BX (o'3'3l P4 [:1 l^i;^!?'^ '^ing — 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 John^s hajotism 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 ye ; 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 saw WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 7 many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his 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 quahfication 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- gehsts. 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, tliat is, on Christ Jesus." Acts, xix. 4. Here it is plain that John I'e- 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 believe 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 I'eference 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 ight be inferred from the third chapter that Jesus imself 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 than 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 ha.'ptizing 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 children, and forbid them not, to come unto me : for of such is the kingdora of heaven'^ — does not justify ivfant hai^- 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 imto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray : and the dis- siples 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, ''of such is the kingdom of heaven." The idea of re- semblance is clearly presented. Rev. A. Banies, 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 iyifanis, but of such persons as resembled them, or were like them in temper, was the kingdom of heaven made up. It was proper, therefore, that he should pray for them.''. Mr. Barnes is good Presby- terian authority, and is highly celebrated as an ex- positor of Scripture. In Matthew xviii, 3, the Savior says, ** Except ye be converted, and become as httle 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 JSTew 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 by the Savior to his apostles just before his ascension to heaven, furnishes no plea for infant baptism. The 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 accomphsh. He had offered himself a sacrifice for sin. He had exhausted tl^e cup of atoning sorroAv. He had lain in the dark mansions of the grave. He had risen in triumph from the WHY I AM A BAPTIST. It dead, and was 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." Marie, 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 among all nations, beginning 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 estabhshes the priority of faith to baptism, and Luke connects repentance and remission of sins with the execution of the commis- sion. ]^o man can, in obedience to this commission, baptize an unbehever 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 doAvn 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- nibited. There is a maxim of law — Expressio 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 JSToah to make an ark of gopher-wood. 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 anotLef WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 13 killed — not a heifer — it was to be of the 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 other day — Clie blood was to be appHed to the door-posts and lin- tels — not elsewhere, &c. 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 ^^ch house of the General Assembly/' and pro- vision is also made for their removal by impeach- ment. These are the two methods 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 unbehevers ; 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 la7*ge dictionaries, does he not violate his instructions, if he also buy on my account a lot of the al>ridgments ? But he says, 'You did not forbid the purchase of the abridg- ments/ Did not forbid the purchase ! I answer, it ivas 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 small books ; you have done it at your own risk." Mr. Hibbard says, "All this shows just how far ^ome authors look into a subject before they pro- nounce upon it. The analogy, however an unprac- ticed reader may be influened by it, is an unfair and perfectly 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 pro- 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 prove a universal prohibition; it proves nothing at all, either pro 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 tliermore, 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 mfants, 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 ability 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 believers is no authority for baptizing infants,'^ Yery well. This 16 THREE REASONS, is the position Baptists have 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 does 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 authonty for the practice, independent of the commission. This is strange indeed. For it is plain from the consolatory assurance subjoined to the commission, that the Lord Jesus intended that it should remain in full force to the end of the world. 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 cGmmission, in regard to infants, furnishes, to say the least, strong p7'ima facie evidence against the vahdity of their claim to baptism. But, says Mr. H., referring to Mr. Jewett's illus- tration, *Hhere 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 large dictionaries, is intended to represent Christ's commission to his apostles to baptize be- lievers. Mr. H. says, *'a command to buy large 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^ 18 THREE REASONS, aiority 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 between 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, was 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 believers, 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 liave 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 the baptism of infants to WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 1 9 be enjoined in the commission, if the Savior consid- ered them proper subjects of the baptismal iite. 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 beHeve, they cannot be saved because they can- not beheve. 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 — tliey were endued with power from on high. All things whatsoever Jesus had said to them were brought to their remembrance. They were requifed 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 the 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 mean^ posterity, and the promise cannot be divested of its relation to the Holy Spirit. This promise was not only to the Jews 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 Philips s labors in Samaria. The reader can examine for himself the eio^hth 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 belie veth and is baptized shall be saved," etc. The Samaritans *' believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom 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 expositioD 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 unto him Jesus.'* The eunuch professed /az^A in the Messiah. Then Philip haiotized him. As ** faith confes 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\ lament 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 baptized, 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 thal^ 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 housed 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 ifc 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 husband 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 invalidate 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 house. ^^ It is also said that the jailer '* rejoiced, believing 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 1 Cor. i, 16, Paul says: *'And I baptized also whe household of Stephanas/' etc. Will any one WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 25 infer that there were infants in this famJy ? This inference cannot be drawn in view of what the same apostle says in the same epistle, (xvi, 16): **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 y s, ck^^onolo^ical 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 i!^ew 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 Pedobaptists, an un- fortunate fact — a fact significant of the unscriptur- ality 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 obhgations," 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 v/rite 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 ansf^ei the question affirmatively. The apostle of the Gen- tiles, therefore, did what we cannot reasonably im- agine a Pedobaptist missionary or minister to do I 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, but now 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 unbehever 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 unbeHeving husband is sanctified 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 cliildren 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 unbelieving husbands and wives did, and that if believing husbands and wives abandoned their un- believing partners, beUeving 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 imjply that the marriage was improper ; and, of coursCy the children must be regarded as unclean." 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 Nev/ 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 8* 30 THREE REASONS, his '* Preface/' says, that ''among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by the apostles, there is no express mention of any infant." Neander, un- doubtedly the first churcli 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 the 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 with 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. 3.1 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 affirms, *' 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 weinlit 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 tlw t^AAM^A .,'. . \0-' d 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 J ^ 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 light 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, by 34 THREE REASONS, r 'positive law, put pelievers 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 ekklesia, 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 ekMesia, and the term is translated assembly. The word, there- fore, whil^ it denotes an assembly, does not, in its o-eneral 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 lift^OK 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 apostolic times, the members of a particular congre- gation were called ** saints," *' believers," ** disci- pies," 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-religious 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 was 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, ill existence for centuries, the prophets predicted thi establishment of a new kingdom. In Isaiah ii, 2, it is written, '* And it shall come tc 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 estabhshed, but it was to be estabhshed. 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. '1 he 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 nev6r 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 estabhshment 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 Nebucliadnezzar'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 church 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, saying, *' 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 Christ, 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 tlie 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 language : " 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- setli 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 lattei 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 immercifully. 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, lihat those who were regular members of the old Jew- ish Churchy could not become members of the Gosjyel 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. S9 but througli courtesy I will 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." JSTor 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 disciple^ian John." The Scribes, law- yers and doctors of ffie Jewish Church, the great Teacher denounced as h^ocrites; "for," says he, "ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suflPer 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 w^as not identical with the Jewish kingdom. If jt had not been in existence it could not have been shut up. If it w^as identical with the Jewish kingdom, the Scribes were 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 kingdom, 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 B^ism he says that "infants are specifically embia^^rm the gospel covenant. When that covenant w!^ 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 them — including both those that were born in his house, and those that were bought with 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 sennons. Paul speaks of ''covenants'' — '' covenants of prom- ise" — 'Hhe two ccw^7ia?2/5," etc. Howthe ''covenan.t 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 eflPect." This covenant was confirmed to Abraham, not made with him. It was made before. It must have had an existence, of it could not have been confirmed. The confirma- tion of anything implies its previous existence. L.3hall not attempt to penetrate the counsels of etsi'j^f 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 Xhe 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 covfirmed 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 1o seeds as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." The covenant with respect to the Messiah was covfirmed 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 was 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 affirms, circumcision was the seal of this covenant, what became of females? Was there no securement of the blessings of tlie covenant to them? or were 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 righteousness of the faith of any other man. Under the gospel dispensation baptism is not a seal, 44 THREE REASONS, and Pedobaptists know not whereof they affirm when they so represent it. Behevers art, '* 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 sealed by circumcision. Then the perplexing ques- tion arises. Why apply the seal of baptism to both sexes, 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 had reference to males alone. Therefore the anti- type lias 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 the 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 language shows that the covenant of circumcision was so identified with the Sinaic covenant that the failure to circumcise a man 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 which 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, Gentiles 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 before lie was circumcised. ibr I have referred 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. Tliis 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 embryo 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- nant 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 that God, in describino- the new covenant, savs ex- pressl}'- " NOT ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT THAT I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS" the old COVeuant. I suppose it will be said that the Sinaic covenant has ''vanished away," but that the covenant with Abra- ham, of which circumcision was a token, is still in 48 THREE REASONS • force. If this be conceded, it follows inevitably that circumcision has not been abolished, but is still obli- gatory on Abraham's natural descendants. — See Appendix, 'No. II. 