^ PEINCETON, N. J. -^^ Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. AgJieiv Coll. on Baptism, No. "Soo^ (/" O-'i^ /)'-^*-7 ^ tr-f ^^h^uJ 7/\Hy l^.^'^/^y■ty^. WHAT IS BAPTISM? THE SUBSTANCE OF A SERMON PREACHED MAY 27, 1838, BY THE REV. M0RTL0Ck1)ANIELL, MINISTER AT BEULAH CHAPEL, KAMSGATE. " It cannot be proved, by the sacred Scriptures, that Infant Baptism was instituted by Christ." Luther. '"■ There is no express precept, or rule, given in the New Testament, for the baptism of Infants." BiSHOP Burnet. LONDON: T. GARDINER & SON, 20, PRINCES STREET, CAVENDISH SQUARE. M.DCCC.XXXVIII. WHAT IS BAPTISM? On this occasion, it is not my intention to confine my- self to any specific text ; and I know not any passage of Holy Scripture that would censure me, if this were my uniform practice — so that I need offer no apology for the course I now pursue. My subject will be Baptism; and in its discussion, there are two extremes which I would studiously avoid. On the one hand, I would censure that spirit of liberal- ism that allows the disciple to be his own Lord and Mas- ter, suffering him to neglect and regard just what ordinan- ces he may choose, and conceding to him the right of accommodating the institutions of Christ to his personal preferences. On the other hand, I would equally op- pose that despicable dogmatism, that supposes all ex- cellency to be comprehended in its own party, or to be confined to its own peculiar denomination. I gladly acknowledge that many, who differ from me, both in sentiment and practice, on the rite of Baptism, are among the excellent of the earth, and the feelings of Christian esteem, which I bear towards them, inspire me with a solicitude that they should be guided into all truth. Nevertheless, neither the charity, nor the humility, nor the longsufFering of the Gospel, require me, on ac- count of my love to them, to shrink from the defence of an ordinance which I deem to be scriptural and impor- tant, or from the mild and yet firm exposure of human inventions and innovations which I consider injurious and fatal — If the traditions of men subvert the institu- tions of Christ, the Head of the church is offended, and the church herself is deluded. Whether, my hearers, you concur with me, or not, I unreservedly affirm, as the result of my observation, so far as it has extended, that, notwithstanding the march of Christianity through the length and breadth of the land ; notwithstanding the rapid strides of Evangelicism, and the increased observance of the external forms of Godliness, there never was a day when primitive 'disci- pline was more outraged — when the practical part of the New Testament was more slighted — when free grace doctrines and inspired examples were more invaded. Of course I do not include those times when the man of sin exchanged the realities of truth, for the mummeries of su- perstition, and made himself drunk with the blood of the martyred saints — but 1 refer to those days wherein Pro- testantism has secured to us the blessed majesty of free- dom, and left us, unmolested by our enemies, to enjoy and circulate her glory. And looking back, through the remembrancer of History, I invariably find, the longer the calm, the more lazy the crew, and the louder the storm the more persevering the ship — and as our sea has been so long becalmed, as the surface of the waters has so long been smooth, as our prospects have been so long peaceful, as our sky has so long exhibited an almost cloudless azure, it is to this I attribute that lamentable deficiency in primitive observances of which I complain. Do not suppose that I am here this evening, mantled in the trappings of controversy, to espouse, with a tone of infallibility, or with the partial and misguided zeal of the bigot, one system of man, against another system of man, one ordinance of human election against ano- ther ordinance of human election, one w/jinspired rite, against another uninspired rite — No, this would simply be the will of man against the will of man, the word of man against the word of man, human opinion and preference against human opinion and preference, and consequently it would be altogether unimportant at what conclusion you might arrive, or whether you de- termined to espouse the system advocated either by A or by B. But I am here with the word of truth — with the power of God — with the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left — and I beseech you with all pure- ness, meekness, and love unfeigned, not to listen to the uncertain voice of transient popularity, not to be awed by the force of fashion, custom, or prejudice, not to be regulated by the modern usage of the Church of England, neither by our word, by our creed, or by our party — but only by this Bible. Covet neither the names Episcopalian, Independent, Methodist, nor Baptist, for the sake of a name or a sect; these are only names written in the sands of time, which the rolling flood of eternity will efface — but covet earnestly that unreserved and uneclipsed obedience to Christ, which his love to you so richly deserves, and which his autho- rity so clearly demands. I. BAPTISM IS AN ORDINANCE WHICH JESUS CHRIST HAS DIGNIFIED BY HIS OWN EXAMPLE. In the third Chapter of St. Matthew, and from the thirteenth verse, it is thus written : " Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan, unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad hini;, saying I have need to be bap- tized of Thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering, said unto him, Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered liim. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water : and lo the heavens vv^ere opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descend- ing like a dove, and lighting upon him : and lo a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." There can therefore be no controversy vjiiether Jesus Christ was baptized or not, or whether he was immersed or sprinkled. Divine revelation assures he was baptized, and common sense decides, if he had only been sprink- led, he would not have deemed it necessary to descend into the river. Had we no other portion of the New Testament to sustain our proposition, this would be suf- ficient to testify, firstly, the fact of our Lord's Baptism ; and, secondly, that the mode of his baptism was immersion. But more of the mode hereafter. Mark i. chapter, 9. — 11 verses, and Luke iii. chapter, 21 verse, (passages to which time will not allow me to refer) are additional testimonies of our Saviour's baptism — and T need oiily observe, although the brief account given by the three Evangelists varies, in the form of its narration, all unite in assuring us of the same interesting facts. Now the reason I have introduced this as the first proposition, is because I always feel happy and safe in the company of my Saviour, and when I am sure I am treading in the track he has trodden before me, I think I have nothing to fear — If I am told the popular voice is against me, I reply, the popular voice was against my Redeemer, and I would rather be in the minority, with the example of Jesus to sustain me, than in an overwhelming majority without one scriptural precept or precedent to sanction me. Remember, therefore, if you are ashamed of adult Bap- tism — if you term it either indelicate or superfluous — you are not only opposing yourself to primitive discipline, but to the example of Christ himself — and you con- sequently infer that Jesus in pursuing such a ceremony espoused it without necessity. Your objections are not confined to those who practise, but they extend to him who instituted the rite. You leave yourselves only these two alternatives, from which you must choose one ; either that Christ's example was superfluous, or that your non-conformity is censurable. II. BAPTISM IS AN ORDINANCE OF PERPETUAL OBLIGATION. That this ordinance was not confined to Jesus Christ, or restricted to believers in that age, is evident from the commission which our Lord gave to his disciples after his resurrection. And, surely, if there be any " thoughts that breathe, and words that burn" — if there be any language v emphatic, moving the mind of the christian into willing compliance, it should be ' the language of Him, who having just conquered Satan, and overcome the bitterness of death, before he ascended to the right-hand of the Majesty on high, commanded the continuance of certain ordinances until the period of his second advent. In the xxviii chapter of St. Matthew, and the 19 and 20 verses, it is written — " 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 obseryc all things whatsoever I have commanded you 8 and lo I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." And in the xvi chapter of St. Mark, and the 15 and 16 verses, we have words to the same effect : " Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is bap- tized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. It is apparent the commission extends to all na- tions, and in all ages, to the termination of this dispensa- tion — and as our Saviour, so intimately connects "believing" and " baptizing" there cannot be the shadow of a doubt, but that he intended the union to be maintained inviolate to the end of the world. As though the eye of Jesus, looking through succeeding centuries, had pre-pictured, when the north should give up, when the south should no longer keep back, when the east and the west should surrender themselves to his commands, through a super- natural influence and change — Or as though he had pre- conceived the day when Britain should no more be the neglected desert for the prowling of the savage quadru- ped, but an Island for the cultivation of the trees of his right hand planting, and an enclosure for a great propor- tion of his redeemed ones to observe his institutions. And you will remark, there is no parenthesis in our Lord's injunction, making a distinction between an eastern and western climate, as though any thing were to be feared from the chill of an element — Or between the polished and unpolished condition of men — between the servant and the master — between the classic and the rustic — as though what were propriety in the one, would be impropriety in the other. On the contrary there is but one clear, definite, and unrepealed law, which is of per- petual obligation among Christians, without any reference whatever either to clime, rank, wealth, beauty, sex, or age. My brethren, let me ask you, is it compatible vnfli tlio wisdom of our Divine Redeemer to suppose that he 'sen-' joined ordinances upon his followers, without at the samt^», time contemplating difference of climate, and station, or the disparity between the uncultivated and the refined ? And surely if these foreseen and foreknown discrepancies, had rendered any exception or alteration expedient, such an one would have been appendaged by him, who is justly jealous of his prerogative, as Lawgiver to'his people. And let me assure you, that refinement which perceives indelicacy where Jesus Christ perceives none, is a false refinement, originating in the depravity of the mind that contemplates it. And that penetration which fancies it discerns superfluity, where Jesus Christ discerns none, is a false penetration, originating in the partial blindness of the eye that discovers it. And that inference, which infers something from the commands of Christ, which boldly invades those commands, is a false inference, origi- nating in the ignorance of him who espouses it. Refine- ment, Superfluity, and Inference are formidable weapons in the estimation of the misled Giant, Error ; but Truth enters the field with simply her sling and stone, and at the very outset of the conflict the Giant — Error falls — " Truth fears nothing but concealment." Inasmuch then as the preaching of the Gospel, and the baptizing of Believers, are both included in the same com- mission — inasmuch as the perpetuity of both, is expressed in the same language — if there be a plea for the abolition of the latter, the same plea will suffice for the abroga- tion of the former — For if Jesus Christ has told his Ministers to preach and baptize, to the end of the world, certainly the ordinance of baptism is so interlinked with the preaching of the Gospel, that to divide them B 10 is to divide the commands of Christ. Consequently no- thing can be scripturally adduced, as a reason for the re- peal of the rite of Baptism — which may not be as scrip- turally urged as a reason for the suspension of the Gospel. III. BAPTISM IS AN ORDINANCE RESTRICTED TO BELIEVERS. The restriction of the ordinance is as conspicuous as its perpetuity — and is embodied in the commission we have already quoted — " Go ye forth, and teach all na- tions, baptizing them" &-c. You will perceive the features of discipleship were to precede the administration of bap- tism ; as though Christ had said, first teach them, and then baptize them, and then continue to teach them all things whatsoever I have commanded you. This appears to me a consistent paraphrase — but if any individual should deem it inconclusive, I am prepared to defend it with the whole artillery of Revelation — and I shall therefore refer you to the following passages. Acts, il Chap. 37 — 41 verses — " Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter, and to the rest of the Apostles — 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 (not universalis/) and to all that are afar off (not universally) even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized, and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." From this account, it ap- pears, the ordinance of baptism, was restricted to those who were ^' pricked in their hearts,'' who *' repented," and " gladly received" the Gospel— and not indiscriminately administered to the multitude. 11 Ads viii Cliap. 