit is said to he 'poured out. If so, it militates equally against sprinkling. If pouring is baptism, why is not the Spirit sometimes said to be baptized ? He is said to be poured out ! There is as much difference between the pouring out of the Spirit, and the baptism of the Spirit, as there is between the pouring of water into a baptistery and the immersion of a person in that water. Those baptized "with the Holy Ghost," or rather **m the Holy Ghost," were placed under the influence of the Holy Ghost, just as a person baptized in water is put under the influence of the water. If the Pedobap- tist reasoning on this subject is correct, what follows? Why, that as the Spirit is said to be *' given," to "fall upon," to "testify," to "fill,", to "write," etc., * The writer once saw the venerable Reuben Ross, when more than sixty years of age, baptize sixty-six persons in thirty-three minutes; and there was no indecent haste. WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 141 therefore, giving, falling upon, testifying, filling, writing, etc., are all baptism. Surely this will not do. 5. Saul of Tarsus, it is affirmed, was baptized stand- ing vp. The participle anastas is sometimes so translated, but in numerous instances denotes the bemnninc^ of a process by which a thing is done. It is said, (Luke, i, 39,) ''And Mary arose (ayiastasa — same word with a feminine termination,) in those days, and went into the hill country," etc. Did Mary stand up and go? Does not anastasa here denote the beginning of the process by which she reached the hill country ? In Luke, XV, 18, the prodigal son says, " I will arise (anastas) and go to my father," etc., and in verse 20 it is said: *'And he arose, [anastas,) and came to his father." Did he stand up and go to his father? Was not the anastas the commencement of the re- turnino^ movement? He arose and returned to his father. Now Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles. Is it not reasonable, then, to believe, that when he says (Acts, ix, 18,) that Saul arose [anastas) and was baptized, he means by anastas the beginning of a process necessary to his baptism? He evidently arose that he might be immersed; but no rising up — no anastas — was necessary, if water was to be poured or sprinkled on him. His immersion implied the move- ment indicated by anastas, while pouring or sprink- ling could imply no such movement. In the thirty- ninth verse of the same chapter it is said: "And 142 THREE REASONS, Peter arose (anasias) and went with them" — that is, to Joppa. He did not stand up still and go ; but he arose as the first thing to be done in getting to Joppa, just as Saul arose as the first thing to be done in get- ting to a suitable place for immersion. But I shall let Saul, who afterward became Paul, settle this matter himself. In Romans, vi, 4, includino^ him- self with those to whom he wrote, he says: ''We are buried with him by baptism.'* If Saul was buried by baptism, he was immersed. There is no burial in pouring or sprinkling. 6. It is argued that the question, Can any man for- hid water that these should not he baptized? (Acts, x, 47,) intimates that the ivater ivas to he brought, etc. This objection to immersion is almost a laughable one. The question only means. Can any one forbid the baptism of these Gentiles, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as the Jews ? Baptist minis- ters, in receiving candidates for baptism, often say to the Churches, ** Can any man forbid water," etc. Does this imply that the water is to be brought in a "bowl" or ''pitcher?" 7. It is said that the jailer coidd not have been immersed in prison. (See Acts, xvi, 30-34.) Baptists do not say he was immersed in prison. The jailer brought out Paul and Silas from the prison before he said, " Sirs, what must I do," etc. ? Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him, and to all that weie in his house. It seems, then, that they WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 143 were in his house, (verse 32). In verse 34 it is said, "And when he had brought them into his house," etc. The thirty-third verse contains an account of the baptism. They left the house when the baptism took place, and they went back into it after the baptism was over. Why did they leave the house to sprinkle or pour water ? Was it necessary ? Evidently not ; but it was necessary to the adminis- tration of apostolic baptism. 8. Pedohaptists urge that the baptism of the Israel- ites unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea is irrecon- cilable ivith the idea of immersion. In being baptized into or unto Christ, we publicly assume him as our leader. The Israelites, in beins: baptized unto Moses, publicly assumed him as their leader. The analogy of their passage through the sea, with the cloud above them, to Christian immer- sion, no doubt suggested to Paul the language he has' employed. There was no literal baptism — and there was no pouring or sprinkling. How often is Psalm Ixxvii, 17, referred to, to prove that the Israelites had water poured on them. Unfortunately for this view of the matter it is said, *' The clouds poured out water. It was a cloud that Paul refers to — the miraculous cloud, the symbol of the Divine presence. This cloud had just as much water in it as that on which the Savior rode triumphantly to heaven, and no more. It will be observed that the Israelites were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the secu 144 THREE REASONS, In