persons in the scriptures, who believed, but not to the "saving of the soul." As a general rule I would say, Pedobaptists are generally improper subjects of baptism. We generally admit that baptism bestows, through faith, love, repentance, and confession, not only remission of sins, but also a change of state. If so, and our Pedobaptist converts are already in the kingdom and saved, is not the effect of baptism rather deplorable than advisable? I know your great ingenuity in argument, and am prepared to hear you talk of the "errors of the head," while the heart may be right. But the Master would say, "away with your speculations and apologies, and follow thou me.' I cannot perceive fitness for Christian baptism in application to Pedobaptist converts, in reference either to subject or design; hence I argue, that their immersion is but a blank, unmeaning nullity, and cannot be fairly and scripturally considered Christian baptism; and therefore, honestly contend that such persons ought not to be received into our congregations, unless they will give up their errors and be baptized.

As your third and fourth paragraphs contained the pith and marrow of your remarks—the grand pivot upon which all the rest turned—and in support of which you made so large a development; and believing that I have fairly done what you challenged me to do, I feel excusable, and think you will cheerfully exonerate me from further labor on the remaining paragraphs, as I expected at first to exhibit. And this is the more desirable, inasmuch as duty would compel me to resist your arguments by scripture facts, which would either demolish, or be demolished, between us. But I feel ready, if you deem any thing said in said paragraphs to be unanswerable, as standing against my position, to try again.

66

Under these impressions, I will now close by reminding you of only one fact more, to wit: from the giving of the commission by Christ, down to the date of Paul's letter to the Ephesians, but more especially from the day of Pentecost, all the subjects of Messiah's Kingdom-the administrators of baptism, as well as the subjects of baptism-were recognized as one body, having one spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, [administered by those within the kingdom, whether apostles, elders, deacons, or evangelists, to those without the kingdom, who believed, repented, and confessed faith in Jesus Christ, (and not that their sins were pardoned,) in order to "baptism for the remission of sins,"] one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

P. S.-Let the reader keep in mind that I am defending primitive Christianity, as founded on primitive practice. Fraternally yours,

J. DU VAL.

REMARKS.

It is not necessary for me to commend to the attention of the reader the postscript to the foregoing communication. Bro. Du Val has long been celebrated as a champion of "primitive Christianity, as founded on primitive practice," and the work before us, will be

readily recognized as in keeping with his former zeal. He has, before this, erected many a "battery" in this warfare, and thrown many a bomb, and, no doubt, done much, I will not say mischief, but much good. Long may his labors survive to his own honor, to the edification of his brethren, and to the glory of God, whose faithful servant, through evil and through good report, he has so long proven himself.

In the article which the reader has just perused, several "batteries" are opened upon me, with the hope that I will "bear the figure." I hope I shall not only bear the figure, but the batteries also. I see no good reason why I should "put off my miserable armor," though so gently admonished to do so, but I shall endeavor to "meet you," Bro. Du Val, like a true man of God," with it on. I trust, in any event, neither of us will "feel one pang of disgrace," as I am satisfied we are both contending, with equal sincerity, for the truth on this subject. I shall be very brief; and as I had the advantage of you in the number of paragraphs in the commencement, I shall give you a like advantage in the conclusion of our discussion. The state of the controversy enables me to do so, without any sacrifice. Before I proceed to notice your main position, allow me to advert to a few smaller matters, which seem to invite a passing notice. We often do a writer injustice, by the loose way in which we express his sentiments; and, by substituting words of our own, not only destroy the precision of his style, but make him say what he does not think, and, in fact, never designed to say. For example, you represent me as "willing to lay this question on the table, upon the authority of the Council of Nice," when I have not said one word about the "authority of the Council of Nice." No one has less respect for the authority of councils than I have; but perhaps I am not so much alarmed at the mention of them as some others. I gave my reasons for my own opinions, and merely conIcluded with a "sentiment" of the Council of Nice, because it exactly and very appositely expressed the conclusion to which my previous reasonings had led me. I merely adopted their language as my own, as we all do, when we make a quotation from an author who has appositely expressed a sentiment which we wish ourselves to utter.

Again: You say I "seem to associate Christian baptism with 'meats,' and 'days,' and 'moons,' ,"" simply because I use the expression, "Let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind, and act accordingly," as quoted from the 11th of Romans. Now, in the first place, I did not mark this expression as a quotation, and, in the second place, I did not use it with reference to "Christian baptism,”

but with respect to the question of re-immersion, in the case, and under the circumstances, suggested by your proposition. How wide the difference between "Christian baptism," and your opinions about the validity of immersion by a Pedobaptist administrator! Yet in the loose manner in which you refer to my sentiments, and express them in words of your own substitution, you make me say of Christian baptism what I never designed to say, what I did not say, and what I never thought.