35 — 39 verses—'' Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water : and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized ? And Phihp said, If thou believest with all thine heart TH013 MAYEST. And he answered and said, I beheve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still : and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him." Now just remember the question proposed by the eunuch, " See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized ?" and the reply of Philip, " If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." Plainly intimating if he were an unbeliever, if he had no faith, or if that faith did not work by love, he was not a proper sub- ject to be baptized. But if he did believe, and that with all his heart, then there was no nnpediment. He was not baptized because he had been a sinner, but because he had become a saint — not because he was within the sound of the Gospel, but because he had received that Gospel in power to the salvation of his soul. Every un- prejudiced reader must perceive that Philip introduced faith to the eunuch, as a condition of baptism, and that had the eunuch disavowed the possession of such a prin- ciple, he could not have been conducted into this ordi- nance of Christianity. Acts viii Chap. 12, 13 verses — " But lohen they believed Phihp, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also : and when he was baptized he continued with Philij), and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were IS done." From this passage, you perceive that the very people of Samaria, who had been bewitched by the sor- ceries of Simon, were convinced under the preaching of Philip, and believed in the name of Jesus — and as be- lievers were baptized. Simon finding that his artifices would no longer succeed, and that he could not en- rich himself by the continuance of his impositions, pro- fessed to believe also, and upon that profession was bapti- zed. It was soon discernible that he was insincere, that he had been actuated by carnal motives, and had only put on an external garb of religion as the most likely plan to deceive the peo])le. Thus Peter plainly told him, his heart was not right in the sight of God, that he was in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. You cannot however fail to discern that a jnofession of faith was the forerunner of his baptism, and had he not assu- med the character of '^ believer' he would have found no admission into the Church of Christ. Philip received him into fellowship, just as our Lord received Judas, simply upon an outward profession — our Lord came not to judge the world, and therefore he did not suspect his motive. — Philip had neither the prerogative nor the ability to search the heart, and therefore was bound to receive Simon upon his verbal testimony. Had he known his real character he would not have baptized him. Acts X Chap. 47 verse. — '' Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." It appears from the context, that while Peter was speaking to them, the Holy Ghost fell upon them, and so sx)on as they magnified God, and gave evidence of their faith in Christ, notwithstanding they were Gentiles^ 13 the believing Jews hailed them as believing brethren, and introduced them to the ordinances they estemed. Peter pleaded before his Jewish brethren the fact of the Gentiles having received the Holy Ghost, as a qualifica- tion for their participation in spiritual institutions. Now I appeal to your candour, whether the passages to which I have referred you do not authorize me to affirm that baptism is an ordinance restricted to believers, inasmuch as the discipline observed by the Apostles involved such a principle, and since that period, no extension of the rite has been authorized by Jesus Christ ? Nor does the fact of the baptism of a household at all militate against the restriction of the ordinance to be- lievers, but rather confirms it — You read of three baptized households in the New Testament — that of the jailor — that of Stephanas — that of Lydia Concerning that of the Jailor, we are expressly told they were all believers — that they were all preached unto— and that they were all baptized. In the xvi chapter of Acts and 32 verse we find that Paul and Silas spake to all that were in his house — in the 33 verse we find, he and all his were bap- tized straightway — and in the 34 verse we find, he re- joiced, believing in God with all his house. And thus it is evident the faith was as universal as the baptism — and if you suppose there were infants in this household, you must at least admit they were believers, or, if you say, they had no faith, consistency requires you to add, they w ere not aptized — But revelation assures us that all in the house heard the gospel, that all in the house be- lieved, that all in the house were baptized — and there- fore we conclude it contained neither infants, nor little children. Concerning the household of Stephanas, baptized by 14 St. Paul, it is fair to infer they were all members of the church at Corinth, for the Apostle, when he men- tions the household of Stephanas is enumerating those whom he had bajDtized there, and who were connected with that church, otherwise there would have been no force or propriety in mentioning such names — but if there were any doubt on the subject, as to whether they were all believers, it is removed in the xvi chapter of the same epistle and 15 verse, where the Apostle says " Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that thev have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." I ask you whether such a household must not consist of persons who had arrived at years of discretion — persons who were renewed in the spirit of their minds — persons who were taught by the Holy Ghost, or how could they have been the first fruits of Achaia, or have possessed a disposition to minister to the Baints ? Their labor of love is a proof of their personal faith. Concerning the household of Lydia, Scripture is silent — but who is prepared to prove she was married ? Or if married, who is prepared to prove she had children? Or if she had children, who is prepared to prove they were not believers? Now these things must be proved before the Psedo-Baptist can fairly infer a precedent for his practice. He must prove that Lydia was married — he must prove that she had children — he must prove that one was in a stage of infancy — three things which he can 7iever prove — before he can plead the household of Lydia in defence of his system. The fact of the household being designated Lydia's is almost an assurance that she had no husband, for it is a well known truth, that 15 the household is not denominated after the wife but af- ter the husband. Thus upon a review of the three households, we find that two of them are described as households of be- lievers. And as regards the third, both the analogy of Scripture, and the narrative itself are on our side. Who indeed would draw an inference from the silence of Scripture, that should contravene its own declarations? Or who would plead for an ordinance upon premises so questionable ? Happily for us the ordinances of Christianity are not left to human inference or conjec- ture, but are explicitly prescribed by Jesus Christ. And is there any thing preposterous or unlikely, in the supposition of three households being destitute of infants and children ? When I look at this assembly, I immediately recognize three, and more than three households, in which there is neither infant nor child. And if I can pereive in this congregation several house- holds, all of whose members have arrived at years of dis- cretion, is it at all improbable that two should have been found at Thyatira, and one at Corinth ? When how- ever I find my brethren, the Paedo- Baptists, venturing upon so sandy a foundation, I can only conclude they would occupy premises more solid, if they could disco- ver them. So that the weakness of their argument proves it erroneous. It is highly inconsistent to suppose that carnal persons can have any scriptural interest in the ordinances of Christ. A vital union must precede communion with him, and the new heart must be the invariable qualifi- cation to spiritual obedience — The Jewish church recog- nized, in its very constitution, the membership of carnal persons ; it did not make a distinction between those born 16 after the flesh, and those born after tlie spirit. There was no