baptize adult believers who have not been baptized before; and, among the heathen at the present day, every pædo-baptist Missionary walks in the footsteps of the Apostles, baptizing all in every place who "believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." There is therefore no dispute about the duty of our adopting the same course as the first preachers of the Word under the same circumstances; and it is altogether unfair, and only calculated to mislead, to refer us continually to the practice of the first Christians in baptizing believers, as deciding the question of infant baptism against us. Our doctrine and practice upon this point are precisely the same as those of brethren who differ from us; and every example they adduce of this custom, confirms our tenets just as strongly as it does their own. The only question, therefore, to be examined is, the character of the profession on which baptism was administered,-a point of the very first importance in connexion with infant baptism. It will contribute to illustrate the character of this profession, to consider the privileges to which it conducted, and the duties which it imposed. It is clear, then, beyond dispute, that the qualifications which entitled to baptism, also entitled the introduced party to fellowship in all the privileges and ordinances of the Gospel. There were not two degrees of qualification—a lower sufficing for baptism, and a higher necessary for membership. In point of fact baptism was incipient membership; there was but one profession, and no additional process connected with admission. The baptized person was immediately eligible, and his admission forthwith followed as a matter of course, without further inquiry or formality. No profession or qualification was sufficient for adult baptism, which was not equally sufficient for admission to the Supper, and the full fellowship of the Gospel. After the commencement of Apostolic preaching, there is not one recorded instance of a person making a profession of faith such as to qualify him for baptism, and yet to leave him unqualified for membership, and participation of the Lord's Supper. It is our conviction that the extreme parties on both sides of this question are in error.

Passing over the baptism of John and of Jesus previous to His resurrection, from which much argument might

be raised relative to the simple and summary character of their procedure in administering the ordinance during the introductory dispensation, we come at once to Christian baptism as practised by the Apostles. The first great example, which alone may settle for ever the question of qualification, is in Acts ii. 14-41. The sum of the qualification of those three thousand souls, was simply penitent faith in Christ as the Messiah, the Son of God, the Saviour. Beyond this first lesson, this great elementary truth of Christianity, they were taught nothing, and they knew nothing. It was the reception of this truth that constituted discipleship. Submission to baptism was the virtual profession of it, and apparently all that was made or required. There was not a single question put to them either as to their doctrinal views or experience. Not an hour was taken to test and try their sincerity. They were all immediately baptized and added to the Church; their sincerity was tried there, not in an intervening period. Thus discipled, separated from the world by baptism, and added to the Church, there they were taught "to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded." The next great example is in Acts viii. 12-14. Here, too, the qualification for baptism was simply belief of the "things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ." In token of their faith the parties were baptized. Thus they were discipled and constituted a Church of Christ, in which they were to be taught the whole system of truth, and edified by the observance of Gospel ordinances. Profession might not in every case be real, as in that of Simon Magus, but the professors received credit for sincerity till the contrary became manifest. The next example is that of Acts viii. 36-38, in which baptism was administered on the express profession of faith in the great truth that" Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Thus the person was discipled and prepared for the fellowship of a Christian Church. The next instance is that of the Apostle (Acts ix. 18), whose conversion was miraculous, but whose baptism was preceded by belief in the Godhead and Messiahship of Jesus Christ in the usual manner. Thus Paul was discipled, and immediately admitted to the privileges of the Church at Damascus, where he straightway preached Christ to the Jews, "that

He is the Son of God." The next illustration is found in Acts x. 34-48, where Peter preaches to Cornelius and his friends that Jesus "is Lord of all," that He died and rose again. On hearing these facts they believed them, and were immediately baptized. Thus they were discipled, and became fit subjects for spiritual training in Church-fellowship. Then follows the case of Lydia (Acts xv. 13-15). She was "judged faithful to the Lord," and at once baptized. Thus she was discipled. We further have the conversion of the jailor (Acts xvi. 29–34). He heard the truth, believed it, and was baptized. Crispus and "many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized." Finally, Jobn's disciples at Ephesus, hearing of the Lord Jesus, were baptized in His name.

