virtue of mind; the inward temper is but pretended to, in many cases, without the external rites, and is acquired, promoted, and evidenced by the use of them. If 'I give all my goods to the poor, and have not charity,' there is the external act, without the inward moral temper, and so it is all nothing. If, on the other hand, I say, I have the inward temper of charity, and give nothing to the poor, but say to my brother, 'Be thou warmed; be thou clothed:' how dwelleth the love of God in that man? Therefore what God hath joined together let no man put asunder. Whatever comparative excellence there may be in the two different instances of obedience, they are both instances of obedience; and the direction of our regard is summed up in that text (Matt. xxiii. 23), 'These ought ye to have done, and not to have left the other undone." "-Mor. Obl. to the Pos. Appoi. in Reli.

Bp. TAYLOR, Speaking of sacramental institutions and positive laws, is sufficiently stringent in demanding adherence to what God has enjoined. He says: "They depend wholly on the will of the Lawgiver, and the will of the Supreme, being actually limited to this specification, this manner, this matter, this institution: whatsoever comes besides, it hath no foundation in the will of the Legislator, and, therefore, can have no warrant or authority. That it be obeyed, or not obeyed, is all the question and all the variety. If it can be obeyed, it must; if it cannot, it must be let alone. ... Whatsoever depends upon a Divine law or institution, whatsoever God wills, whatsoever is appointed instrumental to the signification of a mystery, or to the collation of a grace or a power, he that does anything of his own head, either must be a despiser of God's will, or must suppose himself the author of a grace, or else to do nothing at all in what he does; because all his obedience and all the blessing of his obedience depend upon the will of God, which ought always to be obeyed when it can and when it cannot, nothing can supply it, because the reason of it cannot be understood. . . . All positive precepts that depend upon the mere will of the Lawgiver admit no degrees, nor suppletory and commutation; because in such laws we see nothing beyond the words of the law, and the first meaning, and the named instance: and, therefore, it is that in individuo which God points at; it is that in which He will make the trial of our obedience; it is that in which He will so perfectly be obeyed that He will not be disputed with or inquired of, why and how, but just according to the measures there set down; so, and no more, and no less, and no otherwise. For when the will of the Lawgiver is all the reason, the first instance of the law is all the measure, and there can be no product but what is just set down. No parity of reason can infer anything else; because there is no reason but the will of God, to which nothing can be equal, because His will can be but one."-Duc. Dub., b. ii., c. iii., § 14, 18.

Nevertheless, some of our opponents, from our practice of immersion alone, believing that this, irrespective of mode, is solemnly enjoined by Christ, regard us as bigotedly attached to circumstantials and things unimportant! Yet, says

Dr. OWEN: "Christ marrying His church to himself, taking it to that relation, still expresseth the main of their chaste and choice affections to Him, to lie in their keeping His institutions and His worship according to His appointment. The breach of this He calls adultery everywhere, and whoredom: He is a jealous God, and He gives himself that title only in respect of His institutions. And the whole apostacy of the Christian church unto false worship is called fornication (Rev. xvii. 5), and the church that leads the others to false worship, the mother of harlots. On this account, those believers who really attend to communion with Jesus Christ, do labour to keep their hearts chaste to Him in His ordinances, institutions, and worship. . . . They will receive nothing, practise nothing, own nothing in His worship, but what is of His appointment. They know that from the foundation of the world He never did allow, nor ever will, that in anything the will of the creatures should be the measure of His honour, or the principle of His worship, either as to matter or manner."-Commu. with God, part ii., c. v.

Yet we Baptists who only immerse, and who believe that no word in the Greek language could more definitely have conveyed this meaning than the word used by the Spirit of inspiration, without conveying either

LL

more or less, are regarded as exhibiting by our conduct a bigoted attachment to that which is circumstantial and unimportant! But