law to exclude the Pharisee, or even the Sad- ducee, although their doctrines and practices were con- demned. But the church of Christ under this dispen- sation, corrupts not herself by receiving such persons as are carnal, and provides for their exclusion if they creep in unawares. You must not suppose the discipline of the Jewish Church is the pattern for the discipline of the church of Christ. If it be, why do we read, or speak of a 7iew dis- j)ensation ? If the ceremonies and customs of the Jews are our examples, then I contend it is not a 7iew dis- pensation, but the old dispensation remodelled and amended. And when believing Gentiles, incline at all towards the errors of the unhelievmg Jews, by con- sulting the Old Testament instead of the New, then like the wwbelieving Jews, their conclusions are mis- taken. Under the old dispensation, the Church was na- tional — under this dispensation, we are told, " there is neither Jew nor Greek" — under the old dispensation the ceremonies of the church, many of them involved a sexual distinction — under this dispensation, we learn " there is neither male nor female" — under the old dispensa- tion, to be born of Jewish parents entitled such an one to admission into the church— but under this dispensa- tion, the only scriptural basis of entrance is to be born of God ! On this point the Apostle writes expressly (2 Cor. vi ch. 14 ver.) " Be ye not unequally yoked together with un- believers : for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? 17 Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel ; — # # # Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you &c." Such passages as these, frequently found in the New Testament, plainly demonstrate that the church of Christ is not national but spiritual — and spiritual persons, having only been re- ceived into the church in the days of the Apostles, as the dispensation is not changed, neither blended with the one that preceded it, all carnal persons should be denied, having no principle of faith, nor fitness for com- munion. IV. BAPTISM, AN ORDINANCE ONLY DULY ADMINISTERED BY IMMERSION. As regards the etymology of the word baptize, I shall not occupy our time with any extended observations — but simply remark that the learned Parkhurst, who was a judicious and consistent Episcopalian, and whose me- mory is endeared by his critical research and attain- ments, tells us that Baptizo signifies to dip, to immerse to plunge — to wash the hands by immersion, or by dip- ping them in water — nor does he, though a churchman, add — to sprinkle. His consistency led him to perceive and record the distinction between baptizo to baptize or immerse, and rantizo to sprinkle. And if you consult the form of the church of Eng- land, you will find the Priest has instructions to dip " the child in the water discreetly and warily." and there- fore it is obvious every time the Episcopalian sprinkles an Infant, he not only does violence to the meaning of the word baptizo, as Parkhurst admits, but also departs from the precepts of his own Church. In all the old 18 churches, you find large fonts which are sufficiently ca- pacious to immerse an infant, and which according to the laws of the Church of England, should be ^'filled with pure water" when the ordinance is administered — so that a minister in the establishment, in sprinkling a child, runs counter to the instructions contained in his own book of prayer. Here it may not be amiss to read you a quotation which I have penned from the cele- brated Episcopalian, Whitby — " Immersion being religi- ously observed by all christians for Thirteen Cen- turies, and approved by our church, and the change of it into sprinkling, even without any allowance from the Author of this institution, or any licence from any council of the church, being that which the Romanist still urgeth to justify his refusal of the cup to the laity ; it were to be wished that this custom might be again of general use, and sprinkling only permitted, as of old, ir> case of the clinici, or in dang-er of death." Consulting the New Testament, we find immersion was the only mode of administration — Why did Jesus go into the river Jordan, if immersion were unnecessary ? Why was John ^baptizing in Enon, near to Salem, because there was much water there, if much water were super- fluous ? Why did the eunuch descend from the chariot,, and go down into the water, if immersion were not the mode ? If baptism had not been by immersion, there can be no adequate reason assigned for the custom of repair- ing to the rivers. Can sober judgement or common sense suppose, if a cup full of water would have sufficed for baptism, the multitudes would have acted as they did? And when Paul speaks of being buried with Christ by baptism into death ; we ask, what accuracy, or what em- 19 pfiasis in the expression, if baptism were not by immersion ? If the rite were performed by sprinkling, could it be called a burial ? How can that be buried or covered that is not immersed ? Obviously, therefore, immersion was the mode, and as no inspired authority has instituted a change immersion is the mode, and will he the mode to the world's end. And if, my brethren, you ask me why I contend so strenuously for the mode, as though it were so essential, I reply, because the mode is the ordinance, and cannot be separated from it. If you immerse you baptize, if you sprinkle, you do not baptize at all — and therefore if I give up the mode of immersion, I, at the same time, give up the ordinance itself. Moreover I maintain that bap- tism is not an unmeaning ceremony — that it has an in- teresting signification — 'that it sets forth the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the candidate's fellowship with him, and interest in all the benefits of his humiliation. Now if there be no immersion, the ideas of death, burial, and resurrection are entirely ob- scured, as in the act of sprinkling, neither the one nor the other is signified— so that you will dome the justice to acknowledge, I am not pleading for a certain form simply as a form, but as a form which so implicates the ordinance itself, as to destroy its spiritual signification, if it be effaced or altered. Baptism, duly administered, points us to the baptism of Jesus' suffering — to the baptism of blood — to all that is affecting and yet animating — but when sprinkling is sub- stituted, the ceremony is without signification. If you could retain the thing signified, in the alteration of the mode, the alteration of the mode would not be so fatal; but even then, it would be inadmissible, as wc have no 20 discretionary' power in the administration of Christ's insti- tutions. But inasmuch as to vary the mode, is to remove all that is endearing, and instructing, and significant from the ordinance, it need not be wondered that I lay such an emphasis upon the act of immersion. Having thus briefly referred to the radical import of baptism — to the mode adopted by the Estabhshed Church for more than one thousand three hundred years — to the spiritual signification of the institution, all conspire to lend their support to immersion as the only mode by which baptism is duly administered. To regard a rite without any signification can' be neither scriptural nor profitable. In the ordinance of the Supper, through the elements, we contemplate the body and blood of Jesus Christ — and in the ordinance of Baptism, through the form^ we