Saul of Tarsus was baptized after having been struck blind, and while he

was in a state of extreme exhaustion from excitement, without food; for,

during three days, "he did neither eat nor drink." He was baptized

before he ate; for, we read, "And he arose and was baptized; and, when

he had received meat, he was strengthened." It does not seem to me

probable that they would have put him into a river, or tank, before

giving him food. But it seems to me natural and suitable for Ananias to

draw nigh, and impress the trembling man with the mild and gentle sign

of Christianity, the rite giving a soothing and cheering efficacy to the

words of adoption, and in no way disturbing him in body or mind. I have

always regarded the baptism of Saul as a strong presumptive proof with

regard to baptism by affusion.

So with the midnight scene of baptism in the prison at Philippi. The

preparation of one or more large vessels, to immerse the household, is

not congruous with the circumstances narrated, as I read them. But the

quiet and convenient act of baptism by sprinkling, falls in harmoniously

with the other parts of the transaction. For my part, I have always

wondered how any one can fail to see that there are so many

improbabilities of immersion in every case of baptism, in the New

Testament, as to counteract any weight which the word baptize carries

with it, more especially since the word and its derivatives are

employed, in the New Testament, in cases where the mode of using the

water is evidently not intended.

_Mr. K._ "Buried with him in baptism." Mr. M., you will confess that

this is an impregnable proof-text. You have never been "buried with him

in baptism."

_Mr. M._ But I am "risen with him," Mr. K. With all humility and tears,

I must say to you, "If any man trusteth to himself that he is Christ's,

let him also think this with himself, that as he is Christ's even so

also we are Christ's." Your application of the passage, just quoted by

you, disproves your interpretation of it. If we must be buried in water,

when we are baptized, then no one is risen with Christ who has not been

immersed. You thus disfranchise four fifths, to say the least, of God's

elect. No, my dear sir, being buried with Christ in baptism does not

mean immersion. People in the frozen ocean, the sick and dying, who are

sprinkled with water in the name of the Christian's God, are "buried

with Christ in baptism into death;" that is, profess to be dead and

buried to sin, as Christ was dead and buried for it. Besides, follow out

the passage, and there is no allusion to the form of baptism, as I can

perceive, but to something else. "Buried with him by baptism into death;

that like as Christ was raised,"--from the water?--yes, if water baptism

be now in the writer's mind; but no,--"like as Christ was raised from

the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in

newness of life." The word buried, therefore, in this passage, refers to

the completeness of the Saviour's death for sin (as we say intensively

of a deceased person, he is dead and buried), and of the completeness

of our renunciation of it. We are dead and buried to sin, as Christ was

for it; and we rise to newness of life, when we profess to be

Christians, as Christ rose from the dead, not from the water.

_Mr. K._ How is it with infants? Are they dead and buried to sin when

they are baptized? If being buried, in this passage, means being dead

and buried to sin, then infants are regenerated by baptism.

Mr. K. gave his wife a pleased look, as though he had placed me in a

dilemma.

"Mrs. Kelly," said I, "how do you suppose that nursing children ate the

first passover?"

"I suppose that they ate it through the faith of their parents," said

Mrs. K., looking narrowly into the stitches of her crochet-work, to

control a smile.

"That passover, however," said I, "was the means of saving those

children, who, many of them, were the first-born in their respective

families. Yet they were saved by the passover through the faith of their

parents. Do not understand me as urging the comparison to an extreme; I

only say that there we have an example of parents acting for the child

in a matter of faith. The infant child was incapable of believing, and

even where the first-born was grown up, the parent acted for him in the

ordinance, by sprinkling the door with blood. I do not prove infant

baptism by this, but I use it to show that parents may use an ordinance

for their infants. Mr. K. asks if baptized infants are buried with

Christ in baptism into death,--that is, die unto sin and rise to newness

of life. The parents profess by the baptism that they will use means to

effect this in their children, through the grace of the Holy Spirit. I

should like to ask Mr. Kelly if he believes that every person who is

immersed, is buried into death, spiritually, with Christ, or is actually

dead to sin forever; or, whether it is only a profession of one's hope

and intention. For we have all known some, who had been buried in water,

that did not prove to have died unto sin."

_Mr. K._ Of course it is a symbol; and all we insist on is, that Paul

must have had immersion in mind, as the form of baptism, when he spoke

of being buried by baptism.

_Mr. M._ When Paul says, "I am crucified with Christ," do you suppose

that the idea of a cross was in his mind? Did he intimate that

sanctification is effected by a piece of wood, with a transverse beam,

used as a gibbet? Or did he simply mean, I am dead to the world, and the

world is dead to me, yea, and put to death (not merely dying in a

natural way), through the power of the Saviour's sufferings and death on

my behalf? The burial of Christ, following his death for sin, and so

completing the idea of dying, is enough to have suggested the figure, I

think, of our being not only dead with Christ, but buried with him, by a

Christian profession; that is, we utterly cease from the world and sin,

professedly, as Christ not only died, but went into the tomb. But what

does "risen" refer to in that passage,--the water or death?--"from

whence also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of

God."

_Mr. M._ Why, how do you understand it?

_Mr. K._ I prefer, if you please, that you should answer. Many

understand it thus: "You are buried in water, to denote death to sin;

you are lifted up out of the water (as Christ was lifted up by the

Baptist), to live a new life." If this be so, what is "the operation of

God," which is spoken of there? Does it need any such "operation" for

an immersed person to rise out of the water? No, my dear sir, our

interpretation makes plain and thorough work of the whole passage. Our

idea of that controverted passage (your great proof-text) is this: You,

Christian professors, were, all of you, baptized, on profession of your

faith;--when you made a Christian profession, you signified by it your

dying unto sin, as Christ died for it, so that, I may say, you were dead

and buried to sin. But, as Christ came to life again, so you rose with

him, not to sin, but to live a new life. Hear Dr. Watts on the passage:

"Do we not know that solemn word,

That we are buried with the Lord,

Baptized into his death, and then

Put off the body of our sin?

"Our souls receive diviner breath,

Raised from corruption, guilt and death;

So from the grave did Christ arise,

And lives to God above the skies."

I do not believe that the mode of baptism is alluded to at all in this

text.

_Mr. K._ I cannot agree with you, sir. The contrary is perfectly clear

to my own mind.

"Mr. M.," said Mrs. Kelly, "do you think that you and Mr. K. would ever

think alike on this subject?"

"Never," said I. "People almost always end where they began, when they

discuss this topic; only they do not always leave off in such

good-nature as Mr. K. and I intend to do. I never knew a person to

change his views to either side, unless he began as an inquirer, and not

as an advocate."

"What is the reason," said Mrs. K., "that good people are left to differ

so about unessential things in religion, when they all hold to the same

way of being saved?"

"I suppose," said I, "that, as poor human nature is, for the present,

more is effected, on the whole, by letting us divide into sects, and

giving us each some external or speculative discrepancies to excite our

zeal. It is a sad reflection upon us, if this be so, and our sectarian

behavior illustrates that hardness of our hearts, in view of which,

perhaps, God suffers us to divide as we do. But, still, you see how

wisely God has ordained that good people shall not differ about

essential things--that might be fatal to the success of his truth; but

they are left to divide about forms, and ordinances, and some doctrinal

matters which do not involve the question of the way to be saved. In

that they all agree."

_Mrs. K._ How pleasant it would be if they would all think alike!

_Mr. M._ Perhaps it might not be best at present. They should tolerate

each other's views, meet and act together where they may; but I do like

to see a man heartily attached to his own denomination, without bigotry.

I have not much partiality for those schemes of union which require and

expect each sect to give up its peculiarities, and which seek to

amalgamate us. It is unnatural. Let each be thoroughly persuaded of his

own faith;--different temperaments and habits of thought are suited by

different modes and forms;--but let us treat each other as Christians,

and with urbanity and kindness. That is the most sublime spectacle of

union. It comes nearer to fulfilling the prayer of Christ, "that they

all may be one," when we differ strongly, and yet keep the unity of the

spirit. I am doubtful whether, even in heaven, there will not be such

innocent diversity of views about things successively beyond our

knowledge or comprehension, as to stimulate inquiry and discussion; but

that we shall ever be capable, as we are here, of alienation, in

consequence of these varying opinions, is impossible.

_Mr. K._ Do you not think, Mr. M., that we shall all think alike about

baptism in the millennium?

_Mr. M._ I suppose that you expect that we shall all give up infant

baptism. But my expectation is that, as we approach that day, the last

prophecy of the Old Testament will be as truly fulfilled as it was at

the coming of Christ, and that the hearts of the fathers will be turned

to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers. Parental

piety and discipline will be greatly promoted, and an attendant of it

will be, I suppose, a greater use of the ordinance of infant baptism,

demanded by the pious feelings of parents, as pious feeling in the

regenerate craves the ordinance which commemorates the love and

sufferings of the Redeemer. The feelings of pious parents will require

the ordinance of infant baptism, as an expression of their earnest

desire to have fellowship with God as the God of the believer and his

offspring, the covenant-keeping God. It is to the increase and

prevalence of this feeling that I look now for an increasing observance

of infant baptism; for, without such feeling, the ordinance is an empty

name. Where that feeling exists, it soon modifies the speculative views

of a parent. As our conscious need of an atoning Saviour soon dispels

the former difficulties about the doctrine of the Trinity, so a longing

desire to have special covenanting with God for a dear child, makes the

subject of God's everlasting covenant with Abraham, as the great

believer, and the father of believers, plain.

Now, before I forget it, please let me tell you of an objection to

infant baptism, which I lately met with, drawn from the effect of the

prevalent practice of it in a community.

The objection is, it prevents us, in a measure, from fulfilling Christ's

command, "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them." For, going into the

Roman Catholic or Greek churches, or an Armenian country, and making

converts, the missionaries cannot baptize them, for, alas! they were

baptized in infancy, and to re-baptize is against the law of the

countries.

Now, this seems to me no great calamity; for if the converts themselves

recognize their baptism, and adopt it as profession of their faith, it

is like a man's acknowledging the hand and seal on an instrument, made

irregularly at first, but now, under competent circumstances, declared

to be equivalent to his own act and deed at the date of this

declaration. He would not need to re-write the document, nor to use wax

or wafers again, except in witness of his acknowledging the original

act. "Though it be but a man's covenant, yet, if it be confirmed, no man

disannulleth or addeth thereto."

But, however it may be in such countries and communions as I have named,

certainly it cannot be a calamity if the practice of infant baptism

becomes such a spiritual and practical thing, that young persons are

generally converted, so that adult baptisms disappear. I love to notice,

when several persons join our church, how few of them receive baptism,

showing that their baptism in childhood has been followed by conversion.

The fewness of adult baptisms, with us, compared with cases of infant

baptism, is a good sign. They will be fewer and fewer, in proportion as

our parents make and keep covenant with God for their children.

Mr. Kelly was at this moment called out, but requested me to remain and

finish the conversation with Mrs. K. She resumed it, saying:

"Had I better read any more on the subject? My feelings lead me

strongly to take our little one to church. I feel that I should be

strengthened by the solemn act of doing what the covenant of your church

says, 'avouching the Lord Jehovah to be your God and the God of your

children forever.' I do wish to feel that I have done something like

bearing testimony before God, in a special way, that I give my child to

him, and engage God to be his God."

