is only by a presentation of one side that they could take any exceptions; and your late article, based on the course and remark of your "friend," while shutting out of your columns the statement I have given, seems to me very far from a desire to conciliate your Baptist readers."

66

Your remark, that "the parental covenant is the only thing about the whole subject that I care very much about," is not exactly a reason why others should stop there. Indeed, that question involves all the points at issue. As to the argumentum ad hominem couched in the following language "I will venture to say of your article, that it did not strike me as being very forcible, because it seemed to me only a surface view, and not to indicate a deep and thorough study of the subject"-I have only to say, that I am willing it should stand or fall on its own merits, and that the readers of the Evangelist should form their own opinions of it, and write from the unvarnished statement therein contained. All I ask is, that it be published as it is," without note or comment," or, if commented upon, that I may be allowed to reply.

You can retain my paper until next week, when I expect to be in Oberlin, and will call for it, if it is settled that you do not publish it. Your's in Christian love, J. O. BEARDSLEE.

INFANT SPRINKLING. LETTER III.

BEDFORD, July 21, 1856. DEAR BROTHER COWLES, In the number of the Evangelist issued on the 23rd of April, I noticed an article headed, "Parents and their Children under the New Testament Dispensation," occasioned (as appeared in the sequel) by the fact, that a "dear friend had changed his views on baptism, and was reported to have said, 'I shall never sprinkle any more babies.' This announcement seems to have occasioned much, and, I doubt not, sincere grief on your part, as I presume it has in the minds of many others. I have had so many proofs of friendship from you and them, that it will be no presumption on my part, (however unworthy I may deem myself) in taking it for granted that I am the " dear friend" alluded to,

inasmuch as I confess to such a change, and remember having made use of the expression, "I shall never sprinkle any | more babies."

That you, my brother, and others who feel interested, may know the reasons for the change in my views, and that I have not from any other than a concientious conviction of duty, made use of the expression referred to, permit me, through the "Evangelist," to give a short account of the steps by which I have arrived at present conclusions. This would have been attempted earlier, but for the following reasons: 1st. My aversion to appearing before the public in the columns of a newspaper. 2nd. The fear of a controversial spirit.--3d. The desire to survey the ground afresh and to relieve the minds of all aggrieved, by a recantation, should any error be detected in either the premises or conclusion.

As every fresh examination of the subject has but confirmed me more fully in the conviction that my present views are based on the word of the Lord, it is probably better to announce the fact at once, and give my friends an opportunity to point out my errors, if they discover any, as I am wedded to no opinions, and desire to hold nothing as a matter of faith and practice, not sustained by a thus saith the Lord." Let me ask, then, that my friends will "hear me patiently." I promise, on my part, to weigh candidly any arguments that may be produced on the other side, and will "rejoice in the truth.`

66

Soon after my conversion, which was in my fourteenth year, I was led to consider the subject of baptism; from the fact that my parents were not then professors of religion, I was left to choose for myself in this particular, on entering the church. I had, however, heard many arguments on this subject, and had been trained in the Pædobaptist school.

The Scripture proofs produced by the Baptists had more weight with me, however, than those produced on the other side, but as there was connected with this an exclusion from communion with a large portion of the Christian church, which did not seem to me to be sustained by the same authority, I preferred connection with the Congregational church, after their own order. Subsequently my reading on the subject

was chiefly on the side of my own practice, and I was at length led to conclude, as there was so much controversy about it, among wise and good men, that it was not considered by the Great Teacher as a matter of much moment, and that He had left to his followers to adopt their own views and course of action in reference to it.

I entered the ministry-went into a foreign field, and for a number of years had little further trouble. Dr. Edward Beecher's theory, as published in the Biblical Repository, did much to confirm me in the opinion expressed, and I thought the question for ever settled. Subsequently I met with a little work, by Pengilly, consisting chiefly of a collection of all the texts in the New Testament, referring to the subject of baptism, and seeing such an amount of evidence produced, it occurred to me that it must be more important than I had been wont to view it. There was abundant proof that believers were bap tized, and no positive proof that any others were. The place and circumstances of the baptized seemed to favor the idea of immersion, and as I could not find one positive declaration that infants were baptized, or that sprinkling was considered baptism, I resolved at some future time to give the subject a more thorough examination.