contem- plate the death and resurrection of our Redeemer — but we affirm, so soon as the mode of administering baptism is invaded by sprinkling, so soon the signification of the ceremony is expunged — and therefore our Paedo-Baptist brethren implicate themselves in a form which is not only without biblical precedent, but without any reasonable import ! V. BAPTISM AN ORDINANCE ENTIRELY AT VARIANCE WITH INFANT SPRINKLING. Our subject is too often passed by with such inconsis- tent utterances as these : — '* it is immaterial whether we are baptized or sprinkled," or, •* baptism and sprinkling may both be right" — or "do not let us be too particular about trifles !" — Trifles ! who dares to designate these institutions of Christ, trifles ! Surely the practise of the primitives maintains the contrary. My brethren, if there be an im- portant diflerencc between truth and error, if there be an 21 important difference between a Divine command, and a human invention — then there must be an important dif- ference between the baptism of believers, and the sprink- ling of infants. Infant sprinkling is not to be found in the New Testa- ment. If you can find only one passage of Scripture di- rectly commanding, or fairly inferring, the sprinkling of infants, I will concede the point immediately. If it were the command of Christ, or the practice of the Apostles, snrely it is to be found in the inspired page. Search the scriptures, in a spirit of prayer, and if you find infant sprinkling, believe it ; but if you cannot find it, believe it not. It is true, we read, that Jesus said '' Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." But we are not told that he sprinkled them, or 'gave dii^ections to that effect — nor were they brought unto him for that purpose — but simply, it is said, that he should pray with them. He often alluded to little children, but it was with the intention of com- municating spiritual instruction to his disciples, whom he wished to possess more of an humble, teachable, unsus- pecting and child-like disposition. There is no allusion to baptism in any verse in the chapter — (see Matthew xix ch. 13 verse). Infant sprinkling has no relation whatever to circumcision. If among other explanations which the Apostle gave to the Hebrews, when he endeavoured to shew them the spiritual application of their rites and ceremonies, he had introduced Infant Sprinkling under the new dispensation, as a substitute for circumcision under the old, there would have been no justice in supposing otherwise ; but to say the least, if it be not presumption, it is inconsistent, for mcu to make comparisons, and introduce applications to 22 answer their ends, where the Scripture is altogether silent. But how much greater is that inconsistency, when the Scriptures are not silent, and when human applications positively invalidate what the Scriptures declare ! Now the Scriptures are not silent as to the spiritual import of Circumcision — they do not leave it to the inference of men — but St. Paul tells us, Romans ii chap. 28, 29 ver. " He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh : but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter ; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Hence it appears that the rite of circumcision was a type not of Infant sprinkling, but of Regeneration, according to the words of the same Apostle elsewhere. " We are the true circumcision who worship God in the spirit, who rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh." And elsewhere, ** Circumcision availeth nothing, neither uncircumcision, but a new creature." Now although the Holy Spirit reveals that the regene- ration of the spiritual Israel was the thing signified by the circumcision of the national Israel, human opinion ven- tures to dissent or to append, and in some extraordinary, intrusive, and uninspired way, to deduce the sprinkling of Infants from the ancient ceremony. But here let me affirm, as Holy Scripture reveals no connection whatever between the circumcision of an infant, under the former dispensa- tion, and the sprinkhng of an infant under the present, it is an affinity of human assumption, and consequently unsound. Infant sprinkling brings the world into the church. If the rite of baptism be the admission into the Church of Christ, and this rite be extended to babes born in sin. 23 and shapen in iniquity, fallen and carnal, certainly the church and the world are blended. Baptism should be the manifest line of demarcation between the church and the world, between the renewed and the unrenewed, but the in- troduction of the sprinkling of Infants destroys its efficiency. Surely all who believe the doctrines of the Gospel, must know that religion is not hereditary— that Christianity is not national, or based upon earthly ties — that there is no difference, by nature, between the child of a believer, and the child of an unbeliever. And yet many plead the faith of the parent, or of the Godfather, as available to the infant, and thereby contravene in practice what they admit in sen- timent. Let the parenttrain up the child in the way he should go, but let him not suppose his child can be advantaged by a ceremony, about which the Scriptures are silent, and in which his child is implicated before the develop- ment of intellect or reason. Under this dispensation, all religion is personal — and that good men and women in the nineteenth century, (I say good men and women, for I wish not to impeach their piety, while I condemn'their practice) should promise, in the name of an unconscious babe, that he shall, in youth and manhood, " renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh" — • is a most affecting thought, and a most lamentable proof of the thick darkness that yet overspreads us. That the child should then be signed with the sign of the cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his ban- ner against sin, the world, and the devil, and to continue Christ's faithful soldier and servant unto his life's end" — adds much to the distressing aspect of the scene. But 24 that the minister should then pronounce these words, " Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benehts, and with one accord, make our prayers unto him, that this child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning" is so awful and untrue that I almost tremble to repeat it. I cannot with some pronounce it ridi- culous — it is too affecting for such an adjective — but I could weep over it, as the maximum of a Christian's igno- rance. What means it, my brethren, but the sinful amalgamation of the world with the church — and what is it, but a fruit- less attempt to make the kingdom of Christ co-extensive with the kingdom of intelligence, upon most j/wscriptnral principles ? The Independent may, it is true, justly plead "not guilty" to many censurable parts in the service of the Episcopalian — he dispenses with God-fathers, and God- mothers, with the signing in the form of the cross — nor does he pronounce the sprinkled Infant, regenerate — And if we ask him, why he dispenses with these, he replies, because he finds no mention of them in the Bible. Why not then dispense with the ceremony in toto ? Can he find any part of it in the Bible ? But let the Independent remember, while in compar- ing himself, or rather his ceremony, with that of the Episcopalian, he is not equally inconsistent— neverthe- less like the Episcopalian he substitutes