_Mr. M._ I should candidly examine whatever Mr. K. wishes you to read or

hear on the subject, and not be afraid of the truth, let it lead where

it may. But what first made you think of baptizing your little boy?

_Mrs. K._ I always loved the ordinance. But, when I thought that Henry

was going to die, I was watching him all night, and, as I was praying,

it occurred to me that I wished I could see the church praying for him;

and that led me to think of the church praying for a child when it is

brought into the house of God. I felt that night that, if I could speak

to the pastor, I would ask him to request the prayers of the church for

him as for one who, if he got well, should be brought into the house of

God, and be publicly consecrated, and I with him, again, as his mother,

to the Lord. I had given him and myself to God; but I felt the need of

some more special act, on which I could fall back in my thoughts, and of

which God would graciously say to me, "I am the God of Bethel, where

thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me."

_Mr. M._ How kind it was in God to remind Jacob of that pile of stones,

and to call himself the God of Bethel! O, how he loves marked exercises

of consecration and love!

_Mrs. K._ My husband always said, "Let him offer himself for baptism

when he grows up, and understands the meaning of it." I told him that

when I was admitted to the church I was not baptized, but I had this

pleasant feeling, that I had a baptism in infancy by my dear good mother

to think of now, and to seal by my own acknowledgment. If Henry had died

without being baptized, or should now be hindered from it, I should

never cease to grieve.

_Mr. M._ You think, however, that he would be saved, nevertheless.

_Mrs. K._ O, saved! that is not all. I do not think merely of his

getting into heaven. Though we are saved wholly by grace, is there not

something implied in "washing our robes, and making them white, in the

blood of the Lamb?" I do not believe in justification by works nor by

sacraments, yet I do believe in their wonderful effect, through grace

alone, upon our character and future condition. I do believe, Mr. M.,

that there is a difference between children whose parents, impelled by

love to God, make public offering of their children to him, with solemn

vows, and daily perform their vows, treating their children as baptized

in the name of the Trinity, and children whose parents either carelessly

baptize them, or feel no such spiritual desires for them as to seek the

use of any public ordinance, nor any special private consecration. I

believe that God regards them differently. He has placed his mark on the

baptized. I must go with my son to God's house, as Hannah did, and with

her feelings. How strange! She prayed for that son, and then, as soon as

he was weaned, she gave him away to God; for it is beautifully said, you

know, "And the child was young." Well, I think I understand that. I

could leave Henry in the temple, if the service of God's house required

him; for, when he was sick, I gave him up to God, and as long as he

liveth he shall be the Lord's. How did cousin Bertha feel about the

baptism after your little boy died?

_Mr. M._ It was often the chief topic of her conversation. Her father

wrote a full statement of his views, which helped her greatly. We have

read it over since we lost our child. I will send it to you, if you

wish. You can read it, with Mr. K.'s books, and I wish you to show it to

him if he cares to see it.

All this was done. Kind feelings prevailed; there was not much

discussion, and, one Sabbath morning, little Henry Kelly was brought to

church. But the mother was without the father. He was called to a

distant place on business; but he allowed his wife to act her pleasure

in the case during his long absence. More of this in its place.

Chapter Fourth.

IS THERE ONLY ONE MODE OF BAPTISM?

Were love, in these the world's last doting years,

As frequent as the want of it appears,

The churches warmed, they would no longer hold

Such frozen figures, stiff as they are cold;

Relenting forms would lose their power, or cease,

And e'en the dipped and sprinkled live in peace;

Each heart would quit its prison in the breast,

And flow in free communion with the rest.

COWPER.

Opening my entry door, on my return, several faces looked out to welcome

me, all in the house having waited till a late hour, with surmises as to

the cause of my long absence, and then all dispersed, except the

venerable, and not yet aged, grandmother of little Bertha. With her it

was always pleasant to talk.

_Mr. M._ Have you had no company this evening? I was in hopes that the

Moores would come in, as they promised to do.

_Mother._ They have been gone nearly an hour. Mr. Moore wished to read

husband's letter, so Bertha lent it to him.

_Mr. M._ Father will be glad to know how much good his letter is doing.

Cousin Eunice would be glad to see it, and I wish to read it again, for

I find that I am likely to need more instruction, if I am to discuss the

subject as I did this evening with Mr. Kelly.

_Mother._ Was he at home? I hope you did not get into a controversy

about baptism; for, of all things, nothing dries up religious feelings

like that.

_Mr. M._ The subject has taken too practical a hold upon my feelings to

have that effect. I find myself more and more led to believe that God

gave his church an appointed form of baptism, and that that form was

sprinkling; for I search the New Testament in vain for a single case

where immersion seems to have been practised. I believe that, under the

operation of early tendencies, of which Paul writes to the

Thessalonians, the church began to prefer immersion as more sensuous,

making a stronger appeal to the passions. But I believe, with the New

Testament for my guide, that immersion was not practised by the apostles

themselves. The word baptize had, even in the Saviour's time, to go no

further back, come to mean a thing done irrespective of the mode. How

would it sound, "I have an immersion to be immersed with, and how am I

straitened?" &c. "Are ye able to be immersed with the immersion that I

am immersed with?" I believe that sprinkling was the original mode of

Christian baptism. And it seems to me unlikely that God would appoint an

ordinance, and not appoint, by precept or example, the mode of it. I

believe that the mode of baptism was appointed, as well as the rite

itself, and I see no instance of baptism in the New Testament by

immersion. Pouring, whether more or less copiously, has this probability

in its favor, in addition to the impression which the narratives make,

viz., The Lord's Supper typifies the death of Christ. Burying in

baptism, then, would be superfluous; it is more likely that the form of

this other sacrament would represent something else, and that is, the

Holy Spirit's cleansing influence, because Christ speaks of being "born

of water and of the Spirit," thus associating water with the Spirit. We

moreover read of "the water and the blood," water thus being

distinguished from blood. Now, the Holy Spirit is always named in

connection with being poured out. We are baptized with, not in, the Holy

Ghost. It would do violence to our feelings to hear one speak of our

being immersed in the Holy Spirit. So that I fully believe in sprinkling

as the original New Testament mode of baptism. And, still, I am inclined

to agree with your friend, the professor, who spent New-year's evening

with us, and has just published a book on baptism.

_Mother._ What ground does he take?

_Mr. M._ He writes somewhat in this way: As to the mode, I believe it to

be unessential; for it seems to me contrary to the genius of

Christianity to make a particular form of doing a thing essential to the

thing. What else is there in Christianity, if we are to except baptism,

in which modes are regarded or made essential? It is not so, he says,

with the Lord's Supper, surely; the upper room, night, sitting or

reclining, unleavened bread, a particular kind of wine, and all such

things, are not regarded by any as necessary to the ordinance. It is

very interesting, he says, to notice, that, whereas the old dispensation

prescribed the mode of every religious act, minutely, and a departure

from it vitiated the act itself, Christianity threw off everything like

prescriptive modes altogether. Considering the attachment of the human

mind to forms and ceremonies, he knows of nothing in which Christianity

shows its divine origin and supernatural power more, than in its sublime

triumph, so immediately, in the minds of great numbers, over forms and

ceremonies. We can hardly conceive, he says, what a revolution a Jew

must have experienced in giving up Aaron, and altars, and times, and

seasons, and all the minute regard for his religious ceremonies, at

once. Even if it were the original practice to baptize only by

immersion, he cannot think that Christianity could have enjoined it as

the only proper mode of applying water, in signifying religious

consecration. Bread and wine, eaten and drunk decently and in order, in

any way whatever, constitutes the Lord's Supper; water, applied to the

person, by a proper administrator, in the name of the Trinity,

constitutes Christian baptism; but, had the New Testament required us to

recline, and lean on one arm, and take the Lord's Supper with the other

arm, insisting that this posture is essential to that sacrament, or had

it specified the quantity of bread and wine, he thinks it would have

been parallel to the uninspired requirement of a particular mode in

applying the water in baptism.

"Baptize," he further remarks, it is said, means immerse. Suppose that

it does. Supper means a meal; therefore, one does not "eat the Lord's

Supper," unless he eats a full meal; for, if baptize refers to the

quantity of water, supper refers to the quantity of food and drink in

the other sacrament. He then seems to exult, and says, "I am glad that I

am not in conscientious subjection to any mode of doing anything in

religion, as being essential to the thing itself."

_Mother._ What answer can be made to this?

_Mr. M._ It is a very common ground, and a convenient one, to answer the

argument from _baptizo_, and the early practice of immersion in the

Christian church after the apostles. No doubt the early Christians

satisfied themselves with this reasoning, in departing from the

apostolic practice of sprinkling. But I prefer to adhere strictly to the

New Testament model. There is no immersion there. Now, is it allowable

to depart from the original mode? This could not be done in the first

initiating ordinance of the church,--circumcision. A departure from the

prescribed rule would have vitiated the ordinance. But, does not

Christianity differ essentially from the former dispensation in this

very particular, that it does not make the mode of doing a thing,

essential? Yet, it may be said, Human ordinances are all strictly

binding in the very forms prescribed. For example: "Hold up your right

hand," says the clerk, or judge, to a witness; "you solemnly swear--."

Let the witness, instead of holding up his right hand, if he has one,

and can move it, capriciously say, "I prefer to hold up the left, or to

hold up both. I wish to show that modes and forms are unimportant." He

would be in danger of contempt of court. If so small a departure from

the mode of swearing would not be allowed, much less would he be

permitted to kneel, or to lie on his face, unless he were some devotee.

No; there is a prescribed form, and he must yield to it. It is also

said, that, if there were cases in the New Testament in which it were

doubtful, at least, whether immersion were not practised, we might argue

in favor of mixed modes. But immersion is baptism, in my view, because a

person who is immersed is sure to get affused; and, affusion with water

is all of the baptism which seems to me essential. Leaving those who

first departed from the apostolic mode of baptism by sprinkling, to

answer for themselves, no one, of course, will deny that those who

conscientiously think that they ought to be baptized by immersion, are

acceptable with God, as well as others who are of a contrary persuasion.

Paul speaks of "divers baptisms." There began to be such in his day. He

speaks also of the "doctrine of baptisms" (plural), showing the same

thing.

But I came near forgetting one thing, which I wished to say, which is,

that, in reading the Bible last evening, I found a new encouragement in

taking infants to the house of God.

_Mother._ I should like to hear anything new on that point. I thought

that everything had been exhausted which referred to that subject.

_Mr. M._ I mean that it was new to me. Luke says that the parents of

Jesus brought him to Jerusalem "to present him to the Lord," and that,

arriving there, they brought him into the temple to do for him after the

custom of the law. Now, I always carelessly thought that this meant

circumcision.

_Mother._ Of course it does; I always thought so.