V. ALSOP has said: "Under the Mosaical law God commanded that they should offer to Him the daily burnt-offering; and, in this case, the colour of the beast (provided it was otherwise rightly qualified) was a mere circumstance: such as God laid no stress upon, and that man had proved himself a superstitious busy-body, that should curiously adhere to any one colour. But, for the heifer whose ashes were to make the water of separation, there the colour was no circumstance, but made by God's command a substantial part of the service. To be red, was as much as to be a heifer: for when circumstances have once passed the royal assent, and are stamped with the Divine seal, they become substantials in instituted worship. We ought not to judge that God has little regard to any of His commands because the matter of them, abstracted from His authority, is little: for we must not conceive that Christ sets little by baptism because the element is plain, fair water; or little by that other sacrament because the materials thereof are common bread and wine. For though the things in themselves be small, yet His authority is great. . . . Though the things be small, yet God can bless them to great purposes (2 Kings v. 11).... Nor are we to judge that God lays little stress upon His institutes because He does not immediately avenge the contempt and neglect of them upon the violators (Eccle. viii. 11; Matt. v. 29; 1 Cor. xi. 30). . . . As we must not think that God appreciates whatever men set a high value upon, so neither are we to judge that He disesteems anything because it is grown out of fashion, and thereby exposed to contempt by the atheistical wits of mercenary If any of Christ's institutions seem necessary to be broken, it will be first necessary to decry them as poor, low, inconsiderable circumstances; and then to fill the people's heads with a noise and din that Christ lays little stress on them; and in order hereto call them the circumstantials, the accidentals, the minutes, the punctilios, and, if need be, the petty Johns of religion, that conscience may not kick at the contemning of them. It would be injurious to conclude that God has very little respect to His own institutions because He may suspend their exercise, pro hic et nunc, rather than the duties imperated by a moral precept. Mint, anise, and cummin are inconsiderable things, compared with the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, faith; and yet our Saviour tells them (Matt. xxiii. 23): These ought ye to have done, and not to have left the other undone.'

writers.

God is the Sovereign and absolute Legislator, who may suspend, rescind, alter His own laws at pleasure; and yet He has laid such a stress upon the meanest of them, that no man may, nor any man but the man of sin dares, presume to dispense with them. Positives may be altered, changed, or abolished, by the Legislator, when and how far He pleases; but this will never prove that He lays little stress upon them whilst they are not changed, not abolished: nor will it prove that man may chop and change, barter and truck, one of God's least circumstantials, because the Lawgiver himself may do it. He that may alter one may, for aught I know, alter them all, seeing they all bear the same image and superscription of Divine authority. . . . If God was so rigorous in His animadversions, so punctual in His prescriptions, when His institutions were so numerous, His prescriptions so multiform, what will He be when He has prescribed us so few, and those so easy and useful to the observer? If we cannot be punctual in the observation of a very few positives of so plain signification, how should we have repined had we been charged with a numerous retinue of types and carnal rudiments! If Christ's yoke be accounted heavy, how should we have sunk under the Mosaical pædagogy!"Sober Inquiry, pp. 289-304.

Whilst directly and strongly censured by some for our bigoted adherence to what is regarded as circumstantial and unimportant, we receive kindly the strong and indirect commendation of our brethren, although "the praise of men" we would ever consider as of very insignificant moment compared with "the praise of God." We do not deny the existence of bigotry in some Baptists on the subject of immersion, although we deny that this is proved by an exclusive adherence to

immersion. We believe equally in its existence in some Pædobaptists on the subject of sprinkling. It would be well if in both there was more of the mildness and sweetness of Melancthon, without that occasional yielding to Rome which neither honoured the reformer nor advanced the Reformation; more of that mind "which was also in Christ Jesus."

The amiable WATTS wrote: "As we must take heed that we do not add the fancies of men to our Divine religion, so we must take equal care that we do not curtail the appointments of Christ" (Humble Attempt, p. 62). More strongly, and yet with the approbation of Mr. Rowland Hill, does

Mr. WESLEY write: "A catholic spirit is not speculative latitudinarianism. It is not an indifference to all opinions. This is the spawn of hell, not the offspring of heaven... A man of a true catholic spirit does not halt between two opinions, nor vainly endeavour to blend them into one. Observe this, you that know not what spirit you are of; who call yourselves of a catholic spirit only because you are of a muddy understanding; because your mind is only in a mist; because you are of no settled, consistent principles, but are for jumbling all opinions together. Be convinced that you have quite missed your way. You know not where you are. You think you are got into the very spirit of Christ; when, in truth, you are nearer the spirit of Antichrist."-In Mr. R. Hill's Full Answer to Mr. J. Wesley's Remarks, pp. 40, 41.

