APPENDIX II. AN APPEAL FOR THE PITCHER AND BAPTISTERY, AS REQUIRED BY WHERE THE SENTIMENTS GENERALLY HELD AND PROMULGATED BY THE PÆDO BAPTISTS ARE MAINTAINED. PAUL, THE APOSTLE.-"Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth."-Rom. xiv. 22. Dr. G. PAYNE:-"He is prepared to expect that certain positions maintained in this volume may not at present secure universal acceptance. He does not wish any one to admit them, without personal conviction of their truth. The faith of the reader should stand, not on human authority, but Divine. All he ventures to ask is, that those into whose hands this book may fall, will give to its statements a careful and candid examination."-Cong. Lec., pp. 6, 7. Dr. S. DAVIDSON.-"The man who endeavours to rise above the views of interested partisans will treat the subject in a . . . liberal spirit."-Cong. Lec., p. v. Dr. R. W. HAMILTON.-"He has found it necessary to maintain a calm steadiness amidst the boasts of an affected liberality and the concessions of a popular charity." "A truth is not less a truth, from whatever quarter it comes."-Cong. Lec., pp. vii., 413. Dr. W. H. STOWELL.-"I am so fully convinced of the right, the duty, and the advantages of free inquiry in every department of human study, as to be jealous of every attempt, on the part of the holders of opinions generally entertained by any party in the church, to bear down innovations by a charge of heterodoxy, even when that charge is sustained by honoured names and by established prejudices." "In the days of trial which are coming on, men will have to show the authority of their church in the Bible, instead of receiving the Bible according to the authorized interpretation of their church."-Cong. Lec., pp. vii., viii., 191. Dr. GUTHRIE.-"The body is one. Unfortunately, the churches are many, split into such numerous, and, in not a few instances, such senseless divisions, that I know nothing better fitted to make a man recoil from the spirit of sectarianism than to see, drawn out to its full length, the long, wondrous, weary roll of the various sects that exist in Christendom. Fancy all these urging their claims on a newly-converted heathen! What a Babel of tongues! With what perplexity might he ask, amid so many contending factions, Which is the true church and body of Christ?"Christ and the Inh., &c., p. 277. AUTHOR OF DR. HOOKWELL."-"We must speak and write kindly of those who differ from us; but it would be the very height of unkindness not to endeavour to persuade them that they are in error" (p. 8). Dr. WARDLAW.-"Thinking ourselves right, and thinking those who differ from us wrong, are expressions of equivalent import: and if we feel in the spirit of genuine brotherly love, we cannot but be desirous that our fellow-Christians should discern and relinquish what are, in our apprehension, their errors."--On Inf. Bap., p. 15. T. CLARKE."While, however, we are always liable to err, we ought diligently to guard against error by cherishing the love, and addicting ourselves to the pursuit of truth."-His. of Intol., p. vii. Dr. S. WILLS.-"It is mainly by the free interchange of thoughts, views, and feelings, under the blessing of God, that we grow up into Christ in all things."-Eccle. Ordi., &c., p. 174. Dr. J. MORISON." Those who will not think for themselves can at best but echo the sentiments of their fellow-creatures, and can never yield obedience to that Divine precept, 'Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.""-Hom, for the Times, p. 383. THE FREEMAN."-It is no sectarian bigotry, no overweening conceit of our own orthodoxy, no love of dissension and separation, least of all a selfish regard to our material interest and fancied self-importance, that keeps us apart. But what we both alike dread, and dread more than disunion itself, with all the misconstructions which ignorance and malice may put upon such disunion, is compromise of principle." "It has always appeared to us that the advocates of this sort of Christian union are ever for beginning at the wrong end. They would eschew all discussion: they would close our mouths on all questions respecting which we are disagreed; and they would compel us to confine our attention solely to those points on which we see eye to eye. But what would such union be worth? Would it be any better than a hollow truce? And would it not lead to continual dissimulation and hypocrisy? It appears to us that such a coalition would be little better than the nuptials of weakness and cowardice, solemnized over the grave of truth. And how long would it last?" "Would it not be better to begin at the other end? To discuss honestly and fairly the points at issue between us; earnestly and prayerfully, like Christian men, and in the spirit of charity and self-surrender, seeking to arrive at scriptural conclusions respecting them? And if, after all, any remained over on which we could not agree, we might resolve bravely and lovingly to bear with one another, and to concede to one another the utmost liberty in practising and teaching whatever each one believed to be true and right. This would be union springing out of liberty, instead of compromise; and, to our way of thinking, it is the only union worth having, because it would involve no dishonesty, would be likely to prove permanent, and would not betray the interests of truth."