literal baptism the person is baptized only in water. The water envelops, surrounds the individual. In the case of the Israelites it took the sea (which was as a wall on each each side) and the cloud (which was above) to complete the envelopment. He who does not see that baptize is figuratively- applied to the Israelites, because the word literally means immerse, is not to be reasoned with. If it could be conceived that the miraculous cloud poured forth water, and that the pouring constituted the baptism, what had the sea to do in the baptismal operation? Absolutely nothing: but Paul says, ''our fathers were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 9. It is contended that the phrase, "divers ivashings,^' Hebrews, ix, 10, [in the original baptisms) indicates more baptisms than one. It is a significant fact that Macknight, a Presby- terian translator, renders the phrase ** divers immer- sions." The Mosaic law required unclean persons *'to bathe themselves in water'' — it required ** unclean vessels to be put into water,'' and it said, "all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water." If it is not conceded that these regulations involved ''divers immersions," it ought not to be admitted that the sun rises in the East. Moreover, Paul, in the same chapter of Hebrews, uses rantizo, to sprinkle, three times. If by "divers washings" he included sprinklings, why did he use a different WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 145 word altogether, when, as every body allows, he intended to convey the idea of sprmklmg? Can any Doctor of Divinity tell ? 10. Immersion, it is affirmed, is indecent, and dan- gerous. What says Richard Watson, in his ** Theological Institutes," which are so highly approved by his Methodist brethren? Here is his language: "With all the arrangements of modern times, baptism by immersion is not a decent practice : there is not a female, perhaps, who submits to it, who has not a great previous struggle with her delicacy." Again: Even if immersion had been the original mode of baptizing, we should, in the absence of any com- mand on the subject, direct or implied, have thought the church at liberty to accommodate the manner of applying water to the body in the name of the Trinity, in which the essence of the rite consists, to different climates and manners ; but it is satisfactory to dis- cover that all the attempts made to impose upon Christians a practice repulsive to the feelings, dangerous to the health, and offensive to delicacy, is destitute of all Scriptural authority, and of really primitive prac- tice."* Immersion not a ''decent practice !" And yet the Methodist ])iscipline authorizes it ! It authorizes an indecent practice, does it ? Ay, more : it recog- *Vol. II, pp. 648, 660. 13 146 THREE REASONS, nizes immersion as valid baptism, and its validity must arise from the appointment of Jesus Christ. It cannot be valid unless he has appointed it. Will Methodists dare say that an appointment of his is not a "decent practice?" Will they say that this ** practice" is ''repulsive to the feelings," and "of- fensive to delicacy?" It may be ** repulsive to the feelings" of the enemies of Christ to do what he has commanded, but it is not to the feelings of his friends; for they have not the spurious "delicacy" referred to. No *' female," it seems, "submits to" immersion "without a great previous struggle with her delicacy !" Ah, indeed ! Baptists who practice immersion know nothing of this "great struggle." Pedobaptists, however, find it much easier to dis- suade " females " from being immersed by referring to the indelicacy of immersion, than by attempting to prove, in honorable argument, that immersion is contrary to the word of God. The reason is, the pride, corruption, and carnality of the heart, are readily enlisted by an artful appeal to " delicacy," " decency," etc. But may Heaven have mercy on the man who makes such an appeal ! It is time to speak and write plainly. I say, then, that the man who sees anything "indecent," "in- delicate," or "vulgar" in immersion — ay, in the immersion of "females," is an "indecent" man. He is a man of "indelicate" feelings. The vulgarity is in the man — not in the immersion. Such a man WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 147 ma}' write "Theological Institutes," or, like Dr. Sum- meis, he may write a vulnerable book on baptism, or, hke Dr. Lee, he may make the indecency of im- mersion the theme of newspaper articles — but he is a vulgar-minded man. Immodest persons often make the greatest pretensions to modesty, and the reason is they deem it necessary to make jpretensions because they are so utterly destitute of what they pretend to hcive. As to the charge that "immersion is dangerous" I dispose of it with the remark that, it is notoriously untrue. In the foregoing extract from Watson, where he refers to the " church as at liberty to accommodate the manner of applying water," etc., the discerning reader will detect the germ of Popery. Ah! that *' liberty to accommodate !" etc. How infinitely mis- cliievous has been its operation. The ''hberty'* assumed " to accommodate," etc., that is, to deviate from the order estabhshed by Christ, resulted in the rise of the Romish hierarchy, and has led to the formation of every Pedobaptist church under heaven. Tliis fact is intensely suggestive. I have now examined all the prominent objections of Pedobaptists to immersion, and what weight is there in