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 bondage ^ith her children." To " gender to bondage " Yras 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 which involved a supernatural ag'ency. "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 great as that between light and darkness, or im- mortality and death. *' But as then," says the apostle, "he that was bom 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, will make it a persecuting denomination. This fact is both significant and sug- gestive. Nevertheless, what saith 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." 5 50 THREE REASONS, Here is authority for keeping all except regenei- ate persons out of the church of Christ. '*Cast out the bondwoman and her sun.'' 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 nothino^ on the o^round 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 bis 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 sitjjposed identity of tlie Jewish Church and tlie Christian Church involves absurdities and vmpossihilities. According to tliis view tlie 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 1 The Lord added daily to the church not only the saved, but those already members! When a great company of priests became obeditjnt 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 the 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- WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 53 ish Clmrcli and the Christian Church were then regarded by beUevers 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 haj)tism 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 tlie place of circumcision. How it takes its place, and yet ''differs materially from it" on some 5* 54 TRREE REASONS, ''points," must ever be a mystery to all men a^ ho 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 face 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 be baptized before they could become 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. 55 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 was 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 were 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 Ahrahamic and Judalstic notions vitiate his logic in its application to evangeli- cal subjects. He reasoned in this way: The natural seed of Abraham were meijabers of the Jewish national Church by virtue of their birth. And so far his rea- soning was correct. They were circumcised because they Avere by natural generation made beneficiaries of the covenant of which circumcision was the *Hoken." 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 w^ere 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 was 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 fit subjects for .•.^ •VVHY I AM A BAPTIST. 57 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 w^as 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 circum- cision, and circumcision performed after baptism, and 58 yet Pedobaptists say that the one came in the place of the other. 2. A second fact worthy of notice is that circum- cision wus confined to one ^ex. 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 tliey 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 mattei now under consideration. They most gratuitously infer, that as children of one sex were formerly circumcised, therefore children of both sexes should i;iow be baptized. I maintain that if baptism came in the place of circumcision, it ouoht to be administered exclusively to males. But it is by divine authority administered to females; therefore it did not come m the place of circumcision. Pedobaptists must admit that, so far as females are WJIY I AM A BAPTIST. 59 concerned, baptism did not come in the 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 hy 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 J 60 THREE REASONS, years old. When Pedobaptists adopt this practice. Baptists, it is true, will smile at their credulity y but respect their sincerity. Who believes that servants of any age are entitled ta baptism in consequence of the relation they sustain to their masters ? Some few may probably be found who believe 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 officiate, and it is well-known that in one instance, (Exodus, iv, 25,) the mother *' cut oflf the foreskin of her son." If baptism has taken the place of circumcision, it occupies its place; and fathers 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 baptism 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 afer 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, before 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 believing Gentiles ought 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. Now, 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 beheving Gentiles alone, and the understanding evidently was that believing Jews were at libei-ty to circunacise 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- 62 THREE REASONS, cision. When circumcision was regarded 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 andshorn of its glory. To all circumcised with this latter view, he said: **If ye be •sircumcised, 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 strenuouslv 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 cither. 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- igi land says, in its Aus'ust 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, whose ''History of Infant Baptism" is in high repute wherever the English language is spoken. Referring to the well- known passage in Irenaeus, he says: ''Since this is 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." Irenseus, according to Dr. Wall's chronology, lived about the year 1 67. 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 regeneratey and the advocates of infant baptism affirm that by regeneration, Irenaeus 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- naeus. 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, ** Irenaeus 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 regeneratey always in his writings, signifies baptized.*' j[ 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. TertuUian, who lived about the year 200, is generally referred to by Pedobaptists, as the first opponent of infant baptism, but they argue that his opposition 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 '' parvulos.'' Irenseus speaks of '^ in- fantes , parvulos,'' 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 Utile children. Having now come down to the beginning of the third century, may I not say that if infant baptism rests for its support en 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, Tertulhan 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 w^orks in the original were chiefly lost. Hence Dr. Wall uses the followino- lano-uao-e : "But concerning the authenticalness of 'em there does need something to be said. For the Greek — 6* 66 THREE REASONS, which is the original — of all Origen's Works being lost, except a very few, 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 Laiin either by St. Hierom or else by Rufinus. * * ^ % % Ht jg^i; 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 Rufinus altered or left out anything that he thought not orthodox. * * Ht % % H: Whereas now in these Translations of Rufinus, the reader is uncertain (as Erasmus angrily says) whether 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 by the usage of the church baptized." In hia 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. WalPs translation. He was very anxious to translate the Latin word traditio, order. His con- science, however, would not allow him to do so. He therefore put the word order in brackets. Lret 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. B53. 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 fext 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, and quotes largely from Augustine, who lived 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 — ^^umversa» ecclesia'* — as favoring in- fg?nt 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 ** apostoHc tradition/* ^^ Apostolica traditio," is the phrase he employs. He meant, doubtless, that it was handed down from the appstles 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 behevers 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 BAPTIST. tl 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 stultifies 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 nalediction, not more creditable to the intellect tnan 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 right of unconscious infants to the ordinance of baptism. Babylon! drunken with the blood of the saints and the martyrs of Jesus, a fearful doom 72 THREE REASONS, awaits thee. 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) Irenaeus, 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 apostolic 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 Training of the Church, p. 102. WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 3 Dr. Wall, referring to the ''ancient Fathers," sa3^s : ''They differed 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 Chillmgworth, "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 teachings of the New Testa- ment. AH 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 caU' not agree why it should be practiced. How conflicting, how antagonistic their views ! Roman CathoHcs 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 yirtue 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 objection to in/ant baptism is that it A 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 world, 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 world — 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 oflfered for hypocrisy. In Germany, WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 7*7 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 baptism is, that U cherishes in ^^ baptized children^' the delusive belief that they are better than others — that their salvation is more hopeful. S 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. 7*- 78 TPIREE 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 Confe'ssion '' and *' Directorv," they look upon themselves as ''federally holy" — *Mn 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- bihty 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 with 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," ** Disciplines "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 ol 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- jeei of infant baptism is concerned. The dis- crepancy is vital to the welfare of their offspring. 4. A fourth objection to infant baptism is that it 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 vahdity 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 wav of au 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- oiased 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 that the ''in- fantile rite " was worthless. They know 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 intelhgent 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 baptism is to supplant believers^ baptism^ and banish it from the vyorld. 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 New 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 two 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. A 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 end of time, would be abolished. There would be no gospel baptism on earth. One of the institutions of the Head of the church would not be allowed a 8^ THREE REASONS place in the world which he made, and in which he labored, toiled, suffered, and died ! How horrible is this ! A human tradition arraying itself in deadly- hostility to an ordinance ot 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. EEASON SECOND. I AM A Baptist because Baptists consider the IMMERSION IN WATER, OF A BELIEVER, ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM — SO ESSENTIAL THAT THERE IS NO BAPTISM 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, they con- fidently refer to the following facts : WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 83 1 . Greek lexicons give, immerse, dip or plunge, as the primary and ordinary meaning of bajotizo. Here it is proper to state that hapjtizo and haptlsrna 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. Baptismob 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. Bapto is employed in the Greek New Testament three times, and emhapto 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 baptizo and baptisma 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 baptisma the last letter is dropped altogether. To make this matter of anglicism perfectly plain, it is only necessary to say, that if rantizo had 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 baptism. 