-Oct. 16, 1861, p. 673. J. A. JAMES Liberty to hold an opinion is but the half of freedom, unless there be liberty to diffuse it” Church in Ear., p. 153. The Bible, if it could be read in heaven by the holy angels and spirits made perfect, would produce no discordant opinions there. It is to the depravity of human nature that all religious error is to be traced.” Still, however, these discordant sentiments cannot be all right. Although error is multiform, truth is uniform; and it is of infinite consequence that we should embrace the one and reject the other."-Christian Father's Present, p. 17. J. A. HALDANE. — “Misapprehension in sentiment must always produce error in practice." "Error must necessarily gender strife."--Soc. Wor, pp. iv., 109. Dr. J. H. GODWIN. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the meaning of one of our Lord's precepts and ordinances should be clearly understood, and that the truth on this subject should be universally acknowledged. We believe it will be so." "If the church of Christ acted in accordance with the apostolic precept, Whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing,' then might we expect the fulfilment of the associated promise, 'If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.'"-Chr. Bap., pp. 4, 3. J. B. WALKER." We offer it as a contribution towards promoting unity of faith among the various denominations of believing people."-Phil, of the Di. Ope, &c., p. xii. Dr. J. PARKER-Love the true, independent of party; and follow the right, into whatsoever fellowship it may lead."-Helps to Truth-Serkers, p. 229. H. W. BEECHER.-"Not parties, but principles. Let us be of no party but God's party, and use all other agencies as we use railroad cars-travelling upon one train as far as it will take us in the right direction, and then leaving it for another."-Life Thoughts, p. 73. "Oh for the day, whenever it shall beam, And the slain Lamb's eternal supper share," NOTWITHSTANDING the number of prefixed citations, we shall not omit the following from Dr. Halley: “IF A FEW CHURCHES ON BOTH SIDES WOULD HONESTLY AND RESOLUTELY ACT UPON SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES, SO FAR AS THEY ARE ACKNOWLEDGED BY BOTH PARTIES, THEY WOULD PROBABLY COME TO A RIGHT UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM MUCH SOONER THAN THEY WILL BE BROUGHT BY VOLUMES OF CONTROVERSY, HOWEVER ABLE, OR HOWEVER EARNEST" (Cong. Lec., vol. xv., p. 109). "LET THE CONCESSION OF BAPTISM BY OVERWHELMING, OR COVERING WITH WATER, BE FAIRLY AND OPENLY MADE BY THE BAPTISTS, AND WE HAVE A COMMON POSITION, ON WHICH, I AM SURE, IT WILL BE EASY TO BRING THIS CONTROVERSY TO A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION (Cong. Lec., vol. x., p. 386). There is also much of truth in the following from Dr. W. H. Stowell: "PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME JUDGMENT.' OF ONE THING WE ARE SURE: THE HINDRANCES TO SUCH A CONSUMMATION DO NOT LIE IN THE INTELLECTUAL OR MORAL IDIOSYNCRACIES OF INDIVIDUALS, NOR IN THE OBSCURITY OR VAGUENESS OF APOSTOLIC TEACHING, BUT IN THE EFFECTS OF ERRONEOUS TRAINING, STIMULATED BY THE ZEAL OF PARTY, AND ADDED TO THE DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL BY THE TRADITIONS OF THE SEVERAL CHURCHES" (Cong. Lec., p. 185). The title of this Appendix may to some appear startling, to others harsh and uncharitable, to some irrelevant, and to others ridiculous. the arrangement mentioned will be as violently opposed by the prejudices of many it is firmly believed, as the sentiment of the volume, that Christ has enjoined immersion, and that nothing else is Christian baptism than the immersion of the professing believer. That * Possibly the following from Dr. J. Hamilton may not only be deemed excellent, but suggestive of more than the worthy author intended:-" When the Spirit like a flood flows into the churches, joining church to church and saint to saint, till all rejoice to find that, if their little pools have perished, it is not by scorching summer, or casting in earthly rubbish, but by the influx of that boundless ocean whose glad waters touch eternity, and whose depths eternity will never fathom. Happy church that is nearest the ocean's edge; whose sectarianism shall be first swept away, whose communion shall first break forth into that purest and holiest and yet most comprehensive of all communions-the communion of the Holy Ghost! May that be my church!"