those objections ? They are as light as the thin air — lighter than vanity. The objections them- selves indicate the weakness of the cause they are intended to support. An examination of them only deepens the conviction of my mind that the immer- 148 THREE REASOxN'S, sion in water of a believer is essential to baptism — so essential that there is no baptism without it. III. I AM A Baptist because Baptists adopt THE FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZED IN THE New Testament — that is to say, the con- 'jregational form of government. There are three prominent forms of church gov- ernment indicated by the terms Episcopacy, Presby- terianism, and Conofreo-ationalism. Episcopacy recognizes the right of Bishops to pre- side over districts of country, and one of its funda- mental doctrines is, that a Bishop is officially superior to an elder. Of course a modern Bishop has under his charge the ** inferior clergy;" for it is insisted that the ** ordaining power," and *' the right to rule" belong to the Episcopal office. Those who adopt the Episcopal form of government believe that there are three orders in the ministry — namely, dea- cons, elders and bishops. The modern application of the term Bishop to a man who has under his charge a district of country, is very objectionable. It has almost banished from Christendom the idea originally attached to the term. In apostolic times. Bishop and Pastor were terms of equivalent import. The elders of the church of Ephesus are termed (Acts, XX, 24,) overseers — in the original ejyiscopos — the word generally translated "bishop," if, indeed, ''bishop" may be called a translation. It is so WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 149 evident from the Scriptures that bishops and elders are identical that it is the wildest folly to call it in question. This, however, is not the place to enlarge on this topic. Presbyterianism recognizes two classes of elders — preaching elders and ruling elders. The pastor and rulinof elders of a conc^rej^ation constitute what is called the "Session of the church." The "Session" transacts the business of the church, receives, dis- misses, excludes members, etc. From the decisions of a Session there is an appeal to Presbytery, which is composed of preaching and ruling elders. From the action of a Presbytery there lies an appeal to Synod ; and from the adjudications of Synod there is an appeal to the General Assembly, whose decrees are both final and irresistible. These Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assemblies, are often termed "church courts," the "judicatories of the church," etc. The friends of Presbyterianism, no doubt, deem their form of government most expedient and satis- factory; but to believe it Scriptural, must be as diffi- cult as to admit the substitution of baptism for cir- cumcision. Where is it intimated, in the New Testa- ment, that churches composed Presbyteries, and Pres- byteries Synods, and Synods General Assemblies, and that there is an appeal from the lower to the higher "courts?" While Presbyterians, therefore, talk and write about the expediency of their form of goveniment, they ought to say nothing of its Scrip- 160 THREE REASONS, turality. It is unquestionably a better government than the Episcopal; but it is not the government established by Jesus Christ. It will be readily seen that Episcopacy and Presbyterianism imply that many local congregations enter representatively into the composition of what is termed ''the church." Hence we often hear of the ** Episcopal Church of the United States of America," the *' Presbyterian Church of the United States," etc. The local religious com- munities in all parts of the nation where Episcopacy prevails, are considered as constituting the '* Episco- pal Church." So of Presbyterianism. So of Meth- odism, North and South. The Bai^tht Church of the United States is a phrase which ought never to be used — which can never be used with propriety. There are thousands of Baptist churches in the United States, but they do not constitute one great Baptist Church of the United States. They differ materially and fundamentally from Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Methodist churches. They are all independent of one another, so far as the exercise of governmental power is concerned. Every local congregation, united in church fellowship, is as complete a church as ever existed, and is perfectly competent to do whatever a church can of right do. No one congregation is at liberty to interfere with the affairs of another. Every Baptist church is an independent and a pure de- mocracy. The idea of independence should be ear- nestly cherished, while that of consolidation should WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 151 be as earnestly deprecated. Agreeably to the view now presented, we read in the New Testament of the churches of Judea, the churches of Galatia, the churches of Macedonia, the churches of Asia, etc., etc., but we never read of the church of Judea, the church of Gal- atia, etc. There is not the remotest reference to a church commensurate with a province, a kingdom, or an empire. This view of church extension and con- solidation was j!905^apostolic, palpably so. There are no people who recognize more fully than Bap- tists the fact that the phrase, *' kingdom of Christ," implies that he is King — he is Monarch — he is Au- tocrat. In ordaining the laws of his kingdom he did not allow the impertinent