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 congregation." It is absurd to say that this rule had exclusive refer- ence to the term ** church;'' for this term is maiii- festly given as a specimen of '*old ecclesiastic words." And why should pluraKty 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 baptize *' 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 th6y 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 smd 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 " 6a/>- tisjn'' 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 were to admit, for argu- ment's sake, what many Pedobaptists contend for, tkat haptizo 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- 8 86 THREE REASONS, narily practiced for thirteen hundred years? Dr "Whitb3% Dr. Wall, Professor Stvvart, and I kno^ not how many other Pedobaptists of distinction, make this concession. Fai* 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 were not at liberty to refer to the signification immemorially attached by the Greeks to hoptizo — a signification which received the cordial indorsement of "• the most eminent Fathers.'' They might have examined the indorse- ment if tlie royal decree had not said, ''hitherto, hut no farther — the old ecclesiastical words to be kept." The fact that baptizo is an anglicized, and not a translated word, makes an appeal to Greek lexicons necessary in ascertaining its meaning. Lexicons indeed do not constitute the ultimate authority, but I first avail myself of their testimony. I have ma3e it a point to examine all the lexicons I have seen (and they have been many) in reference to the sig- nification of baptizo. There is a remarkable unanim- ity among them in representing immerse, or its equiv WHY I AM A BAPTIST. S^ alent, as the primary and ordinary meaning of the word. According to lexicographers, it is a word of definite import, as much so as any other. It is as specific as rantizOy Rud it might be argued just as plausibly that rantizo means to immerse, as that hap- tizo means to sprinkle. I have seen no lexicon that gives sprinkle as a meaning of haptizo, 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 correc- tions 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." It is worthy of special remark, that the second English edition of Liddell & Scott does not contain, under the terra haptizo, the phrase " to pour upon." It seems that after issuing their first edition, they were led to re-examine the subject, which re-examination caused them, in their second edition, to leave out the definition ** to pour upon." This is an important f^t, of which Baptists should diligently avail them- selves. It has been well said : *' When it is remem- bered that the definition ' pour upon ' was assigned to * baptizo,' in the first English edition, on the au- thority of Francis Passon, whose German work forms the basis of that of Liddell & Scott — this chancre in 88 THREE REASONS the second English edition, is an admission as grati fying to Baptists, as it is unwelcome to their oppon- ents. Messrs. Liddell & Scott, who certainly cannot be charged with a leaning to Baptist sentiments, have deliberately, after due examination, withdrawn their authority, in favor of * pour upon,' as a signification of the verb * baptizo,' and now define the word just as Baptist scholars have defined it, after a careful study of the passages in which it occurs in the Greek authors. Of such a concession. Baptists know well how to take advantage." I now repeat, that there is among Greek Lexicons a perfect con- currence in assigning immerse or its equivalent as the ordinary meaning of haptizo. This ought to settle the baptismal controversy. For what says Blackstone, who is almost the idol of the legal p ofession ? *' Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signi- fication ; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and iiopular use^ * Immerse was the " usual and most known signi- fication '' 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 1 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 haptizo. 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 haptizo 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, haptizo is more so. We speak of '*the dip of the magnetic needle," and ''the dip of a stratum, in geology." Pope speaks of ^'dipping into a volume of history." And in some places there is a practice which the ladies call '* dipping snufip." If Pedobaptists could find haptizo 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 eftbrt 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, give ''moisten" and "wet," as meanings of dip, and refer to Milton as authority, who uses the language which follows: "A cold shuddering dew dips me all o'er." 8* 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!!" Now I affirm that this argument is more plausible than any I ever heard from a Pedobaptist minister to prove that baptizo 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 tiiem. It is proper to say of the Greek Lexicons to which I have referred, tliat 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 baptlzo. Baptists may well felicitate themselves that their opponents bear strong testimony in their favor; for I proceed to say, 2. That not only Lexicographers, hut 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 impHcating the Apostle 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.'' I ask the reader's earnest attention to the followino- extracts : I begin with John Calvin, a learned Presbyterian, who lived three hundred years ago. He was very decided in his opposition to Baptists, or '' Anahap- lists,*' as he contemptuously called them. He wrote in Latin, and I avail myself of Pedobaptist trans- lations of the orio'inal. 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 the person baptized is totally immersed, or whether he is merely sprinkled by an allusion of water. ^This should be a matter of choice to the churches in different regions; although 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 verbum,'^ 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 baptizein'' (infinitive mode, present tense, of baptizo,) "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, tingere, the 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 : "Another error in disputation, which is by far too common, is, when one will admit nothing in the plea or arguments of an adversary to be of the smallest weight. ******. I have heard a WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 93 disputant of this stamp, in defiance of etymology and use, maintain that the word rendered in the New Testament baptize^ means more properly to sprinkle than to plunge, and, in defiance of all antiquity, that the former method was the earliest, and for many centuries, the most general practice in baptizing. One who argues in this 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, baptein and baptizein, is to plunge or dip.'' 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, '' Bapto and baptizo mean to dip, plunge, or immerge, into any- thing liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this. My proof of this position, then, need not necessarily be protracted ; but for the sake of ample confirmation, I must beg 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- ^4 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 indiflPerency, 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, for 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 imder 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 of distino-uished Pedobaptist scholars and theologians ? What I have adduced is surely sufficient. Tliese witnesses testify that haptizo means to immerse ; nor do tliey say tliat it means to sprinkle and pour. True 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. 9il they are both clear as to what the word haj^tizc 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 baptizo 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 usus loquendi of a term, testifies that it means a certain thing, bears witness to 2k fact: but if he says it is not important to adhere to the mean- ing established by the usus 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 TliliEE ilEASONS, to do the very thing he has commanded. The lea^ sons suggested for the failure of those Pedobaptista 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 meaning. But it is not impossible for them to mistake that sense. If they do, there is an appeal from their definitions to the usus loquendij which is the ultimate authority. I shall now show how classic Greek authors used the svord 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 1ms investigations. For obvious reasons, I prefer that Pedobaptists shall say what is the classic meaning of baptizo. I quote from Professor Stuart's work on the *' Mode of Bap- tism.'' He makes extracts from the following Greek authors : Pindar, who was born five hundred and twenty years before Christ, says, ^'As when a net is cast into the sea, the cork swims above, so am I unplunged (abaptistos) ; on which the Greek scholiast, in com- menting, says : As the cork, ou dunel, does not sink, so I am abaptistos, unplunged, not immersed. The cork remains abaptistos, and swims on the surface of the sea, being of a nature which is abaptistos ; in like manner I am abaptistos,'''' 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 baptistos, conveys a nega- tive idea. Abaptistos, therefore, means unplunged^ undipped, or unimmersed. Unsprinkled or unpjoured 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, (udati baptizetai,) the heaty being quenched by the peculiar nature of the water ^ 9 98 THREE REASONS, ceases.^* Baptizo certainly signifies immerse, in this passage. Plutarch, who died about A. D. 140, refers to a Roman General '' dipping (baptisas) his kand into hlood,'' etc. Again he says, ** Plunge (baptison) yourself into the sea,'' And again, *' Then plunging (baptizbn) himself into the Lake Copias,'' etc. LuciAN, who died A. D. 180, ** represents Timon, the man-hater, as saying : If a winter's flood 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, (baptizonta,) so that he could 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 P' 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 w,uch, that it will scarcely plunge in (^baptizesthai)." Again: ''They [the soldiers] marched a whole day through the water , WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 99 PLUNGED IN [baptizomenbn) up to the waists Once more: ''The bitumen floats 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, (^baptizesthaiy) but is borne up,"^ JosEPHus, who 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 skaphous, the ship being about to sink'' He also uses the expression, '* Our ship being immersed or sinking (baptisthentos) 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 pond, (baptizome- aos en kolumbethra,) he perished.'' Again: ''As they [the sailors] swam away from a sinking ship (baptizomenees neos).'' Once more: "The wave be- ing raised verg high, overwhelmed or immerged them (ebapiise). Aristotle, who 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, when it is ebb-tide, are not over- flowed (mee bajjtizesthai) . DiODORUs SicuLus says : '* Most of the land ani- mals that are intercepted by the river [Nile] perish, being OVERWHELMED (6a2^^es^?n(?wa}." Again: *'The 100 THREE REASONS, river, borne along by a naore violent current, over- whelmed [ebaptlze) many." Plutarch ** speaks of Galba, as ophleemasi behap- tismenon, overwhelmed with debts. He also uses the expression tipo toon pragmatoon baptizomenous ^ overwhelmed with business.'' 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 baptizo. In all the preceding quotations, it might be employed with propriety. A '' sinking shipy'' 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 nothing of immersion, as a religious ordinance. Those who lived after this institation cared nothing fof it. There was no controversy as to the meaning of haptizo, during the classic period of Grecian his- tory. There was no motive, therefore, that could sc 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 baptize, **in its religious sense," means to *' purify," admits thai 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. ISTo man who has any reputation to lose, as a Greek scholar, will deny that haptizo, 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, 9* 102 THREE REASONS, as it were, in blood, and flunged 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 svffer with me — to endure the trials and ^:?am5 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 water, and to be sunk beneath calamities as floods, in the work of religion ? Afflic- tions are often expressed by being sunk in the floods, and plunged in the deep 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 baptizo, 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 fr* men." WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 103 For the special benefit of these tvise 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 w^iich 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 honesty y 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 warning, which, unquestionably, they never gave J' 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. Yery well. The same apostles found the term baptizo fixed 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 hajotizo, 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 baptizo differs from its classic meaning, must prove it. The burden of proof is on them. If tliey 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 e\^ry unprejudiced mind. They say that baptizo, 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 baptizo 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 2>roposition I am establishing. WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 106 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 Ills 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. Foi 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 tilth of tlie 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 avp 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 agaiuy 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 believer'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 reliance on his death for salvation, and we profess, also, that as he died /or 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 tliat 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 signifietb that we die and are buried -with Christ, as concerning the old Hfe of sin, which is Adam. And the pulhng out again signifietb that we rise again with Christ in a new life, full of the Holy Ghost.'' Baptism bitwise 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 bf 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 undel 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 vrater, so they receive it as an emblem of the resurrection unto eternal life, in coming up out of the water : thus they are baptized for the dendy 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 resurreciion? 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 itism. Were it necessary, I might show that WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 109 Wall, Whitefield, Wesley, Doddridge, Chalmers, Barnes, Macknight, Bloomlield, 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- sentation of death to sin, and resurrection to newness of life, (and to this view Pedobaptists do not specially ebject,) the 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 t)e immersion. Sprinkhng 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. 6. The places selected for the administration of bap- tism, and the circumstances attending its administration , 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 )>o>v ten or twelve feet deep. I bathed in the 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 muck 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 sufficient 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. Yery 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 sho^]f discipline, and observe all the institutions of Clirist. Were they to institute a rep- reserdatlve, or any other form of government, they would depart from the law book, and soon be in- volved in as ri);anj.! difficulties as their neighbors,.??' * Christian Reposirory, Vol. II, pp. 47, 46. The writer knows of no man better qualified to write a book on the ''Distinctive Trinciples of Baptists" than Rev. J. M. Peck WHY I AM A BAPTIST. i53 OONGKEGATIONALISM ANTAGONIZES WITH EpiSCOPACi* AND PrESBYTERIANISM, AND DISTINCTLY RECOGNIZES THESE TRUTHS I 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 ConoTes^ational 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 Suck a vohime from his pen is a desideratum, and it would doubtless hax^a an extensive circulation. It is hoped that hia attention will be directed to this subject. 