-In The Church, p. 338. 1861. APPENDIX II. Of any unkind feeling in introducing and advocating the sentiments of this Appendix we are not conscious. In its logical force and undeniable propriety we firmly believe. We also believe that consistency by the different denominations of Christians with the views of God's Word which are entertained by themselves, is important in itself, on account of individual responsibility to Christ, and the professed entireness of consecration to His service, as well as on account of its tendency to increase that visible union among Christians which will promote the world's believing on Christ. happy to believe that this will not be the case with Dr. Halley and several others; The last idea may to some appear very Utopian; but we are and as consistency is a virtue independently of this result, we do not deem it obligatory on us at present to explain in what way we conceive that the visible union of professing Christians of different denominations will be advanced by such consistency. Our present request is, that those who differ from us will act consistently with their own views of Divine teaching. Baptists believed to be sincere and erring. We are not asking for candour, charity, We are asking no concessions for the sake of or justice to the Baptists, but for justice to Pædobaptist sentiments by those who entertain them. An alteration of this or any ordinance of God, the pursuit of any course in opposition to personal conviction in order to meet the views and feelings of our fellow-creatures, we would as much scorn to solicit as our opponents would scorn to grant. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." rather than men." We wish it to be most clearly understood that our Pædobaptist friends are not desired in any instance to do what would in their judgment be a "We ought to obey God re-baptizing, nor are they desired to do or to encourage in any instance anything but what they believe to be scriptural baptism. But our opponents believe pouring, sprinkling, or immersion to be baptism. There may be many other applications of water to which they will deem the word baptism applicable; but for these especially they plead in controversy with the Baptists, and designate them modes of baptism. Hence,-to quote only from Dr. Halley and Mr. Stacey,-Dr. H. says: "We believe that immersion is not indispensable; that pouring or sprinkling is sufficient to constitute the Christian rite." "We do not plead for any one specific mode; we do not contend for sprinkling in preference to immersion, except as a question of right" (Cong. Lec., vol. x., p. 233). "I can, and I do, most conscientiously avow, that I have not the slightest wish to make a single convert to sprinkling. Having no preference for any mode, I only attempt to vindicate our right to be regarded as baptized Christians" (p. 240). Mr. S. says: "One class of Christians contends that dipping, the immersion of the whole person, is required; another, and a much larger, asserts that the application of water by pouring or sprinkling is, at least, equally valid with immersion." right of election in the manner of administering baptism, without incurring the charge "We claim the of mistaking its character, or departing from its institution. Our whole argument aspires to little more than this, as we have no wish to vindicate the exclusive authority of any specific mode" (pp. 173, 174). ments generally professed by the Pædobaptists. They are avowed by Prof. Wilson, These are, we believe, the sentiand by many Episcopalian writers, as well as by writers of other denominations. Yet some of them have written respecting immersion as difficult, dangerous, and indelicate; have held it up to scorn; have dissuaded from it; and have refused to administer it to those who had never received a real or a pretended baptism: and all, as a rule, make provision alone for sprinkling, and practise only sprinkling. We are far from saying that there are no exceptions to a refusing to immerse, or to the holding up of immersion to contempt; although we believe, without having the least sympathy with coercion in the profession or the support of Christianity, that the Episcopalians of this country, in justice to avowed sentiments, furnish more exceptions to the common practice of sprinkling than the dissenting Pædobaptists. In several instances, when persons unbaptized have wished to unite with the Church of England, and believing baptism to be immersion, have wished to be immersed, instead of disparaging expressions being used respecting immersion, temporary provision has been made in the church that the conscientious conviction might be carried into practice. That for which we plead as still better, as more consistent in practice with the recorded