interference of men or angels. There is.no human or angehc legislation in the kingdom of Christ. Churches organized accord- ing to the New Testament model are required to execute the laws of Christ. To do this they must of course first decide what the laws of Christ are ; and they are so plain that there need be no misappre- hension. It may be said, therefore, that the churches of Christ are invested with judicial and executive power, but they have no legislative power. Ecclesi- astical legislation — such as is allowed in many Pedo- baptist organizations — is perfectly abhorrent to the spirit of the gospel. Churches are executive de- mocracies, organized to carry out the sovereign will of their Head. I cannot here resist my inclination to express my views in the language of my friend 162 THREE REASONS, and brother, Dr. J. M. Peck. Referring to Baptists, he says : ** Their theory of church government embraces two great and apparently opposite principles : *^ First. — That the kingdom of Christ, in its visible form on earth, is a pure monarchy. Christ is King and Lawgiver. He needs not the aid of man, Aor will he endure human legislation in any form. He has not merely given a few vague and general rules, and left his people to work out all the discordant plans of government that prevail at this moment in Christendom. Both by precept and in the inspired records of the primitive churches, there are examples for every class of cases that necessity ever requires. The legislation in his kingdom is all Divine, *' Secondly. — His kingdom, in its organized staDe of small communities, each managing its own affairs in its own vicinage, is a ^J2/7*e democracy. The PEOPLE — THE WHOLE PEOPLE, in cacli Community, choose their own officers — receive and expel mem- bers — conduct all business as a body politic — decide on all questions of discipline, and observe all the institutions of Christ. Were they to institute a rep- resentative, or any other form of government, they would depart from the law book, and soon be in- volved in as many difficulties as their neighbors."* * Christian Repository, Vol. II, pp. 47, 48, The writer knows of no man better qualified to write a book on the "Distinctive Principles of Baptists" than Rev. J. M. Peck WHY I AM A BAPTIST. i 53 Congregationalism antagonizes with Episcopacy AND PrESBYTERIANISM, AND DISTINCTLY RECOGNIZES THESE TRUTHS : 1. That the governmental power is in the hands of the people. It resides with the laity, in contradistinction from Bishops and Elders ; I mean to say that Bishops and Elders are incapable of doing anything without the concurrence of the laity. 2. The right of a majority of the members of a church to rule. When the will of the majority is ascertained, it becomes the minority to submit. 3. That the power of a church cannot he transferred or alienated, and that church action is final. The power of a church cannot be delegated. There may be messengers of a church, but there cannot be delegates. No church can empower any man, or body of men, to do anything which will im- pair its independency, or militate against its demo- cratic sovereignty. These are highly important principles, and while the existence of the Congregational form of church government depends upon their recognition and appli- cation, it is an inquiry of vital moment : Does the New Testament recognize these principles ? For if Such a volume from his pen is a desideratum, and it would doubtless have an extensive circulation. It is hoped that his attention will be directed to this subject. 154 THREE REASONS, •t does not, whatever may be said in commendation of them, they possess no obligatory force. I refer to the New Testament, because it would be unjustifiable to go to the Old, to ascertain the form of government established for Christian churches. Jesus Christ, in instructing the apostles how to train the baptized disciples, says : "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.'' He does not say, " all things that Moses commanded," but " all things whatsoever / have commanded." The apostles en- joyed his teachings during his ministry, and the ** forty days" intervening between his resurrection and ascension, he employed in "speaking to them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." It may be said that Paul was not with Christ during his ministry, and did not enjoy the advantage of the "forty days' " instruction. This is true, but his de- ficiencies, as compared with the other apostles, were evidently supplied by direct revelations from Heaven. It will be seen, therefore, that the apostles them- selves, had no discretio7iary power. They were to teach an observance of " all things " their Lord and Master had " commanded " — no more", no less. What- ever they taught under the influence of inspiration, must have accorded with the teachings of the Savior. Whatever they did, as inspired men, may be con- sidered as done by him. Does the New Testament then inculcate the foundation-principle of Congregationalism ; namely, ■WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 155 that the governmental power of a church is with the people, the members? Let us see : It was certainly the province of the apostolic churches to admit members into their communion. In Rom. xiv, 1, it is written: " Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputa- tions." What is the meaning of the first clause of this verse ? Its import is obviously this : Receive into your fellowship, and