human infer- ence for divine revelation ! He changes the mode of the ordinance, from immersion into sprinkling — he changes the subject of the ordinance from a penitent believer to an unconcious carnal babe — he changes the signification of 25 the ordinance from the interesting' to the unmeaning. And having thus changed both the mode, the subject and the signification, he has lost the primitive ordinance of Christ, in the cloud of human invention and device. Infant sprinkling only tells us a sinner is born — be- liever's baptism tells us a sinner is born again. Infant sprmkling only tells us the nation is increased, behever's baptism tells us the kingdom of Christ is advanced. Infant sprinkling only advertizes an entrance into the world, believer's baptism advertizes an entrance into the church. Infant sprinkling is only a sign of personal depravity —but believer's baptism, is, as the Episcopalian says " an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace" Infant sprinkling is the device of man, believer's baptism is the instittition of Jesus Christ. — Judge then my hearers, whether the one is not at variance with the other, and no lonoer deem it immaterial whether you are decided for Christ, for truth, for Revelation and for Conscience. In conclusion let me ask you, are you a Christian? If you are not a praying penitent, let me entreat you to look to Christ, " whom God hath exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, to grant us repentance and the remission of sins," Remember unless Christ be your Saviour you must be eternally lost. And if you are a Christian, if you have the witness in yourself that you are born of God, let me ask you, have you been baptized ? Do YOU ANSWER, IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL? I reply it is essential to christian consistency, though not essential to christian character. Jesus Christ thought it essential for he instituted nothing superfluous. It is essential to obedience, though not essential to salvation. And do you think it respectful or affectionate to say of Jesus Christ's 26 commands, " they are not essential" ? Are you prepared to tell him so, when you see him face to face ? If not, why tell his minister so? Why neglect them? It is the very essence of Antinomianism to disregard the institu- tions of our Redeemer, because we mav be saved without observing them. Make haste, and delay not, I beseech you, to keep his commandments, for they are not grie- vous but joyous. There is a future judgement for saints as well as for sinners — for the godly as well as the un- godly — therefore aim so to acknowledge the authority of Jesus Christ, that you may not be beaten with many stripes. I repeat the question — Have you been baptized ? — Do you ausive?- you are too advanced in life. — Suffer me to say you are not much advanced in the divine life, if this be your excuse — Can the Believer be too old to be obedient to Christ ? Is age a plea for disobedience ? Is not the promise, " To hoary hairs, I will carry you" ? I love to see the young man, wilhng to put on Christ, in the morning of his days — but how cheering to see the more advanced, and the grey headed, conducted into the path of submission in the evenins; of life, before the heavens open to receive the departing spirit. Your age is the very reason why you should be consistent — your grey hairs should be pledges of your propriety. You that are advan- ced — believing parents leave a good example behind you, for your surviving children — and let not your negligence mislead them, after you are removed from them — but let them have reason to refer to you as their ensaraples in the things of God. So follow Christ, that after your de- parture, you may not be the scape-goat of their non-con- formity. A third lime, I a^k the quest ion, have you heen 27 haptizedl Do you reply — I am not worthy — I am not good enough. Let me inform you, if you had a good opinion of yourself, it would prove you ineligible for the ordinances of Christ — but if you feel yourself a poor, lost, ruined, helpless sinner, and renouncing your own works, are simply looking to Jesus for salvation, and depending entirely upon his blood and righteousness — you are just the Individual, our Lord welcomes into his church. If you tarry, till you have less sins to confess, or till you have some excellency of your own to brmg, you will never come at all. Come then believer in Christ, come to the ordinances he has enjoined ; come and be bap- in water, in submission to him who was baptized in blood for thee — come, and put on Christ, before angels and men — before the world and the church — and instead of longer concealing thy colors, wear them openly and thankfully, deeming it your bounden duty, and your highest privilege to follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. Now unto him that is able to keep you from fall- ing and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy. To the only wise God our Saviour be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. Gardiner & Son, Printers, Princes Street, Caveudish Sfluarc. REVELATION THE SOLE BASIS OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE; BY THE REV. MORTLOCK DANIELL, MINISTER AT BEULAH CHAPEL, RAMSGATE. "JF ANY MAN SPEAK, LET HIM SPEAK AS THE ORACLES OF GOD." LONDON: T. GARDINER & SON, 20, PRINCES STREET, CAVENDISH SQUARE. M.DCCC.XXXVIII. PREFACE. The Mariner expects to make very slow progress, when he ploughs the mighty deep against wind and tide— and the Author of the ensuing pages, steering his little bark against the wind of prejudice and the tide of popularity, feels it im- possible that he can obtain the haven of general acquiescence. Nevertheless there is an energy in Truth which sustains its Advocate, though he should be alone in the field, and which ensures an ultimate conquest, notwithstanding a season of comparative defeat. And indeed were we to be silent on all occasions, when the " vox populi " would not befriend us, unquestionably the Dove of Truth, finding no place for the sole of her foot, must fly back to the arcanum of Heaven, carrying thither the melancholy tidings of an universal dissaftection for her plumage. The Author considers it unnecessary to offer any apology, in entertaining and expressing sentiments, on the subject of Communion, foreign to the opinions and convictions of some of those who have been recognized as '* Authorities" in our churches —inasmuch as others whose writings have been equally esteemed, and whose abilities have been in no respect inferior, coincide with his views. Nothing however, can be more illiberal than the charge of Schism, which the late Rev. Robert Hall adduces against his opponents. It is no more applicable to them, as dissenting from open communion, than it was applicable to him, as dissenting from the Established Church. If a conscientious difference of opinion be schism, then every Christian is a schismatic. And equally unworthy so able a pen, is the assertion, that if we refuse Mwbaptized persons communion at the Lord's Table, to be consistent, we should refuse to pray with them, or to invite them to preach for us, or to unite with us in any spi- 1 itual exercise — This indeed would be schism. On the con- trary, it is our duty and our privilege to co -operate with them as far as we can conscientiously, and as much our duty, though our grief, to cease to co-operate when conscience up- braids. It is easy to affix an import to passages of Holy Scripture, which never was intended by their inspired Author, — and doubtlessly when our Saviour prayed " That they all may be one as thou Father art in me and I in thee" (a quotation made by the late Mr, Hall, in tlie title page of his work) he intend- ed not a unity of sentiment but a unity of spirit. He was not praying against divem/?