Here, in a very brief history, we have no fewer than nine express instances of the administration of baptism, in all of which the ground of warrant for such administration was the profession of faith in the Godhead and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

66

In the Acts, we repeat, we have no fewer than nine instances of the administration of baptism: 1. at the feast of Pentecost, about ten days after the ascension of Christ. (Acts ii. 37-41.) In this case repentance and faith come by hearing; they were "pricked in their hearts;" and "they that gladly received the word were baptized." 2. At Samaria, where they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ," and "were baptized both men and women (viii. 5-13.) Then followed in succession the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch (viii. 35-39); of the Apostle Paul ( ix. 17, 18); of Cornelius and his friends (x. 42-48); of Lydia (xvi. 13-15); of the Philippian jailor (xvi. 29-34); of Crispus and the Corinthians (xviii. 4-8); and of John's disciples at Ephesus xix. 1-7. One principle uniformly pervades the history

-all that believed were baptized. No adult was baptized who did not profess to believe. The rule was with respect to all adults,-believer's baptism, and believer's baptism alone. It is also clear, beyond all reasonable disputation, that the qualifications which entitled to baptism, also entitled to fellowship in all the other privileges and ordinances of the Gospel. Baptism was not administered to adults on a mere 66 declara

66

tion of willingness to be instructed," but on a profession of faith in the testimony delivered-a faith which, if sincere, both justified and sanctified the sinner who professed it. There is no exception to this representation. In Apostolic times there was no such anomalous description of persons as we frequently read of in some modern Missions' Report which tell of multitudes baptized, and yet not admitted to Church fellowship; and of numbers thus baptized, becoming candidates for membership. Such procedure has no foundation in the Word of God: and it is at utter variance with the example of the Apostles. The three thousand, for example, who, on the day of Pentecost, 'gladly received Peter's word, were baptized;" and "the same day" they were 'added to the Church.” The reality of the profession, made at baptism, was tried in the Church, not in an intervening period between baptism and admission to the Church. This matter is so clear that it is really marvellous it should be doubted! What did Paul preach? He tells us, "Repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ." Whom did he baptize? Such as professed this repentance and that faith, and, among adults, such alone, We have no authority whether at home or abroad, for adopting any other course. We have no warrant to baptize an adult unless he profess" with the heart to believe unto righteousness."

ON PRECEPT AND EXAMPLE.
BY THE EDITOR.

"When you produce your example or precept for females partaking of the Lord's Supper, we will produce ours for infants being baptized; and when you say that you can prove your custom by the clearest reasons and inferences, we reply that we also are ready to do the same in behalf of our custom of baptizing infants."-JERRAM.

Nothing, perhaps, in the history of controversy, was ever more dexterous than the demand, that we shall produce either authority or example for the baptism of the children of believers. This was, in war, just to make a sally where there was most ground to fear an assault, and where such an assault would have been most perilous. Those who practice infant baptism have, in various respects, betrayed the cause, and in none more than in this, that they have been satisfied to act on the defensive when they ought to have become the assailants. The result has been highly

detrimental; its advocates are now in a false position, and are treated as the patrons of error rather than the defendants of truth. They are actually bearded by the demand of a precept for their practice! In administering the seal of the covenant of grace to the children of believers, we are walking in obedience to a law which has been in operation since the days of Abraham. Was it to have been anticipated, that, under these circumstances, we should be called upon to show our authority? Had we demanded a precept or an example in support of the opposite practice, there had been reason, force, and justice in it; as it is there is neither. We stand upon the established order of things, upon immemorial usage; and we are entitled to ask brethren who deviate, a reason for conduct so extraordinary. Is this unfair? What! is explicit authority for relinquishing a practice in things pertaining to God less necessary than explicit authority for commencing one? But we have not commenced a new course; we are only walking in the old paths." It is, therefore, incumbent on the opponent of ancient usage, the breaker of unabrogated law, to show his warrant for proceedure so novel and at variance with analogy. If it be said that baptism is a positive institute, and that such an institute cannot be established by reasoning, but requires express terms of institution to warrant its observance; the reply is, that this is a mere assumption without a particle of proof. The matter stands thus: circumcision was "not of Moses, but of the Fathers;" it originally pertained to a covenant that never decayeth or waxeth old;" and under that covenant children were connected with their parents in the application of the sign and seal. Now, under the Christian dispensation, the covenant is still the same; the character of parties is still the same; the token only is altered; but does this alteration of necessity interfere with its administration to parents and children as aforetime? Is not the fact of the nonrepeal of the law and usage which authorised this, sufficient to set the matter for ever at rest? As things stand, all is harmony and nature; the arrangement is just such as might with the highest reason have been expected. On the supposition that matters were to be continued as formerly, it is diffi cult to see how a precept upon the

66

subject could be necessary; it could be needful only in the event of the violation of established order; otherwise, the baptism of children, as in circumcision, followed that of their parents as a matter of course. To have issued the express institute, or precept, called for, had been more than a work of supererogation, an edict to establish an order of things which had existed throughout all generations. On the supposition that the condition of children was to be changed, the expression of the Divine will was certainly to have been expected, but not otherwise.

