Three reasons why I am a Baptist, with a fourth reason added, on communion
BX (o'3'3l P4 [:1 l^i;^!?'^ '<j^:iii ^mmmmmm m mmn^Ui mm Mil ^MBltmi *-i;.iV-i*. ^syr^^ui tttnini T^^^fi^f^H^rHxm Piiy-^i<^. THREE REASONS ¥HY I AM A BAPTIST WITH A FOUETH KEASON ADDED, ON COMMLJNiON BY J. M. PEl^DLETON, PROF. OF THEOLOGY IN UNION UNIVERSITY, MURPEESBORO', TENN. THIRTEENTH EDITION. NASHVILLE, TENN.: GRAVES, MARKS & CO 18 5 7. Entered, according to Act ot Congress, in the year 1856, by GRAVES, MARKS & RUTLAND, In' the Clerk's Office for the District of Tennessee. y PREFATORY NOTE. If any one wislies to know why the following pages are given to the public, the reason is easily furnished. The Author was invited, some months since, to preach a Discourse at the Dedication of a Baptist Meeting-House. He complied with the invitation, and deemed the occasion suitable for giving some of his reasons for being a Baptist. Many breth- ren have expressed a desire that these Reasons should be published, giving it as their opinion, that the publication would promote scriptural views of Baptism and Church Government. In deference to the wishes of those valued brethren, the Discourse has been expanded into the following Treatise, and is now submitted to the public. That the day may soon come when there shall be, as in apostolic times, " one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism," and one form of Church Government, is the Author^s fervent prayer. J. M. Pendleton. Bowling-Green, Kt., May 4, 1853. (iii) PEEFACE TO THE THIRTEENTH THOUSAND My thanks are due to a generous public that my Httle book has attained a circulation quite unexpected on my part. Having transferred the ^'copyright" to Messrs. Graves, Marks & Co., and they being about to bring out a new edition, I have made some corrections and improvements which will, I think, be regarded as adding to the value of the work. In Appendix No 1, I have given a fourth reason for being a Baptist, which embraces the subject of Communion at the Lord's Table. If some of the views presented are compara tively new, I imagine they wiU, on examination, be found true. In Appendix No 2, the ' perpetuity' of the covenant of Circumcision is maintained. In former editions of the work, language was used in reference to Mr. Drisler, (on pages 87, 88,) which I am now satisfied, does that gentleman injustice. That language is materially modified. It was employed at first because I labored under a mistake of which, I am happy to say, I have been convinced. I will not, if I know it, allow my unmerited censure to rest on any one. My earnest desire is, that my little book may, by its advo- cacy of the truth, be the means of doing good, and I liope it will not be thought improper for me to express my gratifica- tion, that I have heard oi fourteen persons who were led, by its perusal, to renounce the errors of Pedobaptism. I tliank God that I have not employed my pen in vain. October. 1856. J. M. P. THREE REASONS WHY I AM A BAPTIST Were I to state that I am a Baptist because Bap- tists believe the Bible to be the word of God, and cordially subscribe to the doctrine of salvation by grace — ^justification by faith — regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and all kindred topics — some other per- son might say, ** I belong to a different religious communion for the same reasons." It is necessary, therefore, that my reasons embrace the distinctive peculiarities of Baptists. In other words, I must show why Baptists differ from other religious de- nominations. REASON FIRST. I am a Baptist theriy Because Baptists regard the Baptism of in- fants AS UNSCRIPTURAL, AND INSIST ON THE BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS IN ChRIST— AND OF BELIEVERS ALONE. In showing the vaHdity of this reason, I must en- ter into an investigation of the subject of Infant Bap- tism. The investigation will, I trust, not be wanting 1* G THREE REASONS, in impartiality and courtesy. May it result in the de- velopment and maintenance of truth ! My position is that there is no Scriptural authority for infant baptism. Neith'er precept for, nor example of it can be found in the Sacred Writings. In estab- lishing this position I shall, in opposition to the re- quirements of logic, assume the burden of proof and attempt to perform a work of supererogation. That is to say, I shall endeavor to prove a negative. Baptism is a New Testament ordinance. This the Westminster Confession of Faith concedes. The Mew Testament, therefore, should settle every ques- tion relative to baptism. This is the universal opin- ion of Baptists. Pedobaptists, however, are not wil- >^ing — as we shall see — to make an exclusive appeal to the New Testament in determining who are proper subjects of baptism. More of this in another place. My object at present is to show that there is no authority in the New Testament for infant baptism. Let us see. *'To the law and to the testimony." 