only immersion, which, with their present sentiments, we do not request at their hands, and yet maintain that baptism is not exclusively immersion, as well as practise only sprinkling, and yet maintain that pouring and immersion are equally a proper mode of baptism? How is it that they believe scriptural baptism to be immersion, pouring, or sprinkling (not to mention other applications of water); that they dare not compromise a principle; that beyond the apostles they deny "the authority of any subsequent teacher to innovate on primitive practice," and yet that they-who attach no importance to forms, and regard sprinkling, pouring, and immersion but as forms-will not immerse because the Baptist regards sprinkling as no baptism? We cannot but conclude that many of our Pædobaptist friends, under the blinding influence of prepossessions, are most inconsistently, desperately, and dishonourably afraid of immersion. From the estimation in which we hold so many of our brethren, it would be a pleasure to agree with them in sentiment and practice; but convictions are not to be coerced; and there is One whose will and whose favour we would ever hold in the highest estimation.

Religious acts, as we maintain, ought to be intelligent, personal, and voluntary; although we do not believe that infant baptism ever was, or ever will be such. There is no allowing of us to legislate, while our brethren are cheerfully allowed to do what they believe Christ to have enjoined; and while we wish none to immerse or to be immersed, except those who believe that in so doing they are obeying a Divine injunction. If persons believe that baptism which is Divinely enjoined means equally sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, they must, according to their conception, be equally obeying a Divine injunction in the practice of sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. We regard this as an inevitable result, to say nothing about one application of water being acknowledged to accord with the primary meaning of the word. What, then, should lead our brethren, unconsciously to themselves, to raise such a cloud of dust, blinding their own and each other's eyes, and causing them to trample both on justice and charity? We have no wish to domineer over the faith and practice of others. We deprecate every approach to this; but we also loathe such subterfuges for consistency and justice as the one we are considering; and especially from persons so eloquent and constant in praise of charity and catholicity. We are soliciting no charity in pleading for the pitcher and the baptistery equally with the font or basin; we are simply requesting our Pædobaptist brethren to act consistently with their expressed belief; to do justice to their uttered sentiments. We maintain that the course which we recommend is obligatory on our brethren, and will continue so as long as they retain their present sentiments. We wish, certainly, that our brethren were convinced that immersion alone is baptism, because any deviation from this we believe to be an error; but, until they see this, we do not call on them to abandon pouring or sprinkling.

Instead, however, of acting consistently with themselves, our opponents do in substance demand that previous to this-we must acknowledge their sprinkling to be baptism! If we will acknowledge their sprinkling to be baptism, then they can immerse without conceding a principle! But ah! these unreasonable Baptists! "The Baptists declare we have no baptism, deny that to be baptism which we conscientiously believe to be so." Certainly we do. And this contemptible and doleful whining, as if we were treating them most unmercifully, with the clearest and most hateful tyranny, we condemn in no very measured terms. Our regarding of them as really unbaptized-whatever may be the course which we deem most consonant with the precept and with the spirit of Christianity in regard to uniting with them at the Lord's Supper-is an absolute necessity, even according to the acknowledgment of Dr. H., and-as every unbiassed person must see-involving no injustice and proving no unkindness. How can we who believe the original word expressing baptism in the New Testament to be more explicitly expressive of immersion than any other word which the Greek language supplies, acknowledge sprinkling to be baptism? We do not say that the mode of immersion, as putting into, or in some other way bringing the element upon and around the baptized, is included in the meaning of the word, but that immersion-and this alone is its meaning. Consequently, to demand that we should call sprinkling baptism is as preposterous and tyrannical as to demand that we acknowledge a colour to be green which we believe to be only blue. Whether this is the demand of the Pædobaptists, let the reader, let the Pædobaptists themselves judge. On the difficulties connected with the Lord's Supper we have elsewhere spoken, and have appealed for charity whilst differences extensively exist among Baptists and Pædobaptists.

We should rejoice if our opponents, some of whom seem never tired of complaining respecting the Baptists as practising only immersion and regarding none as baptized but the immersed, would see that no bigotry whatever is involved in this, and that they themselves, in regard to immersion, are acting in a manner not simply devoid of all charity, but grievously inconsistent with themselves, and, as we think, unjust to God and man. We believe that there is no subject on which the Pædobaptists are so inconsistent with themselves, and so wanting in charity, as on baptism, which thus becomes to them a vexed question, and no subject on which they glorify themselves so much in regard to their charity. Almost in the very act of unkindness and injustice they are ignorantly glorying in their charity and liberality. We have often been reminded by them of one whom we have well known, whose boast has been the commendable regard he paid to his health, but whose nearest kindred and most intimate acquaintance deemed him most defective in this very particular.