154 THREE REASONS, •t dc»es not, whatever may be said in commendation of tliem, they possess no obhgatory force. 1 refer lo the New Testament, because it would be uiijustitiable to go to the Old, to ascertain the form of government established for Ckruiian churches. Jesus Christ, in instructing the aposcles how to train the baptized disciples, says. *' Teaching them to observe all tilings wkataoever 1 have commanded you.^^ He does not say, ** all things that Aloaes 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 *' foriy days' " instruction. This is true, but his de- ficiencies, as compared with the other apostles, were evidently supplied by direct revelations from Heaven. Ic will be seen, therefore, that the apostles them- selves, had no discretionary power. They were to teach an observance ot" " all things " their Lord and Master had " commanded " — no more, no less. Wimt- ever they taught under the influence of inspiration, must have accorded with the teachinu's of the Savior. Whatever they did, as inspired men, may be con- sidered as done by him. Does the New Testament then inculcate tiie found atiun-principle of Congregationalism ; namely, / WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 156 that the governmental -power of a church is with the people J the members? Let us see 5 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 th€ 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 lanp'uaofe into a command p'iven 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 faitli." It was their business to decide who should be admitind 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 apostolic churches to exclude members from their fellowship, evidently implied their ricrht to receive members into their fellow- ship. It is inconceivable that they had the right to exclude, and not the right to receive members. Inow proceed to show that the New Testament churches had the right to exclude unworthy memherSy 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 dehver 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 cajjacityy 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 unwortiiy 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." 14 150 THREE REASONS, The rio'lit of a church to exclude fiom its com* tnunion, disorderly persons, is recognized 2 Thess. iii, (>, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesu^ Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh dis- orderly," etc. This command was addressed **to the clmrch 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 ofiF, becomes as a '* heathen man, and a publican." The ajjostolic churches had the power and the right to restore excluded members who gave satisfactory evidences of penitence. In 2 Cor. ii, 6-8, the ** incestuous man" is agai?* referred to, as follows : *' Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comCort 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. 159 member, without the least refererice to the diigrace' fui offense for which he was excluded. *' Sufficient/* says he, **is this punishment/' etc. That is, the object of the excommunication had been accom- plished. 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: *'l beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him." The power to restore was with the church, and Paul solicits an exercise of that power. The great apostle, in sayirg, *' I beaeech you,'' etc., bows to the majesty of democratic church soveieignty. He virtually ad- mits that nothing could be done unless the church chose ta-act. In thia '-feonnection, 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 thai the power in the apostohc churches to restore excluded members, imphes the power of receiving members, and albo the pgwer of excommunicating. Now, if the New Tes- ^ment 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 REASONS, vital importance to the existence and the interests of a church than the reception, exclusion, and resto- ration of members. There 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 Congregationahsm 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 w^as chosen by the *'one hundred and twenty disciples," mentioned verse 15. These disciples were, no doubt, the church to which the three thousand converts w^ere 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 lo elect a successor to Judas. In Acts, vi, there is reference to the circumstances which originMed the deacon's office, 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, ther^ arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebj'ews, because their widows were neglected in the daily miuisLration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said. It is not reason 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 we 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 arrano-ement 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 imeaning of the orbinal. With the orthog- * I use the terms deftnocraey^ democratic, etc., in their literal sense, without any reference to their technical application to one of the^litical parties of our great nation. 162 THREE REASONS, rapliy modernized it is as follows: '*And when they had ordained them seniors by election, in eveiy con- gregation, " etc. The word in the original, here translaied ordained in oi^r common version, hterally means '*to stretch forth the hand,*' as is the custom in most Baptist churches when a vbte is taken. T3 n- 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 '^Ciuirch 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 Episcopal 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 placed 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. Tiie 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 WHT I AM A BAPTIST. 163 elders were chosen, appointed, not without, but by means of the suffrages of the churches. Barnes well remarks: **Itis 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 woj.il. 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 *'seni 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 tha,t 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- hers 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 literal 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 majoiity must rule. That is to say WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 165 either the majority or minority must; govern. 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 Oongregational form of church government is, thai the power of a church cannot be transferred or alien- ated, and that 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 apo-stolic churches delegate their power to an association, or synod, con- ference or convention. The power of a church is manifestly inahenable ; and if this be true, church action is final. That there is no tribunal hioher than the church is evident from Matthew, xviii, 15- 17. The Savior lays down a rule for the adjustment of private diflPerences among brethren. ** If thy brother shall trespass against thee,'' etc. If the offender, when told of his fault, does not give sat- isfaction, the offended 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 offender *' shall neglect 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 which 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 ^ot 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 pubhcans? 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. Pedubaptists, with the exception of Independents and Congrega- tionalisis, 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. 1 61 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 Hve, 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 apostolic 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 churclies 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. 39, t Kingdom of Christ, Carter's Edition, pp. 36, 44, WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 16J> 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 Ejng 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 15 170 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 like 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 I AM A BAPTIST. 171 into this 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. APPENDIX. FOURTH REASON. BAPTISTS ALONE SCRIPTURALLY OBSERVE THE LORD'S SUPPER. Several highly-esteemed brethren have urged me to give a Fourth reason why I am a Baptist, and to let that reason have reference to Communion at the Lord's Table. They are of opinion that this is a subject strangely misunderstood by multitudes, and that, what is generally, though improperly termed " close communion,*' is made, by Pedobaptists, the basis of their most effective appeal to popular preju- dice against Baptists. This is unquestionabl}' true. How often do our opponents, when they find ihere is nothing in the baptismal controversy to give them "aid and com- fort,'' exclaim, with a kind of pious horror, against our selfishness, uncharitableness, and bigotry in refusing to commune with them in the sacred Sup per ! They tell us we shall all commune together in Heaven, and therefore ouo-ht to commune too-etlier on earth ; strangely forgetting that whatever may be ON COMMUNION. 173 the regulations of the heavenly state, the word of God alone is our guide during our earthly pilgrimage. He who would make the arrangements qf the eartlily economy conform to those of the heavenly, must of necessity nullify everything in those arrangements peculiar to earth. Why, then, not discontinue an observance of the ordinance of baptism altogether? for there will be no baptism in heaven. Why not cease to pray ? for prayer is not a celestial exercise. Why not give up ** pure and undefiied religion,'* which, in its practical development, leads us to '* visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction?'* for no manifestations of kindness to the afflicted and bereaved will be called for in heaven. Ah, why not give up ''communion" itself? For as ** flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," the use of the sacramental emblems would be unsuited to that kingdom. It is to be deeply regretted that so many erroneous views are entertained of communion at the Lord's Table. Many pervert the ordinance from its original design, and many displace it from its primitive posi- tion. In some places it seems almost to be regarded as a manifestation of Christian love, rather than a commemoration of the Saviour's death — as a practical illustration of the union of difterent religious denom- inations, rather than a solemn celebration of the suf- ferings of the Crucified One. Here I raise my voice, and sav with strongest emphasis, I5* 174 APPENDIX. I AM A Baptist, because there is among Baptists ALONE, A Scriptural observance op the Lord's Supper. Roman Catholics believing, as they profess to do, the doctrine of transubstantiation, insist that the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper are chang-ed into tiie real body and blood of Jesus Christ. According to this view the Saviour, in the presence of his disciples, took his veritable body into his hands, and broke it and said, **eat ye all of it." Nor is this all: he poured forth his literal blood and said, *' Drink ye all of it !" He that can believe this has credulity enough to be a Romanist. When Jesus said, **This is my body," ** this is my blood ;" he evidently meant, '* This represents my body," " this represents my blood." The same form of expression is common in the Old Testament and in the New. For example, Joseph, in the interpretation of Pharaoh's dream, said, ** The seven good kine are seven ears ; and the seven good ears are seven years," etc. How seven years ? Literally ? Impossible. The seven good kine represented seven years, etc. This is plain. The same form of expression is used in the NewTestament. Jesus, in expounding the parable of the ** Tares and Wheat,* said, '' He that soweth the good seed is [represents] the Son of Man ; the field is [represents] the world ; the good seed are [represent] the children of the kingdom ; but the tares are [represent] the children of the wicked one ; the enemy that sowed them is ON COMMUNION. 175 [represents] the devil ; the harvest is [represents] the end of the world; and the reapers are [represent] the angels." If we understand the verbs **is" and **are," in the foregoing expressions, literally, not one of those expressions is true. No field can literally be the world ; nor can any literal harvest be the end of the world ; but a field can represent the world, and a harvest can denote the end of the world. It is equally evident that "bread'' cannot be the real body of Jesus Christ, and that **wine" cannot be his blood, but bread can represent his body, and wine can repre- sent his blood. Such a representation we have in the Sacred Supper. It follows, therefore, that the posi- tion of Romanists is utterly untenable. The Lutherans, of all the Protestants, differ least from the Romish Hierarchy in regard to communion, for tiiey maintain that **the body and blood of Christ are materially present in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, though in an incomprehensible manner." This is termed **consubstantiation," and is as incred- ible as Romish ** transubstantiation." Alas, that Luther's Reformation was in several respects sadlj'' deficient. Episcopalians and Methodists would perhaps think it unkind, were it intimated that their ** sacramental services" indicate their ecclesiastic descent from Rome. But it is even so. Hence the communicant, m rtictiiving the bread, is thus addressed: '* The Body 176 APPENDIX. of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given, for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life :'* and in receiving the cup hears from the officiating ** clergyman '* this lan^ruage : *' The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life/* These ex- tracts I have made from the ** Book of Common Prayer/' I find the same language in the Meiliodist ** Discipline.'' The terms soul and body, however, are made to change places. I do not charge Epis- copalians and Methodists with believing in transub- stantiation or consubstantiation, but if they do not, they ought to modify the language I have quoted. There are perhaps thousands and tens of thousands among them who do not know^ why they kneel at the ** communion." They are ignorant of the origin of the custom. They are not aware that when the Romish sentiment of transubstantiation began to pre- vail, the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper being considered the real body and blood of Christ, were regarded as suitable objects of adoration. Hence the superstitious kneeling of Romanists at the **holy communion." Episcopalians, abandoning *' Mother liodie" in the reign of Henry VHI, retained ihe practice of kneeling, while Methodists have inherited it from Episcopalians. All Protestants ouglu to re- pudiate it on account of its Romish, and, I may add, its idolatrous origin. For he who worships *' bread and wine" is as manifestly guilty of idolatry as he ON COMMUNIOX. 