3. On the mode, it is objected 'That it is more troublesome, and inconvenient than the usual mode of sprinkling ; and quite a cross to submit to it.'

Answer. I admit this, as certainly the feeling of human nature : but, I beg to inquire, Is the trouble and inconvenience too great, and the crose too heavy to be borne, if I-have proved that Christ sanctioned that mode by his command and his example? Who, as a Christian, if present on the banks of Jordan when Christ was baptized, would refuse or object to be the next person to be baptized after Christ, and in the same way? And if then, when the Holy Spirit was visibly descending, and the Father's voice was heard, you would cheerfully have entered the streams of Jordan, is not the ordinance the same now, equally binding, endearing, and as much under the eye and the blessing of heaven? Without doubt: and surely your Redeemer has done enough, and suffered enough for sinners, to entitle him to this act of obedience from them, supposing it does give them a measure of trouble, and inconvenience, and a cross to bear after him. Hear his own words, -"He that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me." Matt. x. 38.

4. But, it is added, The quantity of water can matter nothing; any more than the quantity of wine or bread in the Lord's supper.'

Answer. This is granted, providing only there be a sufficient quantity to fulfil Christ's command. It is not the quantity that is contended for, but a conformity to the pattern of Christ; and any departure from that pattern renders the act no longer an act of obedience to him.

5. But, objects another, I have, I hope, received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, which is the thing signified; and I do not see the necessity of submitting to this rite, as it cannot take away sin, or do me any good.'

Answer. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is made, by the apostle Peter, the very reason why those that received it should receive this ordinance" Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which HAVE RECEIVED the Holy Ghost as well as we ?" (See p. 35.) And as to the good the ordinance can do, and its inability to take away sin, I again refer to him who had no sin to take away, and needed no good from religious services, yet travelled a long journey 'to be baptized,' and silenced every objection against it by affirming "Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."

tection. The second of these things was, "THAT YE GIVE CHRISTENDOME TO CHILDREN," i. e. that they should baptize them: good proof that they did not do sc before. And it is known that Pope Gregory, above referred to, decreed as follows --"Let all young children be baptized, as they ought to be, according to the tradi tions of the Fathers." What an evidence is this of the omission of infant bap tism, and the kind of authority by which it was authorized and urged! See Ivimey's Hist. of the English Baptists, Vol. I. pp. 42-45.

The reader should also be informed, that infant communion began about the same time as infant baptism, and attended it till about A. D. 1000. It was administered for the same reason, i. e. on account of its saving efficacy. In the East i Is still continued.

II. REASONS FOR THE BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS ONLY.

1. Because I am quite SURE that I have plain SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY for believers' baptism; but to authorize the baptism of infants not a word, in inspiration, is to be found.

2. Because the baptism of believers is in harmony with the doctrines of the gospel, and the nature of Christ's kingdom, which is not of this world,' but spiritual, and extends no further amongst men than FAITH and Christian experience extend. John i. 11-13.

3. Because baptism, being an act of obedience to Christ, must have Christ's command, or authority; the baptism of believers only has this; (see p. 26.) "Can that be obedience," inquires Mr. Baxter, "which hath no command? Who knows what will please God but himself: and has he not told us what he expects from us?"

4. Because the doctrine of infant baptism, namely, 'that children by it are brought into the covenant of grace, which is the covenant of redemption, or 'the benefits of that covenant sealed to them,' is opposed to all the leading doctrines of the gospel, whether according to the views of Arminians or Calvinists. What, in this case, becomes of the doctrine of God's Election? of the necessity of Repentance? of the New Birth? of Conversion? of Faith in Christ? and of Justification through Faith? &c. &c. All these are superseded by baptism, if the above doctrine be true.

5. Because of the dangerous practical tendency of infant baptism. If children, advancing into life, believe the above doctrine, they are likely to rest satisfied in the benefits sealed,' and without any further concern, without faith or piety, live in the hypocrite's hope, and perish with a lie in their right hand!'

6. Because infant baptism goes to unite the world with the church of Christ. Have not the vilest infidels in Christendom received 'the seal of the covenant, and been grafted into the church, the body of Christ?' How grossly absurd! How lamentable, that they should have cause to pour contempt upon Christianity by the errors and follies of its professors!

7. Because I would not have the impression on my mind while in this life, or the remembrance at the Bar of future Judgment, that I had 'reversed' Christ's order, which is the case in infant baptism, (see Simeon, p. 25,) or altered the mode which his wisdom ordained; preferring to follow my SAVIOUR's plain and endeared example, and to abide by his sacred and authoritative instructions.

FINAL ADDRESS TO THE READER.

I WILL now imagine that you, my reader, are convinced that I have the truth with me on this subject: allow me, then, in behalf of CHRIST, to exhort you practically to attend to this sacred institution. Do you H

VOL. II.-12

ask, What is prerequisite to baptism? I answer, these three things : (1.) To see and feel that you are a sinner, and need the remission of sins, Acts ii. 38. (2.) That you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and rely on him as your only Saviour, Acts viii. 37. (3.) That you feel willing to forsake all ungodliness, and to devote your future life to the service and glory of your REDEEMER; willing, and not ashamed, to put on CHRIST, and follow him to the skies. Rom. vi. 4; Gal. iii. 27.