sentiments of Padobaptists, is universal and permanent provision by them for the adoption of immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, according to the conscientious views of the believing applicant, or of the parent or guardian of children, so long as the baptism of children is not seen to be opposed to the personal, spiritual, and voluntary character of Christianity, and to every precept and precedent of Holy Writ on the subject of baptism; and so long as the action enjoined by Christ is believed to be any one of the three which have been mentioned. Let those who believe the import of baptism to be so varied and accommodating, allow to applicants "the right of election." In immersing, in practising nothing but immersion, and in making provision for nothing else, Baptists are acting consistently with their belief that baptism is immersion, and nothing else. In thus acting there is nothing of unkindness towards those who differ from them. Until they think differently, the maintenance of a good conscience towards God requires them thus to act. What offence can Pædobaptists justly take at the Baptists on account of this? Is this a sufficient reason for the Predobaptist to despise and taunt immersion, and to dissuade from the practice of immersion, or to make all facilities for sprinkling, and none for immersion, and to refuse to immerse until Baptists will acknowledge sprinkling or pouring to be valid baptism? To the course which we are recommending, our opponents may also be justly called by the assertions which unto satiety they iterate and reiterate respecting the little importance which is to be attached to what they designate the mode of baptism. Mr. Stacey says: "It must not be overlooked that the whole question at issue is one of form, and not of substance, of ceremony and not of truth. The difference existing upon it does not, as we believe, in the least affect the nature of the institution itself, or the design of its observance. It does not involve the enjoyment or forfeiture of a single spiritual blessing, the belief or rejection of any one doctrine to which the term evangelical or saving can fairly be applied. It must, therefore, be a question of very subordinate interest, and cannot by any possibility be exaggerated to the importance with which the prejudices of education, or the animosities of controversy, have invested it" (p. 173). "The mode of Christian baptism is of comparatively inferior moment, as the Spirit of Christ has nowhere defined it with such precision as to make one particular form essential to the validity of the rite" (p. 225). These are the avowed sentiments of the Pædobaptists, with very few exceptions. It is believed by Baptists that the Scriptures are, as to precept, silent respecting the "mode of Christian baptism,” if that phrase had a rightful meaning assigned it. But how inconsistent to be repeatedly advocating the insignificance of what is termed the mode of baptism, to be maintaining that immersion, pouring, and sprinkling are EQUALLY SCRIPTURAL, and yet again and again to be asserting or insinuating the difficulty, DANGER, and INDELICACY of one of these scriptural modes! and the ease, convenience, decency, and delicacy of another mode! We are not complaining that our opponents, who believe sprinkling and pouring, as well as immersion, to be baptism, endeavour to persuade us that their sentiments are correct. Our complaint is, that they hold up immersion to contempt, honour pouring in word, and glorify sprinkling in deed, whilst they maintain that all these actions are scriptural baptism. We know few who have so little scandalized immersion whilst writing so much in favour of sprinkling or pouring, as Dr. Halley. But if sprinkling, pouring, and immersion are equally scriptural, why not in consistency make equal provision for one as for another, and in an unsectarian and a catholic spirit say to applicants and proxies, that they have "the right of election,” and that to them this right is cheerfully granted? Many of our Pædobaptist brethren have frankly acknowledged that immersion is the meaning of the Greek word rendered baptism. Some have admitted it to be the only meaning of the Greek word until it was adopted by the inspired penmen. Many have granted that it was the general, and others that it was the exclusive practice of apostolic times, and of the ages immediately succeeding. Many have admitted it as certain that John the Baptist practised immersion as his baptism, and that our blessed Saviour was immersed. All this-and more than this-is abundantly proved in the former part of this work. Also many are staunch advocates of more than justice to Christians differing one from another. Are there in the world more earnest and eloquent advocates of catholicity and liberality than among dissenting Pædobaptists? Are there under