2. How much do the Pædobaptists make of it? The writer entreats his pædobaptist friends not to be offended with him, should they find on examining the sentiments of their brethren on christian baptism, that many of them contradict, nullify, and destroy each other. But it is so,-undeniably so. The fault therefore rests not with the writer. In prosecuting our inquiry, we begin with the Church of Rome. How much does she make of it? It is well known that she avows her belief that baptism is essential to salvation, and denounces an irrevocable curse on all who deny it. Let us proceed to the Church of England. How much does she make of it? She openly avows that baptism and regeneration are convertible terms; that baptism makes an infant a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven-that by baptism a child is regenerated, incorporated, and grafted into the body of Christ's church. But it may be said "the Church of England has more correct and scriptural conceptions of the ordinance of christian baptism now than formerly." Has she? Why then, we ask, does she continue to teach in her Catechism a doctrine so subversive of the interests of Messiah's kingdom; a doctrine so evidently calculated to ruin the souls of men? And why do a great majority of her clergy, in the present day, teach, "that to separate regeneration and baptism is enthusiasm and fanaticism?" We pass to the Church of Scotland-How much does she make of it? She affirms "that it is (even to infants) a seal of the covenant of grace, of ingrafting into Christ, and of union with him; of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and eternal life." In referring to the Dissenters who practice infant baptism, it is more difficult to state, in a sentence or two, why they admin ister the ordinance to children, who are incapable of understanding its nature or design, for this reason, namely, that they do not appear generally to have any definite ideas on the subject. Dr. Burder, however, has stated explicitly, "that baptism is to be administered to infants, solely on account of their connexion with their parents; a connexion in the covenant of grace, the covenant of redemption, the everlasting covenant, embracing all that man

can desire, or all that Jehovah can impart." Mr. John Wesley, the founder of Wesleyan Methodism, states his opinion as follows:-" Whereby they enter into the everlasting covenantthough by nature the children of wrath, they are in this ordinance made the children of God, by a principle of grace infused— that therein they receive a title to, and an earnest of, a kingdom which cannot be removed: and in an ordinary way, there is no other means of entering into the church, or even into heaven."*

Here we have found the advocates of infant baptism administering the ordinance for the purpose of regenerating, that is, imparting a new nature to the child, ingrafting it into the body of Christ, sealing to it eternal life, &c.; but we must not conceal the fact, that there have been many pædobaptists who have repudiated with indignation the idea that baptism could either renew the heart of, or seal eternal life to, an unconscious infant. In fact, so diametrically opposed to each other are the advocates of infant baptism, that while one administers the ordinance to the infant to make it holy; another does it because the infant is holy; one does it because of the faith of the parents; another because there is a sort of faith in the child;-one baptizes an infant to bring it into the covenant of grace; another because the child is already in the covenant of grace. Such are the endless contradictions that must ever take place among men who substitute their own traditions for the word of Truth. Here we may be reminded, that (with the exception of the Roman Catholics) all the bodies of christians to which I have referred, assert that baptism is only the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, the outward and visible sign being water, the inward and spiritual grace being a death unto sin and a life unto righteousness. We reply, they all, in their creeds, confessions, catechisms, sermons, and treatises, assert what we have represented them as asserting; we have only quoted their own words, nothing more; but we ask— how can an infant either die to sin, or live to righteousness— are not these, personal, intelligent, voluntary acts?-are infants capable of them? if not-is not the ordinance grossly abused and perverted when administered to infants? and do not those who administer the ordinance to them make too much of it?

• Treatise on Baptism, published in the corrected edition of his Works, 1836.

3. How much do the scriptures make of it?-The consideration of this question is one of paramount importance. We are now called upon to answer the proposed question from the sacred oracles: let us remember it is by these oracles we shall be justified or condemned in the day of retribution. And if the secrets of the heart shall be judged by them, how much more shall the actions of the life. Hence the necessity of having our faith and practice regulated by the immutable word of Truth.