_Mr. M._ No; for he had already been circumcised, when he was eight days

old. "And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the

child, they called his name Jesus." Then the next verse speaks of a

subsequent act: "When the days of her purification were accomplished

they brought him to Jerusalem." Mary could not have come to Jerusalem on

the eighth day; but, on the second occasion, she was present; for Simeon

addressed her. So that we have the example of the infant Saviour, in

bringing our infants into the temple; and, if we are scrupulous as to

following the Saviour in ordinances, we may as well begin by following

him into the temple, with our infants.

_Mother._ It is beautiful to think of Jesus, even in his infancy, as an

example, and that he was forerunner to the infants of his people, while

yet in his mother's arms.

Chapter Fifth.

SCENES OF BAPTISM--HENRY KELLY.--THE YOUNG PARENTS AND THEIR BABE.--THE

LOST MARINER'S FAMILY.--THE FEEBLE-MINDED YOUTH.--THE REASONABLENESS,

POWER, AND BEAUTY, OF CHILDREN'S BAPTISMS.--HUSBANDS SHOULD COME WITH

THEIR WIVES AND CHILDREN.--MOSES IN THE INN.

Since, Lord, to thee

A narrow way and little gate

Is all the passage; on my infancy

Thou didst lay hold, and antedate

My faith in me.

GEORGE HERBERT.

The parent pair their secret homage pay,

And proffer up to Heaven the warm request,

That He, who stills the raven's clamorous nest,

And decks the lily fair in flowery pride,

Would, in the way his wisdom sees the best,

For them and for their little ones provide,

But chiefly in their hearts, with grace divine, preside.

BURNS.

In all men sinful is it to be slow

To hope: in parents, sinful above all.

WORDSWORTH.

In a few Sabbaths from this time we had a most interesting scene at our

church.

Little Henry Ferguson Kelly was brought, and offered up in baptism by

his mother. We all felt deep respect for her as a woman of decided

character, and a devoted Christian. We saw that she wept much during the

service. The father was not there. She held the little boy upright on

her arm, and he turned his face over her shoulder, looking all about the

church, above and below. He then undertook to apply his little palm to

his mother's cheek, with several decided strokes, to rouse her usual

attention, which he seemed to miss. She took his hand in hers, and held

it, and he then rested his cheek, and his chin, alternately, upon her

shoulder.

A sweet little girl, two months old, was also brought by a young couple

to be baptized. Few things are more interesting than the sight of a

young couple, with their first-born child, standing before God. A world

of thought and feeling passes through their minds in those hallowed

moments. Not much more than a year had gone since they stood before God

to take the vows of marriage from those same lips, perhaps, which now

lead their devotions, and bless them out of the house of the Lord. The

little child is an offering which gathers about itself more of rich joy

and gratitude, recollection, present bliss, and anticipation, than any

gift of God; it is itself an ordinance, a little rite, a sign and seal

of covenants and love to which earth has no parallel. The light of

nature almost teaches us the propriety of infant dedication, in the use

of the prevailing religious rite. The only wise God manifested his

goodness and wisdom, in establishing his covenant with the children of

those who love him, as really as in creating a companion for Adam.

There were other sights, on this baptismal occasion, besides Henry

Ferguson and his mother, and the young couple with their child.

A woman, in the habiliments of the deepest mourning, went up the aisle,

leading with her finger a little boy between two and three years old,

followed by a noble son of fifteen, and his sister of twelve. Our

pastor's rule, as to the limit of age within which children may be

admitted to baptism, is this: So long as a parent, or guardian, or next

friend, has the immediate tutelage of a child, so as to direct its

instruction and government, and thus continues to exercise parental

authority, he may properly offer the child for baptism; and therefore,

as children differ as to degrees of maturity within the same ages, no

express boundary of time can be prescribed to limit those baptisms which

are by the faith of another.

The father of these three children had been lost at sea on a whaling

voyage. The seaman's chest had come home, and so the last star of hope

as to his return had set. The mother had become a Christian; she felt

the need of a covenant-keeping God for her children. There she stood, a

sorrow-stricken woman, and her household with her, to receive for them

the sign of the covenant from the God of Abraham.

There was another sight in that group: A man and woman, honest, good

people, in humble circumstances, had had bequeathed to them, by a

widowed sister of his, who was not a professor of religion, a

feeble-minded youth of about ten years; and this uncle and aunt had

adopted him as their child. They also came, the husband leading the boy

along, with his arm over the boy's shoulder to encourage his hesitating

steps, and the wife behind them. He was a member of a Sabbath-school

class; by no means an idiot, yet deficient in some respects. He was

entrusted with affairs about a farm which did not require much

responsibility.

Little Henry Ferguson began to coo and crow, as they came successively

and stood, in a half-circle, round the table with the silver basin upon

it. The feeble-minded youth was mostly occupied with the actions of

Henry, who, on seeing his face covered with uncontrollable expressions

of interest in him, began to reach after him, and respond to his pleased

looks; nor did he cease his efforts to go to him, till he felt the

minister's hand upon his forehead from behind, when he turned his large,

beautiful eyes into the face of the minister, with silent wonder at

being apparently spoken to with so unusual a manner and tone. A hush

went through the congregation.

The young couple next presented their little Alice, and gave place to

the widow's household. Was there a dry eye in the house? Signs of

weeping came from all sides. Mortimer was led by his arm in his mother's

hand, and was baptized. Sarah loosened her straw bonnet, and let it fall

back from her head, to receive the simple rite; when the widow lifted

the little boy, who had never known a father's love, and the pastor,

after waiting a moment to control his emotions sealed him in the name of

our redeeming God.

After an involuntary pause for a few moments, owing to the deep emotion

in the congregation, poor Josey was led forward. Minister and

congregation seemed to make but slight impression upon him; Henry

Ferguson was the charm throughout; he even turned his head, while the

minister's hand was on it, to smile at the child. The promise was not

only to those believing parents, all of them, and to their own children,

but to him that was afar off; his new parents having availed themselves

of the large covenant of grace, to invoke its promised blessings upon

him, on the ground of their faith. "May these parents," said the pastor

in his prayer, "remember, in all times of solicitude and trouble with

this dear dependent child, that the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, in whose

name he is baptized, can have access to his mind, 'making wise the

simple;' and may that blessed Spirit make him his care."

Part of the time, while the hymn following the baptism was read and

sung, I found myself pursuing some thoughts which the interesting scene

just witnessed had suggested.

Why, I asked myself, could not these parents have been satisfied with

dedicating these children at home, without this public and special act

of consecration?

I was at no loss for an answer. The same reason applies as when one

seeks admission to the church of Christ, by a public profession of

religion, either by appearing before a congregation and assenting to a

covenant, or to be confirmed, or to be immersed in water. Offering a

child in baptism is making a public profession of religion with regard

to it. Some say to us, What need is there of joining a church? Why may I

not be a Christian by myself? We know what we say, in reply to such

questions. We are aware how much the public act helps the private

feelings and conduct, besides being required by our feelings when they

are deep and strong. I thought of this illustration: In the wakeful

moments of the night, upon a lonely bed, one feels a special nearness to

God. He can think of God, as he lies upon his pillow, both with prayer

and meditation; but suppose that he rises from his bed and kneels at the

bedside, and, with oral prayer, prevents the night-watches, and cries?

His voice at that midnight hour affects his mind; the darkness and

stillness impress him with a sense of the presence of God, and though

his ejaculations on his pillow were acceptable, has he not probably done

that which, through Christ, is peculiarly acceptable to God, and is

profitable to himself as his child? He who was always in communion with

the Father, the man Christ Jesus, nevertheless, sometimes withdrew into

a mountain, and continued all night in prayer, and, rising up a great

while before day, he went into a solitary place, and there prayed. These

special acts of worship, no true Christian needs to be told, are good

and acceptable to God, and profitable for men. We do not refrain from

them, pleading that they are nowhere commanded in the New Testament, or,

that, so long as we pray at stated times, or strive to live in a praying

frame, these special devotions are superfluous. So, while it is our duty

and privilege to dedicate our children to God in private, it is

acceptable to him, and profitable to us, if we take them, and bring an

offering, and come into his courts.

The baptism of the feeble-minded youth furnished me with an illustration

of the suitableness of parents and guardians doing for children, in

religion, that which they are constantly doing for them in common

things, that is, conferring privileges and blessings upon them without

their consent. There seemed to be such an illustration of the riches of

free grace, in the baptism of this poor child, such a comment on that

passage, "I am found of them that sought me not," it corresponded so

much with the kindness and love of God our Saviour towards man, that we

all felt instructed and softened by it, and, at the same time, we all

had feelings toward that helpless boy, such as we, perhaps, never could

have had but for his baptism. Never will a member of that witnessing

congregation see him, without a feeling of tenderness and something

bordering on respect; he will not be merely "Silly Joe" to them; that

element of truth in the heathen superstition, which leads heathens and

pagans to regard an idiot as something sacred, will have its

verification with regard to him; the children of that assembly will be

restrained from rudeness and cruelty, in their sports with him, by that

transaction, while the prayers offered for him at the time, and the many

ejaculations which the sight of him will occasion in the hearts of good

people, will make his baptism one of his richest blessings. O, what a

loss it is to have a child baptized at home, or anywhere and at any

time except among the public services of the Sabbath in the sanctuary of

God! Necessity, indeed, controls our choice, many times, in this thing;

and we are accepted of God irrespective of time and place, in yielding

to his providence.

Since my mind has been deeply interested in this subject, leading me to

converse with parents and with ministers, and to make observation with

regard to it, I have seen and heard many things relating to the

providences of God, in connection with the baptism of children, which,

while we ought to be slow in confidently interpreting providences, make

us do as Mary is said to have done, in regard to things relating to her

child,--she "kept these things and pondered them in her heart." We

cannot say, for example, that the death of that little girl, whose

father refused to let his wife enjoy the privilege of going, alone, with

the child, to the house of God for baptism, or to invite the pastor to

his house for the purpose, was a judicial consequence of his conduct;

but we know that his own thoughts trouble him, and that he has a sorrow

bound upon his heart, which he will carry with him to his grave.

Neither is it certain that the little one, who was raised to life from

a sickness which baffled the physicians, was spared to her pious mother

for her Christian behavior, in taking it, a few months before, to the

house of God, and offering it in baptism, with no help from her husband,

but with many sad thoughts that the father of the child--he on whose arm

she and the child needed to rest--refused her gentle and affectionate

pleadings with him, to support and cherish her at an hour so precious to

her heart. Nor will we say that the kind and obliging husband, not a

professor of religion, who served his wife so manfully, and with such a

cheerful spirit, on such an occasion, would not have acquired, in other

ways, the respect and love of the people, or that he could trace to it,

absolutely, great prosperity in business, through the assistance of

prominent members in that church. Sure we are that no such motive

influenced him; but it is equally true that we cannot link ourselves to

God's service, nor to his friends, in any way, without receiving his

blessing. "Come thou with us, and we will do thee good." "Blessed is he

that blesseth thee." In the eyes of estimable people, and of all whose

good opinion and best wishes are most desirable, the man who overcomes

any little pride, or sensitiveness, or fear of man, and goes with his

pious wife and child to the house of God, and offers the child, for her,

to be baptized, is more of a man than before, gains reputation for some

desirable qualities, excites respect for self-reliance, the quiet

performance of a duty from which certain feelings might lead him to

shrink, and in the increased love and esteem of others, to say no more,

he has his reward.