1. The account given of John^s hajotism affords no justification of infant baptism. In the third chapter of Matthew it is thus written : **In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye ; for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 7 many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them : 0 generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ?. Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance : And ,/ think not to say within yourselves, We have Abra- ham to our father : for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham." From these verses we learn that John preached re- pentance— that those whom he baptized confessed their sins — and that descent from Abraham was not considered a quahfication for baptism. There is nothing in the narrative that can suggest the idea of the baptism of impenitent adults or unconscious in- fants. And this is equally true of the account of the Harbinger's ministry given by the other three evan- gehsts. Paul, in explaining John's baptism, says, ''John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, say- ing unto the people that they should believe on him who should come after him, tliat is, on Christ Jesus." Acts, xix. 4. Here it is plain that John I'e- quired repentance and faith in the Messiah in those he baptized. There is not the remotest allusion to the baptism of any who either did not or could not repent and believe in Christ. Baptists, so far as the subjects of baptism are concerned, certainly copy the example of the first Baptist. 2. The disciples of Christ baptized no infants during his ministry. 8 TRREE REASONS. The only I'eference we have to the baptisms admin- istered by them before the Redeemer's death and resurrection is in John iii, 26, and iv, 1, 2. It ight be inferred from the third chapter that Jesus imself baptized, but the first two verses of the fourth chapter explain the matter as follows : ** When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples," &c. Baptism was not administered by the Savior, but as his apostles acted under his authority, he is represented as doing what was done by his direc- tion. The fact, however, which deserves special attention is that Jesus made and baptized more dis- ciples than John. There is a distinction between making and ha.'ptizing disciples. First in order was the process of discipleship to Christ, and then bap- tism as a recognition of discipleship. Could infants be made disciples? Manifestly not. Then, accord- ing to this passage, they were not eligible to baptism ; for the inference is irresistible that none were bap- tized who were not first made disciples. The portions of Scripture quoted, taken together, may be considered fair exponents of the baptismal practice from the beginning of John's ministry to the death of Christ. I do not ask whether infant bap- tism is named ; is it even indirectly alluded to ? Let the candid reader answer. WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 9 3. The oft-repeated verse, "• Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me : for of such is the kingdora of heaven'^ — does not justify ivfant hai^- tism. For what purpose were 'these children taken to Christ? That he should baptize them? Evidently not; for he did not baptize. Were they carried to him that his disciples might baptize them ? If so, it is marvelous that the disciples rebuked those who had charge of them. The preceding verse shows why these children were taken to Christ. **Then were there brought imto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray : and the dis- siples rebuked them.*' Matt. xix. 13. There was a specific object in view. It was not that tlie *' little children" might be baptized, but that the Savior might put his hands on them and pray. Who has the right to infer that these children were baptized or that baptism was named in their presence ? It is often argued that the phrase, ''of such is the king- dom of heaven,'* indicates that those children were '* members of the visible church.'' This does not follow. The Savior does not say that these children were of the kingdom of heaven; but he says, ''of such is the kingdom of heaven." The idea of re- semblance is clearly presented. Rev. A. Banies, in his notes on the passage, says, '' Of such as these — that is, of persons with such tempers as these — is the church to be composed. He does not say of 10 THREE REASONS, those iyifanis, but of such persons as resembled them, or were like them in temper, was the kingdom of heaven made up. It was proper, therefore, that he should pray for them.''