Not long after the period just referred to, my steps were directed to this country, and as soon as health permitted, I resumed my labors as pastor of a Congregational church, near Oberlin. There the subject of baptism was brought up again. A young lady in my congregation applied to me for my views, as, contrary to all her early teaching, she had come to the conclusion that the Bible taught that believers were the proper subjects of baptism-the action, immersion. I went over the whole ground anew-took every imaginable "standpoint," and this is what I saw.

I saw John baptizing "in Jordan," such as confessed their sins, teaching that "they should believe on Him who was to come." Again, he ". was baptizing in Enon because there was much water there." Jesus came to John for baptism, and when He was baptized, "He went up straightway out of the water."

I saw (Matt. xxviii. 16-20,) Jesus with the eleven, just before his ascen

sion, on a mountain, in Galilee. Said He, "all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach (make disciples of) all nations, baptizing them in (eis, into) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Again, (Acts ii.) I saw Peter, under the immediate influence of the Holy Spirit, standing up and preaching Christ to thousands of Jews on the day of Pentecost. Many were convinced that they had, indeed, crucified him whom God had made both Lord and Christ. And when, being pricked in their hearts, they asked, “What shall we do?" Peter said (38th verse) unto them," Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name (by the authority) of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receivd the gift of the Holy Ghost."

In Acts viii. 12, I found Philip in Samaria. When the Samaritans “believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women." Shortly this same Evangelist was seen "in the way that goeth down from Jerusalem to Gaza," and there he met the Eunuch, and under the direction of the Spirit, joined himself to the chariot, in which the Eunuch sat, reading Isaiah's prophetic account of what had just been fulfilled at Jerusalem. "Philip began at the same Scripture and preached unto him Jesus." And as they went on their way they came to a certain water, and the Eunuch said, "See! Here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?' And Philip said, “if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.' And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." And he commanded the chariot to stand still and they went down both into the water, &c.”

I could not help noticing that, somehow, baptism had been connected with the "preaching of Jesus," as the Eunuch said immediately as they came to the water, "See! Here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?'

I saw, also, in the account of Saul's conversion, (Acts, ix.) that Ananias,

who was sent to "tell him what he should do," proceeded at once to baptize him-or, as we have it in his own words in the 22nd chapter, as soon as his sight was restored, Ananias said, (16th verse.) "And now, why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

The 16th of Acts presented two instances of baptism of individuals with their households-Lydia and the gaoler. One thing I saw clearly, that as soon as they believed they were baptized. It struck me as rather remarkable that no mention was made of children, but on a close examination, I found in the gaoler's house, that all were able to hear the word, that all believed, and, therefore, all were baptized (30-34.) I saw, too, that it might as fairly be inferred that Lydia's household consisted of such as were able to hear and believe, as that there were infants. Then all the circumstances of the case left a wider margin to be filled out than I had ever seen before, to make it appear even probable that there were any unconscious babes in that household. Lydia was 300 miles from home-engaged in business -was evidently sole mistress, as she said, after her baptism, to Paul and Silas, "If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there." That she ever had a husband or children is purely inferential, and by no means necessary to constitute a household.

I found, moreover, in Acts x. where Peter opened the kingdom to the Gentiles, that baptism was then and there introduced. The Holy Spirit fell on them who heard the word, and they spoke with tongues and magnified God. Then said Peter, (47th verse,) 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."

In these and in other instances, I saw the instructions of Christ literally carried out by the Apostles, and that wherever Christ was preached and heartily received by faith, baptism was administered, showing that it was not altogether an unimportant matter in those days.

In addition to the terms " in Jordan," "in the river Jordan," "they went down

66

99 66

into the water,' came up out of the water," much water," &c. I found some allusions to baptism, which, to say the least, very much favored the idea of immersion, e. g. Rom. vi. 3-5, "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with Him, by baptism, into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall, also, be in the likeness of his resurrection." Also, Col. ii. 12, "Buried with him (Christ) in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.'