God was angry with Moses for delaying, if not neglecting, to circumcise

his child. His wife was a Midianite; her associations with the ordinance

were not like those of Moses, and perhaps he had yielded too much to her

known feelings. At least, the child had not been circumcised, and we are

told, "The Lord met him in the inn, and sought to slay him." Some

accident there, or a sudden and alarming illness, made him feel that God

had a controversy with him. Zipporah was not slow to interpret the

providence. If Moses had said with himself, So long as I consecrate my

child to God by prayer, the seal of the covenant cannot be essential,

God taught him his mistake. As soon as the rite had been performed, we

read, "So he let him go." It may be noticed, here, that the unworthy

manner in which Zipporah performed the rite, did not make it invalid.

They who fear that their baptism was not solemnized, in all respects, as

it should have been, may draw instruction and comfort from this

narrative.

There have been instances, within my knowledge, in which one or both of

the parents of a child have yielded to some untoward influences, and

have withheld the child from being baptized. While I cannot, and would

not, interpret certain events connected with this omission, on the part

of some from whom better things might have been expected, nothing has

ever impressed me more than the dealings of God with such parents. I

have been made to think by such coincidences, more than once or twice,

of Moses in the inn. It will not be amiss to say, that those who are

neglecting to bring their children for baptism, within a suitable time,

unless providentially hindered, will do well to examine their feelings

and motives, with that quickened conscience, which the solemn

providences of God toward them may be intended to excite. He is "a

jealous God;" and he keepeth covenant "to a thousand generations."

Chapter Sixth.

TESTIMONY OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS

HOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS.--"PÆDOBAPTIST CONCESSIONS."--THOMAS SHEPARD'S VIEWS.

BAPTISM OF HIS CHILD. THE FATHER'S RECORD.--GREAT INFLUENCE OF THE

FAMILY RELATION IN HEATHENISM AND PAGANISM.--THE YOUNG PEOPLE OF

AMERICA.--DISSUASIVE FROM ALTERCATION.--QUESTIONS TO A MINISTER ON HIS

PRACTICE IN BAPTISMS.--LIBERALITY.--PAUL AN EXAMPLE.

Lord, thou hast been our dwelling-place in all generations.--Ps. 90.

The Lamb hath but one bride, the one church of all times.--ANON.

That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power

of God.--THE APOSTLE PAUL.

Schoolmen must war with schoolmen, text with text.

The first's the Chaldee paraphrase; the next

The Septuagint; opinion thwarts opinion;

The Papist holds the first, the last the Arminian;

And then the Councils must be called to advise,

What this of Lateran says, and that of Nice;

The slightly-studied fathers must be prayed,

Although in small acquaintance, into aid;

When, daring venture, oft, too far into 't,

They, Pharaoh like, are drowned, both horse and foot.

FRANCIS QUARLES.

Being determined to possess myself of suitable information on the

subject of baptism as practised by the early Christian fathers, I

called the next evening to see my pastor, when the following

conversation took place:

_Mr. M._ I wish, sir, to know the plain and simple truth about the

evidence from ecclesiastical history with regard to infant baptism. The

internal evidence, confirming the scriptural argument, fully satisfies

me, yet, as a matter of interesting information, I should like to know

how it was regarded in the age next to that of the apostles. You know we

often read, and hear it said, that infant baptism is an error which

crept into the Christian church about the third century. Now, did it

creep in; or did the apostles practise it?

_Dr. D._ If infant baptism crept into the church, and if it be an

unauthorized innovation, one thing seems very strange, that, in this

Protestant age, when we are all so jealous of Romish and all human

inventions in matters of religion, the ablest and soundest men of all

Christian denominations but one, are firmly persuaded of its scriptural

authority, and are increasingly attached to it. In the great

reformations which have arisen from time to time, this practice would

have been swept away, had it been an error. It is more than we can

believe that Protestant denominations should all, with one exception,

adhere to an unscriptural practice, at the present day especially.

_Mr. M._ Well, sir, leaving the scripturalness of the ordinance out of

question, what support does the practice get from church history? How

far back to the times of the apostles can we trace it? Did any practise

it who could have received it from the apostles, or have known those who

did?

_Dr. D._ You must come with me into my study, and we will examine the

authorities.

I will not burden your attention and memory with many citations. Two or

three indisputable witnesses are better than a host. I rely chiefly on

the testimony of ORIGEN for proof that the practice of infant baptism

was derived from the apostles, though I will show you that his testimony

is confirmed by other witnesses.

ORIGEN was born in Alexandria, Egypt, A.D. 185, that is, about

eighty-five years after the death of the apostle John. To make his

nearness to the apostles clear to your mind, consider, that Roger

Williams, for example, established himself at Providence in 1636, say

two hundred and twenty years ago; yet how perfectly informed we are of

his opinions and history. But Origen, born eighty-five years only after

the death of John, knew, of course, the established practices of the

apostles, which had come down through so short a space of time. "His

grandfather, if not his father, must have lived in the apostles' day. It

was not, therefore, necessary for him to go out of his own family, to

learn what was the practice of the apostles. He knew whether he had

himself been baptized, if we may judge from his writings, and he must

have known the views of his father and grandfather on the subject. He

had the reputation of great learning, had travelled extensively, had

lived in Greece, Rome, Cappadocia, and Arabia, though he spent the

principal part of his life in Syria and Palestine."

I would place implicit reliance on the testimony of such a man, under

such circumstances, to any question of history with which he professed

to be familiar, even if I differed from him in matters of opinion. But

such a man would not state, for veritable history, that which the world

knew to be false.

Now, what is Origen's testimony as to the fact, simply, of the

apostolic usage with regard to infant baptism?

In his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Book v., he says:

"For this cause it was that the church received an order from the

apostles to give baptism even to infants."

In his homily on Lev. 12, he says:

"According to the usage of the church, baptism is given even to infants,

when, if there were nothing in infants that needed forgiveness and

mercy, the grace of baptism would seem to be superfluous."

In his homily on Luke 14, he says:

"Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins."

It was the practice, then, in Origen's day, to baptize infants. He tells

the people of his day, to whom he preaches and writes, why it was that

the church had received a command from the apostles to baptize them, not

proving to them the fact of history, but, taking that as well known,

explaining the theological reason for it, as he understood it.

It is now 1857. Eighty-five years ago, the length of time after the

apostles to the birth of this man, brings us back to 1772. There is good

Dr. Sales, who was born in 1770. Suppose that he should say that

steamboats came from England at the time that the Hudson river was

discovered, and that they had plied there ever since?

No man in his right mind (not to say a scholar like Origen), however

singular his opinions, would assert, for veritable history, that which

was as palpably false as such a fiction respecting steamboat navigation

upon the Hudson would be. Yet Origen asserts that the practice of infant

baptism was received directly from the apostles. Everybody could

contradict him if he were in error.

_Mr. M._ But we know that he was in error in saying that forgiveness of

sins was a consequence of baptism.

_Dr. D._ Very well. The erroneous opinions, or practices, of men, with

regard to the shape of the earth, did not prove that there was no earth

in their day. On the contrary, their theories and speculations are

proof, if any were needed, that the earth then existed, surely. A man

who boldly advocates a theory, fears to assert for fact that which all

the world knows to be false.

_Mr. M._ If infant baptism were then practised, and had been received

from the apostles, why should Origen assert it in his books, and in

preaching, since everybody must have known it sufficiently. Does not

this prove that it was not generally believed?

_Dr. D._ Why, my dear sir, am I not every Sabbath telling how that

Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures? People do not need

to be informed of it as a truth of history, but they need to be reminded

of it, and to be exhorted in view of it. So of every doctrine, and

everything connected with religion. We tell the plainest, the most

familiar, truths to our church-members, continually; and the common

repetition of those truths is, rather, a proof of their general

acceptation than otherwise.

_Mr. M._ In a court of justice, such testimony as that of Origen would

certainly be conclusive, in the case of a patent-right, or maritime

discovery. But you said that there were other testimonies of equal

weight.

_Dr. D._ TERTULLIAN was born at Carthage, not far from A.D. 150, that

is, about fifty years after the apostles. He wrote, therefore, within a

hundred years of the apostle John. But he was a man of peculiar views,

extravagant in his opinions, an enthusiast in everything. He proves that

the practice of infant baptism was established, by arguing against the

expediency of baptizing children, and unmarried persons, lest they

should sin after baptism. His argument, with respect to both these

classes of persons, is the same. His language is, "If any understand the

weight of baptismal obligations, they will be more fearful about taking

them than of delay." He argued that baptism should be deferred till

people were in a condition to resist temptation. These are his words:

"Therefore, according to every person's condition, and disposition, and

age, also, the delay of baptism is more profitable, especially as to

little children. For why is it necessary that the sponsors should incur

danger? For they may either fail of their promises by death, or may be

disappointed by a child's proving to be of a wicked disposition. Our

Lord says, indeed, 'Forbid them not to come to me.' Let them come, then,

when they are grown up; let them come when they understand; let them

come when they are taught whither they come; let them become Christians

when they are able to know Christ. Why should their innocent age make

haste to the forgiveness of sins? Men act more cautiously in temporal

concerns. Worldly substance is not committed to those to whom divine

things are entrusted. Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you

may seem to give to him that asketh.

"It is for a reason no less important that unmarried persons, both those

who were never married, and those who have been deprived of their

partners, should, on account of their exposure to temptation, be kept

waiting," &c.

As these extracts prove that the institution of marriage existed in

Tertullian's day, so they prove the existence then of infant baptism.

Nothing can be more conclusive. How pertinent and useful to his object

would it have been, could he have assailed the practice of infant

baptism as a human invention! He would not have failed to use that line

of attack, had it been possible. Now, as certain articles in the

newspapers, in a distant part of the country, remonstrating against the

street-railroads, for example, prove that street-railroads exist there,

so does Tertullian's argument against infant baptism prove that it was

practised within one hundred years after the apostles.

_Mr. M._ Is not this stronger, if anything, than Origen's testimony,

being so much nearer the apostolic age?

_Dr. D._ For that reason it may have more weight; but Origen's

testimony, being direct and positive, is most easily quoted. He was near

enough to the apostolic age for all the purposes of credible testimony.

There is another historical testimony, if you wish to hear of more,

which has great weight.

THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE, one hundred and fifty years after the apostles,

and composed of sixty-six pastors, has given us full testimony on the

subject. A country presbyter, by the name of Fidus, had sent two cases

for their adjudication. One was, "Whether an infant might be baptized

before it was eight days old?" Here is the answer:

CYPRIAN, and the rest of the presbyters who were present in the council,

sixty-six in number, to Fidus our brother, Greeting:

"---- As to the case of Infants: whereas you judge that they must not be

baptized within two or three days after they were born, and that the

rule of circumcision is to be observed,--we are all in the Council of a

very different opinion." "This, therefore, was our opinion in the

Council, that we ought not to hinder any person from baptism, and the

grace of God. And this rule, as it holds for all, is, we think, more

especially to be observed in reference to infants, even to those who are

newly born."