. Mr. Barnes is good Presby- terian authority, and is highly celebrated as an ex- positor of Scripture. In Matthew xviii, 3, the Savior says, ** Except ye be converted, and become as httle children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Here we have again the idea of resem- blance between little children and converted persons, but there is not a word concerning infant baptism. May I not say that the JSTew Testament, from the birth of John the Baptist to the death of Christ, is as silent as the grave in reference to the baptism of in- fants ? However, if Pedobaptists were to admit this, they would still insist, many of them at least, that there is authority for their practice bearing date sub- sequent to the Redeemer's death and resurrection. Let us see whether there is such authority. 4. The commission given by the Savior to his apostles just before his ascension to heaven, furnishes no plea for infant baptism. The circumstances connected with the giving of this commission were' replete with interest. The Savior had finished the work which he came down from heaven to accomphsh. He had offered himself a sacrifice for sin. He had exhausted tl^e cup of atoning sorroAv. He had lain in the dark mansions of the grave. He had risen in triumph from the WHY I AM A BAPTIST. It dead, and was about to ascend to the right hand of the Majesty on high. Invested with perfect media, torial authority, he said to his apostles: ''All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatso- ever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew, xxviii, 18, 19, 20. Mark records the same commission thus: *'Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that be- lieveth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Marie, xvi, 15, 16. Luke represents the Savior as saying, ''Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day ; and that repent- ance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Luke, xxiv, 46, 47. Surely the language of this commission is plain. Matthew informs us that teaching, or making disciples (for the verb matheteuo means make disciples) is to precede baptism — Mark estabhshes the priority of faith to baptism, and Luke connects repentance and remission of sins with the execution of the commis- sion. ]^o man can, in obedience to this commission, baptize an unbehever or an infant. The unbeliever is not a penitent disciple, and it is obviously im- 12 THREE REASONS, possible for the infant to repent and believe the gospel. I lay it doAvn as a principle of common sense, which commends itself, to every unprejudiced mind, that a commission to do a thing or things authorizes only the doing of that thing or those things specified in it. The doing of all other things is virtually pro- nibited. There is a maxim of law — Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.'^ It must necessarily be so; for otherwise there could be no definiteness in contracts between men, and no precision in the enactments of legislative bodies, or in the decrees of courts of jus- tice. This maxim might be illustrated in a thousand ways. Numerous Scriptural illustrations are at hand. I will mention a few: God commanded JSToah to make an ark of gopher-wood. He assigns no reason why gopher- wood should be used. The command, however, is positive and it forbids the use of every other kind of wood. Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac for a burnt- offering. He was virtu- ally forbidden to offer any other member of his family. Ay more, he could not offer an animal till the original order was revoked by him who gave it, and a second order was given, requiring the sacrifice of a ram in the place of Isaac. The institution of the passover furnishes a striking illustration, or rather a combination of illustrations. A lamb was to be *The expression of one thing is the exclusion of anotLef WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 13 killed — not a heifer — it was to be of the first year — not of the second or third — a male — not a female — - without blemish — not with blemish — on the four- teenth day of the month — not on some other day — Clie blood was to be appHed to the door-posts and lin- tels— not elsewhere, &c. The constitution of the State of Kentucky supplies many illustrations. I avail myself of but one. It is provided that Judges (appellate and circuit) shall be removed from office by the Governor "on the address of two-thirds of ^^ch house of the General Assembly/' and pro- vision is also made for their removal by impeach- ment. These are the two methods of removal known to the constitution. I ask if all other methods of re- moval are not virtually prohibited ? Let every man divest himself of prejudice and answer. In application of the principle I have laid down, and of the law-maxim I have illustrated, I affirm that the commission of Christ to the apostles in re- quiring them to baptize disciples, believers, prohibits in effect the baptism of all others. It will not do to say we are not forbidden in so many words to bap- tize infants. The same may be said of unbehevers ; ay, of horses, and cattle, and bells. Rev. F. G. Hibbard, a Methodist minister "of the Genessee conference," in his work on "Christian Baptism," comments with some severity on an ex» tract he makes from "Jewett on Baptism. '^ Jewett, in illustrating the