For further illustration's sake, let us suppose an object seen at a distance by three individuals. One believes that its colour is wholly green; another believes that its colour is partly green and partly blue; and a third believes that it is partly green, partly blue, and partly lilac: who would think of applauding the liberality and charity of him that could see, as he thought, two colours, and the still greater liberality and charity of him that could see, as he thought, three colours? If, on the object being brought nearer, it was ascertained, in opposition to the belief of the first and second, to be wholly of one colour, would not the praise of being clear-sighted, strong-sighted, or far-sighted, be given to him who previously had so judged? Who would think of charging with bigotry, or of applauding for charity, any of these, either before or after they had come to one and the same conclusion respecting the colour of this object? Apply this to baptism so far as it is applicable, and to the persons entertaining different opinions respecting this Divine ordinance. If we are not mistaken there is a wide-spread opinion that those who practise only the immersion of professing believers, are in this particular somewhat illiberal, however conscientious in the matter, and however amiable in other respects; whilst they who believe baptism to be immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, are thought in this to be more charitable, liberal, and catholic than their Baptist brethren!

If the Baptist unnecessarily dishonoured sprinkling, it might still be controverted whether the Pædobaptist would on this account be justified in dishonouring immersion; but the Baptist necessarily dishonours sprinkling, believing it to be a human substitute for what is Divinely enjoined. Because the Baptists, however, are thought to have a contracted and erroneous view of the import of a certain word, should others act unjustly to their own views, and to the only Head of the church and Legislator therein, our adorable and exalted Saviour? We profess not infal libility, and we desire not lordship over conscience; but we profess to have examined the unerring records, and to be fully persuaded in our own minds. Fidelity to what we believe to be the truth, fidelity to God, requires us to immerse, and never to practise anything as a substitute for immersion, when we attend to the Divinelyenjoined ordinance of baptism. There surely is not necessarily in the practice, or in the defence of this, anything unjust or uncharitable. Do we applaud the charity and liberality of that lexicographer who gives to a word (right or wrong) the greatest number of meanings? Let charity have its clear and abundant development in our conduct towards those who differ from us, when we have ascertained— as we think-correctly, the import of the controverted word. Justice "to the law and to the testimony," and to Him towards whose tribunal we are all hastening, requires this course. We have no desire, it would grieve us, to wound the fellowChristians whom we are endeavouring to convince of error. We hold the piety of many in such high estimation that were we conscious of having given just occasion of offence, we would most humbly solicit forgiveness. But our conviction is, that Pædobaptists are dishonouring what they acknowledge to be scriptural; and are, inconsistently with their published sentiments, neglecting a course adapted more than any other to promote in the church of Christ visible union and growing approximation to uniformity of sentiment. Instead of deferring to practise or to encourage immersion to the extent to which it is by Pædobaptists deemed scriptural, until the Baptists acknowledge sprinkling, if conscientiously performed, to be baptism, let Baptists and Pædobaptists at once consistently carry out their own

RR

APPENDIX II.

convictions of Divine teaching in the kindest spirit towards every differing but conscientious brother, or in the words of Dr. H., let both sides "honestly and resolutely act upon scriptural principles, so far as they are acknowledged by both parties.' Whilst the Baptists on immersion go further than the Pædobaptists, "both parties"-unless the preceding extracts be a wicked forgery-unite in honouring immersion more than pouring or sprinkling, whether the classic import of baptizo, or the New Testament practice of baptism, is sought. Yea, Baptists are even invited simply to acknowledge that baptism is "overwhelming or covering with water," and we shall "bring this controversy to a satisfactory conclusion." I this is by our opponents the admitted import of baptism, let them not scandalize themselves and dishonour their Lord by waiting and refusing thus to act till there be a supposed or real reformation in Baptists, or in any beings under heaven. "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.” himself believes to be a scriptural principle. The oneness of the church will never Let each act upon what he be effected by one denomination refusing to act consistently with their own sentiments, till another has yielded to some reasonable or unreasonable, equitable or temporizing demand. If the Pædobaptist practically treated immersion and pouring in accordance with his avowed sentiments on these actions as baptism, those becoming Baptists among them would have reasons for retaining their connection which they do not now possess; especially if their conviction was, that the spirit and precepts of Christianity do not require to forbid a reception to the Lord's table of those Christians who, through ignorance and error, are as yet conscientiously neglecting baptism. As says Dr. Guthrie in Christ and the Inheritance of the Saints: "It is they who, creating wrongs or refusing redress, compel men of tender conscience to leave a church, that are guilty, if there be schism, of its sin."