177 who worships a graven image. There is, too, some- thing incongruous in kneeling at the Lord's Supper. The incongruity will remain as long as it is the custom among western nations to sit, and among eastern nations to recline at supper. The manner in which Presbyterians celebrate the death of Christ is less objectionable than that of Episcopalians and Methodists. Presbyterians, how- ever, are accustomed to speak of Baptism and the Lord's Supper as ** sealing ordinances." If this phrase is to be understood in its obvious signification, it conveys an unscriptural idea. Christians are said in the New Testament to be *' sealed by the Holy Spirit to the day of redemption,'* to be '* sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise," etc. The Spirit of God, whose agency is indispensable to the formation of Christian character, is the great Sealer, and the sealing process is manifestly a prerequisite to a par- ticipation in the ordinances of the gospel. The seal- ing immediately succeeds faith, as we learn from Ephesians i, 13. Tiie doctrine of Baptists has ever been, that the Lord's Supper is a Church ordinance, to be observed as a memorial of the death of Christ. The bread broken represents his body crucified — the wine poured forth represents his blood shed on Calvary. The lanouaoe of the Institutor of the sacred feast, the san»e night in which he was betrayed, was : ** This do in remembrance of me." Paul says to the Corin- 178 APPENDIX. thians, ** As oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come/' Hero the intimation is, that the death of Christ will be commemorated till he comes the second time with- out sin unto salvation. We learn, also, that in the sacred Supper we do not show the birth, or burial, or resurrection, or ascension, or glorification of our Lord, but his death. If ever the tragedy of Calvary should engross the thoughts of the Christian, to the exclusion of every other topic, it is when he sits at the table of the Lord. Then the death of his Re- deemer should monopolize all the power of memory. " Remember thee ! thy death, tliy shame ; The griefs which ihou didst bear ! 0, Memory, leave no other name But his recorded there." Some will perhaps say, that in the Lord's Supper, we express our Christian fellowship for our fellow- communicants. This is done only in an indirect and incidental manner. Our communion, according to Paul, is the communion of the body and the blood of Christ. Baptists, with comparatively few exceptions, have ever considered Baptism a prerequisite to the Lord's Table. They have so regarded it, because they have recog- nized its indispensableness to church membership. They have reasoned in this way : The Lord's Sup- per is an ordinance, to be observed exclusively by the members of a visible Church of Christ. None can ON COMMUNION 179 be members of a visible church of Christ without Baptism. Therefore, Baptism is a prerequisite to Communion at the Lord's Table. A refusal on the part of Baptists to commune with Pedobaptists, has grown out of the fact, that the latter have ever been considered by the former as unbaptized, and conse- quently without a scriptural church membership. Even the celebrated Robert Hall, who advocated the intercommunion of Baptists and Pedobaptists with an eloquence and an energy of argumentation rarely to be found in the annals of controversy, does not hesitate to express the opinion that Pedobaptists are unbaptized. Hence he says : ** We certainly make no scruple of informing a Pedobaptist candidate, that we consider him as un- baptized, and disdain all concealment upon the sub- ject." Again, ** If we join with those whom we are obliged to consider as unbaptized, they unite with persons who, in their judgment, repeat an ordinance which ought to be performed but once, nullify a Christian institute, and deprive their chil- dren of the benefit of a salutary rite." — See Hall's Works, Vol. i, pp. 455, 456. But while Mr. Hall considered Pedobaptists unbap- tized, he insisted on their right as unbaptized persons, to come to the Lord's Table. He did not admit baptism to be a prerequisite to communion. Had he conceded this (a point almost universally conceded by Baptists and Pedobaptists,) he would not have written hi» 180 APPENDIX. ** Terms of Communion '' at all. I quote from him as follows : ** We are far, however, from insinuating a doubt on the obligation of belieyers to submit to th.e ordi- nance of baptism, or of its being exclusively appro- priated to such ; but we affirm, that in no part of Scripture is it calculated as a preparative to the Lord's Supper, and that this view of it is a mere fiction of the imagination.'* In another place, referring to Mr. Kinghorn, he savs : ** This author had informed us at the distance of a few lines, that the Pedobaptists in general, believe that none ought to come to the Lord's Table, who are not baptized. If this is correct, we may indeed easily conceive of their being oflfended with us for deeming them unbaptized ; but how our refusal to admit them to communion should become the subject of debate, is utterly mysterious." — Works, Vol. i, pp. 307, 402. To demolish all that Robert Hall ever wrote in favor of *' Mixed Communion," it is only necessary to show the scriptural priority of Baptism to the Lord's Supper. And surely it is not difficult to do this. That baptism was first instituted, is a significant fact. No one will deny that John, the harbinger of Christ, baptized multitudes, and that J^sus, through his disciples (John iv, I, 2), baptized more than John, before the institution of the Lord's Supper. It is ON COMMUNION. 181 morally certain that those present at its institution, the night of the betrayal, had been baptized. Jesus himself, had been baptized, and it is too much for credulity itself to believe, that hfe selected unbaptized persons as his apostles. Does the subsequence of the Lord's Supper, in its original appointment to Baptism, mean nothing? But it has been argued by many, that Christian baptism was not instituted till Jesus gave the commission (Matthew xxviii, 18, 19) ; and on this ground, the priority of Baptism to Communion, is denied by Robert Hall. The argu- ment, if I understand it, is, that the epithet Christian^ cannot with propriety be applied to the baptisms ad- ministered before the final commission of Christ wajs given, because those baptisms were performed before the establishment of the Christian economy, and therefore belonged to a different dispensation. This argument evidently proves too much. For, if the baptisms which preceded the resurrection and last commission of Christ are to have no authoritative influence as precedents, because administered before the ushering in of the Christian economy, for the same reason, the Lord's Supper must have none, as'it was instituted before the Redeemer said to his apostles, ** Go, teach all nations," etc. If there could be no Christian Baptism before the resurrection of Christ, because his death had to occur to abolish the old and introduce the new economy, then it must follow that the Lord's Supper is not a Christian 16 « .82 APPENDIX. ordinance ! Why ? Because the argument I am exposing, assumes that nothing done before the resurrection and final commission of the Redeemer, can be properly termed C/iristian. If, then, accord- ing to this logic, the inapplicability of the epithet Christian to the baptisms which preceded Christ's resurrection, disproves the priority of Baptism to the Lord's Supper, the inapplicability of the same epi- thet to the Lord's Supper, as celebrated before his resurrection, disproves the priority of the Lord's Supper to Baptism. Thus the logic, if it accom- plishes anything, proves that neither ordinance is prior to the other, and consequently, that they ought to be simultaneously administered — which is impos- sible, and the impossibility shows the logic to be sophistry. In opposition to the view just referred to, I affirm that the ministry of John the Baptist was ** the be- ginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ " — that ** the law and the prophets were until John" — and that from the commencement of his labors in the wilder- ness of Judea, '* the kingdom of God was preached." John did not belong to the Jewish dispensation ; for that dispensation, denoted by "the law and the pro- phets," continued only till he came. There was no- thing in the regulations of the Jewish economy that made it his duty to preach repentance to the people and baptize the penitent. Will any man say thai baptism, as administered by John, was an ordinance ON COMMUNION. 183 of the Mosaic economy ? If so, why did the Scribes, Pharisees, Priests and Levites regard it as an innova- tion ? That they did so regard it, appears from the question, ** Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Ehjah, neither that prophet?" If his baptism had not been a new thing, this question would have been precluded; Those who propounded it, were evidently under the impression that the Messiah, or Elijah, or ** that prophet," would be jus- tifiable in administering this new rite, but as John disclaimed being any one of the three (for though in one sense, he was Elijah, yet it was not in their sense, and to this sense, his denial is to be confined), they did not understand by what authority he introduced so striking an innovation in Jewish customs. John, as a preacher and baptizer, did not belong to the Mosaic dispensation. And the hypothesis of some, who say he belonged to an economy interme- diate between the Mosaic and the Christian, is utterly untenable. There is in neither the Old nor the New Testament the remotest allusion to an intermediate dispensation. If there be, let it be shown. The only consistent and correct view of the matter is, that John introduced, and belonged to, the Gospel dispensation. Hence his baptism was Gospel Bap- tism. If any one chooses to deny that it was Christian Baptism because it is not so termed, the denial may be so enlarged as to embrace all the baptisms of the ■New Testament ; for the epithet Christian, is not } 84 APPENDIX. applied to one of them. But who will run into such an absurdity ? The ministry of John having been the beginning of the Gospel, it follows that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are Gospel ordinances. It follows, more- over, that Baptism is first in order of time, nor is its priority accidental, but designed and significant. John came to prepare a people for the Lord. The Lord came, and having personally submitted to that ordinance which had symbohcally separated that people from others, he took possession of them. All his teachings indicated that they were brought under the reign of a new order of things. He instituted tlie sacred Supper, an ordinance exclusively Gospel, of which the world had never heard before. And surely, if we learn anything from the example of Christ in this matter, it is that none but baptized persons are ehgible to seats at the Lord's Table. But while firmly believing that John's was a Gospel ministry and a Gospel Baptism, I could wave all this, and making Christian Baptism coeval with the last commission of Christ to the apostles, I might then show the unavoidable priority of Baptism to Communion. Let us see : I go at once to the commission, which reads : *' 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 Spirit ; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I ON COMMUNION. 185 have commanded you/' Every scholar knows that the Greek term translated *' teach," means disciple or make disciples. Disciples to Christ were to be made through the preaching and teaching of the apostles. This is plain. The discipling process was first, and v^hen completed, the baptismal act was to be performed. Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them, etc. Now^ according to this commission, it is evident that the process of discipleship is to be so immediately followed by the administration of Baptism, as to leave no room for an observance of the Lord's Supper to intervene. Baptism is certainly the first thing after a person is discipled to Christ. It is the believer's first public duty. It is the first external manifesta- tion of his internal piety. It is an open avowal of allegiance to Christ. It is therefore, according to the commission, inevitably prior to the Lord's Supper, an observance of which, is no doubt included in the expression — ** Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." The baptized disciples are to be taught to observe all things, etc. And I deny that, under this commission, the minister of Christ is under obligation to say anything about the Lord's Supper to the unbaptized. The baptized disciples are to be instructed. How then can the Lord's Supper precede baptism, when the commis- sion enjoins the mention of it only to the baptized ? But how^ did the apostles understand and execute 16* 1 86 APPENDIX. this commission ? This is a question of capital im- port in this discussion. On the day of Pentecost, Peter said to the convicted Jews, Repent, and be baptized, etc. The baptism was to succeed the re- pentance. There is no intimation that the Lord's Supper was to come between. And it is added — *' Then they that ghidly received his w^ord were baptized ^ * ^ * And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrines, and fellowship, and in break- ing of bread, and in prayer." The *' breaking of bread," certainly refers to the Lord's Supper, and it «7as preceded by baptism. When Philip went down to Samaria and preached, the people believed, and ** were baptized, both men and women." The nar- rative plainly indicates that Baptism, and not the Lord's Supper, immediately followed the people's belief of what Philip preached. When the Ethi- opian avowed his faith in Jesus Christ, Philip at once baptized him. There was no celebration of the Lord's Supper before they left the chariot and de- scended into the water. When Paul and Silas at the hour of midnight, preached to the jailer and his family and they believed, what was then done ? Did they commune at the Lord's Table ? No, but he and all his were baptized straightway. Thus does it appear that the apostles and primitive ministers understood the commission, as enjoining Baptism before the Lord's Supper. They have left an instructive example, which wa are not at liberi!:y ON COMMUNION. 