the sun those who boast more of being unsectarian? And are there those who give more glorious evidence of their sincerity than in some things is given by our honoured brethren? But what is their conduct, not to those who are stigmatized as bigoted Baptists, but to what they themselves regard as Divine truth? Where is the Pædobaptist church that practically honours immersion as much as its own sentiments, when expressed, honour the same? Where is the Pædobaptist minister whose sentiments and actions on this subject accord? Are the words of James incapable of rightful appropriation here?"My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons." Say things instead of persons, in our present application; and let the things be immersion, pouring, and sprinkling, which, according to the faith of our Pædobaptist brethren, are all scriptural baptism. But, "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works?" What is the use of your faith in immersion? Does it serve any other purpose than that of condemning your partiality as strikingly manifested in words, but much more so in deeds? The Baptist shows his faith in immersion by his deeds? Why does not the Pædobaptist similarly show his faith in sprinkling, pouring, and immersion? We do not say that all Pædobaptists are chargeable with the inconsistency of which we here complain. We have rejoiced to hear of Dr. Beecher, in America, and of some others, immersing applicants for baptism and membership, who have believed that immersion is scriptural baptism. Yea, more, we have read that "the trustees of the Plymouth church, in Brooklyn, at the suggestion of their pastor, the Rev. H. W. Beecher, have had a baptistery constructed under the pulpit. The frequent cases of preference for immersion to sprinkling, among those who wish to join the church, have led to this measure, to avoid the inconvenience of having to resort to some Baptist church. Mr. Beecher, 'for his own part, prefers sprinkling, but never seeks to dissuade a candidate who prefers immersion. Also we have read in the same Baptist Reporter for 1861 the rare statement that the Rev. J. G. Procter, an Independent minister, immersed a candidate for baptism and membership with his church, in the Baptist chapel, Newport, Isle of Wight, on Monday, Aug. 26th, 1861.* But it is painfully believed that the faith of Padobaptists as a whole in immersion, is practically similar to the faith of demons in regard to the "one God." Their affection to immersion, which is maintained to be one of the meanings of the word for baptism selected by the Spirit of inspiration, reminds us of apostolic language respecting love to the brethren: "My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth;" and we are informed that thus we "shall assure our hearts before" God (1 John iii. 18, 19). On every subject it is desirable that our practice accord with our creed, otherwise our hearts condemn us, or through the neglect of self-examination, or a partial attention to this, we are ignorant of our inconsistency and impropriety. We are aware that the Pædobaptist minister claims the right of election'; but if by this he who says that baptism is immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, means to claim his own right of election, and to deny to the candidate, or parent, or guardian, or sponsor, the right of election, we acknowledge our inability to discover either his charity or his justice. We do not maintain, we do not insinuate, we do not believe, that those who practise sprinkling have in their general disposition and conduct less charity, less justice, or less of any other Christian grace than their brethren who contine baptism to immersion. It is "conceivable” that on the one subject of baptism many Pædobaptists are grievously mistaken, profoundly ignorant, prodigiously inconsistent with themselves, remarkably sensitive, extremely bigoted, and perfectly unconscious of the whole; and that this may arise from educational prepossessions, and from reading and hearing but one side, or but one side and distorted and incorrect representations of the other; whilst at the same time, with this exception, piety may appear in all its beauty and glory, in all its adaptation and power to bless. It is also conceivable that on the part of many Baptists there may be, along with correct sentiments as to what constitutes scriptural baptism, no small amount of uncharitableness towards their Pædobaptist brethren, from ignorance of what constitutes the supposed justification of sprinkling and pouring; whilst in * The Cardiff Times of November 13th, 1863, says respecting Pontlottyn church: "Under the font there is a baptistery provided for the immersion of adults by the side of the font proper. "The Lord Bishop of Llandaff alluded to it in his sermon [at the consecration of the church] in approving terms.' |