This was written, within a hundred and fifty years from the time of the

apostles, by sixty-six ministers of Christ, some of whom, we may

suppose, must have had grace enough to show a martyr-spirit in resisting

so gross an invention as the baptizing of infants would have been, if

apostolic example had restricted baptism to those who were capable of

faith. Did Paul reprove an abuse of the Lord's Supper, among the

Corinthians, and would he not have given an injunction against so Jewish

a superstition as the baptizing of children in place of the antiquated

circumcision would have been, if it were not commanded, had the churches

in his day seemed inclined to practise it?

_Mr. M._ All these things amount to a demonstration, in my view.

_Dr. D._ You would like to hear something from AUGUSTINE, whose

"Confessions" you have read with so much interest.

In his writings, on Genesis, Augustine says, about two hundred and

eighty-eight years after the apostles, "The custom of our mother, the

church, in baptizing infants, must not be disregarded nor accounted

useless, and it must by all means be believed to be (apostolica

traditio) a thing handed down to us by the apostles." "It is most justly

believed to be no other than a thing delivered by apostolic authority;

that it came not by a general council, or by any authority later or less

than that of the apostles." He also speaks of baptizing infants by the

authority of the whole church, which, he says, was undoubtedly delivered

to it by our Lord and his apostles.

Augustine was a man of distinguished piety and learning, whose testimony

is every way worthy of implicit confidence. But, connected with his

history, we have another substantial evidence with regard to the

subject. He conducted a famous controversy against the Pelagians, who

denied original sin. They were confronted with the argument from infant

baptism. "Why," it was said, "are infants baptized, if they need no

change of nature?" It would have been a triumphant answer could they

have shown that it was an unscriptural practice, not countenanced by

Christ or the apostles. But Pelagius said, "Men slander me as though I

denied baptism to infants, whereas I never heard of any one, Catholic or

heretic, who denied baptism to infants." Pelagius and his friend

Celestius, who was with him in the controversy, were born, the one in

Britain, the other in Ireland. They lived for some years in Rome, where

they knew people from all parts of the world. They had also lived in

Carthage, Africa. One finally settled in Jerusalem, and the other

travelled among all the churches in the principal places of Europe and

Asia. But they had never heard of the man, not even a heretic, who had

denied infant baptism.

Here is another interesting proof. Irenæus, Philastrius, Augustine,

Epiphanius, Theodoret, wrote catalogues of all the sects of Christians

which they had ever heard of; but, while they make mention of some who

denied baptism altogether, and with it, according to Augustine, a great

part of scripture, they mention no denial of infant baptism by any sect

whatever.

_Mr. M._ I suppose, then, that the only way of disposing of this

argument is by rejecting all testimony except that of the New Testament.

Some say they can prove anything from the fathers; so they insist that

the Bible alone must be our guide.

_Dr. D._ They are right in making that the only and sufficient rule of

faith and practice. But how do these good people and the rest of us know

that the books of the Old Testament, as we have them, were the very

books to which Christ and the apostles referred as the word of God? If

infidels refuse to receive the Bible, saying, 'There is no proof that

these are the identical books known to Christ, and quoted by him and the

apostles,' What shall we say? The Bible itself gives us no specific

direction how to prove its genuineness. It is interesting to observe

that we go to uninspired men to prove that we really have the Bible as

Christ and the apostles sanctioned it. We go to Josephus, neither

inspired nor even a Christian; to the Talmud, to Jerome, Origen, Aquila,

and other uninspired men, to find a list of the books which we are to

receive as given by the inspiration of God. And, as to the New

Testament, we go to Eusebius and other uninspired writers, and find that

the Christians of their days regarded these books as of divine

authority. It is on such evidence as this that we rely for the authority

of those sacred writings, which tell us what are the doctrines,

precepts, and rites, of religion. Now, we see from this that uninspired

testimony to divine things has its use. It is neither wise, nor any

proof of intelligence, to refuse a proper place to such testimony. We do

not ask Josephus nor Eusebius how to interpret these books for us, nor

does their erroneous opinion with regard to matters of faith disparage

their testimony as to the existence and authenticity of the sacred

canon. Neither can we properly say, "The early Christian fathers had

wrong notions, some of them, about infant baptism; therefore they cannot

be allowed to testify whether infant baptism was practised." However

heretical they may have been, they could not alter the well-known facts

of history, in the face of enemies and friends.

_Mr. M._ Are you not accustomed to rely much, in your scriptural

argument for infant baptism, on the baptisms of households by the

apostles?

_Dr. D._ I am; and that reminds me of an interesting passage, which I

will read to you from this book:[4]

[Footnote 4: Taylor on Baptism.]

"Have we eight instances of the administration of the Lord's Supper? Not

half the number. Have we eight cases of the change of the Christian

Sabbath from the Jewish? Not, perhaps, one fourth of the number. Yet

those services are vindicated by the practice of the apostles, as

recorded in the New Testament. How, then, can we deny their practice on

the subject of infant baptism, when it is established by a series of

more numerous instances than can possibly be found in support of any

doctrine, principle, or practice, derived from the practice of the

apostles?"

But you will ask him (said Dr. D.), how he proves that there were

infants or young children in the households baptized by the apostles.

This is his answer:

"Is there any other case besides that of baptism, where we would take

families at hazard, and deny the existence of young children in them?

"Take eight families in a street, or eight pews containing families in

a place of worship; they will afford more than one young child."

_Mr. M._ How does he make out eight cases of household baptism by the

apostles?

_Dr. D._ Let us examine his list:

1. Cornelius.

2. Lydia.

3. The jailer at Philippi. "Thus the church at Philippi, just organized

by the apostles, and consisting of but few members, offers two instances

of household baptism."

4. Crispus. "Compare Acts 18: 8, and 1 Cor. 1:14--16, by which it

appears that this Crispus was baptized by Paul separately from his

family, which was not baptized by Paul. Yet Crispus 'believed on the

Lord with all his house.' If his house believed, it was baptized. It

was, then, a baptized household. But if we believe that the family of

Crispus was baptized because we find it registered as believing, then we

must admit the same of all other families which we find marked as

Christians, though they be not expressly marked as baptized." He is not

proving, here, you notice, that there were children in any of these

households; he thinks he proves that elsewhere, by the doctrine of

chances. He is now showing the grounds for supposing that certain

"households" were baptized. He applies his argument respecting Crispus

to

5. Aristobulus's household.

6. Onesiphorus's household.

7. Narcissus's household.

8. Stephanas's household. This household was baptized by Paul separately

from its head, who was not baptized by Paul; this case being just the

reverse of that of Crispus.

"Eight Christian families, and therefore baptized." Now comes the

question of probability as to there being children in those households

not capable of faith.

Begin anywhere, in any congregation, on the Sabbath, and count eight

pews, the proprietors and occupants of which are the heads of families;

and the chance of there being no minor children in them is almost too

small to be appreciated. Should we read, in a secular paper, that a

foreign missionary had baptized eight households in a pagan village, the

general belief would be that it was a missionary of some Pædobaptist

denomination, and that children were baptized in those families.

I must read to you (said Dr. D.) something on the other side of this

argument. I found the following, not long since, in a deservedly popular

and useful Dictionary and Repository, written and signed by a gentleman

of excellent character and standing. He says:

"Infant baptism was probably introduced about the commencement of the

third century, in connection with other corruptions, which even then

began to prepare the way for Popery. A superstitious idea, respecting

the necessity of baptism to salvation, led to the baptism of sick

persons, and, finally, to the baptism of infants. Sponsors, holy water,

anointing with oil, the sign of the cross, and a multitude of similar

ceremonies, equally unauthorized by the Scriptures, were soon

introduced. The church lost her simplicity and purity, her ministers

became ambitious, and the darkness gradually deepened to the long and

dismal night of papal despotism."

"Probably introduced about the commencement of the third century, in

connection with other corruptions." Recall what I read to you from

Origen, born A.D. 185; from Tertullian, who flourished within one

hundred years after the apostles; from Cyprian and the Council of

Carthage; from Augustine and his antagonist, Pelagius, who expressly

said that he had never heard of any one, not even the most impious

heretic, denying baptism to infants.

In contrast with such a passage as the one just read to you, I am

reminded of the host of writers, on our side of the question, who,

almost all of them, make such candid and full concessions, that they

furnish their brethren of the opposite side with many of their arguments

against us. I remember reading a book of "Pædobaptist Concessions,"

containing a formidable array of points yielded by our writers, so that

a common reader might ask, What have you left as the ground of your

belief and practice? But the thought which arose in my mind was,

Notwithstanding all these concessions, they who make them are among the

firmest believers in baptism by sprinkling, and in infant baptism. That

cause must be affluent in proofs, and deeply rooted in the scriptural

convictions of men, which can afford to make such concessions to its

antagonists. These refuse facts, which we afford to others for so large

a part of their foundation, show how broad and sufficient ours must be.

The quotation which I read to you, speaks of Popish tendencies as having

already begun. This is true; and more may be added. In the second

epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul tells us that the mystery of iniquity

was already at work. On the subject of religious days and festivals, the

first Christians very soon began to be superstitious, incorporating

heathen festival days into Christian observances, under the plea of

redeeming and sanctifying them, with some such feelings and reasoning as

that with which people, now, would transfer secular music to

sanctuaries, saying that the enemy ought not to have all the best music.

It is true that this sensuous, and, afterward called, Romish, tendency,

corrupted everything. The pure stream of apostolic doctrine and practice

was like the Moselle, which you saw from the fortress of

Ehrenbreitstein, pursuing its unmingled course distinctly for some

distance in the turbid Rhine, till at last it yields to the general

current. Infant baptism, as we learn from ecclesiastical authorities

with one consent, proceeded from the apostles; yet soon it began to be

practised with many superstitious absurdities; and, moreover,

immersion, making such powerful appeals to the senses, suited the taste

of the age far better than sprinkling, so that not only did it become

the common mode, but the subjects were completely undressed, without any

distinction, to denote the putting off the old man and the putting on of

the new, and the putting away of the filth of the flesh.[5] Public

sentiment finally abolished this practice. After a considerable time

affusion, or sprinkling, returned, and became the prevailing mode,

without any special enactment, or any formal renunciation of the late

mode. The Eastern church, however, retained immersion, while the Greek

and Armenian branches use both immersion and sprinkling for the adult

and child. But the sick and dying were always baptized by sprinkling,

which is sufficient to prove that sprinkling was regarded as equally

valid with immersion. It is natural to say that it was superstitious to

baptize the sick and dying, by sprinkling, if we hold that only

immersion is valid baptism. The sick and dying cannot be immersed; now,

is it superstition for a sick person, giving credible evidence of piety,

to be admitted into the Christian church, and receive the Lord's Supper?

In order to do this properly, the subject must be baptized; hence, we

derive one powerful argument that sprinkling is valid baptism. Our Lord

would never have made the modes of his sacraments so austerely rigid,

that the thousands of sick and feeble persons, ministers in poor health,

climate, seasons of the year, times of persecution and imprisonment, and

all the stress of circumstances to which Christians may be subjected,

should be utterly disregarded, and one inconvenient, and sometimes

dangerous, form, of applying water, be insisted on, inflexibly, as

essential to the introductory Christian rite. If the early Christians

baptized the sick by sprinkling, they of course supposed that it was

valid baptism. If it was valid at all, and in any case, of course it was

Christian baptism, even if other modes were most commonly used.