66

Once more: Because I said that the scriptures fail to give us any explicit preceptive rule, as to the necessity of an immersed admin. istrator, you would make it appear that I entertain sentiments on this subject the most "astounding" and "humiliating," and that cannot be harmonized with the teaching of Paul, when he says that "all scripture, given by divine inspiration, is indeed profitable for doctrine, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, completely fitted for every good work :" and you take your stand here." Well, it is certainly very poor ground to stand upon! I believe in the profitableness of the scriptures for all these purposes, as fully as you do. There is no con. troversy between us on this point. The question is not about the sufficiency of the scriptures to fit the man of God for every good work, but it is whether or no this requisition of yours, about rebaptism, is a good work at all; it is not whether they are profitable for doctrine, on the questions they discuss, but whether or no this question of re-baptism, in the case proposed, is not an untaught question; nor is it whether they teach us "the way in which men are made righteous," but whether or no they include the immersion of the administrator, as an essential part of that way. See how differently we reason: You first assume that a penitent believer, who has been immersed by a Pedobaptist, must be baptized again, and then, because Paul says the divine scriptures are profitable for doctrine, for instruction, &c., ergo, the scriptures must contain instructions on this subject. On the contrary, I search the scriptures and do not discover any such precept, and just because Paul has declared them sufficient for instruction in all things pertaining to faith and practice, since I do not find any rule requiring that the penitent believer, who has been, upon a sincere profession of his faith, baptized into Christ by a Pedobaptist, shall be baptized again; ergo, say I, the doctrine is not taught. Whose method is inductive? But I am spending more time on these points than I intended. I think it due, however, both to you and myself, to point out the very great tendency there is in this mode of conducting an argument, to

SERIES IV.-VOL. I.

19*

the misrepresentation of another's views and positions, even when it is not, as I am sure it is not by you, intended.

66

66

But you think the scriptures do afford a rule on this subject, as determinate as that for faith or repentance, and challenge me to give a scriptural justification of what you denominate "a most objectionable formulary for baptism." I must again object to the change you make in my language. I did not give a formulary for baptism," but a scriptural answer to the question, "What is Christian baptism"! This I defined to be, "the immersion of a penitent believer, upon the confession that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God," and does Bro. Du Val ask me for a scriptural justification" of this! "Repent and be baptized," says Peter on the day of Pentecost; "If thou believest, thou mayest," says Philip to the Eunuch; and he replies, "I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God;" and is not this scripture justification of the rule-faith, repentance, and a confession of Jesus as the Messiah? But where is there to be found any thing pointedly preceptive, like this, as to the administrator of baptism? I say the scriptures do not afford it, and the effort of Bro. Du Val to find it is a failure. This I now proceed to show.

The result of this effort is this: You have shown that all the immersions of which we have any account in the scriptures, were by the hands of immersed administrators, save those of John the Baptist only. Your induction of cases to establish this position, is a work of supererogation, since no one would think of denying it, upon the bare statement. It was so from the very necessity of the case, as Pedobaptism had not yet been invented. But whilst this is most readily conceded, you will bear with me for a moment, while I show you, according to your own criticism upon the word re-baptize; &c., the larger number of these immersions were performed by administrators who had never been baptized with Christian baptism." They were, in fact, in the sense in which you define baptisin, never baptized at all, for if it is wrong to say that the disciples mentioned in Acts xix., were re-baptized, because they had never before been baptized, so must we conclude that these first administrators, though immersed, had not, in fact, ever submitted to the institution which they administered to others. Your induction, then, is suicidal. Your object is to show that Pedobaptist immersion is not Christian baptism, because the Pedobaptist has not himself submitted to Christian baptism, and yet the principal cases you adduce, are cases in which the administrator, according to your own just distinctions, had not one of them ever submitted to Chris-

tian baptism themselves! Now, let us suppose for a moment, that, in order to make Christian baptism valid, it had been preceptively declared that it must be administered by one who had himself submitted to it, do you not see, that all the apostles, save Paul, would have been precluded from performing it until they had themselves been baptized again? and is it not equally evident, that the larger portion of all the cases of baptism recorded in the New Testament would be made invalid? But there was no such rule then, there' is none such now, and we have no authority for restricting the blessings of a sincere and faithful obedience, to the accidental merit or demerit, formal or real, of the administrator.

In further objection to this restrictive policy, I suggested several consequences, which I thought showed its impropriety. Amongst others, I showed that it would render it necessary that every candidate for immersion should have as good evidence of the immersion of the administrator, as he had for his faith in the Messiah; and to this you say, "Far from it; nothing but a spurious Christianity could be the mother of such an idea." In this we are perfectly agreed, and it was just because your opinion involved, necessarily and logically, this very difficulty, that I pronounced it erroneous. That it does involve this difficulty, I yet most unhesitatingly affirm. You certainly have succeeded in showing that the primitive practice did not require such a rule, but you have as certainly failed to show, that your opinion does not require it. I must, therefore, adopt your own language, and call your Christianity (if, indeed, this be a proper use of the term Christianity)" a spurious Christianity," so far, at least, as the doctrine in controversy is concerned.

In many things you have said as to Pedobaptist immersion, I perfectly agree with you. I am no admirer of it. I desire to do nothing to encourage its practice, but I cannot agree to the establish. ment of a rule which I find not in the Bible, and which will prevent from uniting with us those sincere penitent believers who have been thus immersed, and who, walking in the love and fear of God, adorn the profession of the same faith which we cherish. I have resorted to no ingenuity in talking, as you anticipated, about "errors of the head, while the heart may be right," but as briefly as possible noticed such points in your communication as I thought had not been already anticipated in my article in the November number. I am content to let the matter rest where it is, because I do not anticipate any very useful results from its further discussion, and trust that what has now been said, will be satisfactory both to us and our readers. Very fraternally, yours in the Lord, W. K. P.