but why is it so? One prominent reason, doubtless, is that, on the part of their ministers and parents, there is a practical repudiation of their baptismal theories. The "baptized children," whatever the baptismal formulas may say, are taught that they are sinners, unregenerate, lost, condemned, and exposed to the wrath of God, for the very reason that they are not "in covenant" with him. Thanks be to God that the preaching and teaching of Pedobaptists * do not accord with their "Creeds," so far as the subject of infant baptism is concerned! The discrepancy is vital to the welfare of their offspring. There are some happy inconsistencies.

4. A fourth objection to infant baptism is that it interferes with the independent action of the minds of “baptized children" on the subject of baptism, and in numberless instances prevents baptism on a profession of faith in Christ.

Suppose, when "baptized children" reach mature years, they are, as is often the case, annoyed with doubts concerning the validity of their baptism. They feel at once that they cannot entertain these doubts without virtually calling in question the propriety of what their parents caused to be done for them in their infancy. Filial respect and reverence present almost insuperable barriers in the way of an impartial investigation of the subject. The question

comes up, Shall we reflect on the wisdom of our parents by declaring their act null and void? If the parents are dead and gone to be with Christ, the difficulty is often greater. The question then assumes this form: Shall we repudiate what our now-glorified parents did for us in our infancy? It often requires a great struggle to surmount the difficulty, and in many cases it is never surmounted. It is unquestionably true that the influence of infant baptism interferes with the unbiased action of many minds with regard to scriptural baptism. How great would be the number of those who, but for their infant baptism so called, would be baptized on a profession of faith in Christ! They hesitate to say that the "infantile rite" was worthless. They know that great and good men have practised infant baptism. Their minds are perplexed. They wish it had so happened that they had not been baptized in infancy. Still, the sprinkling of the baptismal (!) waters on them in infancy now prevents an intelligent immersion into Christ on a profession of faith in his name. Is it not an objection to infant baptism that it prevents so many from obeying Christ, and even fosters a spirit of disobedience?

5. As a last objection to infant baptism, I refer to its tendency to supplant believers' baptism and banish it from the world.

This objection, though presented last, is first in importance. It is, indeed, the capital objection, and if exhibited in all its phases would virtually embrace all objections. It is not, however, necessary to dwell on it at length, because its force and conclusiveness are readily seen. By all who practise baptism at all it is admitted that the New Testament enjoins the baptism of believers in Christ. The universality of this admission precludes the necessity of proof. The baptism of believers, then, is a divine ordinance. Is it reasonable to suppose that two divine ordinances antagonize with each other? Is it credible that this is the case? Pedobaptists say that infant baptism is a divine ordinance, and they are slow to admit that it antagonizes with the baptism of believers. But the antagonism is direct, positive. The inevitable tendency of infant baptism is to supplant the baptism of believers. This is owing to the fact that it is practically regarded by Pedobaptists as superseding the necessity of believers' baptism. It must be so regarded, or it is made null and void. When baptized infants grow up to maturity and become believers in Christ, there is nothing said among Pedobaptists about baptism on a profession of faith. No; the baptism of the unconscious infant is allowed to prevent the baptism of the intelligent believer. Hence it is easy to see the tendency of infant baptism to supplant and banish the

A

baptism of believers from the world. A supposition will make this so plain that no one can misunderstand it: Let it be supposed, then, that the principles of Pedobaptists prevail throughout the world. All parents come into the church and have their children baptized in infancy. If this supposition were realized, where would believers' baptism be? It would in one generation be utterly supplanted and banished from the world. An ordinance established by Christ to be observed to the end of time would be abolished. There would be no scriptural baptism on earth. One of the institutions of the Head of the church would not be permitted to have a place in the world which he made, and in which he labored, toiled suffered, and died! How startling and fearful is this! A human tradition arraying itself against an ordinance of Heaven, and attempting to destroy it and leave no memorial of its existence on the face of the globe!

Influenced by the considerations presented in the ten sections of this chapter, Baptists regard infant baptism as utterly destitute of scriptural support; and, in view of its many evils, they are most decided in their opposition to it. On the other hand, they are the earnest advocates of the baptism of believers in Christ; and of believers alone. In this opposition and in this advocacy may be seen one of the prominent DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS.

CHAPTER II.

BAPTISTS CONSIDER THE IMMERSION IN WATER OF A BELIEVER IN CHRIST ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM

-SO ESSENTIAL THAT WITHOUT IT THERE IS NO BAPTISM.

SECTION I.

99 66

Greek lexicons give "immerse,' dip," or "plunge" as the primary, ordinary, and literal meaning of " baptizo."

N the common version of the Scriptures baptizo

IN

and baptisma are Anglicized, but not translated. This is invariably true of the latter term, and it is true of the former whenever the ordinance of baptism is referred to. Baptismos is used four times. In three instances it has no reference to the baptismal ordinance, and is translated "washing;" which washing was evidently the result of immersion. In the other instance it is Anglicized. Bapto, from which baptizo is derived, is employed in the Greek New Testament three times, and embapto three times. Both are translated "dip" in the common version. There is no more difference in their meaning than there is between the word "dip" and the phrase "dip in."

90