187 to disregard. I boldly affirm, that the whole tenor of the New Testament indicates the priority of Bap- tism to Communion. Nothing, as it seems to me, is plainer. It is strange that so great a man as Robert Hall, overlooked it. That he did overlook it, appears from the following language : *' If we supposed there were a necessary, unalterable connection be- tween the two positive Christian institutes, so that none were qualified for communion, who had not been previously baptized, we could not hesitate for a mo- ment respecting the refusal of Pedobaptists, without renouncing the principles of our denomination.'' — Vol. i, p. 403. I assert, with the New Testament before me, that therein ** a necessary, unalterable connection between the two positive Christian institutes," and that none are ** qualified for communion '' who are not first baptized. A specimen of the proof establishing these points, has been presented. Nor do I see the neces- sity of elaborating the subject at greater length. I would, before I proceed to other matters, call special attention to the fact that Mr. Hall admits, if baptism necessarily precedes communion, then, for us Baptists to commune with Pedobaptists, would be to renounce the principles of our denomination. This is undeniably true. ^ Hence, when Pedobaptists insist that we shall commune with them, they virtually ask us to give up our distinctive principles and cease to be Baptists ! Their invitation really amounts to this. 188 APPENDIX. the distinguished Robert Hall, a ** mixed communion" Baptist, being judge. Were I disposed to indulge in irony, I would say : What superlative modesty What perfect exemption from the spirit of arrogance ! What a disposition on the part of our opponents to treat us as they would wish to be treated ! It may be supposed by some, that I have needlessly exposed the sophistry of Robert Hall, which, to them, appears shallow enough for any one to detect and repudiate. I beg leave to say that the name of Hall occupies a conspicuous place in the annals of great- ness, and that there is some danger lest the splen- dor of his fame should give weight to sophistry which, in inferior men, would be considered lighter than vanity. In addition to this it is proper to say, that Pedobaptists make frequent reference to Mr. Hall as a man of liberal views, though they, by no means, adopt his views, but only think them worthy of the adoption of Baptists. After all, the great body of the Baptist denomination is unmoved by Mr. Hall's reasonings on communion, and can only regret that a pen so able and eloquent was not more worthily employed. Pedobaptists themselves concede the precedence of Baptism to the Lord's Supper. Dr. Wall, in his history of Infant Baptism, Part II, chap, ix, expresses himself in strong terms as follows : ** No church ever gave the communion to any persons before they were baptized. Among all the absurdities that ever were ON COMMUNION. 189 held, none ever maintained that any persons should partake of the communion before they were bap- tized." Peter King, Lord High Chancellor of England, in his Primitive Church, p. 196, (this work is now pub- lished by the Methodists,) says: ** Baptism was always precedent to the Lord's supper: and none were admitted to receive the eucharist till they were baptized. This is so obvious to every man that it needs no proof: if any one doubts it, he may find it clearly asserted in the second Apology of Justin Martyr, p. 97." Dr. Doddridge, in his Miscellaneous Works, p. 510, remarks : ** It is certain that Christians in gen- eral have always been spoken of, by the most ancient fathers, as baptized persons. And it is also certain that, as far as our knowledge of primitive antiquity extends, no unbaptized person received the Lord's Supper." Mr. Hibbard, a Methodist preacher and writer of considerable distinction, belonging to the Genessee Conference, New York, in his work on ** Christian Baptism," thus expresses himself: ''It is but just to remark, that in one principle the Baptist and Pedo- baptist churches agree. They both agree in rejecting from Communion at the table of the Lord, and in denying the rights of church fellowship to all, who have not been baptized. Valid baptism they con- 190 APPENDIX sider as essential to constitute visible church member- ship. This, also, we hold. The only question then that here divides us is, what is essential to valid bap- tism ? The Baptists, in passing a sweeping sentence of disfranchisement upon ail other Christian churclies, have only acted upon a principle held in common with all other Christian churches, viz : That baptism is essential to church membership. They have denied our baptism, and, as unbaptized persons, we have been excluded from their table. That they greatly err in their views of Christian baptism, we, of course, believe. But according to their views of baptism, they certainly are consistent in restricting this, their communion. We would not be understood as passing a judgment of approval upon their course ; but we say their views of baptism force them upon the ground of strict communion, and herein they act upon the same principles as other churches. They admit only those whom they deem baptized persons, to the communion table. Of course, they must be their own judges as to what baptism is. It is evident that, according to our views, we can admit them to our communion ; but with their views of baptism, it is equally evident, they can never reciprocate the courtesy; and the charge of close communion. -i^ nO more applicable to the Baptists than to us ; inasmuch as the question of church membership is determined by as liberal principles as it is with any other Protes- ON COMMUNION. 191 tant churches — so far I mean, as the present subject is concerned, i. e.y it is determined by valid baptism." Hibbard's '' Christian Baptism." To this extract from Mr. Hibbard's work, I call the special attention of Methodists. It exhibits a spirit of controversial candor and fairness, not often witnessed in the discussion of the Communion ques- tion. It explodes the charge of Baptist bigotry and exclusiveness in reference to communion, and estab- lishes the fact that the point in dispute between Baptists and others, is not about close communion, but close baptism. The controversy is entirely and in- tensely baptismal. I think it may now be considered as fully settled, that Pedobaptists as well as Baptists, regard Baptism as precedent to Communion. Of both parties the few who think otherwise constitute an insignificant numer- ical exception. But there is one consideration rela- tive to Pedobaptism, which shows that it is not optional with its advocates to recognize- the priority of baptism to the Lord's Supper. That consideration is, that they (as the term Pedobaptists indicates) believe in, and practice infant baptism. To unconscious in- fants they apply what they improperly call the **seal of the ^covenant." They do this before the infants are physically, not to say spiritually, capable of eat- ing and drinking the sacramental elements. It is plain, therefore, that the practice of infant baptism gives an inevitable precedence to baptism and not to 192 APPENDIX. communion. For Baptists, with their views, to insist on the priority of the Lord's Supper to Baptism, is unscriptural — but for Pedobaptists, with their senti- ments, to do so, is not only unscriptural but prepos- terous. It involves a palpable absurdity, for it in- volves a palpable impossibility. As to the principle, then, which regulates an ap- proach to the Lord's Table, Baptists and Pedobaptists are agreed. They both say, the New Testament does not tolerate the approach of the unbaptized. Wherein do they differ? As already stated, in what Baptism consists. Pedobaptists have heretofore admitted (whatever they may admit now), that immersion, pouring, and sprinkling were all valid baptismal acts. And whether the subjects of these acts were intelli- gent believers or speechless infants, made no diffe- rence as to the validity of the baptism. On the other hand. Baptists now% as ever (for on these points they exemplify a happy immutability), insist that believers in Christ are the only scriptural subjects of baptism, and that immersion in water is the only baptismal action. Recognizing a New Testament church as composed of immersed believers, they of necessity deny the church membership of Pedobaptists, and considering the Lord's Supper as exclusively a church ordinance, they cannot, without disloyalty to the King in Zion, invite Pedobaptists to the table of the Lord. Pedobaptist societies are not Gospel churches. Those composing these societies have not ON COMM'UNION. 193 been immersed on a profession of faith in Christ. Instead, an act altosfether unlike immersion has been performed on the great mass of them, and that act not bearing date after the dawn of the intelhgence of adult years, but during the ignorance of infantile unconsciousness. How can Baptists regard Pedo- baptists as baptized and members of Gospel churches, when, before they could do so, they must abjure the distinctive principles which make them Baptists? The courtesy of such a recognition could originate alone in the sacrifice of truth ; and such a courtesy would be as worthless to those receiving it as dis- graceful to those extending it. Every visible church of Christ may be considered a sacred inclosure, susceptible of entrance in but one way. In that inclosure is set the table of the Lord. And the Lord of the table has prescribed the terms of admittance into that inclosure. Those who have complied with the terms and entered in, are the guar- dians of that table. They must see to it that it is approached only in the way the Lord of the inclosure and the table has specified. If they are appealed to, to change the entrance-way, or to make a new entrance, or to allow those without to make ways of entrance to suit themselves, they must say with earnest emphasis : -THERE IS ONE LAWGIYER''— '^ we have no SUCH CUSTOM, NEITHER THE CHURCHES OF GoD." I know it will be said— for it has been said a thou- sand times — the table is the Lord's. This all will 17 194 APPENDIX. concede. But how different are the reasonings based on this concession ! Pedobaptists say, as it is the Lord's Table, they have a right to approach it — that as it is not the table of the Baptists, the Baptists ought not to place obstructions in the way of their approach, etc. Baptists say, as it is the Lord's Table, it must be approached in the way he directs — that Ins proprietorship of the table furnishes the reason of their course — that if it was their table thev would have discretionary authority, whereas they now have none — that they do not place obstructions in the way of Pedobaptists, but that the Lord of the table has done it, etc. This is a specimen of the logic em- ployed by the two parties in this controversy. Which species of logic indicates greater loyalty to Christ, the reader may determine. Pursuing the illustration already presented, I observe that there is no place in this wide world except the sacred inclosures, which are visible Churches of Christ, where the table of the Lord can be set. Any table set without, is not the Lord's Table. The people of the Lord, that is, regenerated persons, may approach it, but it is not the table of the Lord. I mean, it is not a table set according to his direction, and that those who set it disregard his instructions. That these instructions are intentionally disregarded, I do not affirm, but they are disregarded. And here we see another reason why Baptists cannot, and ought not to commune with Pedobaptists. The ON COMMUNION. 195 tables of the latter are set in the wrong place. There is an inversion, a dislocation of JSTew Testament order. Baptists, unless they prove recreant to their Lord, cannot sanction the inversion — cannot practically indorse the dislocation. Not only are these tables set in the wrong place, but they are accessible to those to whom the Lord's Table is not accessible. They may be approaclied (indeed it is the boast of those who preside at them) and are approached by the unimmersed, and the unimmersed are unbap- tized. Pedobaptist communicants maintain that they have been baptized — I shall not impeach their sin- cerity — but they have not been baptized. I enter not here into the baptismal argument; this I have done in the first two '' Reasons why I am a Baptist," to which the reader is referred. The belief of Pedo- baptists, that they have been baptized, is, of course, uninfluential with Baptists, because the latter believe the very opposite. They must, therefore, not only consider Pedobaptists out of the visible churches of Christ, but destitute of all Gospel right to approach the table of the Lord. Is not this plain ? Do not both parties in this controversy agree that Baptism is prerequisite to Communion ? Certainly. And Pedo- baptists insist they have been baptized ; but this Baptists most positively deny ; and as they deny it, they must, so far as baptism is concerned, look upon every community of Pedobaptists as they do on Quakers, who repudiate baptism altogether. For 196 APPENDIX. there is surely nothing worse in rejecting baptism altogether, than in substituting something else in ita place. Each act is disloyalty to the Institutor of the ordinance. Now as Baptists believe in the priority of Baptism to Communion, and consider Pedobaptists unbaptized, how can there be intercommunion ? Baptists cannot regard Pedobaptists as entitled to seats at the table of the Lord, for they are without baptism and, therefore, without church membership. In the absence of these two things there never has been, and there never will be an evangelical approach to the Lord's Table. How stands the matter ? Jesus Christ says, "Repent, believe, and be immersed ;'' and of these believing penitents, when immersed, his visible Churches were composed in primitive times, and are composed now. This may be regarded as a Baptist axiom. What say the Rabbis of Pedobaptist Israel ? ** Let infants be sprinkled in their infancy, and grow up in the Church, and when capable of repenting and believing let them perform these duties, and be taken into full membership, commemorating the death of the Redeemer,'' etc. How different the two plans of procedure ! And why do they differ ? Because one is divine, and the other human. The human plan disarranges the order of the plan divine. Will it be said, the difference between these plails is not material ? Who art thou. Oh ! mai?^ that sayest a deviation from the pattern furnished by Christ him ON COMMUNION. 