view of the commission already 14 THREE REASONS, presented says, ''If I commission my agent to pur- chase for me a lot of Webster's la7*ge dictionaries, does he not violate his instructions, if he also buy on my account a lot of the al>ridgments ? But he says, 'You did not forbid the purchase of the abridg- ments/ Did not forbid the purchase ! I answer, it ivas not necessary for me to insert in your commis- sion a prohibition against purchasing other books. Your instructions were definite ; and when I directed you to buy the large books, you must have known that you had no authority to buy small books ; you have done it at your own risk." Mr. Hibbard says, "All this shows just how far ^ome authors look into a subject before they pro- nounce upon it. The analogy, however an unprac- ticed reader may be influened by it, is an unfair and perfectly puerile statement of the case. For in the first place, Pedobaptists do not take their authority for baptizing infants from the mere absence of a pro- hibition of such a practice, as the pretended analogy teaches. We know not, indeed, how a Christian au- thor could make such a representation of the opin- ions of his brethren. All we affirm touching this point is, that the total absence of a prohibition, in this particular commission, does not prove a universal prohibition; it proves nothing at all, either pro or con. And yet our author attempts to prove that the absence of an express prohibition, in this specific case, does directly prove a general prohibition. Fur- WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 15 tliermore, the analogy is without any just force what- ever, because, although a command to buy large books, is no authority for the purchase of small books ; and a command to baptize believers is no au- thority for baptizing mfants, yet as such commands contain no prohibition, there may exist circum- stances, or there may, in another way, be instruc- tions communicated, to authorize the purchase of the small books, alias the baptism of infants ; and this may be such a perfect matter of understanding between the master and the 'agent,' as to render it wholly unnecessary to specify it. And this, we maintain, is the exact state of the case in relation to infant baptism." Pp. 235, 236. Mr. Hibbard has been pronounced by a dis- tinguished Baptist minister, *'the Carson of his de- nomination on the subjects and mode of Baptism." This is high eulogy ; for Baptists consider Carson's work on Baptism the ablest which the baptismal con- troversy has elicited. Far be it from me to dispar- age Mr. H.'s book. It displays more ability and scholarship than any Methodist work I have read. With a disposition, therefore, to do him perfect justice, I solicit the reader's attention to the concession made in the foregoing extract. A more comprehensive con- cession could not be expected from a Pedobaptist. It is conceded that *' a command to baptize believers is no authority for baptizing infants,'^ Yery well. This 16 THREE REASONS, is the position Baptists have ever maintained. The commission of Christ to his apostles requires the baptism of behevers: therefore it does not, Mr. H. being judge, authorize the baptism of infants. It may be more satisfactory to present the argument in syllogistic form. Here it is : A command to baptize believers is no authority for baptizing infants : The commission contains a command to baptize believers : therefore the commission is no authority for baptizing infants. If there is a flaw in this syllogism, or if it does Mr. H.'s concession the least injustice, I am not aware of it. I conclude, then, that Mr. H. will not hesitate to say, with Baptists, that the commission does not authorize infant baptism. Still he insists strenuously on the baptism of infants, and argues that there is authonty for the practice, independent of the commission. This is strange indeed. For it is plain from the consolatory assurance subjoined to the commission, that the Lord Jesus intended that it should remain in full force to the end of the world. Here, then, was a commission given by Christ, which enjoined baptism upon believers to the close of time — a commission which, according to the general view of Pedobaptists, originated Christian baptism — a commission in which there is no reference to infants at all — and yet infants, as Mr. Hibbard teaches, are to be baptized ! It is strange that his philosophical mind did not perceive that the perfect silence of the WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 17 cGmmission, in regard to infants, furnishes, to say the least, strong p7'ima facie evidence against the vahdity of their claim to baptism. But, says Mr. H., referring to Mr. Jewett's illus- tration, *Hhere may exist circumstances, or there may, in another way, be instructions communicated, to authorize the purchase of the small books, alias the baptism of infants ; and this may be such a per- fect matter of understanding