66

If these things are found in you, and you are convinced of the will of CHRIST, delay not doing his will. If ye love me, (said he,) keep my commandments." Do not entertain frivolous excuses.

1. Do not say 'you are too young.' At twelve years of age your Lord appeared in public, doing the will of his Father; if you have reached that age, it is high time to commence a life of dedication to Christ. Go, youthful reader, and follow the Lamb in the morning of life. Who knows but your sun may go down at noon! His promise is, "They that seek me early shall find me."

2. Do not say 'you are too old.' If you have far exceeded the age above mentioned, and yet hear the Saviour's voice, follow me,' you are not too old to obey his endeared and binding commands.

3. Do not say 'what good can it do you?' Behold your Lord entering the waters of Jordan! Are you wiser or better than he? Beware that you reflect not on his wisdom.

4. Does the ordinance appear a cross to you? and especially so, as it is something that does not fall in with the taste and fancy of the world? Thank God for that. Christ never intended his religion, or his ordinances, to suit the fancies of unregenerate men; and the more objectionable this ordinance is to such persons, so much more effectual is it as a line of demarcation between the world and his church, as the Lord Jesus intended. And as to the cross,-do you think it is too heavy? Behold him passing through the baptism of his inconceivable sufferings for you! Behold him carrying the cross upon which he was suspended for many hours; and thereon, by his dying pains, working out eternal redemption for you! And will you, turning from these unparalleled scenes, say the cross of baptism is too heavy for you!' Impossible, if you feel aright.

To bear his name-His cross to bear,

Our highest honor this!

Who nobly suffers now for him,
Shall reign with him in bliss.

APPENDIX, PART IV.

NOTE ON 1 COR. VII. 14, PREPARED BY JOHN L. DAGG, LATE PASTOR OF THE FIFTH BAPTIST CHURCH, PHILADELPHIA, APPROVED AND PUBLISHED BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE BAPTIST GENERAL TRACT SOCIETY.

In the controversy about infant baptism it is agreed on both sides, that none should be baptized but those who have a scriptural right to the ordinance. It is moreover agreed, that all believers have a scriptural right. The issue of the controversy depends therefore upon the decision of this point. Do the holy Scriptures any where allow the right of being baptized to some who cannot claim it as believers, namely, the unbelieving infant children of a believer? In conducting the controversy to its issue, the Pædobaptists, who affirm that such infants have this right from Scripture, are bound to prove their affirmation. By no rule of fair reasoning are the Baptists bound to prove the negative. Nevertheless the negative can be proved; and, strange as it may seem, it can be proved by this very text, which has been so frequently and so confidently urged in support of the Pædobaptist cause, and has been relied on by many as the chief pillar of that cause. The word of God is the sword of the Spirit, with which truth may at all times successfully defend herself; but error, awkward and imbecile, is in danger of committing suicide, when essaying to use this effective weapon.

Before we proceed to prove what has just been proposed, it may be necessary to admonish the reader that if, in his judgment, we should fail in our attempt, still our cause will have lost nothing. The laws of controversy do not require us to explain this text. We can readily prove that the doctrine of infant baptism is not in it; and when we have done this, nothing more can be demanded of us. A Pædobaptist might adduce Rev. xiii. 18, to prove his doctrine, and then call upon us to explain the mystery of this text, laugh at our attempts, and triumph at our failures, as if his cause were thereby established: yet every one would perceive his triumph to be vain, and that a text does not prove infant baptism merely because we cannot explain it.

Although Pædobaptists have generally agreed in suppos

ing, that the holiness of the children mentioned in this text (1 Cor. vii. 14) refers to church membership, and expresses either the fact of their having been baptized or their right to that ordinance; yet they have differed considerably in their attempts to adjust the other parts of the verse to this sense. The truth is, that no such adjustment is possible. If holiness means a right to baptism, then the unbelieving parent, who is expressly said to be sanctified or holy, ought to be baptized as well as his children. It is therefore doing violence to the passage to press it into the cause of infant baptism. According to the plan of our author, the testimony of a pædobaptist writer shall be given on this point.

MACKNIGHT. "Our translators seem here to have understood the terms sanctified, unclean, and holy, in a federal sense, which, indeed, is the common opinion. But, first, it is not true in a federal sense, that the unbelieving party in a marriage is sanctified by the believing party; for, evidently, no one hath a right to the blessings of the gospel covenant by the faith of those to whom they are married. In the second place, it is as little true, that the children, procreated between believing and unbelieving parents, become unclean by the separation of the parents, and clean by their continuing together, as the apostle asserts, if by unclean we understand exclusion from the covenant, and by clean, admission into it. For the title which children have to be members of the covenant, depends not on their parents living together, but on the faith of the believing parent."

Note, in loc.

Baptists have generally coincided with Mr. Pengilly, in the interpretation which he has given of this text. Much respect is due to it, because it has obtained the general suffrage of our learned men, and also of learned Pædobaptists, as he has shown by quotations from their writings. Yet against this interpretation the following objections may be urged. -1. Lawfully begotten is, to say the least, an unusual sense of the term holy. 2. The unlawfulness of matrimonial converse, after the conversion of one parent, would not prove that the children, before that event, had been unlawfully begotten. 3. Nor is it clear that it would prove this with respect even to the younger children, since such converse might be unlawful as against ceremonial purity,