The originators of the present religious movement were, all of them, from Pedobaptist parties. They were united together as a distinct society, for the purpose of effecting Christian union, upon the principles which I have laid before you, and had been thus engaged for a considerable time before their attention was especially called to the subject of baptism. The question was at length brought up by a member, who expressed a doubt as to the lawfulness [63] of infant baptism, inasmuch as he could find neither precept nor precedent for it in the Scriptures. To this it was replied, that if the practice had not a Divine warrant, they would be obliged to relinquish it, as, according to their principles, they could regard nothing as a matter of faith or duty, for which there could not be produced clear scriptural evidence. Soon after, it was again objected, that there could be found no Divine authority for the rites of sprinkling or pouring, as modes of baptism, since the word baptism itself, as well as the language in connection with it, and all the circumstances attending the recorded baptisms of the New Testament, evidently indicated that an immersion in water was the action originally known as baptism. Upon this, the society immediately entered upon an examination of the whole subject; and, after a careful investigation, continued for a number of months, it was finally decided that there was not to be found in the Bible the slightest authority for the baptism of any one who was not a believer; and that an immersion in water was evidently the action originally indicated by the term, and practised by primitive Christians. Such conclusions, under the circumstances of the case, opposed, as they were, to the previous views and practices of those concerned, and to the popularity of the cause in which they were engaged, will weigh not a little with the candid and reflecting, as [64] additional evidence of the force of truth, and the futility of those customs which, from tradition, convenience and carnality, have been substituted for the ordinance of Christian baptism. The views thus adopted were immediately put into practice, and have continued unchanged to this day--frequent discussion and the severest scrutiny having only tended to confirm and extend them.

      It would be quite unnecessary for me to present to you here the scriptural evidences to show either that a believer is a proper subject for baptism, or that immersion is baptism. No Pedobaptist authority ever denied either of these propositions. On the contrary, they are both universally admitted to be true, and the whole controversy has been upon the questions, whether infants, who are incapable of believing, are fit subjects; and whether sprinkling, pouring, anointing, or any other action than an immersion in water, may be justly considered as a literal and true baptism? It belongs to those who take the affirmative of these questions, to prove them. This they have often attempted to do, but with what success I must leave you to judge. Suffice it to say, that the Church of Rome claims to have delivered infant baptism as a tradition to Protestants, and candid Pedobaptist Protestants admit that the practice rests wholly on church authority, and confess themselves unable to bring any direct [65] scriptural evidence in support of it.¹ Of course, as we deny that mere tradition, or any assumed church authority, is a proper foundation on which to build religious institutions, we can have nothing whatever to do with the practices in question. [66]

      I wish, however, to call your attention for a moment, to the aspects of this matter, as it stands related to Christian union. Apart from the intrinsic merits of the questions which respect baptism itself, it will be seen that in adopting the action of immersion, which all grant to be valid baptism, and in admitting the believer, who is allowed by all to be a proper subject, we offer no impediment whatever to Christian union. We introduce no litigated or doubtful questions; we adopt that in which all are already agreed; we require no one to act contrary to the [67] dictates of an enlightened conscience; we demand nothing more than what the word of God clearly and unequivocally enjoins. In this point of view, then, the position which the Reformation has assumed upon this subject, is eminently anti-sectarian and conciliatory.

      Nor, if we may regard the plain declarations of Scripture as worthy of universal acceptation, or the popular creeds as fair exponents of the views of the different religious parties, are we less catholic in the sentiments which we hold in regard to the design of baptism, viz. that it is for the remission of sins.²

      To the believing penitent, we regard it as an [68] assurance of actual forgiveness, or, as clearly expressed in the Westminster Confession, "a sign and seal of remission of sins." It is, then, to the believer, the sign, evidence, or assurance of pardon, and [69] not the procuring cause of pardon. This is a distinction which it is important to make, since the very same language is used in reference to the design of Christ's sacrifice. He says himself, "this is [70] my blood, shed for the remission of sins." Nay, we find that salvation or pardon is, in the Scriptures, attributed to various other causes, as faith, grace, obedience, repentance, &c. But who does not see, that while salvation may be thus attributed to any one or all of these, it cannot be supposed to be connected with them all in the same sense? In fact, is it not obvious, that while, as all admit, the blood or sacrifice of Christ is the procuring cause of our salvation, it is through faith, repentance, and baptism that the sinner finds access to that sacrifice, and that he may hence be said to believe unto salvation, or to be baptized for the remission of sins, as the means of attaining to the actual and personal enjoyment of the salvation purchased by the death of Christ? All these means of enjoyment are necessary, but each in its proper place and order, and, among them, baptism is especially distinguished as the remitting ordinance, or formal pledge of pardon--a position which, from its symbolic and emblematic character, it is so eminently fitted to occupy. Thus it is called the "washing of regeneration," through which we are introduced into the kingdom of God, and we are said to be "buried with Christ by baptism into death," to be "baptized into Christ's death," &c. The simple fact that we put on Christ in baptism, is abundantly sufficient to show that we must find in it a pledge of pardon; for he who puts [71] on or receives Christ must also receive his salvation. No one can be in Christ and in his sins at the same time. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." It is in immersion, accordingly, that the penitent believer puts off "the body of the sins of the flesh" and becomes a partaker of the benefits of the death of Christ, and it is in it also that he is raised again with him "to walk in newness of life."

      It must be acknowledged, however, that while we thus most cordially assent to what both the Scriptures and the creeds expressly say, that baptism is for the remission of sins, the sects at present existing (if we except, perhaps, the Episcopal) do by no means assent to it, and, upon this subject, believe neither the Scriptures nor their own creeds. This seems to be owing chiefly to the fact, that a particular theory of spiritual operations, which has gradually almost entirely monopolized the minds of the Protestant community, makes the assurance of pardon to rest on certain feelings, or upon what are thought to be supernatural visions, or special spiritual communications. The attempt is thus made to transfer the office of baptism, as the remitting ordinance, to vague, emotional, or mental impressions; and to effect this purpose, the connection of baptism with the remission of sins is totally denied; nor is [72] there a single individual in any of these parties, who is taught to regard baptism practically, as a pledge or assurance of pardon.

      It is greatly to be deplored, that a mere theory of conversion should have so engrossed the attention of the religious world, and that it should have exercised so deleterious an influence upon the minds of the unconverted, as to lead them to neglect and disparage positive Divine institutions, and the appointed means through which the assurance of pardon is actually bestowed. Nevertheless, we would not, by any means, desire to underrate the importance of the work of the Holy Spirit, or of a change of heart. No one can be born again, unless he is born of Spirit as well as of water, and no one can enjoy the remission of sins who is not thus regenerated; but we cannot consent that the peculiar object or purpose assigned to baptism in the Scriptures should be transferred to any internal operations or feelings, without Divine authority. In the present instance, the Scriptures do, in various forms of speech, assert the connection between baptism and remission, but they nowhere teach that any mental impressions, visions, or extraordinary visitations, are to be regarded as evidences of pardon; nor is it anywhere said, that men are to receive the Holy Spirit for the remission of sins. This brings me, however, to the consideration of spiritual influence, which is next in order. [73]

[PORR 63-73]