I was aware that modern PædoBaptists find it convenient to set aside these texts, as having nothing to do with water baptism, but I found that Doddridge, and Wesley, and Clarke, and Whitfield, with mauy others, admitted there was "an allusion to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion." On the meaning of the words used to express the action of baptism, I found all lexicons to which I had access, gave as the primary meaning immerse and immersion-nowhere sprinkle or pour, and that the words translated sprinkle and pour were never employed where baptism was intended. A score or two of the ablest Pædo-baptists were found who admitted the same.

I must confess that at this stage of my investigatious my convictions were very strong, that I had never been baptized by the authority of the Lord Jesus, and that my theory and practice, as well as that of all my Pædo-baptist brethren, were wholly unauthorized. I could but acknowledge that Christ had full authority to establish the order of "his own house"-that the Apostles under his commission and the teachings of the Spirit understood that orderand the fact appeared incontrovertible, that believers only were inducted into his kingdom, by immersion.

There is no doubt now, in my own mind, that I would have been justified, to say the least, in yielding at this point, and receiving Christian baptism. But the force of education-my position in the church-ecclesiastical relations

-what my friends would say and think of me my prospects for the future, all and each exerted their full power in holding me back from such a step, and led me to desire some way of escape. I avoided all conversation on the subject with those who I thought would wish me to adopt immersion, and from a sense of duty. Believing that the Bible was the best guide, and would lead to a safe issue-I kept aloof from all human counsellors.

66 Another stand-point" seemed to present itself, the stronghold of Padobaptists. "Were not the children of the Jews admitted to the ancient church by circumcision?" Was not this rite given to Abraham, the father of the faithful, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed?" I found on examination that this promise was made to Abraham in the 12th chapter of Genesis, and that twenty-six years after, as recorded in the 17th chapter, another covenant was entered into, pertaining to his own immediate descend ants, to which circumcision was given as a seal.

This covenant was solely of a fleshly and earthly nature, having a specified end in view. It embraced not only "all born in the house," but "all bought with money." Circumcision was the rite that separated the proper family of Abraham from all other nations. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 4th chapter, sets the matter in a very clear light. The entire argument takes in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chapters, but the point which comes out prominently in the 4th 9-13. The Apostle tells us plainly that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness, not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision-a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, being yet uncircumcised, &c. To no other individual was circumcision ever given as a seal of his faith. As a rite it was purely national or fleshly. As a type it was to represent, in the Christian church, "the circumcision of the heart," or a cutting off from sin.

under the new institution, without any reference to their having been circumcised. I could not find the most remote allusion to a substitution of one for the other. Paul frequently makes mention of circumcision-condemns the Jews for trying to impose it upon the Gentiles, and shows conclusively that it had nothing to do with their salvation

that it only identified them as the children of Abraham according to the flesh to be heirs according to faith, they must be found in Christ-become new creatures.

Had Paul but once said we have found a substitute in baptism, it would have settled an important point; or had circumcision been administered to the children of the Jews on account of the faith of their own parents, an analogy might here have been pleaded in favor of some rite for children under the Christian system. There was no such contingency no such pre-requisite it was a badge of nationality, and not a seal of faith, except to Abraham.

Thus was I led to look upon baptism Christ," the author and finisher of the as a positive institution, commanded by faith," and intended to set forth, in a vivid manner, his death, burial, and resurrection, and to express the faith of the subject in that epitome of the Gospel which is the foundation of all our hopes of pardon and eternal life.

I could not, therefore, confer with flesh and blood, but endeavoring to look at Christ alone, bowed to his authority, and committed my all into his

hands.

This step cost me the severest struggle that I ever experienced, and was, without exception, at the time, the greatest sacrifice Í ever felt called on to make. I can say, however, that in equal proportion has been my peace of mind since, and like one of old, I have gone on my way rejoicing.

much space, and fear you may not find I am sorry to have occupied so room for it, but have not been able to see how, in justice to myself, my friends, and the cause, I could have said

In Christian love, your's fraternally, J. O. BEARDSLEE.