treat as a Christian, the man who is weak in faith." The paraphrase of Barnes is: ** Admit to your society or fellowship; receive him kindly," etc. There is unquestionably a command — "Receive ye." To whom is this com- mand addressed ? To Bishops ? It is not. To the ** Session of the Church," composed of the Pastor and " Ruling Elders ?" No. To whom then ? To the very persons to whom the Epistle was addressed, and it was written "to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to the saints." No ingenuity can tor- ture this language into a command given to the officers of the church in Rome. The members of the church, whose designation was "saints," were addressed and commanded to "receive the weak in faith." It was their business to decide who should be admitted into their religious community ; and, Paul, under the impulses of inspiration, says : "Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye." It was, of course, their duty to withhold their fellowship from those who had no faith. 156 THREE REASONS, The right of the apostohc churches to exclude members from their fellowship, evidently implied their right to receive members into their fellow- ship. It is inconceivable that they had the right to exclude, and not the right to receive members. I now 'proceed to show that the New Testament churches had the right to exclude unworthy members, and thai they exercised that right. In 1 Cor. V, 1 — 5, we read as follows : " It is re- ported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." It is worthy of remark, that while Paul "judged " that the incestuous man ought to be excluded from the church, he did not exclude him. There are those in these latter days, who are called ministers of Christ, who, if they had lived then, might have ex- cluded him, if the Corinthian Church, knowing its WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 157 prerogative, had not protested against any infringe- ment of its sovereignty, by so arbitrary an exercise of ministerial power. The apostle Paul, however, did not exclude the guilty man. He had no right to do so. He did not claim the right. Hence, when he said to the •* Churches of Galatia," *'I would they were cut off who trouble you," he did not cut them off, though he desired it to be done, and advised that it should be done. It is worthy of notice, too, that the members of the Corinthian Church could not, in their individual capacity, exclude the incestuous man. It was neces- sary to their action in the premises, that they should be " gathered together." They must assemble as a church, and exemplify the spirit of a pure democracy. Thus assembling, "the power of our Lord Jesus Christ" was to be with them. They were to act by his authority, and execute his will ; for he makes it incumbent on his churches to administer discipline. In the last verse of the chapter referred to, Paul says : " Put away from among yourselves that wicked person." Here is a command, given by an inspired man, requiring the exclusion of an unworthy member from the church, at Corinth. To whom was the command addressed ? To the official members of the church? No, but " unto the church of God, which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints." 163 THREE REASONS, The right of a church to exclude fiom its com- munion, disorderly persons, is recognized 2 Thess. iii, 6, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh dis- orderly," etc. This command was addressed "to the church of the Thessalonians." To "withdraw" from a "disorderly brother," is the same thing as to exclude him. There is a cessation of church fellow- ship. I have not referred to Matthew, xviii, 17, because I shall notice it in another place. The reader will see, upon examination, that the passage clearly im- plies the power of "the church" to perform the act of excommunication, by which the member cut off, becomes as a "heathen man, and a publican." The apostolic churches had the power and the right to restore excluded members loho gave satisfactory evidences of p)enitence. In 2 Cor. ii, 6-8, the "incestuous man" is again referred to, as follows : " SuflScient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such an one should be swallowed up without overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him." The apostle manages this case with the greatest tenderness and delicacy. He refers to the excluded WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 169 member, without the least reference to the diigrace- ful offense for which he was exchided. "Sufficient," says he, "is this punishment," etc. That is, the object of the excommunication had been accom- pHshed. The church had shown its determination not to connive at sin, and the excluded member had become penitent. But the point under consideration is, that the apostle advised the restoration of the penitent offender. Paul could no more restore him to the church than he could exclude him from it, in the first instance; but he says: "I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him." The power to restore was Avith the church, and Paul solicits an exercise of that power. The great apostle, in saying, " I beseech you,'' etc., bows to the majesty of democratic church sovereignty. He virtually ad- mits that nothing could be done unless the church chose to act. In this connection, one fact should be carefully observed : The power of the Corinthian church to restore this excluded member, is unquestionable. The fact which deserves