between the master and the * agent,' as to render it wholly unnecessary to specify it. And this, we maintain, is the exact state of the case in relation to infant baptism." Mr. Jewett's commission to his agent to buy "Web- ster's large dictionaries, is intended to represent Christ's commission to his apostles to baptize be- lievers. Mr. H. says, *'a command to buy large books, is no authority for the purchase of small books;" but he urges that authority to buy small books may be given in another way. The question, however, arises, Is it given? And Mr. J.'s illustra- tion supplies a negative answer. For if the agent had authority to buy small dictionaries, it is incon- ceivable that the principal should call him to ac- count for buying them, and require him to sustain whatever loss might accrue from the purchase. Thus it appears that while Mr. H. complains of the unfairness of Mr. J.'s analogy, he overlooks one of the most important points in the analogy. The agent, according to the illustration, could have had no au- 2^ 18 THREE REASONS, aiority to buy small books, and yet Mr. H. will have it that the authority was so well understood between the principal and agent, that it was needless to specify small books in the' commission of the princi- pal to the agent! **And this, we maintain, — says he, — is the exact state of the case in relation to in- fant baptism/' That is to say, the matter was so well understood between Christ and his apostles that they were to baptize infants ; that it was ** wholly un- necessary'' for him in the commission to command them to do so ! A private understanding, apart from the commission, was it? If Mr. H.'s view is cor- rect, it is difficult to say why the commission was given at all. If the apostles understood that they were to baptize infants — and if that understanding superseded the necessity of the mention of infants in the commission — surely their understanding that they were to baptize believers, disciples, rendered it needless for believers, disciples, to be named. More- over, the apostles had baptized the disciples Jesus made during his ministry — and they baptized no in- fants— to say the least, it has never been proved that they did — if, therefore, the Savior had intended that both believers and infants should be baptized, it is much more reasonable to suppose that he would liave mentioned infants than believers. The apostles had witnessed many exemplifications of believers' bap- tism— of infant baptism they knew nothing — and it was specially necessary for the baptism of infants to WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 1 9 be enjoined in the commission, if the Savior consid- ered them proper subjects of the baptismal iite. Why was not their baptism enjoined ? Why ? The only answer is, it was not the will of the author of the commission. From this somewhat extended examination of the commission, I feel fully authorized to say that it furnishes no plea for infant baptism. I know it will be said — for it has been said a thousand times — that if infants are not to be baptized because they can- not beHeve, they cannot be saved because they can- not beheve. If the salvation of infants depends on their faith they cannot be saved. They are incapa- ble of faith. They are doubtless saved through the mediation of Jesus Christ, but it is not by faith. It seems to me that our opponents egregiously fail to accomplish their object in urging this objection to our views. They must intend to make us admit the pro- priety of infant baptism, or force us to a denial of infant salvation. But we make neither the admis- sion nor the denial. As soon as we say that infants are not saved by faith, but without faith, their ob- jection is demolished. 5. There is no instance of infant baptism on the day of Pentecost, This fact is worthy of special consideration. The apostles were, on that memorable day, copiously im- bued with the Holy Spirit — they were baptized in the 20 THREE REASONS, Spirit — tliey were endued with power from on high. All things whatsoever Jesus had said to them were brought to their remembrance. They were requifed for the first time to show their understanding of the commission of their ascended Lord. How did they understand it? How did they execute it? First, the gospel was preached. The people were pierced to the heart, and said, **Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said unto them, ''Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.'' No one contends that the command, *' Re- pent,'' is applicable to infants, and it is certain that the injunction, "Be baptized," has no reference to them ; for it is as clear as the sun in heaven that the same persons are commanded to repent and be bap- tized. It is supposed by some, however, that the phrase, '' The promise is unto you and your children," refers to infants. The term children evidently mean^ posterity, and the promise cannot be divested of its relation to the Holy