197 self is not material ? Who endowed thee with wisdom to discern between the material and the immaterial, when the commission of the Redeemer, given just before his ascension to heaven, and unrepealed through all subsequent ages says, '' Teaching them TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU/' If Moses, when about to make the tabernacle, was admonished of God thus : " See that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount," is remissness or disobedience to be tolerated in the structure of a church of Jesus Christ ? Why call we the Saviour, Lord, Lord, if we do not the things which he commands? He while on earth, as if to attach a solemn importance to what he knew men would be disposed to pronounce ** non-essential," said, ** Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teacb men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." How necessary to do just what the Lord Jesus requires — no more — no less ! Reverence for his authority, and love for his name, may be shown by an observance of the least as well as of the greatest of his com- mandments. To the communion of Pedobaptists it is an insuper- able objection that they have no Gospel baptiem, and no Gospel churches. And there are other objections, I will mention one : Their baptized infants, so called, are ineligible to their communion. It is manifest 17* 198 APPENDIX. from the New Testament, that the baptized had a right to commune at the Lord's Table, unless by act- ing unworthily of the Christian character, they for- feited fellowship in the cl^urches of which they were members. But Pedobaptists administer what they call baptism to infants, hoping that they may become Cliristians in after life and commemorate the Saviour's death, but not knowing, by any means, that this will be the case. Indeed, in thousands of instances com- munion never follows baptism at all. And this ought to create in Pedobaptists a suspicion that their plan of operation is unscriptural. As God has joined Bap- tism and the Lord's Supper together, they ought not to be divorced. But it will be said that infants are not capable of discerning the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the communion. This is, doubtless, true; nor are they capable of discerning the import of bap- tism. There are solemn obligations connected with both ordinances, and if inability to understand the oblioations connected with one of the ordinances ren- o ders it improper to observe that ordinance, the same inability, in regard to the other, renders its obser- vance improper. And thus the fact that infants ought not to commune, certainly proves that they ought not to be baptized. Lifants as infants have nothing to do with either ordinances. The two ordt-* nances go together, and, therefore, the system 'of Pedobaptism, in disjoining them, exhibits its unscrip- tural character. Baptists do not divorce the ordi- ON COMMUNION. 199 nances. Among them the baptized take their seats at the table of the Lord. Those who avow their allegiance to Christ in baptism, commemorate his death at his table. This is in accordance with gospel order. And while Baptists are invidiously charged with close communion, their communion is, in some respects, less restricted than that of any religious denomination — that is to say, they commune with all they baptize. They are not guilty of the flagrant inconsistency of admitting the same persons to one ordinance, and repelling them from the other. And vieAving their practice as scriptural, and, therefore, consistent, I can say, with emphatic satisfaction, that I am a Baptist, because there is, among Baptists alone, a scriptural observance of the Lord's Supper. Pedobaptist tables are set without the precincts of the visible Churches of Christ, and the really unbap- tized are invited thereto, while multitudes, whom every Pedobaptist considers baptized, are kept away. Such a course Baptists condemn, and cannot, there- fore, incur the responsibility of encouraging it by word or deed. Were they to sanction it, they would act inconsistenly with their conscientious convictions, and deliberately sin against God. They would shew irreverence for the authority of Christ, by disregard- ing the order he has established. Could they consent to do this, they would be unworthy of seats at the Lord's Table, and Pedobaptists could not, in the feai of God, invite them to their communion. What ! 200 APPENDIX. would they be willing to commune with a denomina- tion whose presence at their tables would involve dis- loyalty to Christ and a sacrifice of principles, held sacred for centuries ? purely not. The truth is, there can be no propriety in intercommunion be- tween Baptists and Pedobaptists while they remain as they are. Nor should the latter, as they often do, invite the former to commune with them. This cus- tom, which prevails in many places, is an offensive one. Pedobaptists do not look upon it in this light, and I, therefore, do not charge them with giving in- tentional offense. Still their course is offensive. Let us see: they believe that Baptists cannot conscien- tiously commune with them ; for they would not desire intercommunion if they believed Baptists were not conscientious in their course. Then it fol- lows, that Pedobaptists, in inviting Baptists to com- mune with them, ask them to do what the former believe the latter cannot conscientiously do. One of the best men* I ever knew, in conversing with me on this point, said : '*I consider it an insult for a man to invite me to do what he knows I cannot conscien- tiously do.'' Who will say this language was too strong? What does tlje invitation, in such a case, imply ? Evidently that he who invites, thinks he who is invited can be induced to violate his conscientious convictions. Will any one say there is nothing offen- * Elder William Warder. ON COMMUNION. 201 sive, not to say insulting, in this ? Propriety requires that Pedobaptists forbear inviting Baptists to com- mune with them. And it need not be said that Bap- tists who understand the teachings of the New Testament, will never extend an invitation to Pedo- baptists. I am aware that the practice of Baptists, in regard to communion, is often pronounced illiberal, unchari- table, and indicative of bigotry. I answer, thai is a spurious liberality which transcends the liberality of the New Testament, and that is a false charity which rejoices in anything but the truth. As to bigotry, it can have no place in the heart of that man whose supreme attachment is to the truth of God, and not to the dogmas of a sect. If, therefore, the New Tes- tament justifies the course which Baptists pursue, they are neither illiberal, nor uncharitable, nor bigoted. But it is often insinuated that Baptists attach so much importance to immersion as to make it a saving ordinance, and that by refusing to commune with Pedobaptists, it is denied that they are partakers of the grace of God. This insinuation, or objection, or whatever it may be called, I repel in the language of two great men. Abraham Booth, in his *' Vindi- cation of the Baptists," in referring to baptism, says : ** It is too notorious to admit a plea of ignorance in any of our opponents, that we consider no one as a proper subject of that institution who does not profess 202 APPENDIX. repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ ; wlio does not, in other words, appear to be in a state of salvation. Nay, so far fiom making baptism a sating ordinance, we do not — we cannot consider any one as a proper subject of it, who looks upon it in that light." See Booth's ** Yindication,'' etc, section 1. And what says Robert Hall ? In his works. Vol. iv, p. 246, he remarks: '* Baptism, it has often been said, is not a saving ordinance. It is not ; and we, of all people, can best repel this objection, for we believe that this rite belongs to such only as are saved, only to true believers, of whom we read, that ' the Lord added to the Church daily, such as are saved.' How others can escape from this objection, I must leave themselves to explain; how they can affirm that they do not consider baptism essential to salvation." Here Mr. Hall, as a Baptist, repels the objection under consideration, but intimates, if I un- derstand hi4i$ that it would be difficult for Pedobap- tists to show that they do not make baptism essential to salvation. It is often charged against Baptists as a palpable inconsistency, that they invite Pedobaptists to preach for them and then refuse to invite them to com-^ mune. This charge, I confess my inability to meet. The inconsistency is, I think, too glaring, to be suc- cessfully denied. According to the New Testament, Baptism and Church Membership do not more cer- ON COMMUNION. 203 tainly precede Communion at the Lord's Table, than they do a consecration to the work of the gospel ministry. It is therefore, as inconsistent for Baptists to recognize Pedobaptist preachers as gospel minis- ters, as it is to commune with them.* There are many in the South and West who see this inconsist- ency, and will be guilty of it no longer. They are determined to act in accordance with God's word, let consequences be as they may. The Lord increase their number ! It is a singular fact, that after all that has been said and written by Pedobaptists in favor of open communion, though it has been referred to as the great desideratum of Christendom — there is to this day no such thing as open communion among Pedo- baptists themselves. In this statement, I am not to be understood as embracing Romanists, though they are Pedobaptists. I mean, that among those Pedo- baptist denominations popularly termed evangelical, there is not open communion. Presbyterians and Methodists will commune too^ether and denounce each other's Calvinism and Arminianism the next day, if not the next hour. ISTot many years have passed away since the Old School General Assembly *The author does not here enlarge on this subject, because he has discussed it in a Tract, which has acquired an unex- pected notoriety, and called forth much discussion. The title of the Tract is, " An Old Landmark Reset." 204 APPENDIX. of the Presbyterians declined an invitation to com- mune with the New School General Assembly, both being in session at the same time. Do Episcopalians commune with Presbyterians and Methodists? They do not. They will allow Presbyterians and Method- ists to come to their table, but will not reciprocate the act. As a British statesman once said on another subject : ** All the reciprocity is on one side." I say again, that after all that has been said by Pedobap- tists in commendation of open communion, there i& not among themselves a solitary exemplification of it. And their great anxiety to commune with Baptists is of comparatively recent date. There was no such anxiety in May 2, 1648, when the Presbyterians bavins: the ascendencv in the British Parliament, passed '' such a law against heretics (to use the lan- guage of Neal,) as is hardly to be paralleled among Protestants.'' It specifies ** heresies" and " errors." Among the ''errors," I observe this: ''That the baptism of infants is unlawful and void ; and that such persons ought to be baptized again." Upon " conviction" or " confession" of this " error," the person implicated, was to "renounce it in the public congregation," or, " in case of refusal, be com.mitted to prison till he find sureties that he shall not publish or maintain the said error or errors any more."* There was in that day no desire to commune with Neal's History of the Puritans, Part iii, chap. 10. ON COMMUNION. 206 Baptists. A Baptist had to renounce the distinctive pecuUarities making him a Baptist, to keep out of prison. He could not, in his Baptist character, com- mune with Presbyterians. No, as a Baptist, he was thought fit only for a prison, and could not, even if inclined, be present at a Presbyterian communion. The law, too, must have contemplated imprisonment for life ; for it was to continue till *' sureties" were obtained, etc. In the case of real Baptists, *' sure- ties " could not, of course, be found. Therefore, imprisonment for life was provided for. JSTor was there on the part of Congregationalists in New England, a desire to commune with Baptists, when, in the early settlement of the country, to be a Baptist was to incur fines, scourging, imprisonment, and exile. Oh, no, open communion, falsely so called, is a recent thing. It has not sufiicient age on its side to make it really respectable. I have said, it would be inconsistent for Baptists to commune with Pedobaptists. I now say, it is strangely inconsistent for Pedobaptists to desire com- munion with Baptists. Why ? I will not enlarge upon the topic ; but I will affirm this, that as they believe infant baptism to be a divinely appointed rite, it is obviously inconsistent in them to wish to com- mune with those who believe it one of the most per nicious of human traditions. They know this is the belief of Baptists, and how they can say, '* Come, let us commune together,'' is more than I can com- 18 206 APPENDIX. prehend. There are many other matters that I shall not mention, which sliow the inconsistency of Pedo- baptists in desiring communion with Baptists. The mind of the intelHgent reader will readily call them up. As Pedobaptists so often complain that they are not allowed to commune with their * 'Baptist brethren," it will perhaps surprise them when I announce the proposition, that, no member of a baptist church CAN CLAIM IT AS A RIGHT, TO COMMUNE WITH ANT OTHER BAPTIST CHURCH. This proposition I fully believe, and will attempt to illustrate. Its truth results from two facts : 1st. Every church is the guardian of the purity of the ordinances of Jesus Christ : 2d. Every church is an independent body — a democratic sovereignty under Christ. That every church is under sacred obligations to preserve the purity and integrity of the ordinances, maybe seen from 1 Cor. xi, 2. ''Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.'' I shall not stop to inquire, whether the term ordinances in the passage, has exclusive refer- ence, or any reference at all, to Baptism and the Lord's Supper. If, as some suppose, the allusion is to the delivery of ** certain doctrines, or rules, re- specting the good order and the government of the Church," it does not in the least affect my argument. For, if a church is under obligation to observe ** rules " ON COMMUNION. 