How much then do the Scriptures make of it? We answer, they ascribe to it a heavenly origin. This is evident, first-from the question proposed by the Redeemer, when he asked the chief priests and elders, whence had John authority to baptize? from heaven, or from men? They knew well that the authority came from heaven, but they were in a dilemma, and to avoid it they told a lie. Second-from the Commission-" All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,"-"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, &c."-thus the scriptures attest its origin to be divine. The scriptures also settle everything relative to the subjects of baptism, they assure us that the subjects must be believers, not the sons of believers nor the daughters of believers, but believers personally; the scrip. tures know nothing of believing by proxy; believing by parents and proxies, by godfathers and godmothers, and sureties, is a mere human device, of which the christian dispensation takes no cognizance, except to condemn it. Hence the forerunner of our Lord said to the Scribes and Pharisees, "Say not-we have Abraham to our father, for I say unto you God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham." According to the New Testament, it is they, and only they, "which be of faith, that are blessed with faithful Abraham." Hence we find that when the 3,000 were pricked in their heart and said, "What shall we do," Peter said unto them, "Repent, and be baptized." When Philip declared the glad tidings to the Eunuch, and the Eunuch exclaimed, "See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized," Philip replied, "If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest." In like manner when the inhabitants

of Samaria believed Philip, they were baptized "both men and women." In fact the scriptures nowhere drop the most remote hint that it ever entered into the conceptions of Christ or his Apostles to admit any individuals to christian baptism, until they openly avowed their faith in the gospel and their determination to embrace it. The mode also is definitely fixed by the Word of God. There we are told that those who believe in Christ are to be immersed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, not poured upon, not sprinkled, but immersed. Here perhaps, the reader exclaims, "There is nothing said in reference to mode; we are told that the followers of Christ are to be baptized, but it is not said whether by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion." We reply, the objection now stated, arises solely from ignorance of the Greek word employed by the Holy Spirit to point out the mode in which the ordinance is to be administered. The word is baptizo, a word, the primary meaning of which is, to dip, plunge, immerse. In fact, on this point, there is no dispute; all lexicographers being of one mind, whether they be baptists or pædobaptists, immersionists or sprinklers, they all agree that the original meaning of the word baptizo is to dip, plunge, immerse. The design also is clearly pointed out in the word of truth. To enter into this part of the subject would lengthen these remarks beyond our prescribed limits. Suffice it to say, that one grand design is to point out the transition that takes place, from sin to holiness, when the rebel lays down the weapons of rebellion and becomes an obedient subject. Hence, Ananias said to Saul, "And now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord." Another is, to shew us the distinctive line that separates the church from the world. In the days of primitive christianity, baptism was the line of demarcation that separated believers from unbelievers; hence Paul said to the Galatians, "As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ;" or, ye have, by being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, openly avowed your renunciation of the world as your portion, and your determination to follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. And no doubt it was designed that baptism should continue to be the line of demarcation through all succeeding ages; and it would have been, had

men been willing to be guided by the word of God. Scriptures make too much of baptism? No: nor too little!

66

Do the

4. Urge the original question-Who make too much of baptism? Will my reader grant me one request? Now that the evidence is before him-now that he sees what the Baptist, the Pædobaptist, and the Scriptures make of baptism-will he now endeavour to answer the question for himself? Will he, to the utmost of his ability, divesting his mind of all the prejudices of education, all the pre-conceived notions derived from creeds, confessions, and catechisms, take up his Bible, search its contents in order to learn the will of God on this point, and while doing so, lift up his heart in prayer to the Father of lights, for that wisdom which cometh from above? Let him do this, and he will soon be able to give a clear, decisive, and satisfactory answer to the question. You probably have heard baptists denounced as narrow-hearted, bigoted sectarians," as "proposing anti-scriptural terms of communion," as "putting baptism in the place of holiness and love," and in short, as "making too much of baptism;" but what do all these charges prove? Only that it is much more easy to rail than to reason. We presume, dear reader, that you are a protestant, and that you contend that the Bible, and the Bible alone, contains the religion of protestants. You cannot, therefore, deny us what we ask. Consistency demands that you should judge the conduct of the baptists by the word of God. We ask no more; you cannot grant us less. Test our faith and practice as severely as you please by the touchstone of TRUTH; weigh us in the balances of the sanctuary; but do not permit yourself to be blindfolded and led by the unscriptural dogmas contained in the creeds, confessions, and catechisms of the present or any other time.

And now, my reader, having told you with simplicity and sincerity what we baptists make of baptism, surely you will tell us what you make of it. Do you concur with the Church of England, that it makes an infant a member of Christ? or with the Church of Scotland, that it signs and seals to infants regeneration, adoption, and eternal life? Do you believe with Doddridge, that the holiness of the children of believers constitutes their claim to