There is no commendation in these extracts of playing fast and loose with supreme authority; no encouragement given to adopt as a Divine ordinance the practice of the last five or six centuries, or to take the liberty to alter the form of ceremonies, provided the spirit is retained, or to consider the letter of the Divine law an infringement on Christian liberty.

"It is a maxim in law," says BLACKSTONE, and it holds equally good in divinity, "that it requires the same strength to dissolve as to create an obligation."-Com., vol. i., b. i., c. 2.

Mr. THORN, on "modes" of baptism, says: "This is confessedly a subject of considerable IMPORTANCE, demanding the serious attention of all professors of the Gospel" (p. 2).

The Rev. GEO. GILFILLAN says: "We see abundant evidence that the support of the early ministers of the church, so far as it came from the members, was entirely free and voluntary, and that the New Testament has given no hint whatever of a day that was to arrive when it ought to be otherwise" (Alpha and Omega, vol. ii., p. 309). We believe it; and believe with equal confidence that God's Word has revealed as baptism only believers' immersion, and has given no hint of a day that was to arrive when it might be exchanged for infant sprinkling.

Dr. JOHN MORISON says: "We have no dispensing power here. So long as truth remains truth, we must abide by its dictates, and no false notion of what is due to him that contends with us can authorize a single concession at the expense of these living oracles which speak to all men with the authority of God."Kennedy's Memoirs of Dr. Morison, p. 157.

If some who have recorded their strictures against our exclusive adherence to immersion, as an adherence to what is circumstantial and unimportant, were to hold up to scorn, and denounce as bigots, persons who intelligently are seeking to advance scientific truth, with what amazement would their readers be filled! But is it more important to buy scientific truth and sell it not, than it is to buy Divine truth and sell it not? Is it not also unaccountable or significant that persons whose starting-point is, that whether we practise immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, it is not of the least importance, and whose next effort is a

our

most ardent plea for sprinkling in preference to immersion, should, thirdly, be unreluctant to abandon all their philological reasoning on the ground that the entire dispute is respecting the meaning of a Greek word, as if Christ, in enjoining an action on all His disciples to the end of time, might have used a word so obscure and ambiguous that nobody can ascertain its import, or that everybody may attribute to it whatever meaning he likes? The obscurity of the term, and the insignificance of the ordinance, we believe to be equally opposed to truth. That it is unimportant to immerse, if Christ has commanded us to immerse into the name of the Father, &c., is impossible; unless there is no warning in the record that the Pharisees rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of John; unless obedience and disobedience to heavenly Father" are unimportant. But it is only a ceremony, says our opponent. And what if it is? It is a ceremony ordained by Him who is unerring in wisdom, almighty in power, inflexible in justice, and infinite in love. And if immersion is the ceremony, sprinkling is disobedience to the command. Sincerity does not and cannot convert sprinkling into immersion. Intention to fulfil a command does not fulfil it, and may never fulfil it, if the nature of the command is mistaken. However God may pardon the mistake of the sincere and erring, His ends in ordaining the form or ceremony are not fulfilled by him who mistakes the form or ceremony. And, for aught we know, the great worth of a ceremony may vanish by a human alteration, and especially by an entire substitute. If our opponents will prove that we may sprinkle or pour when God has commanded immersion, controversy on the action of baptism may cease. Or if, instead of assuming in the outset that the Gospel being the law of liberty, the manner of applying water is too nearly allied to questions of meat and drink to be of much importance among the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, they will first prove that sprinkling is enjoined, we will admit our obligation to sprinkle, and not to immerse. We believe it to be a serious matter to alter Divine institutions. But we and all our hopeful opponents are agreed that Jesus Christ is the Governor of His church; that His revealed will is the only rule of Christian duty; and that it would be an insult to His dignity to advance the traditions of men above His authority, or even to a level with it. We can unitedly say: "Let the messengers of God take heed that they neither act nor speak anything but what they have sufficient warrant for. It is an impious and dangerous thing to affix God's name to our own imaginations" (Owen, on Heb.); and especially do we admit the importance and applicability to all, of the following: "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein."-Mark x. 15.