Spirit. This promise was not only to the Jews and their posterity, but to Gen- tiles— ''to all that are afar off!" This restriction is laid upon the promise — ''even as many as the Lord our God shall call." And whether the term "call" WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 21 is used in its general sense, as in Proverbs viii, 4, or in its special sense, as in 1 Cor. i, 24, it is in either case inapplicable to infants. Did any obey Peter's command, *'Be baptized?'' It is written, *'Then they that gladly received his word, were baptized : and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." The baptism was limited to those who gladly received Peter's word, and as infants were obviously not of that number, to infer that they were baptized is ut- terly gratuitous. There is nothing in the Pentecostal administration of baptism which intimates that infants were considered proper subjects of the ordinance. 6. There is nothing like infant baptism in the account given of Philips s labors in Samaria. The reader can examine for himself the eio^hth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. There it will be seen that Philip began to execute the commission of the Savior hj preaching. He ** preached Christ unto them." He doubtless remembered the words of the risen Redeemer, *'Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that belie veth and is baptized shall be saved," etc. The Samaritans *' believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" — and what then ? ** They were bap- tized both men and women." Here was a practical exposition of the commis- sion of Christ. Is there anything in this expositioD 22 THREE REASONS, which can suggest the idea of infant dedication to God in baptism ? Surely not. Philip's plan of ope- ration was evidently uniform. Hence, when he fell in with the Ethiopian eunuch — as we learn from the latter part of the same chapter — he first ''preached unto him Jesus.'* The eunuch professed /az^A in the Messiah. Then Philip haiotized him. As ** faith confes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," there must be preaching before faith, and there must be faith prior to baptism, because this is the order established by Christ, in the commission. Alas for those who invert this order ! 7. The household baptisms recorded in the New Tes\ lament do not sustain the practice of infant baptism, I will take them in their order. In the tenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, there is an ac- count of Peter's visit to Cornelius. He preached, and the Spirit was poured out. His Gentile hearers spoke with tongues and magnified God. Then said Peter, *' Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Here was a household baptism, but there are things said of the subjects of this baptism thal^ could not be true of unconscious infants. One fact, however, settles the whole matter. In the second verse of the chapter it is said that Cornelius ** feared God with all his housed Can infants fear God ? WHY I AM A BAPTIST. Acts, xvi, 13, 14, 15. No one denies that Lydia was a believer. She was, therefore, a proper subject of baptism. But it is inferred that as her household was baptized, infants must have been baptized. This does not follow, for the very good reason that there are many households in which there are no infants. The probability is — and it amounts almost to a cer- tainty— that Lydia had neither husband nor children. She was engaged in business — was *'a seller of pur- ple, of the city of Thyatira '' — which was about three hundred miles from Philippi. If she had had a husband and infant children, is ifc not reasonable to suppose that her husband would have taken on him- self the business in which she was engaged, allowing her to remain at home with the infant children ? She evidently had no husband with her ; for it cannot be supposed that she violated conjugal propriety so far as to reduce her husband to a cipher, by saying '^ my house^'' etc. Nor can we believe that the sacred historian would have spoken of the house of Lydia, in verse forty, if she had had a husband. The most reasonable inference is that her household consisted of persons in her employ — that they be- lieved and were baptized as well as Lydia — and that they were the ''brethren'' whom Paul and Silas ** comforted," when released from prison, they *' en- tered into the house of Lydia." 