notice, is that the power in the apostolic churches to restore excluded members, implies the power of receiving members, and also the power of excommunicating. Kow, if the N^ew Tes- tament churches had the power and the right to do these three things, they must have had the power and the right to transact any other business coming before them. There surely can be nothing of more 160 THREE RExlSONS, vital importance to the existence and the interests of a church than the reception, exclusion, and resto- ration of members. *^here are no three acts whose influence on the organic structure of a church is so great, and these acts the apostolic churches undoubt- edly performed. Here I might let the argument for the foundation principle of Congregationalism rest; but there is other proof of the New Testament re- cognition of that principle. In the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles there is an account of the election of Matthias to the apostleship. He was to succeed Judas, the traitor. The most natural inference is that Matthias was chosen by the " one hundred and twenty disciples/' mentioned verse 15. These disciples were, no doubt, the church to which the three thousand converts were added on the day of Pentecost. The laity must have been held in high estimation by Peter, if called on in conjunction with the apostles themselves to elect a successor to Judas. In Acts, vi, there is reference to the circumstances which originated the deacon's ofiSce, and also to the manner in which the first deacons were appointed. We read as follows: ''And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reasoD WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 161 that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this busi- ness. But Ave will give ourselves continually to prayer and the ministry of the word. And the say- ng pleased the whole multitude; and they chose Ste- phen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch, whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them." I have italicised the words in these verses to which I call special attention. It will be seen that the apos- tles referred the matter of grievance to the multitude of the disciples — directed the brethren to look out seven men — that the saying pleased the whole multitude — that they chose, etc. The democracy'^ of the whole arrangement is as clear as the sun in heaven. In Acts, xiv, 23, there is mention made of the or- dination of elders in every church, as follows: "And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they beheved." Tyndale's translation is decidedly better — comes much nearer to the meaning of the original. With the orthog- * I use the terms democracy, democratic, etc., in their literal sense, without any reference to their technical application to one of the political parties of our great nation. 14 152 THREE REASONS, raphy modernized it is as follows: "And when they had ordained them seniors by election, in every con- gregation," etc. The word in the original, here translated ordained in our common version, literally means "to stretch forth the hand," as is the custom in most Baptist churches when a vote is taken. Tyn- dale well puts in the words, "by election," for the churches doubtless elected their elders by the popular vote. He also states in his "Rights of the Church," as quoted by Coleman in his "Church without a Bishop," p. 63, that the Greek word referred to (cheirotones, from cheir, the hand, and teino, to extend 01 stretch forth) is interpreted (as he interprets it) by Erasmus, Beza, Diodati, and those who translated the Swiss, French, Italian, Belgic, and even English Bibles, till the Ejjiscopal correction, which leaves out the words by election, as well as the marginal notes, which affirm that the apostles did not thrust pastors into the church through a lordly superiority, but chose and idaced them there by the voice of the congregation."' Every one can readily imagine why the "Episcopal correction " was made. A faithful translation would give the laity an influence which the "Episcopal clergy" are of course unwilling to allow. The word cheirotones is used but twice in the New Testament — in the passage under consideration, and in 2 Cor. viii, 19. In the latter it is translated "chosen" — that is, "by the churches." The word in Acts xiv, 23, certainly means that WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 163 elders were chosen, appointed, not without, but by means of the suflFrages of the churches. Barnes well remarks : " It is said, indeed, that Paul and Barna- bas did this. But probably all that is meant by it is, that they presided in the assembly when the choice was made. It does not mean that they appointed them without consulting the church ; but it evidently means that they appointed them in the usual way of appointing officers, by the suffrages of the people." In view of all these facts, I argue that, according to the New Testament, the officers of a church are chosen by the church. No one church has the right to choose officers for another. No combination of churches has the right. Every church is as inde- pendent in its action as if it were the only church in the world. Every church is an executive democracy, whose business it is to carry out the will of hei Divine Head. In support of the fundamental principle of Con- gregationalism, the following facts are stated : The "whole church" — the ** brethren" — are named in connection with the "apostles and elders." Acts, xv, 22, 23. *' Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men," etc. "And they wrote letters by them after this manner: The apostles, and elders, and brethren, send greet- ing," etc. The laity of the church at Jerusalem acted as well as the apostles and elders. The churches of apostolic times sent forth minis- 164 THREE REASONS, ters on missionary tours. When Antioch received the word of God, the church at Jerusalem " sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch," etc. Acts, xi, 22. His labors were successful — "much people was added to the Lord" — and at a subsequent period the church in Antioch sent out Saul and Barnabas, who made a long journey — per- formed much labor — returned and reported to the church **all that God had done with them." Acts, xiii, 1-3; xiv, 26, 27. With what deferential re- spect did these ministers of the gospel treat the church that sent them forth ! The apostles, so far from exercising lordship over the churches, did not control their charities. This is seen in Acts, v, 4; xi, 29, 30; 1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2; 2 Cor. ix, 7. The churches selected messengers to convey their chari- ties. See 1 Cor. xvi, 3; 2 Cor. viii, 18, 19; Phil, ii, 25; iv, 18. A second principle of Congregationalism, to which I have referred, is the right of a majority of the mem- bers of a church to rule, in accordance with the laws of Christ. In 2 Cor. ii, 6, it is written: "Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many." A hteral translation of the words rendered "of many," would be "by the more" — that is, by the majority. McKnight's rendering is, "by the greater number." If, as has been shown, the gov- ernmental power of a church is with the members, it follows that a majority must rule. That is to say, WHT I AM A BAPTIST. 165 either the majority or minority must goverL. But it is absurd to refer to the rule of the minority. That a majority must rule is so plain a principle of Con- gregationalism, and so plain a principle of common sense, that it is needless to dwell upon it.' A third truth, as already stated, recognized by the Congregational form of church government is, that the power of a church cannot be transferred or alien- aied, and thai church action is final. The church at Corinth could not transfer her authority to the church at Philippi, nor could the church at Antioch. convey her power to the church of Ephesus. Neither could all the apostolic churches delegate their power to an association, or synod, con- ference or convention. The power of a church is manifestly inalienable ; and if this be true, church action is final. That there is no tribunal higher than the church is evident from Matthew, xviii, 15- 17. The Savior lays down a rule for the adjustment of private dififerences among brethren. **If thy brother shall trespass against thee," etc. If the oflfender, when told of his fault, does not give sat- isfaction, the ofifended party is to take with him *'one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three wit- nesses every word may be established." But, if the oflfender " shall neo-lect to hear them," what is to be done? "Tell it to the church.'' What church? The aggregate body of the redeemed? This is absurd. I ask again. What church ? Evidently the 166 THREE REASONS, particular congregation to wliich the parties belong. If the offender does not hear the church, what then? Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a pub- lican." But can there not be an appeal to an asso- ciation, or presbytery, or conference? No. There is no appeal. Shall an association, or presbytery, or conference, put the offender back in church fellow- ship, when the church, by its action, classed him with heath«^,ns and publicans? This is too prepos- terous. What kind of fellowship would it be? A church, by excluding a member, declares that mem- ber unworthy of fellowship. Will it be asked, what is to be done if the action of a church does not give satisfaction to all concerned ? I answer, do what is done when the action of a Presbyterian General Assembly, or Methodist General Conference, or an Episcopal General Convention, does not give satis- faction. There must be a stopping-place. There must be final action. Baptists say, with the New Testament before them, that the action of each local congregation of believers is final. Pedobaptists, with the exception of Independents and Congrega- tionalists, deny the ^'finality'" of church action. Who are right? Let those who oppose the Baptist form of church government show anywhere in the New Testament the remotest allusion to an appeal from the decision of a church to any other tribunal. It cannot be done. There were no tribunals in apos- tolic times analogous to modern presbyteries, synods, WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 167 general assemblies, conferences, etc. Let those who affirm that there were such tribunals adduce the proof. On them rests the burden of proof. But to furnish this proof is as difficult as for *' a camel to go through the eye of a needle." Baptists have ever regarded every church as com- plete in itself, independent, so far as its government is concerned, of every other church under heaven. They have watched with jealous eye all encroach- ments on church sovereignty. For their sentiments on baptism — its subjects and its action — and their views of church government, they have been perse- cuted, tortured, put to