The advocates of immersion take very high ground on the subject of Scripture precedent. One writes thus:

66

66

Baptism is a positive institution of Christ, and, agreeably to His infinite wisdom and goodness, He has expressed himself in the most clear and explicit manner respecting both the mode and the subject of it." Very well; what is most clear" requires no further illumination. How much more pliant is language than fact! How easy it were to put a multitude of questions respecting both the subject and the mode, which it would puzzle the wits of a hundred heads to answer! But we are less concerned about the amount of the information than about the immutability of the Scripture rite; for another advocate tells us that, "Such laws admit of no commutation, mutilation, or alteration, of human authority." Very well; let us see how the principle will operate.

One thing is clear; other Gospel institutions are on a perfect level with this of baptism, and of an equally positive nature. Take the institution of Gospel worship. In what order was it to be conducted? How many services were to be held on the Sabbath? What was the law of week-day devotion? Was there any prescribed form of prayer? Any settled mode of public teaching? Did all who preached the Gospel also baptize their converts? if not, who did? If evangelists or itinerant preachers baptized, did they also administer the Supper; or was it confined to ordained pastors? What was the mode of calling and of ordaining pastors, and how were they supported? By what means or method were the missionaries of the day who carried into effect the Lord's last command to spread the Gospel, supported? If it be inconvenient to answer these questions, and

contended that the proper parallel is the Lord's Supper, we have no objection to waive these questions and a multitude beside. Is there, then, such a specification of time, place, posture, persons, form of thanksgiving, mode and matter of address, quality and quantity of bread and wine, as utterly to exclude all uncertainty on these points, and to secure the most perfect uniformity among all who were willing to obey the written Word? Was not the Supper first instituted and the model of it given on a Thursday evening, in an upper room, the company all males, after eating the Passover with unleavened bread and in a reclining posture? Why are not these matters carefully imitated if they possess a binding obligation? What authority have the parties in question for using leavened bread and port wine in the Supper, and for admitting females to it?

The truth is, that there has been much extravagance of thought and expression upon the subject of Scripture precedent in connexion with baptism by immersion. Properly understood, it involves a principle of the highest importance, and to the neglect of which is to be attributed the whole mass of Papal abomination. The following are samples of the general language which is held by those who contend for immersion: "To go beyond or come short of what is expressly noted in the Scriptures of truth, with respect to a positive institute, is to set aside the institution itself, and to practice a human rite." It is here assumed or insinuated that everything connected with the positive institutes of Christianity is " expressly noted" in the Scriptures. How contrary is this to truth! How much is left to taste, discretion, and circumstances! Nothing beyond general principles is laid down upon the subject of positive ordinances,

ΟΙ

of Church government. Such

statements as the above are sufficient to expose the cause apart from every consideration. They have led Mr. Thorn to put a series of most perplexing questions, from which we select the following: "What express precept or precedent have our opponents, in the New Testament, for erecting chapels with pews and pulpits, for employing choirs and instruments of music, for singing hymns of human and uninspired composition, and for their particular mode of ministering in holy things?"

So much for going "beyond," now for coming "short" of what is " expressly noted in Scripture." How comes it that the command to wash one another's feet is neglected? (John xiii. 14.) How comes it that prayer over the sick, and the anointing of them in the name of the Lord, is neglected? (James v. 14.) What has become of the kiss of charity, which was once universal? (Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 1 Thess. v. 26; 1 Peter v. 14). Where, too, are the feasts of charity? (Jude v. 12.) How is it that the seventh as well as the first day Sabbath is not observed, as it was by the first disciples? (Luke iv. 16; Acts xvii. 2.) How is it that the general conscience is so seared concerning things strangled, and blood? (Acts xv. 20, 29.) We might enlarge, but let this suffice to expose the absurdity of the rule attempted to be established respecting Scripture precedents.

WARRANT FOR THE EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN.

BY THE EDITOR.

"If children once were received into the Church it remains for those who would now exclude them, to produce their authority for the prohibition."-JERRAM.