24 TRREE REASONS, I have said enough to invalidate Pedobaptist ob- jections to the Baptist explanation of this narrative, and I am required to do nothing more. Pedobaptists affirm that Lydia had infant children. On them then devolves the burden of proof. They must prove that she had infant children. This they never have done — this they never can do. And hence the narrative furnishes no argument which can logically inure to their benefit. The same chapter (Acts, xvi,) contains a record of the baptism of the jailer and his household. Here it is necessary to say but little ; for every one can see that there were no infants in the jailer's family. Paul and Silas ** spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. ^^ It is also said that the jailer '* rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. ^^ Surely the word of the Lord was not spoken to infants — surely infants are in- capable of believing. It is worthy of notice that this record shows how Paul understood the commission of Christ. It is only necessary to refer to the house- hold of Crispus (Acts, xviii, 8,) to show what has just been shown ; namely, that a man's house may believe on the Lord as well as himself. It is not said in so many words that the house of Crispus was baptized, but it is said that he ** believed on the Lord with all his housed* In 1 Cor. i, 16, Paul says: *'And I baptized also whe household of Stephanas/' etc. Will any one WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 25 infer that there were infants in this famJy ? This inference cannot be drawn in view of what the same apostle says in the same epistle, (xvi, 16): **Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted them- selves to the ministry of the saints.'' Infants could not addict themselves to the ministry of the saints. It follows that there were no infants in the family of Stephanas. I am aware that, to invalidate this con- clusion y s, ck^^onolo^ical argument has been used. It has been urged that although infants were baptized in the family of Stephanas, when Paul planted the church at Corinth, sufficient time elapsed between their baptism and the date of Paul's first epistle to the church, to justify the declaration — *'they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." This argument avails nothing in view of the fact that the most liberal chronology allows only a few years to have intervened between the planting of the church and the date of the epistle. I have now referred to all the household baptisms mentioned in the i!^ew Testament, and there is no proof that there was an infant in any of them. On the other hand, facts and circumstances are related which render it a moral certainty that there were no infants in those baptized families. It will not do to say that ordinarily there are infants in households. It must be shown that it is universally the case. Then the household argument will avail Pedcbap^ 3 26 THREE REASONS, tists — not till then. But it can never be predicated of all households that there are infants in them. Many a Baptist minister, in the United States, has baptized more households^ than are referred to in the New Testament — and no infants in them. It is said that thirty entire household baptisms have occurred in connection with American Baptist Missionary ope- rations among the Karens. In view of facts like these, how sophistical appear the reasonings of Pe- dobaptists, in reference to the household baptisms of the New Testament. 8. The allusions to baptism in the apostolical epistles forbid the supposition that infants ivere baptized. Paul refers to the '^ baptized^' as **dead to sin'' — as rising from the baptismal waters to '* walk in new- ness of life'' — as *' putting on Christ'' — as ** risen with him through the faith of the operation of God" — as "baptized for the dead," or in the belief of the resurrection — as making **a profession of faith" — a ''profession before many witnesses," etc. These phrases are utterly destitute of meaning if applied to unintelligent babes. Peter defines baptism to be the ** answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." This is a general definition. And it forbids the idea that baptism was, in apostolic times, administered to any except accountable agents. What conscience has an infant ? There is no opera- tion of conscience prior to accountability. Baptism, WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 27 then, in its administration to infants, cannot be what Peter says it is. This is, for Pedobaptists, an un- fortunate fact — a fact significant of the unscriptur- ality of their practice. There is, in this connection, another thing worthy of consideration. Paul, in his epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, exhorts children to obey their parents, etc. It is generally supposed that about ten years intervened between the introduction of the gospel into Ephesus and Colosse, and the writing of those epistles. Now, if those children, or any of them, had been baptized when the gospel was introduced into those cities, is it not strange that the apostle, in urging obedience upon them, presented no motive derived from their *' dedication to God in baptism?" There is no allusion to any **vows, promises, and obhgations," made and assumed foi them by their parents or sponsors at their baptism. There is nothing said analogous to the personal ac- ceptance of a draft drawn upon them in anticipation of their intelligence and responsibility. Here I pre- sent a query: Would a Pedobaptist apostle have pursued this course? To bring the matter nearer home : Would a Pedobaptist Missionary v/rite a let- ter to a Pedobaptist church — making special men- tion of parents and children — urging both to a faith- ful performance of relative duties — and say nothing of the obligations of either parents or children, as connected with, or growing out of infant baptism ? 