We see not how a Pædobaptist minister, if unimmersed, can for this reason consistently object to immerse an approved applicant for baptism whom he regards as unbaptized; but if an objection on this ground is felt by the applicant, let application be made to one who has been immersed. appeals made may by some be construed into an unwillingness on our part to Possibly, however, the earnest immerse those in connection with Pædobaptist churches and congregations who believe on Christ, and whose views of baptism lead them to solicit immersion. No such unwillingness has dictated these appeals. No lazy objection to the labour or inconvenience of immersion in this northern climate do we feel. It would be a pleasure to baptize thousands and tens of thousands of those who have Christ in them the hope of glory, and who have not before put on Christ in the way which it is believed He has appointed. We can go further than we desire our Pædobaptist friends, with their present convictions, to proceed. We are perfectly willing, and are not ashamed to avow this willingness, to immerse those Christians, whether belonging to the pastorate or the people, sprinkled or unsprinkled, who have not, as professing believers, been immersed into the name of the Lord, who have the conviction that the Lord has commanded immersion, and who desire to imitate and obey Him on whom alone they rely for salvation, and to whom in love and thankfulness they have consecrated their entire selves.

Whether those brethren and sisters who make application for baptism, believing themselves unbaptized, as we also believe them, are resolved to unite with the Baptists or to remain in connection with the Pædobaptists, we are willing to baptize them as fellow-believers in the Lord Jesus. We conceive, it is true, unless some difference of opinion on other subjects of faith or of practice, or unless special circumstances exist, that it is most consistent on their part to unite with the Baptists, and thus render their greatest sanction and support to what they deem most scriptural; but we leave it with the applicants to follow out their own convictions of duty in respect to this. receive the immersed into their communion. This is consistent with their sentiWe do not complain that the Pædobaptists ments; and required by them. We simply deny that by this charity, liberality, or catholicity is evinced; as we deny that bigotry is proved by the requirement of immersion on the part of those who believe baptism to be only immersion.

Our greatest joy is in the conversion of sinners; our most anxious desires and most earnest efforts have reference to this: but we are not indifferent, nor could we be, without sin, to correct views being entertained on all revealed truth and duty. We believe that man's good and God's glory are inseparably connected with scriptural sentiments and a consistent practice. We maintain it to be our duty, and

611 the duty of all, to desire God's ordinances to be rightly understood and scripturally practised. We desire all the Friends and all the Pædobaptists to become Baptists. From a persuasion that our views are scriptural, we desire them to be universally embraced. We believe a Divine ordinance to be lamentably-however ignorantly -perverted in every sprinkling of an infant. But we by no means attach the same importance to a Friend becoming a believer in the perpetuity of baptism and the Lord's Supper, or to a Pædobaptist becoming a Baptist, which we attach to a rebel against God, a slave of Satan, and an heir of hell, becoming an obedient subject and adopted child of God, and an heir of the kingdom of glory.

In accordance, as we think, with the order of instruction apparent in the solemn commission of the Great Teacher, we first aim to make disciples; we secondly teach disciples the duty of being baptized; and we thirdly continue to instruct, yea, particularly, enlargedly, and perseveringly, in the observance of whatever Christ has commanded. And our present appeal to those who differ from us is, that they will go along with us in practice as nearly as deference to their own conscientious convictions will admit. Let pastors who believe baptism to be sprinkling, pouring, or immersion-and who now, notwithstanding their belief that immersion is the primary meaning of the word, preach with the font alone, or basin, in the pew before or beneath them, or in some conspicuous or more private place—plead for the same facility being afforded to immersion and pouring, and especially to immersion. Let other officers and all members of Pædobaptist churches,--not simply those in connection with these churches who, for the maintenance of a good conscience towards God, have been immersed, although special obligation may be considered to rest on these, but let all, in the fervent approval of consistency and justice, advocate this. Let him that refuses "hereafter for ever hold his peace" on the subject of catholicity, charity, or justice. us walk by the same rule; let us mind the same thing." Whereto we have already attained, let

INDEX TO AUTHORS.

Alexander, J. A., D.D., 85, 168, 223, 287,
320, 431.

W. L., D.D., 123, 200, 431,

of Aphrodisias, 61.

Alford, Dean, 152, 198, 201, 213, 243,
313, 430, 458.

Alsop, V., 327, 353, 495, 514, 524, 540.
Alstedius, 41, 381.

Alting., H., 90, 140, 382.

Dr. J., 140, 389.

J., 275, 458.

Bentley, Dr., 93.