[Footnote 5: See "Coleman's Ancient Christianity," chap, xix., sec. 12.

He refers to Ambrose, Ser. 20. Chrysostom, Hom. 6. Epistle to Col., &c.,

&c.]

_Mr. M._ I suppose, then, that you would not object to administer

baptism in any other mode of applying water than sprinkling, or pouring.

_Dr. D._ One mode was, I believe, practised at first; and the New

Testament teaches me that this was affusion. The application of water in

any way, by an authorized administrator, to a proper subject, in the

name of the Trinity, may be valid baptism; but I prefer the New

Testament mode, as I understand it, and am happy to allow others the

same liberty of judgment which I enjoy. It would be an extreme case

which would lead me to administer the ordinance in any other way than by

affusion.

But, said Mr. D., you began by inquiring respecting the practice of

infant baptism in the early ages. I presume that your mind is settled

with regard to the connection of the practice with God's everlasting

covenant with believers and their offspring. I lately read a statement

of this point, which pleased me much, in the writings of the famous Rev.

Thomas Shepard, the early pastor of the church in Cambridge,

Massachusetts. He says:

"There is the same inward cause moving God to take in the children of

believing parents into the church and covenant, now, to be of the number

of his people, as there was for taking the Jews and their children. For

the only reason why the Lord took in the children of the Jews with

themselves evidently was his love to the parents. 'Because he loved thy

fathers, therefore he chose their seed.' So that I do from hence

believe, that either God's love is, in these days of his Gospel, less

unto his people and servants than in the days of the Old Testament,--or,

if it be as great, that then the same love respects the seed of his

people now as then it did. And, therefore, if then because he loved them

he chose their seed to be of his church, so in these days because he

loveth us he chooseth our seed to be of his church also."

Though the title of the treatise from which I read is called the

Church-Membership of Children, to which expression I have very great

objections, and feel that it has done harm, yet this good man held the

doctrine of infant church-membership in a sense which is free from all

reproach of making people members of the church otherwise than by

regeneration. His belief on this point comes out under the following

illustration:

"These children may not be the sons of God and his people really and

savingly, but God will honor them outwardly with his name and

privileges, just as one that adopts a youngster tells the father that

if the child carry himself well toward him, when he is grown up to years

he shall possess the inheritance itself; but yet in the meanwhile he

shall have this favor, to be called his son, and be of the family and

household, and so be reckoned among the number of his sons."

One of the chief reasons which brought this excellent man to New

England, was that he could not in Old England enjoy the ordinance of

infant baptism in its purity. Let me read the following, addressed by

him to his little son, who afterward became pastor of the church in

Lynn, Massachusetts, and was a burning and shining light. His words will

show you that he had no superstitious notion about the church-membership

of children, though he represented the common belief at that day, and

that he did not count baptism in infancy a saving ordinance; yet you

will see how he uses it to plead with his son to be reconciled to God.

He writes:

"And thus, after about eleven weekes sayle from Old England, we came to

New England shore, where the mother fell sick of consumption, and you my

child was put to nurse to one goodwife Hopkins, who was very tender of

thee; and after we had been here diverse weekes, on the seventh of

February, or thereabout, God gave thee the ordinance of baptism, whereby

God is become thy God, and is beforehand with thee, that whenever you

shall return to God he will undoubtedly receive thee; and this is a most

high and happy privilege; and therefore blesse God for it. And now,

after this had been done, thy deare mother dyed in the Lord, departing

out of this world into another, who did lose her life by being careful

to preserve thine; for in the ship thou wert so feeble and froward, both

in the day and night, that hereby shee lost her strength, and at last

her life. Shee hath made also many a prayer and shed many a tear in

secret for thee; and this hath bin oft her request, that if the Lord did

not intend to glorify himselfe by thee, that he would cut thee off by

death rather than to live to dishonor him by sin; and therefore know it

that if you shalt turn rebell agaynst God, and forsake God and care not

for the knowledge of him, nor to beleeve in his Son, the Lord will make

all these mercys woes, and all thy mother's prayers, teares, and death,

to be a swift witness agaynst thee at the great day."

The practice of infant baptism, and a belief in what is called the

church-membership of children, surely had no injurious effect upon a

parent who could speak thus to his child. Yet Shepard took as high

ground as any with regard to this subject. He derived appeals from

baptism to his child, which were both encouraging and admonitory in the

highest degree.

O, said Dr. D., what a people the descendants of Abraham might have been

forever, had they kept that covenant of which circumcision was the seal.

Had they remembered only this, and had they adhered to it, "I will be a

God to thee and to thy seed after thee," and had they been a

covenant-keeping people, their peace, as God says to them, would have

been as a river; an endless, inexhaustible tide of prosperity and

blessedness.

And now, if Christian parents will but lay hold on that covenant as they

may, that Abrahamic covenant, still in force for them who are Christ's,

and so Abraham's, seed, and heirs according to the promise, we should

soon see, in family religion, in the early conversion of children, and

in their large Christian culture, those promises of God fulfilled which

have respect to the great increase, chiefly by this means, of his

church in the latter days. This is one thing which makes me love and

prize infant baptism so much; its being an expression and exponent of

parental love, faithfulness, and zeal, in those with whom it is preceded

and followed by the entire consecration of their children to God, their

feelings and conduct toward them agreeing with the covenant made for

them with God.

But, in saying this, let me guard you against the erroneous notion that

infant baptism is primarily a parent's covenant, an expression of his

feelings toward God. No, it is God's covenant, an expression of his

feelings toward the children of believers. That is the chief thing which

gives it value. For, it is not because parents love their children, that

God commands that they be offered in baptism; but because God loves

them, and has promised to be a God to them, as he is to their parents.

People, however, sometimes treat the ordinance as though it were their

act toward God, and not primarily his act toward them. They, therefore,

are liable to use it with far less effect than if they were receiving in

it, and by it, God's own transaction with them and the little child.

_Mr. M._ In thinking of Pagan and Mohammedan nations, lately, at the

Concert of Prayer for Foreign Missions, I was struck with this thought,

how error has been transmitted from father to child, and what an awful

power for evil lies in transmitted family influence, when it is

corrupted. This led me to think whether God did not have this in mind

when, in establishing his church in Abraham, he connected children with

parents in his covenant, and gave a sign and seal to be affixed to their

children as a constant admonition to parental faithfulness. All his

former dealings with the world seem to have failed, because of its great

wickedness,--fire, plagues, good examples, great riches, and power

conferred upon the good; and then he added, as a special means, the

family constitution, and by it he secured a seed to serve him to an

extent sufficient to keep the world from extinction, and to be the

repository and source of divine knowledge. I began to think that, if we

would keep religion from dying out, we must fall in with God's great

plan; for Satan makes use of it, and holds generation after generation

in bondage by means of the family constitution. So I set myself at work

to find out ways by which we might promote family religion; and I could

find no better plan than the old one, of promoting scriptural and

spiritual views of the dedication of children. Then I thought how much

discredit has been cast upon that ordinance, which is intended to be the

great sign and declaration of parental piety and faithfulness; and that

family religion had, proportionably, declined, with the indifference of

Christians to this powerful means of promoting the eminent zeal and

efforts of parents in behalf of their children's spiritual good. Youths

of fifteen to twenty-one years of age are, in a large proportion, the

causes of prevailing wickedness,--Sabbath-breaking, profaneness, and

other things. They need just what the ordinance of baptism, properly

observed and fully carried out by covenanting parents, would do for

them. But, in being present at the formation of new churches, I have

mourned to see that, instead of declaring infant baptism to be the duty

of believers, as was formerly done in our older churches, a compromise

with modern lax views is made, by merely permitting infant baptism,

saying, in the confession of faith, that, "Baptism is the privilege only

of believers and their children."

But the idea of getting up a zeal in favor of infant baptism, or a

public sentiment in the churches which should enforce it as a duty,

seemed to me unprofitable; but it occurred to me, whether something

could not be done to interest Christian parents in the subject, by

showing them the infinite privilege of having God for their God, and the

God of their seed, and then the naturalness and propriety of using an

ordinance to express and to assist it. People need instruction on the

subject; instruction which will commend itself to their Christian

feelings. We cannot legislate them into a spiritual observance of the

Lord's Supper, much less of baptism.

_Dr. D._ No; and I trust that our denominations who practise infant

baptism, will never urge it otherwise than in connection with parental

piety, and as a helper of parental obligations.

_Mr. M._ But ought we not to stir ourselves up with regard to parental

duties? and, if so, must we not necessarily insist on the dedication of

children to God, and upon baptism as the acceptable way of signifying

it, and the powerful means of helping us to perform our duties?

_Dr. D._ Surely we ought; and in doing it we have the satisfaction to

know that we are laboring for something more than to establish a mode

of applying an ordinance. In urging the baptism of children, if we do it

not for the sake of the ordinance, but for the things which it signifies

and promotes, we advance the cause of piety in the parents.

_Mr. M._ Would that some one would blow a trumpet in the churches on

this subject. I do feel that if parents would appreciate the influence

of such a state of heart as would lead them to offer their children to

God in baptism, as an expression of their previous and subsequent views

and feelings toward their children, we should see a new state of things

in the rising generation. How striking it is that the Old Testament

closes with such a passage as that last verse of Malachi. It is the

promontory of the Old Testament, looking across the coming ages,

yearning toward the new dispensation, and, as it were, making signals,

concerning the forerunner of that new era, with those words: "And he

shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of

the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a

curse." May we not conclude that this is God's most acceptable way of

effecting the revival of religion from one period to another?

_Dr. D._ I have no doubt of it.

_Mr. M._ I spoke to our good Deacon Goodenow about it, lately; but he

said he had a great horror of a controversy about baptism, and he was

afraid that, to say much upon this subject, would involve us in one. I

told him that I would not be for reflecting upon other denominations;

that my motto, with regard to them and us, is, "Live, and let live." I

would only appeal to our own people, and encourage them to take up the

subject afresh, in a spiritual manner; that is, to dwell upon the

privilege and duty of being in covenant relations, with our children, to

God, baptism being the ordinance of ratification, and its memorial.

_Dr. D._ Your reference to controversy about baptism makes me think of

one which I listened to in a rail-road station, last winter, while

waiting in a snow-storm, several hours, for the cars. Two students of

divinity, as I took them to be, were discussing their respective tenets

with regard to baptism. I was reading a book, but could not help hearing

what they said. One was decrying infant baptism as a "rag of Popery,"

"the last relic of Rome in Protestantism," "a device of Satan to fill

up the church with unconverted members," and much more to that effect.