/, but against division; and the chief design of his supplication was to secure an uninterrupted exhibition of love and holiness, among all his followers. And surely these may predominate, where difference of opinion prevails. A reciprocal affection should characterize the respective sections of the militant church ; and he only is truly a Schismatic who pleads diversity of sentiment as an argument why he should not maintain the unity of the Spirit. We contend, unequivocally, that " one spirit" or " one heart and soul," may and ought to animate every Believer in Christ, notwithstanding an almost endless discrepancy in their apprehensions of Truth. Let each carry out his own creed, but let him not cease to love his brethren. We can easily imagine an Episcopalian, an Independent, and a Baptist, engaged in the same town, as ministers of the Gospel. Each preferring his own denomination, not from sectarian jealousy, but from a conviction that it is most con- sistent. We can further conceive that in many things they see eye to eye, and most comfortably and conscientiously combine their energies. They can pray together, visit the sick together, endeavour to moralize the town together, and speak of many fundamental doctrines with a pleasing degree of unanimity. However, in some respects they differ considerably. — The Episcopalian vindicates the sprinkling of infants, and the con- sistency of God-fathers and God-mothers. The Independent justifies the sprinkling of infants, but censures the introduc- tion of God-fathers and God-mothers. The Baptist censures both, and pleads only for the immersion of adult believers. The Episcopalian espouses parochial communion — the Inde- pendent, mixed-communion — the Baptist, strict-communion. But we ask. Is this Schism ? Are they enemies ? May they not possess one spirit of decision against the world, and one spirit of love towards each other, notwithstanding these dif- ferences ? May they not maintain, in their several churches their respective preferences, and yet live on terms of intimacy and Christian affection ? Communion in spirit should be as universal as Christianity, while communion in sentiment may be conscientiously limited, on some points, to our distinct denominations. And surely we may *' love as brethren" and delight in each other's prosperity, while we claim the scriptural freedom to discipline the various sections of Christ's Church, over which we preside, accordintr to our individual views of his revealed truth. VI When learned men differ, let the topic be what it may, con- tumely can only degrade the party that evinces it ; and if men of superlative talent and laboured research, have arrived at opposite conclusions, it follows, as a consequent, whether we concur with the one or the other, inferiority and disdain are effectually excluded. Diversity of sentiment needs not in- vective, though firmness and decision, for what we believe to be " The Truth," require an uncompromising Declaration. Ramsgate, June, 1838. ANALYSIS OF THE CONTENTS. I. BAPTISM, AN IMPORTANT AND PERPETUAL ORDINANCE IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. II. BAPTISM, A NECESSARY CONDITION OF CHURCH FEL- LOWSHIP. III. BAPTISM, AND THE LORD'S SUPPER, SCRIPTURALLY AND INDISSOLUBLY CONNECTED. IV. MIXED COMMUNION, OR ITS VARIOUS PLEAS CON- SIDERED AND ANSWERED. V. MIXED COMMUNION, AND ITS INCONSISTENCIES DE- TECTED. VI. ANIMADVERSIONS UPON SOME OF THE STATEMENTS OF THE LATE REV. ROBERT HALL. VII. A FEW CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS. REVELATION THE SOLE BASIS OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE. I. BAPTISM AN IMPORTANT AND PERPETUAL ORDINANCE IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. It is admitted by Episcopalians, Independents, Baptists, and Methodists, that Baptism, howsoever administered, is a most important rite in the Church of Christ. And such a concession will suffice our present purpose, without touching upon the different views the several denomina- tions entertain, either concerning its mode or its subjects. All agree it is an ordinance, clearly revealed in the New Testament, regarded by Christ and his Apostles, and for the total, or partial abrogation of which, there is no substantial authority. All agree it ought to be perpetua- ted in the militant church, until it is repealed by Him, who is the only Lawgiver in Zion. All agree it was confirmed by our Saviour after his resurrection, in those memorable words " Go ye forth 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 whatsover I have commanded you ; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.'' The authenticity of this passage is admitted by all Christians, notwithstanding the disparity of their expositions — some enlarge, others diminish the import of the words, never- theless the commission itself is disputed by none. 10 Since then Baptism is an ordinance, not of man, but of God ; since the time of its administration is only bounded by the duration of the world, we enquire why should it be laid aside? Why should it be deemed a non- essential ? Why should so striking a line of demarca- tion between the church and the world be effaced ? By no means responds each denomination of Christians. It is important in the estimation of all. Time may occasion many changes in human systems, and what might be prudent to pursue in one century, might be very impolitic to observe in the succeeding one — but the Institutions of Christ neither succumb to the device of man, nor to the expediency of the age. In their in- troduction and establishment, the great Head of the Church has preconceived all the consequences of their perpetuity, so that nothing can possibly transpire to ren- der their observance inexpedient. And where carnal policy usurps a prerogative, which sterling piety never can concede, viz. to abolish or abridge Divine ordinations, as her blind imagination may contrive — just in proportion as she encroaches upon the sacred territory of Supremacy, in a similar proportion, the beauties and ornaments of Christianity become a prey to her sacrilege. Suffice it to say. Baptism is an ordinance enjoined by Jesus Christ, to be observed by all his followers, till his second advent ; and as in the due regard of every other, so in the observance of this institution, there is great reward. " He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him." " This is the love of God that ye keep his commandments." " Why call ye me. Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say ?" 