201 given for its government, it surely is under obliga- tion to preserve in their integrity and purity, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. How is the ordinance of baptism to be preserved, according to the original appointment of Christ ? Every church must see that the act is performed which Christ enjoined, and that it is performed on proper subjects. Who is to do this , if the churches do not ? Will men of the world ? They would be singular conservators of the integrity of a divine ordinance. And how are the churches to preserve this ordinance incorrupt, unless every local congregation of saints feels its local re- sponsibility ? If it is said that unworthy persons sometimes gain admittance into the best churches, the fact is conceded. But what does this prove? Nothing but what all knov>^, viz : that church mem- bers cannot search the heart. And though difficulties may result from their ignorance of the hearts of those who apply ^or membership, it would be equally fool- ish and wicked in them to complain that they are not omniscient. As of Baptism so of the Lord's Supper. Its purity is to be preserved by the preservation of a pure membership. A church of Christ is, according to the Gospel, composed of a "peculiar people," called " saints." They are the hght of the world and the salt of the earth. Still, imperfection attaches to them — they are prone to evil. They often depart from God. It is difficult to know ho\^ far a Christian 208 APPENDIX. may deviate from the path of duty ; nor is it desirable to know. Unworthy persons, as ah'eady intimated, will insinuate themselves into the fellowship of the best churches. Now the fact that Jesus Christ has given to his churches tlie power of discipline, shows that they are designed to be pure organizations. One of the churches of Asia is commended because it could not bear those that were evil. The Thessa- lonian church was required to withdraw from every disorderly brother, and the Corinthians were advised to expel a member. The retention of unworthy members in a church contaminates its purity. A little leaven often leavens the whole lump. And the Head of the church, to vindicate his own honor, removes the candlestick out of its place. Now the purity of a church must be maintained in order to the purity of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. A pure membership will exercise a sacred guardianship over the Supper of the Lord. But suppose members of other churches had the right to commune with an orderly church walking in the fear of the Lord. And suppose the discipline of those churches to be lax, and their members, many of them at least, heretical in sentiment and disorderly in practice. If they had the right to commune with the orderly church referred to, how would it be possible for that church to guard the table of the Lord from the approach of the un- worthy? It would be impossible. The disorderly members of other churches (Baptist churches, I ON COMMUNION. 209 mean) would claim seats at that table as a matter ot riffkt, and the sacred feast would be contaminated by their presence. The truth is, no church can of right be required to invite to its communion those over whom it has no power of discipline. It may do so, and ought to do so as a matter of courtesy, but only as a matter of courtesy. There is no right in the case. The invitation may be extended, or restricted, or withheld, as the church may decide, and the deci- sion of the church should, of course, contemplate the preservation of the purity of the ordinance. This being the case, a church may at one time, through Christian courtesy, invite the members of another church to its communion, and at another time with- hold the invitation, because the latter church may be in the one instance, in Gospel order, in the other, in manifest disorder. But let it not be forgotten that every church is an independent body. This fact forever settles the question that intercommunion between the members of Baptist churches is based on courtesy and not on right. If a church is independent, how can the mem- bers of another church interfere with its action ? How can they claim anything of it on the ground of right ? A church would exemplify a rare indepen- dence, if those not belonging to it could rightfully demand seats in it at the table of the Lord ! Every church, being independent, must act for itself, and is, therefore, as evidently bound to maintain the ordi* 18* 210 APPENDIX. nances of Christ in their purity, as if there wtre nc other church under heaven. And here we see one of the many excellencies of the Congregational form of government. Pedobaptist churches, so called, such as the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Methodist, extend over states and provinces. Local congrega- tions are in a great measure exempt from such responsibilities as rest on those with whom is the sovereign power under Christ. The Episcopalian looks to his General Convention, the Presbyterian to his General Assembly, and the Methodist to his General Conference as the highest authority as the supreme judicatory. This fact must impair the sense of congregational and individual responsibility. Every Baptist feels that he is a sovereign citizen of the kingdom of Jesus Christ. Every Baptist church is a sovereign democracy, on which devolves the duty of executing the laws of Christ and of pre- serving in their primitive purity and integrity the ordinances of the Gospel. Let it not be supposed that because Baptist churches are thus independent their members love one another less. Christian love is neither created nor preserved by the acts of Synods nor the edicts of Conferences. It is originated by the influence of the Holy Spirit, and perpetuated by the same agency. This love prompts the exercise of the Christian courtesy already referred to, and makes it delio-htful to sit down with our fellow- Chris- tians at the table of the Lord. And while we deny ON COMMUNION. 211 to members of Baptist churches of the same faith and order with ourselves the right to claim admittance to the Lord's Table in any church except that to which they belong, nothing is more common than cordial invitations by courtesy. I am aware that the proposition I have aimed to illustrate, will be regarded by many as novel. But little, so far as I know, has been written on the subject. It does not follow that what is novel is false, and that what is old is true. Let the proposi- tion be well considered before any sweeping sentence of condemnation is pronounced against it. However, if well considered, I think it will command universal acquiescence among all those who believe that every church is, under Christ, an independent sovereignty. The fourth Reason why I am a Baptist, I have now given, and I believe it a good reason: It la BECAUSE AMONG BaPTISTS ALONE IS THERE A SCRIPTU- RAL OBSERVANCE OF THE LoRD's SuPPEB. APPENDIX NO. II CIROUMCISION. Since tlie publication of the foregoing work in 1853, I have examined the covenant of Circumcision with special reference to its 'perpetuity.' The exam- ination has convinced me that it is a perpetual cove- nant, to be observed by the Jews in all their genera- tions. All the considerations which have exerted their influence in leading me to this conclusion, can- not here be mentioned. I will, however, name a few of the most prominent : 1. The epithet ^' everlasting,^^ is applied to the cove- nant in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis, which con- tains the first reference to circumcision. By virtue of this covenant, of which Circumcision was the ** token," the land of Canaan was given to Abraham and his seed ** for an everlasting possession." If the pos- session was to be everlasting, then the covenant securing the possession must be everlasting. If it be said, the epithet *' everlasting" is to be understood in a limited sense, I grant it. That is to say, I sup- pose it does not refer to eternal duration. But while *' the world stands," the Jews will have a righl r212J ON CIRCUMCISION. 213 to the land of Canaan, and in this sense their posses- sion of it will be ** everlasting." 2. The Jews will actually return to Palestine. On any other supposition it is exceedingly difficult, if not absolutely impossible to explain several portions of Scripture. Now if the Jews are to return to the land of Canaan and re-occupy it, they will certainly do so in pursuance of the provisions of the covenant to which Circumcision was appended as a token. But uncircumcised Jews will have no right to take posses- sion of that land. They can exhibit no title to it. Circumcision will be the title to the inheritance. Un- circumcision is a breach of the covenant, and there- fore, a forfeiture of the title to the land of Canaan. 3. There is no intimation^ in the New Testament, that the Jews were to discontinue Circumcision. Neither the Saviour nor his apostles said anything to deter the Jews from the observance of the rite. It is admitted that the Gentile Christians were exempt from all obligation to practice Circumcision, but the Jewish Christians certainly did practice it. Indeed it was charged against Paul that he taught the Jews that 'Uhey ought not to circumcise their children," but he very readily, at the instance of James and others, adopted a course which was considered a refutation of the charge. (See Acts xxi, 18-26.) Paul also circumcised Timothy ; and it will not be denied that Circumcision and Baptism were practiced cotemporaneously. Should it be said, in oppositioc 214 APPENDIX. to the perpetuity of Circumcision, that it was incor- porated into the Mosaic economy — which economy has passed away — I answer, it was made an appen- dage of that economy ; but as it was practiced before the days of Moses, it by no means follows, that it was abolished with the covenant of Sinai. I insist, it was not abolished ; but cannot here enlarge. Baptists occupy, in the baptismal controversy, an advantageous position. If their opponents could prove that Circumcision has been abolished, Baptists could then show that baptism has not taken its place. But if, according to the view now presented. Circum- cision has not been abolished, then neither baptism nor anything else has taken its place. It occupies its own 'place. Take whatever view of Circumcision we may, the argument derived from it, in favor of infant l>apt!sm, is worthless. THE END. Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide Treatment Date. April 2006 PreservationTechnologies A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve Cranberry Township. PA 16066 (724) 779-2 ' ' 1 SOUTH-WESTERN BIPTIST PUBLISHING HOUSE. GRAVES, MARlCS & CO., Nashville, Tenn., No. 97 Public Square. IPIllllII©in)n(DAE^ FinrIBIL3IOA'2'n©S^go I. The Tennessee Baptist. J. R. Graves, Editor. This paper entered upon its 12th volume the first of September, 1855. It is designed to be the exponent of true IJaptist faith and consistent Bap- tist practice, and to reflect the leading aspects of the ''Great West" and the present times, and to meet and discuss the great issues of the day. Issue 10,000 S2.00, in advance. n. Southern Baptist Review. J.R.Graves, J. M. Pendleton, N. M. Crawford, Editors. This work is a Quarterly ; each issue. 160 pa^es. Making a volume o' 896 royal octavo pages each year. Subscription price S2.00, in advance. It has won the reputation of being the ablest deriominational ptihlication in the Union. The best writers in the South contribute to its pages. It is, iu itself, a Theological Library. Specimen numbers sent if desired. III. Just the thing for your Children. ''TENDER GRASS FOR LITTLE LAMBS." '' The Chiidien'H Montliiy Book." A Southern publication, beautifully illustrated. Edited by Uncle Robin and Aunt Alice, with special reference to its moral and intellectual influ- ence upon the young mind. Published at only $1.00 per annum. It is pronounced the best puhlication for children that has yet appeared in America. Specimen copies sent if desired. Any one of the following books will be promptly delivered at your Post OiSces, by our general Colporteur, the United States Mail, on receipt of the prices annexed. "THE GREAT IRON "WHEEL," or Republicanism Backwards and Christianity Reversed. By J. R. Graves. 576 pages, with cDgravings. (13th edition.) No controversial work written in the present century ever awakened so much attention as this wherever it has circulated. Seven editions have been issued within a few months and the demand is increasing. It ought to be read by every Baptist, every Christian, and every American citizen. Price $1 .00, sent by mail. Prof. Stuart on Baptism. Second edition. Price 75 cts. This work, allowed to remain in obscurity by his Pedobaptist brethren because it admitted vastly too much for the advocates of affusion, has been hunted up and republished by Graves, Marks & Co., together with an In- troductory Review by the Editor, and a valuable appendix s.^lected from the able Review of Stuart, by Wm. Judd. It is now one of the best Bap- tist documents extant. Pedobaptists cannot gainsay or answer it. •' Next to your Bible is a faithful Church History." CJdronological History of Foreign Baptists, from A. D 33 to 1800. (Six editions sold i?i six months.) By G H. Orchard, of Eno'land. Introductory Essay by J. R Graves. Pp. 300. Price $1.00. (12th edition.) This is what it purports to be, a History of the Church of Jesus Christ, not of the Romish Apostacy or any of her branches. It is unquestionably the most valuable Church History ever written. The Author has incon- testably proved from Pedobaptist Hfstorians and Scholars, that the Baptist churches are the only Christian communities that have stood since the days of the Apostles. The American JKditor has received the thanks of the Baptist press for introduciusr this vs'ork to the American public. Let your children be made familiar with this work, and they will never join a Pedo- baptist Society. Orchard's History of English and Welch Baptists, soon to follow. Price ^1.00. Also, History of Dutch Baptists. By Ypeig & Durmont. Compiled by order of the King of Holland. Theodosia Ernest. A Book on a new plan. The most charming denominational work ever published. A Romance in interest, on a Thesaurus of arguments. Baptist pastors are earnestly requested to examine it. Yol. 1. Prit-e $1.00. An Old Landmark Reset. (New edition.) By J. M. Pendleton, Author of " Three Reasons," etc. It has awakened an unparalleled amount of. interest and discussion. It discusses the most important practical question of the age. Price 10 cents. "A. Campbell and Campbellism Exposed. This is a work of — pages, and contains all the articles that appeared in the discussion between A. Campbell and J. K. Graves, which were pub- lished in the Tennessee Baptist, which fact Mr. Campbell denies, although he has seen them in the •• Baptist ! !'' The man as well as his system is exposed in this work. Let the lovers of truth get a copy for preservation . Sold at cost of publication — 15 cents. Reformation ; or, the Church of Christ cannot be reformed — and therefore Pedobaptist Societies are without a ministry — without valid ordinances or a valid ecclesiastical existence. By J. L. Waller. L. L. D. The Abrahainic Coreiiant no Oronud for Infant IBaptiisiu. By Mat. Hillsman, with valuable extracts from the long suiipressed work uf John Milton, poet. Pp. 119, price 25 cents. << Baptism of Jesus." By N. M. Crawford, Mercer University, Ga. Price 10 cents by mail. '^Aphesis Aniartioon ;" or, the Baptism of Repentance for the Kemission of Sins. By N. M. Crawfoku, Mercer University, Ga, This is the ablest and most satisfactory discussion of this subject that the controversy on the remission of sins has yet elicited. Price 10 cents per copy, or $1.00 per dozen. Reasons for Becoming a Baptist. By Wm. L. Slack. With an Essay on Communion, l^iice 10 cents, free of postage. JDesire of all Nations. A Sermon by J. R. Graves. Pp. 83, price 10 cents, free of postage. The H^atchman's Reply; or, the Signs of the Times and the Necessities of the Churches. By J. R. Grates. Pp. 93, price 15 cent^ free of postage. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 017 496 958 9