His friend, in reply, undertook to give his impressions of immersion. He

spoke of India-rubber bathing-dresses;--a tank in which he saw two or

three men and as many women, one of them a young lady, immersed, to his

apparent disgust;--of Elder some one breaking the ice at some cape on

New Year's Sabbath, and immersing several carriages full of females, who

went back dripping wet, to the carriages, and rode an eighth of a mile

to the vestry;--of several females immersed, in a southern State, going

into a creek with white garments, and with white fillets about their

heads, and coming out yellow; and he asked his fellow whether infant

baptism could be any worse than such things.

_Mr. M._ What did his friend say?

_Dr. D._ O, it was the common talk on both sides, painful and revolting.

I could not help saying to them, as the cars were coming up, and we were

parting, "But, if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be

not consumed one of another."

_Mr. M._ They probably left each other as little convinced of the

opposite opinions, respectively, as when they began.

_Dr. D._ More confirmed and set against each other's views, I have no

question. There has been far too much of this. Ridicule and sarcasm are

Satan's favorite weapons. Good people ought not to use them against each

other, whatever be the temptation. Perhaps, as human nature chooses

variety, and we are differently affected by different presentations of

truth, men must be divided into sects; but intolerance, bigotry,

exclusiveness, in us or in others, cannot stand before the spirit of the

age. We may work better, divided into denominations, forbearing with one

another, and loving one another in Christ, and for his sake.

_Mr. M._ Are you often called upon by persons who are troubled on the

subject of baptism?

_Dr. D._ I do not spend much time in discussing the mode. When a young

person is troubled on the subject, I am always careful, first of all, to

find out whether there is any secret bias, for any reason, toward

another denomination; in which case, I pause at once; for you might

argue forever in vain. There is iron on board the ship, which controls

the needle in the compass. I always make it easy and pleasant for such

to follow their evident inclination and wishes.

_Mr. M._ Are they generally ready to go?

_Dr. D._ No, they say they do not like strict communion; but I cannot

help them. I will not be a sectarian, even for infant baptism.

_Mr. M._ Are you in favor of admitting people to our church who do not

believe in infant baptism?

_Dr. D._ Young people, who say that their minds are not made up on the

subject, or those who have not had their attention directed to it,

cannot be required to signify their cordial assent to it; but it is

enough if they are not opposed. In the case of parents who steadfastly

decline to practise infant baptism, after waiting a proper time to

instruct them, I advise them to join another denomination more in

accordance with their views. We do better to be apart, and it is no

reflection upon either side to say this. A Pædobaptist church ought to

maintain its principles by requiring assent to its standard of faith;

yet, where there is no church of a different denomination, within

convenient distance, I surely would not exclude a child of God from the

Lord's Supper for differences of opinion and practice about baptism. I

would admit, by special vote, to occasional, or even to stated

communion, in such a case.

_Mr. M._ Do you ever re-baptize?

_Dr. D._ Where a person was baptized with water, in the name of the

Trinity, by an authorized person, of any denomination, I would not

re-baptize. The alleged heterodox or immoral character of the

administrator, at the time of baptism, does not invalidate it;

otherwise, one might be baptized many times, and, the administrators

proving unworthy, the subject could never get baptized. Christ would

never let his ordinances depend thus upon uncertainties. Let a person

but recognize his baptism, if performed in infancy, by entering publicly

into covenant with God, and that will be sufficient. I endeavor to show

people how wrong it is to lay undue stress on the ordinance, forgetting

whether they have that which is signified by it, and which alone gives

it value.

_Mr. M._ True, sir, but it has its importance, and stress is to be laid

upon the due observance of it.

_Dr. D._ I mean that where I find the conditions of valid baptism

complied with, I try to turn away the thoughts from any superstitious or

ceremonial dependence upon the sacramental act. You remember the answer

in the catechism to the question, "How do the sacraments become

effectual means of salvation?"

_Mr. M._ How I used to say that, at my mother's knee, with my hands

folded behind me, to keep them still: "The sacraments become effectual

means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth

administer them, but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of

his spirit in them that by faith receive them."

_Dr. D._ I was thinking, the other day, and not for the first time, by

any means, what a noble man was Paul. He was unwilling that people

should call themselves after him, as their leader, and therefore he was

glad to leave the act of baptizing to his associates. Some, however,

infer from this that he disparages baptism. "Christ sent me not to

baptize, but to preach the gospel." Baptism, in its place, has its

importance, and so has preaching; but whether he should be the baptizer,

or delegate the administration to Silas, or Mark, was not of so much

consequence as that he should preach. How he put things in their right

places, according to their proportions, exalting the great, vital

things, sinking others to their subordinate, though useful, spheres, and

becoming all things to all men to save them. With his contempt of

formalism, I hardly know of a greater trial of patience than he must

have had in consenting to circumcise Timothy. He there shut the

window-shutters, and lighted an exhausted lamp, for a time, though he

knew the sun was up, to gratify some who had not opened their eyes to

the morning. How far from a contentious, ambitious spirit, was he, even

with his intense convictions. There are many good people, in all

communions, who are longing for the time when all the old walls of

separation between true Christians will have as many gates in them, at

least, as heaven has,--on the east three gates, on the north three

gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. But I

rejoice even in our liberty, if we choose to exercise it, of separation,

without molestation, though we lose much good to ourselves, and much

influence, and, in times of general religious interest, it leads to

early discussions about modes and forms. How many times have I seen a

growing attention to religion in a community checked by debates and

discussions as to ordinances.

_Mr. M._ If more pains were taken to instruct our own people as to the

oneness of the ancient and the Christian church, and to show them how

the consecration of children is a part of religion, as reëstablished by

the Most High, it seems to me great good would follow.

_Dr. D._ If you will draw out your thoughts on the subject, and let me

see them, we may prepare something which may be useful. You view the

subject on the popular, practical side. Let us see what the results are

to which you have come.

Having agreed to make the effort at my leisure, I may report hereafter

as to my success. And now I will ask my reader's attention to an

interesting letter, which, on my return home, I found awaiting me.

Chapter Seventh.

TERMS OF COMMUNION.

Him first to love, great right and reason is,

Who first to us our life and being gave;

And after, when we fared had amisse,

Us wretches from the second death did save;

And last, the food of life, which now we have,

Even He himselfe, in his dear sacrament,

To feede our hungry soules, unto us lent.

Then next to love our brethren, that were made

Of that selfe mould, and that self maker's hand,

That we;[6] and to the same againe shall fade

Where they shall have like heritage of land,[7]

However here on higher steps we stand;

Which also were with selfe-same price redeemed

That we;--however of us light esteemed.

SPENSER.--"_An Hymne of Heavenly Love._"

----PRAIRIE,----, 185-.

MY DEAR BROTHER: Here we are, at our journey's end. We have had a most

romantic journey, arriving in health, though wayworn, much of our ride

having been in wagons. My wife says, Give my love to brother, and tell

him of the scene at "the hill Mizar." Your letter, which we found

awaiting us, made her think that you would be deeply interested in the

story. This, by and by.

[Footnote 6: As we.]

[Footnote 7: The grave.]

As we were leaving C., one morning, in the great mail-wagon, a man and

his wife, with an infant in her arms, took seats with us, bound far

beyond our own home. The parents had been delayed by the birth of the

child during the journey from New York. They proved to be truly

excellent people, and they made our journey with them very agreeable.

The father, Mr. Blair, had been greatly tried during his stay at the

hotel where his wife was sick. There was only one church in the village.

The administration of the Lord's Supper occurring while he was there, he

went to avail himself of a stranger's privilege at the table of Christ.

He found, however, that the ordinance was not to be administered till

the afternoon, and, moreover, the hymn-book, and some things in the

sermon, disclosed to him that the church was one which closed its doors

against communicants who had not been baptized by immersion, on

profession of their faith.

He was strongly inclined to partake of the ordinance, without saying

anything respecting his baptism. But, on the whole, he concluded that it

would be respectful to intimate his situation to one of the church,

peradventure they had a rule favorable to such a case as his, or, at

least, had agreed to shut their eyes, and ask no questions, in such

circumstances.

He, therefore, introduced himself to a venerable man, who, he inferred,

was a deacon. He frankly told him who he was, and that he wished to

partake of the Lord's Supper.

The good man said to him, "I am sorry that you said anything about it;

but, so long as you have, I don't see how I can consistently encourage

your partaking of the ordinance."

_Stranger._ On what ground, sir?

_Deacon._ Why, we do not hold you to have been baptized.

_Stranger._ I was baptized in infancy, by believing parents, and have

been a professing Christian fifteen years.

_Deacon._ That is not believers' baptism, as we view it. The Lord's

Supper, in our communion, is for baptized persons only. We hold to no

baptism but by immersion.

_Stranger._ I certainly would not intrude, and I will not ask you to act

inconsistently with your principles. But I am a wayfaring man. I have

not had the opportunity to partake of the Lord's Supper for several

months. The life and health of my wife have been remarkably preserved in

this village. Here is the birthplace of my first-born, a place never to

be forgotten by us. I wish to make a Bethel of it. I wish to come to my

Saviour's table with my thanksgivings, and pay him my vows, which my

lips have uttered, and my mouth hath spoken, when I was in trouble. I

rejoiced when I heard that this was your sacramental Sabbath.

_Deacon._ Your church would not admit an unbaptized person to the Lord's

table, however much he might plead for admission.

_Stranger._ O, my dear sir, how unfair that reasoning is. This is

placing me on a level with one who rejects baptism. I profess to have

been baptized to the best of my knowledge, and to have fulfilled the

requirements of Christ. Should a man come to our church, and say, I have

reason to believe that I have been baptized, though I cannot bring

evidence to satisfy you, except so far as you have confidence in me, his

case would be parallel with mine. Such a man we would not exclude.

_Deacon._ Perhaps we shall not agree, if we continue to discuss the

point. I am sorry that our rules operate to your inconvenience. We wish

to see everybody on New Testament ground, and we think that the surest

way to bring them there is to stand there ourselves. By departing from

the literal command to immerse, and by baptizing infants, the church of

Christ became corrupted with traditions and human inventions. We are at

the antipodes to all this; we refuse everything which is not in black

and white on the surface of the Bible, and so we are the more consistent

Protestants.

"Considering the day and the occasion," said my friend to us, "I forbore

to argue, or to press the good man by asking him if the 'seventh-day

Sabbath' people had not the advantage of him as to greater consistency

in their Protestantism; or, whether the church-membership of females was

anywhere in black and white on the surface of the Bible. As to his

going to the antipodes, to get clear of Romish principles and practices,

I was strongly tempted to say that, to avoid being one of the acids, it

surely was not necessary, nor best, to become an alkali. But having

often reflected how God uses one and another sect, and its set of

principles and practices, to correct evils, by their sharp antagonism,

and to restore a balance to ecclesiastical disorders by allowing some to

go, for a while, to an opposite extreme, I did not find it in my heart

to inveigh, nor to upbraid. It also seemed good to be in a land of

liberty, where even Christians could, from a sense of duty to Christ, if

they chose, fence out their acknowledged brethren and sisters from their

table. There are great inconveniences, and, now and then, hardships,

resulting from it; but our friends, of course, suppose that greater

good, on the whole, than evil, is the consequence, apart from

considerations of duty. But I know of a congregation, in a small place,

who have had public worship for several years, but have not had the

Lord's Supper administered, because they cannot agree as to terms of

communion."