28 THREE REASONS, I suppose no one has sufficient credulity to ansf^ei the question affirmatively. The apostle of the Gen- tiles, therefore, did what we cannot reasonably im- agine a Pedobaptist missionary or minister to do I All whom it concerns may, if they please, consider this a suggestive fact. 9. The language of 1 Cor, vii, 14, — ''Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy'' — has no reference to infant baptism. This passage is often quoted with an air of tri- umph, as if it conclusively settled the question. There is not the remotest allusion to baptism. What ire the facts in the case ? Simply these : The ques- ion was agitated at Corinth, whether believing lusbands and wives should not separate themselves from their unbelieving partners ? The idea was en- tertained by some, at least, that an unbehever was '^ unclean'' to a believer, even as a Gentile was, under the Mosaic dispensation, ''unclean'' to a Jew. Paul corrects this false impression, by showing that *' the unbeHeving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband." Without entering into a critical ex- amination of the term ''sanctified," I avail myself of the fact that the sanctification was such as to jus- tify the continuance of the marriage relation between the believing and the unbelieving partner. "Else " — - that is, if the sanctification did not remove the sup- posed uncleanness from unbelieving parents — "were WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 29 your cliildren unclean; but now are they holy." The passage is intensely strong against infant baptism. It shows that the children of the members of the Corin- thian church, sustained the same relation to the church that unbelieving husbands and wives did, and that if believing husbands and wives abandoned their un- believing partners, beUeving parents might, with the same propriety, separate themselves from their chil- ren. Perhaps a distinguished Pedobaptist's exposi- tion of the passage may be more satisfactory than mine. Mr. Barnes says : ** There is not one word about baptism here ; not one allusion to it ; nor does the argument, in the remotest degree, bear upon it. The question was not whether children should be baptized, but it was whether there should be a sepa- ration between man and wife, where the one was a Christian and the other not. Paul states, that if such a separation should take place, it would imjply that the marriage was improper ; and, of coursCy the children must be regarded as unclean." Thus it appears that this passage, so often made the basis of sophistical arguments, affords no support to the cause of infant baptism. I have now noticed the prominent Nev/ Testament arguments for infant baptism. Is there precept or example to justify it ? Celebrated Pedobaptists shall answer this question. Dr. Wall, in his ** His- tory of Infant Baptism," on the very first page of 8* 30 THREE REASONS, his '* Preface/' says, that ''among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by the apostles, there is no express mention of any infant." Neander, un- doubtedly the first churcli historian of his age, re- ferring to ''the latter part of the apostolic age," ex- presses himself thus: "As baptism was closely united with a conscious entrance on christian com- munion, faith and baptism were always connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable that baptism was performed only in in- stances where both could meet together, and that the practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period. We cannot infer the existence of infant baptism from the instance of the baptism of whole families, for the passage in 1 Cor. xvi, 15, shows the fallacy of such a conclusion, as from that it appears that the whole family of Stephanas, who were bap- tized by Paul, consisted of adults." Planting and Training of the Church, pp. 101, 102. Professor Stuart, in his Essay on Baptism, in the reference he makes to infant baptism, says : " Commands, or plain and certain examples, in the New Testament, relative to it, I do not find. Nor with my views of it, do I need them." P. 101. Dr. Woods, long a col- league of Professor Stuart, in the Andover Seminary, in his " Lectures on Infant Baptism," remarks as follows : "It is a plain case that there is no express precept respecting infant baptism in our Sacred Writ- WHY I AM A BAPTIST. 3.1 ings. The proof, then, that infant baptism is a di- vine institution, must be made out in another way.'^ P. 11. These are important concessions, made by men whose celebrity is co-extensive with Christendom. 