We have already seen that the connexion of children with their parents existed of old, and was interwoven with all the thoughts, feelings, and habits of the ancient Church. It was a leading feeling of their families; it was exhibited in the reception of proselytes; it per vaded and characterized the entire style and language of their sacred books. When the prophets speak of New Testament times, they assure, if not actually assert, that the connexion between parents and children shall continue. When the prophetic mind was illumined by the brightest gleams of the latter day glory, it always beheld the children and parents linked in the same covenant bond. The mercies of the parents were always to rest upon "their children after them" (Jer. xxxii. 37—40); their children, and their children's children for ever," (Ezek. xxxvii. 25). This language, too, is used in prospect of the union of the Jews with the Gentiles, in the New Testament Church, so that the terms are descriptive of the state, and privilege, and family connexion of all the subjects of the new covenant, whether Jews or Gentiles. Isaiah, predicting the glory of our dispensation, and the

blessedness of believers, pronounces them "the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them" (Is. lxv. 23). We put it to men of candour, whether these and such passages do not show that the prophets, in anticipating the spiritual times of the New Testament Church, employ language indicating the future continuance of the connexion between parents and children which formerly subsisted. In accordance with this, the language of the New Testament intimates the continuance of the same connexion; and intimates it exactly in such a way as, from the previous state of things, might naturally have been expected. The language and style of these intimations is in perfect accordance with the previous state of things, and precisely such as writers whose minds were habituated to it would naturally use, and such as readers in similar circumstances could understand only in one way. The following Scriptures may be taken as an example-Mark x. 16; Luke xix. 9; Acts ii. 39; xvi. 14, 15, 31, 33; 1 Cor. i. 16; vii. 14. It is not on any one of these texts, taken separately, that we rest our argument; but on the intimation which, when taken together, they so clearly afford, of the continuance of the same state of things as formerly in regard to families. On this supposition alone can the language be accounted for on the natural principles of interpretation.

The argument in behalf of infant baptism, arising from these considerations, possesses such an amount of strength and clearness, that to us, we frankly confess, it seems wholly irresistible. So completely does it overpower our convictions, that we can depart from the immemorial usage, the settled law of the Church of God, only on one condition, viz., an express precept to exclude the children of believers, or a clear and certain example set by the holy Apostles. We demand, respectfully but firmly demand, of brethren who practise differently, and charge us with error, either a plain precept or a clear example. To this we are fully entitled. We, therefore, urge the production of a precept in positive terms to this effect:The connexion between parents and children now ceases-let the infant children of proselytes to the faith of the Gospel be no longer admitted, as formerly, to the sign and seal of the blessings of the covenant of God, inasmuch

as such admission is inconsistent with the spirituality of the new dispensation. Or, show from the Scriptures an instance of a parent receiving baptism while his children were shut out. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance accurately to ascertain the precise ground of Scripture; for the random assertion, which has so abounded on this point, carries with it no authority. An appeal to the word of God will show that on this, as on all other subjects, the truth lies in the middle.

THE MODE OF BAPTISM.

BY THE EDITOR.

"Being myself thoroughly convinced that the significance and appropriateness of the rite arise from the cleansing nature of the element employed, and not from the mode of its application, I am disposed to consider the mode as of comparatively inferior importance."-WARDLAW.

The ordinance of baptism properly consists in the application of water as the emblem of the purifying influence of the Spirit of truth; and it can, therefore, be administered only by applying the water to the person, or the person to the water:-the former is denominated pouring or sprinkling, the latter, immersion or plunging. Our object is to show that the former is the baptism instituted in the Scriptures. Pædobaptists often speak inconsiderately concerning the mode, and affect to view it as of very small importance. Such conduct is wrong in principle, and attended with mischievous consequences; for in proportion as it has been neglected on the one hand, its importance has been exaggerated on the other. A concomitant of this extravagance has been the introduction of certain most erroneous notions respecting the true character and design of the ordinance. These nations in their turn have led to change in the original inode, and encumbered and obscured the institution by a mass of superstitious absurdities.

Misgivings have arisen in the minds of believers at times as to the sufficiency of pouring or sprinkling; but these may be at once removed by resorting to the Scriptures. In them, the word to sprinkle is frequently used as synonymous with terms expressive of entire and universal purification. It is a word of a power equivalent to wash (Heb. x. 22); to sanctify (Heb. ix. 13); to purge (Heb. ix. 21-22); and to cleanse (Ezek. xxxvi. 23). Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and

66