11 II. BAPTISM A NECESSARY CONDITION OF CHURCH FELLOWSHIP. That Baptism was considered a neccesary condition of church fellowship, in the days of the Apostles, and lonc^ after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, is apparent from many portions of Holy Scripture. In the second Chapter of Acts, we find the connection between Baptism and Communion plainly maintained. " Then they that gladly received his word were baptized, and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." It is also evident from the language of St. Paul in his first epistle to the church at Corinth, that its members vveie universally baptized, inasmuch as in censuring their carnal and illiberal preferences, he interrogates, *' Were ye bap- tized in the name of Paul?" In which interrogation, there could have been neither emphasis nor propriety, upon the supposition that many of them had not been baptized at all. That the Church of England also entertains such an opinion, is apparent from her twenty-seventh Article, wherein she says, '' Baptism is a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism, rightly, are grafted into the church." And indeed the great champion for mixed communion, the late Rev. Robert Hall, implies the accuracy of our present assertion when he declares, " The apostles, it is acknowledged, admitted none to the Lord's supper but such as were previously baptized." " Their instructions were too plain to be mistaken, their authority too sacred to be contemned by a professor of Christianity, without being guilty of daring impiety. To have received into 12 the church men who disputed their inspiration, and despised their injunctions, would have been to betray their trust, and to renounce their pretensions as the living depositaries of the mind of Christ : to have admitted those who believing their inspiration, yet refused a com- pliance with their orders, would have let into the church the most unheard of licentiousness, and polluted it, by incorporating with its members the worst of men. Neither of these could be thought of, and no other alternative remained, but to insist as a test of sincerity/ on a punctual compliance, with what was known and acknowledged as the apostolical doctrine." Obviously, therefore, whether we consult the inspired oracles, or the popular establish- ment, or the opinion of the opponents of strict-communion, all concur in our affirmation, That Baptism was a necessary condition of church fellowship in the days of the Apostles. And this being fully conceded, we consider it no longer problematical whether the mixed-communionist, or the strict-communionist occupies the vantage ground ; for while the latter dispenses with no conditions with which the apostles would not dispense, the former employs a discretionary prerogative, as regards the very conditions the apostles enforced, and ventures to sacrifice them at the shrine of expediency. If the Apostles, according to the admission of the late Mr. Hall, admitted none to the Lord's supper, but such as were previously baptized, — and the late Mr. Hall, admitted many to the Lord's sup- per who were not previously baptized— unquestionably the discipline of the apostles, and that of the late Mr. Hall, were at variance ! We shall presently consider the various arguments that have been introduced, with a view to sanction the abrogation of apostolical conditions — never- 13 theless we consider it far more satisfactory to be able to adduce the authority and example of inspired apostles as the basis of our procedure, than the conjectures and opinions of wninspired men, however spiritual, learned, or popular. And if the conditions of church fellowship, re- vealed in the New Testament, may be superseded, aug- mented, or diminished, as human device, or christian sin- cerity may prescribe, how is the Bible any longer " the religion of Protestants," or how are the *' Holy scriptures sufficient both for faith and practice ?" Since then it is admitted that the communion of saints at the Lord's table in the days of the apostles, was a communion re- stricted to persons previously baptized, it is fairly inferred that " Baptism is a necessary condition to church fellow- ship" — inasmuch as no inspired authority bas subsequently determined otherwise. III. BAPTISM AND THE LORD'S SUPPER SCRIPTURALLY AND INDISSOLUBLY CONNECTED. The late Mr. Hall, in pleading for the admission of wnbaptized persons to the Lord's Table has affirmed, that there is no connection between Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and that to all appearance the rites in question rest upon independent grounds. How this accords with his former assertion " that the apostles admitted none to the Lord's Supper but such as were previously bap- tized," we must leave our readers to decide ! ! It appears to us, the two statements are quite at variance with each other, for to admit that the apostles insisted upon the connection, and then to deny that such a connection ever existed is far from consistency. All the ordinances of Christ may be considered as links 14 ill one concatenated chain ; to be separated neither by prejudice nor expediency, but to be enforced in their primitive harmony, and introduced in their legitimate position to the end of the world. They \\\\o contend there is no positive mandate for the connection between the ordinance of Baptism, and the Lord's supper, may as reasonably maintain, there is no specific command for the connection between Baptism and Prayer; but because we cannot find an express passage of Scripture, publishing in so many words, that Christian ordinances are connected, are we at liberty to divide them from each other ? Why are they revealed ? Why were they instituted ? The fact of their institution by the same Saviour, and of their uniform regard by the apostles, implies their union and harmony. The analogy of Sciipture is most decidedly against their separation. Whatever Christ has commanded, it is the duty of all Christians to regard, whether they can prove any connec- tion between his injunctions or not : so that upon the sup- position, that we could discern no connection between Baptism and the Lord's Supper, yet, viewing them both as the institutions of Christ, both would have an equal claim upon our observance, and the non-observance of either wonld leave us on\y partial/ ij submissive, instead of uniformly obedient. Baptism is an open expression of our separation from the world, and of our desire to take up the cross of Christ, an outward and visible demonstration of our faith and repentance. And, surely, such an institution seems neces- sary as a test of decision and sincerity, on the part of those who having lived in the pleasures of sin, and the vanities of a wicked world, are, by the grace of God, desirous henceforth to have communion with his people, and to 15 participate in the privileges of his militant church. Surely there should be some public recognition, some signal rite, to celebrate the dethronement of Satan, and the con- version of a sinner. The great Head of the Church, therefore, instituted this ordinance, which when duly administered, beautifully signifies the candidate's fellowship with Jesus in his death and resurrection. By this he practically avows he is dead to the world, and risen with Christ to bring forth fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. And having thus before angels and men, before the church and the world witnessed a good confession, even apostolical autho- rity and precedent bid him welcome to all the blessings and benefits of church fellowship. Surely the spiritual birth of the sons of God is an occurrence deserving an early development through a scriptural ceremony, and a change so momentous should be advertised by ihe personal obedience of its subject. And if baptism followed regener- ation, or conversion to God, as quickly no^u, as it did in the days of the apostles, how much more impressive and ostensible would the coming of the king