§ 34.-FUTILITY OF THE OBJECTION TO IMMERSION, THAT MARK XVI. 16, OR 1 COR. I. 14-17, PROVES THE UNIMPORTANT CHARACTER OF THIS ORDINANCE.

JESUS CHRIST.-"Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures."-Matt. xxii. 29. PHILIP, THE EVANGELIST.-"Understandest thou what thou readest ?"-Acts viii. 30. PAUL, THE APOSTLE-"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."-2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.

Dr. J. MORISON.-" He would seek to rescue this ordinance of Christ from all counterfeit glosses and interpretations, that it may occupy its own dignified position among the institutions of the New Testament."-Hom. for the Times, p. 347.

J. A. HALDANE.-"He is the most faithful pastor who has least desire for undue personal influence, and who strives most earnestly to promote implicit subjection to the laws of Christ." "It is unworthy your character as believers to treat anything connected with religion with indifference. We ought ever to tremble at the Word of God, and to remember that it is our duty to listen with the most serious attention to whatever our great Lawgiver has condescended to teach. A distinction of greater and less among the commands of Christ has been admitted to a certain extent. This is supported by the Word of God; but how much has it been abused by men-how much has it been misapplied even by the disciples of Jesus! What are called His lesser commandments have been treated as matters of indifference, deserving neither attention nor serious regard. Let us remember, however, that they are all greatly important, that they all deserve our most serious consideration, and that the wilful neglect of any of them is rebellion against the Lord." "How often are our Lord's words misapplied! Ye pay tithe,' said He, to hypocritical professors, 'of mint, and anise, and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.' Had they neglected tithing these things, it would have been highly sinful. This text is often used to expose attention to what are called smaller matters in religion, as if this were the mark of a weak and superstitious mind."-Soc. Wor., pp. 244, 245, 436, 445.

Dr. S. DAVIDSON.-"Our standard" "is not early ecclesiastical tradition, however venerable or hoary."-Cong. Lec., pp. 1, 2.

Dr. WALL." As to the necessity, we should, methinks, account all our Saviour's commands to be necessary."-Inf. Bap., vol. iv., p. 9.

J. C. RYLE.-"Do not attach a superstitious importance to the waters of baptism." "Do not dishonour the sacrament of baptism" (Expos. Th. on Matt.). He also, on Matt. iii. 14-17, says: "We shall notice, firstly, the honour placed upon the sacrament of baptism. An ordinance of which the Lord Jesus Christ himself partook is not to be lightly esteemed. An ordinance to which the great Head of the church submitted ought to be ever honourable in the eyes of professing Christians."

Dr. WARDLAW.-"If, therefore, it is our duty to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints,' surely such a subject must be entitled to a portion at least of the same earnestness. We cannot allow it to be set aside, as undeserving of serious discussion; as some, under a false pretence, or an imbecile reality, of superior spiritual-mindedness, are accustomed to deal with many other points, which go by the convenient but often mischievous designation of non-essentials."-On Ch. Est., pp. 5, 6.

THE record in Mark xvi. 16 is: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." These words appear to us to import that when a person believes, he ought to be baptized; or that when a person becomes a believer, he will be baptized; that faith ought to precede baptism; that the unbeliever is not expected to be baptized; and that unbelief is a damning sin, &c. The words appear not to us to express or to imply in any degree the insignificance of baptism. Dr. Halley, from the connection of baptism with salvation in this verse, takes occasion to urge his indiscriminate baptism, saying: "If Jesus says, 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,' whoever forbids water to any incurs a fearful responsibility" (vol. xv., p. 17). We judge that the scriptural medium betwixt the insignificant, contemptible character of this ordinance, and its administration to every applicant irrespective of character, is the solemn immersion of professing believers into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The responsibility of forbidding water to the professed believer we conceive to rest on those who force water on such as are incapable of belief, and who tell them, when they come to years of knowledge, that they are baptized.

Dr. A. Barnes, on Mark xvi. 16, says: "It is worthy of remark that Jesus has made baptism of so much importance. He did not say, indeed, that a man could not be saved without baptism, but He has strongly implied that where this is neglected, knowing it to be a command of the Saviour, it endangers the salvation of the soul. Faith and baptism are the beginnings of a Christian life: the one the beginning of piety in the soul, the other of its manifestation before men, or of a profession of religion. And no man can tell how much he endangers his eternal interest