"Well," said I, "tell us what you did in the afternoon."

"In the afternoon," he continued, "I went to meeting, and, when the

ordinance was to be administered, I took a seat in a pew alone. I

watched to see which aisle the good deacon would serve, and concluded to

sit there, so as not to seem clandestinely seeking from another deacon,

who would not know me, my inhibited bread; for I wished to be honorable

in the transaction, and, besides, I desired that my friend should see

me, and, if he had changed his mind, give me the symbols. So I sat where

he would pass, in a pew by myself, but he did not look at me."

"How did it make you feel?" said I.

"In some respects," said he, "I never enjoyed my thoughts more at the

administration of the Supper. I had no feeling of resentment or

ill-will. The exclusion of four fifths of the Christian family from the

Lord's table by one portion of it, for such a reason, seemed to leave me

in such good company, that I said to myself, 'They that be with us are

more than they that be with them.' I rejoiced in Robert Hall, John

Bunyan, and others like them. I thought of that interesting piece in

Bunyan's works, 'Water Baptism no Bar to Communion.' I questioned

whether this church and its sister churches would not hear a mild

reproof from the lips of Christ,--'I was a stranger, and ye took me not

in.' Certainly they could not say with Job, 'If I have eaten my morsel

alone.' Using the table of Christ for a wall or bars against

acknowledged Christians,--that table, that Supper, which, of all places

and scenes, is most suggestive of communion and fellowship,--seemed to

me so great a mistake, that I could not in charity regard it as a sin,

because, as such, it would be so criminal. I always believed, before,

that the mode of baptism was not essential to Christian fellowship; but

that afternoon I saw it, I felt it; I worked out the sum myself, and saw

the demonstration, I felt very happy in belonging to the great host of

God's people who can commune together, however much they differ."

"While I was sitting there alone, put aside, one might say, by my

brothers and sisters, whom I had, as it were, run in so cordially to

meet, one thought came over me, as they were feasting with Christ, which

made me weep. I thought of the possibility of being set aside in the

great day. I said, to myself:

'I love to meet thy people now,

Before thy face with them to bow,

Though vilest of them all;

But, can I bear the dreadful thought,

What if my name should be left out

When thou for them dost call?'"

"This did me good. Yet, while I was sitting there, I seemed to see the

Saviour approach me, with a smile. His look seemed very significant, as

though he would say, 'I understand it.' Those words came to my mind:

'Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and, when he had found him, he

said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and

said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto

him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And

he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.' I surely said and did

this."

"Never before," said he, "had I such views of the condescension and

gentleness of Christ toward us, erring creatures. Here was a church

erring, it seemed to me, in a point which must peculiarly wound the

heart of the Redeemer, whose last discourse with his disciples had this

for its burden, that ye love one another. And yet there were, in that

church, many with whom Christ was communing with a love that seemed to

them unqualified. So he treats us all. I never had a greater flow of

charity toward all my fellow-Christians than on that occasion. I

resolved that I never would be a sectarian in anything, while I also

felt more strongly than ever attached to my own views, and confident of

their truthfulness, and in love with their beauty."

When he had finished his narration, his wife asked me what I thought

with regard to her husband's proceedings. I asked her to state

particularly what she had in mind. She then expressed a doubt whether it

were proper for us to intrude upon fellow-Christians, when we know that

their principles forbid their communing with us. She said that she

remonstrated with her husband, as soon as he told her that the ordinance

was not free to all evangelical Christians, and that she tried to

dissuade him from appearing to obtrude himself. She did not view it as

uncharitableness, but only as a denominational rule.

I asked her what her husband said in self-defence;--for we loved to hear

her conversation.

She said that he turned it off by saying, "Men do not despise a thief,

if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry."

She said that soon they experienced the utmost kindness from the members

of that church, who, learning the occasion of their sojourn in the

village, poured upon them their hospitality. Several wished to remove

her to their dwellings. They had a "Busy Bee," and made up everything in

an infant's wardrobe for her. She opened her travelling-bag, and took

out a white enamelled paper semi-circular box, containing a pin-cushion,

made of straw-colored satin, in the shape of a young moon, with these

words tastefully printed in pins: "Welcome, little stranger!" She held

it up to us in one hand, while with the other she wiped her eyes. Never,

she said, had kindness affected her so much;--she believed that it

hindered her in gaining strength, her feelings were so continually

wrought upon by ingenious devices of loving-kindness. It became known

that the husband had proposed to commune, and what the issue had been.

This only served to make them all the more generous. They felt it

deeply, and bore it as a necessity which they evidently regretted; but,

with much self-respect, they refrained to make any apology, or

explanation; "and, for this," said the wife, "I respected them." There

was one elderly maiden-lady, however, who once was so far excited when

the subject was alluded to, while several of them were sewing in the

wife's room, that, after moving about in her chair, evidently struggling

with her emotions, she ventured at last to say, "O, if I could get hold

of that old fence, how I should love to shake it!" They all smiled; and

one sensible and well-educated woman immediately gave a pleasant turn to

the conversation.

I fully agreed with the wife in her very dignified and proper view of

the whole subject. Is there not something extremely charming in the

highly lady-like sentiments and expressions of a Christian woman, as

contradistinguished from those of a gentleman? He, with all his

urbanity, is apt to show the smallest possible vein of testiness, or, at

least, the clouded look of high-bred sense of honor. It seems to me

there is no power which woman exerts over us, in softening and

humanizing our feelings, more beautiful and effectual, than in her

delicate forbearance and charity in taking the kind view of an

irritating subject, without compromise of principle, but just the view

which reflection, and gentler moods, and the softening hand of time,

invariably present. She arrives at it at once, by intuition; our slow

and phlegmatic sense goes through a process of mistake and

rectification, to reach it.

It occurred to me to test this good lady's feelings a little further, by

reading to her an item from a newspaper, which I had met with in the

cars a few days before, and which I had transferred to my pocket. It had

disturbed my equanimity a little. It was an extract from the annual

circular letter of a conference of ministers to their churches, in one

of the New England States, in 1855, in which mention was made of "the

monstrous and soul-damning heresy of infant baptism."

I asked the lady how we ought to feel at such a demonstration. She said,

"I presume I know how you gentlemen would be likely to feel and act

under the impulse of the moment; but the true way to regard and treat

it, as it seems to me, is, with pertinacious forgetfulness." She would

not let it disturb her feelings; and she quoted George Herbert:

"Why should I feel another man's mistakes

More than his sicknesses, or poverty?

In love I should; but," &c.

Susan said that she was reminded of visits made to her mother's house,

by some who would persuade her mother that she belonged to an

"unbaptized church;" thus seeking to put in fear the children who were

about to make a profession of religion. Her mother replied to these

visitors, that there was far more apprehension in her own mind whether

they themselves were properly baptized, if but one mode is valid.--As to

Mr. Blair's effort to commune at that table, she said that she would

never seek nor receive as a boon from men, that which her Saviour had

purchased for her, and for them, with his own blood.

Our conversation was here interrupted by the exclamation of my wife, "Do

look at that beautiful sight, that cascade, on the hill."

Chapter Eighth.

THE ROAD-SIDE BAPTISM.

How beautiful the water is!

To me 'tis wondrous fair;

No spot can ever lonely be,

If water sparkle there.

It hath a thousand tongues of mirth,

Of grandeur, or delight,

And every heart is gladder made

When water greets the sight.

MRS. E.O. SMITH.

Sweet one! make haste, and know Him too;

Thine own adopting Father love;

That, like thine earliest dew,

Thy dying sweets may prove.

KEBLE.

We were about to turn a corner in a defile of the mountains, and a large

perpendicular buttress of the ridge stood out, so as nearly to close up

the road. It presented a surface of about twenty feet directly in front,

as we drove up, and, from the top, which was nearly a hundred and twenty

feet from the ground, a cascade fell into the air for about forty feet,

and, without touching anything, became dishevelled, and disappeared in

mist.

It was one of the most beautiful objects which I ever saw. It was pure

white, relieved against the wet and very black rock. It waved to and fro

in the air like a streamer; it had a slow pulse, lifting it and letting

it drop, like the appearance of a waterfall seen from the window of a

car in motion, only this was irregular and quite slow; it was soft and

fleecy; it made no audible noise; it looked dangerous to see it fall

from so great a height; but it was caught in the air, to your relief, as

one who falls in his dream lights upon his soft bed. The lines of Gray,

in his Bard, were suggested by the sight of this mountain, though not by

any close resemblance:

"Loose his beard; his hoary hair

Streamed like a meteor to the troubled air."

The ladies had other images suggested by it. One said, "It is a

beautiful hand, waving Godspeed to us on our journey." That brought

tears into the eyes of some of us, reminding us so of meetings and

partings at home, and chording well with our pilgrim condition. We

concluded to make response; and we tarried there.

The rock seemed to be full of water, oozing out from the seams, dripping

over rich mosses, with jets, here and there, leaping into the light with

a bound of a few inches, and quietly expiring among the thick

weather-stains and lichens, as if satisfied with their brief existence.

The little things made me think of the sweet souls of infants passing

into time, and then immediately out of it. As we listened, we heard what

Addison describes in his version of the twenty-third Psalm:

"And streams shall murmur all around."

The ladies took off their bonnets, and we our hats, and we stood under

the cascade, looking up, and feeling, or fancying that we felt, the cool

spray on our heads and faces. We drank of the rock, and we thought of

that Rock which followed Israel. It seemed good to have such an image of

Jesus as such a rock, with the strength of the hills in it, and with its

inexhaustible springs, its beautiful entablature, its cool shadow,

following a company through a desert. What thoughts and feelings did it

give us respecting our adorable Immanuel, God with us. Dear Susan,

looking up, said, "Lead me to the Rock that is higher than I."

After invoking the blessing of God, and refreshing ourselves from our

little store, our friends wandered away by themselves, and left us to

enjoy the opportunity for prayer, which we supposed they also sought in

withdrawing from us.

As they returned, the father had the little boy on his two hands, and,

approaching me, he looked up to the cascade, and said, "'See, here is

water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?'"

I was at no loss to understand the quotation and the request.

"Would you like to have the little one baptized here?" said I.

"We should," they both exclaimed. "We are going into a destitute place

at the West, and there is no church, you tell us, within several miles

of where we expect to live. It is very uncertain about our being able to

procure baptism for the child there; and where could we enjoy the

ordinance more, or make it more impressive upon our hearts, than here,

so long as we have no house of God, which we remember, however, from

'the hill Mizar'?"

I told them that the experience of Philip and the eunuch, in the desert,

was, just as likely as not, the same as ours. "See, here is water." The

probability of its being a road-side spring, in a rock, or out of the

earth, was greater than of its being a pool in the desert, large enough

to immerse a man in it, leaving out of view the inconveniences of being

bathed along the way. We have both gone "down out of the chariot," said

I--(you would have smiled to see our great, strong, muddied wain)--and

we have done what the literal Greek says they did, "went down _to_ the

water;" and when we start, we shall "come up _from_ the water." But let

us read 'the place of the Scripture' which the eunuch was reading when

Philip joined him.