death. Their blood has flowed like water. From their ranks have been taken myriads of martyrs, who, having endured **much tribulation," are now before the throne of God. But the principles of the Baptists still live, and will live; for they are indestructible. Fire, sword, prisons, racks, gibbets! what say you? If these principles were destructible, would ye not have destroyed them long since, and have blotted out •'their memorial" from under heaven? They are divinely vital principles : they will not, they cannot die. The view which I have presented of the inde- pendence of the apostohc churches is so obviously in accordance with the facts in the case, that distin- guished Pedobaptists have been forced to concede it. Hence, the learned Mosheim, a Lutheran, and a bitter 168 THREE REASONS, enemy of Baptists, speaking of the first century, says : *' The churches, in those early times, were entirely independent, none of them being subject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each governed by its own rulers and its own laws ; for, though the churches founded by the apostles had this particular deference shown to them, that they were consulted in difficult and doubtful cases, yet they had no juridical author- ity, no sort of supremacy over the others, nor the least right to enact laws for them."* Archbishop Whately, a dignitary of the Church of England, referring to the apostolic churches, says : ** They were each a distinct, independent community on earth, united by the common principles on which they were founded, and by their mutual agreement, affection and respect; but not having any one recog- nized Head on earth, or acknowledging any sover- eignty of one of these societies over others." Again: "A CHURCH and a diocese seem to have been for a considerable time co-extensive and identical. And each church or diocese, (and consequently each superintendent,) though connected with the rest by ties of faith, and hope, and charity, seems to have been (as has been already observed) perfectly inde- pendent, as far as regards any power of control." f This is strong testimony from a Lutheran and an *Maclaine's Mosheim, Baltimore Edition, Vol. I, p. 3D. t Kingdom of Christ, Carter's Edition, pp. 36, 44. WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 169 Episcopalian. They would have given a different representation of the matter, if they could have done so consistently with truth. They virtually condemned their denominational organizations in writing what I have quoted. I might refer to Neander, Dr. Bar- row, Dr. Burton, and I know not how many other Pedobaptists, who have expressed themselves, in sub- stance, as Mosheim and Whately have done; but it is needless. I am not dependent on the testimony of church historians. I make my appeal to the New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If all the church histories in the world said that the monarchical or aristocratic form of church govern- ment was maintained from the death of the apostle John onward, I would not be moved by it, as long as the New Testament represents every church as a democracy fully competent to transact its own busi- ness. ** To the law and to the testimony.'.' Americans reject with scorn the idea of the divine right of kings. They indorse the doctrines of that sublimest of uninspired documents — the "Declara- tion of Independence." They say, *' all men are created free and equal." One man has as much right to be King or President as another — that is, no one has the right till the people confer it. The people are the depositary of power. Now, if all men are created equal, can it be supposed that Jesus Christ, in giving his churches a form of government, contra- vened the great principle recognized in creation ? Is 170 THREE REASONS, this supposition reasonable? Certainly it is not. What says Christ, (Matthew, xxiii, 8; Luke, xxii, 24, 25, 26,) **Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." *'And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them. The kings of the Gentiles exercise lord- ship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so." The Redeemer suppressed all the risings of ambition in the minds of his disciples — assuring them that they were brethren — on an equal- ity — and positively forbidding everything hke the exercise of lordship and authority. Christianity re- duces none of its votaries to ciphers. It teaches them all that they are immortal creatures — person- ally responsible to God. It attaches importance and dignity to man; for, while it deeply humbles him before God, it does not degrade him before his fel- low-man. Far, very far from it. Those know little of the genius of Christianity who tamely submit to ministerial domination, whether among Papists or Protestants. But enough. The view of church government given in the pre- ceding pages I sincerely believe accords with the teachings of the New Testament. Baptists maintain this form of government. Therefore I am a Bap- tist. I might give other reasons for being a Bap- tist, but in the discourse which has been expanded WHY r AM A BAPTIST. 171 iato tins treatise, I presented only the three on which I have now dwelt. I have chosen to con- fine myself to the points discussed in that discourse — namely, the subjects and the action of Baptism, and the form of church government. Whatever others may think of my Three Reasons for being a Baptist, they are, to my mind, amply satisfactory ; and here I lay down my pen. T HS B N D