1. Conviction of sin... 4. Conversion from sin. 4 66 Once more the term "régeneration," as I have before observed, is used only once throughout scripture, and there it is baptismal regeneration: "He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" Tit. 3 chap. 5, v. Now join it with the new birth, of which our Saviour speaks, John, 3 chap. 5, v. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of Gd." Join, I say, these two texts together, and how do they run? Thus : Except a man be born of water, by the washing of regeneration and of the Spirit, by renewing of the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. As the Baptists, however, cannot see this scriptural and beautiful distinction of the two terms, it would be wise in them, at all events, to say, Except a man be born by baptismal and spiritual regeneration. After baptism, never let them fail to use their favourite term regeneration," without the adjective "spiritual," if they will attach a higher meaning to it than they are warranted by Scripture, and will make it equiva, lent to the true term "conversion." Then they would not be so inconsistent with themselves, for they could say of their back-sliding brethern, They have not yet been spiritually baptized into Christ, they have not yet been renewed by the Holy Ghost, and become as little children, "for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Mat. 19 chap. 14. v. But we prefer our Saviour's sweet expression, and say, Except ye be converted. Alas! how have the Baptists "followed too much the devices and desires of their own hearts: how have they offended against God's holy laws: how have they left undone those things, which they ought to have done; and done those things, which they ought not to have done.” For how many thousand children, "Nazarites unto God from the womb," have they left unbaptized!-and how many grown up persons have they dipped, that "it might happen unto them according to the proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow, that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire." 2 Pet. 2 chap. 22, v. You, my dear Soldiers, for whose sake I have chiefly penned this Address, by way of caution, lest you should be tempted to forsake the good old path, are but too well aware of this melancholy fact. Heed not, therefore, these Sectarians, though they may tell you that if you die in our communion, you will die with a lie in your right hand. Verily this is thunder-but, if you go not astray, it will pass harmless over your heads, and only leave a refreshing shower behind it. CHAPTER 2. OF THE SINFULNESS OF RE-BAPTIZATION. Such an anathematizing sect are the Baptists that their distinguishing doctrine is the invalidity of Infant-baptism, and the re-baptization of all who wish to be admitted into their communion. And we may easily conceive that this new doctrine would, for a time, prove highly injurious to unstable minds, and prepare them for receiving any doctrine, ever so absurd, that came to them recommended by novelty. After all, however, it is not perhaps necessary to seek so deep for the cause of that success which attends their preaching, or rather their ravings: since we have seem the same kind of epidemical madness burst forth in every state of society, whilst we are as unacquainted with the cause, as we are in general with the origin of a dysentery or a fever. Besides, the opinions, which some of them publicly avow, are just such as would attract the attention of the ignorant; viz. that Infant-baptism was an invention of the Devil,-that the true church of Christ, of which they considered themselves as the constituent members, ought to be exempt from all sin,that all things ought to be in common among them, and that there should be no taxes,-that every Christian has a right to preach,-and that there is no use whatever for civil magistrates in the kingdom of Christ. These are their real tenets; but they disguise them in their weakness. Only let them once increase upon us, and see the mischief they would do us for the moment-but the end would be their own ruin. For it has been tried once, it has become an historical fact. John Matthias, a baker of Haerlem, preached the above doctrines in Munster, a city of Westphalia. Emboldened by success, he secretly called in his associates from the country, and seized on the arsenal in the night-time; and running thro' the streets, accompanied with John Boccold, a journeyman tailor, with drawn swords and frantic howlings, they cried out alternately, "Repent, and be baptized;" and "Depart, ye ungodly." The citizens fled in confusion, and left him in possession of the city: when he immediately set about establishing a new constitution. Having finished his plan of reformation, he dignified Munster with the name of mount Zion! and invited the faithful to repair from all quarters, that they might issue from thence to subdue the sinful nations. In the mean time, the Bishop of Munster, having collected a considerable army, advanced to besiege the town. Matthias sallied out to meet him, and having C attacked one quarter of the camp, he forced it with great slaughter, and returned to the city loaded with glory and spoil. Intoxicated with this success he appeared next day brandishing a spear, and declaring, that, like Gideon, he would, with a handful of men, smite the ungodly. He chose thirty persons to accompany him in this wild enterprize, who, rushing on the enemy, were cut off to a man! See Robertson's Charles V. Book 5. Thus they gathered themselves together against Israel, to their own destruction, and made Munster a Christian Armageddon! "But admitting for a moment, that InfantBaptism is unscriptural; yet, do the Scriptures authorize those, who have been baptized in their infancy to be re-baptized, when they become adults? As a solution to this question, I quote the following from a valuable Pamphlet by Dr. Lathrop, of America. "IT is agreed on both sides, that baptism is not to be repeated. If, then, our baptism is valid, a repetition of it is contrary to the will of God. In the baptism of an infant, there is an application of water in the name of the Trinity, as well as in the baptism of an adult. If this baptism be not valid, it is only because the subject had not faith, and did not actually consent to the baptismal obligations. Now, if the baptism of an infant is a nullity, for want of these qualifications, the want of them will equally nullify an adult baptism; but yet, I presume, none of our brethren will carry the matter this length. Let us put a case, (and such a one as doubtless sometimes happens). An adult person makes a profession of faith and obedience, and is baptized. It soon appears, from the wickedness of his life, and the corruptness of his princi ples, that he had no faith in any rational sense, and never consented to the baptismal obligations; but was influenced only by carnal views. The man afterwards comes to repentance, confesses his hypocrisy in this affair, and owns he had no religious views in the whole transaction. He now gives satisfactory proofs that he is become a real penitent and believer. Ought this person to be re-baptized? Every one will say, No: because he has been baptized; and his baptism will save him, as he has now the answer of a good conscience toward God. When Simon the sorcerer, who had been baptized by Philip, discovered the vile hypocrisy of his heart, Peter directs him to repent, that his sin might be forgiven; but says nothing of his being baptized again; whereas he says to the unbaptized Jews, Repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins. But there is just the same reason why this hypocrite should be baptized again, upon his repentance, as why the infant should; because he no more bad faith before baptism, and no more consented to any religious obligation when he was baptized, than an infant. If a profession of repentance is all that is necessary to our receiving this baptized bypocrite, a profession of faith and obedience, at adult age, is all that is necessary to our receiving one baptiz ed in childhood. So that re-baptization is unwarrantable and sinful, even upon the principles of our brethren themselves; and much more in supposition of infants' right to baptism.-p. 93. How, then, must we look upon those, whose parents, (acknowledging the true doctrine of Infant baptism for the remission of sins,) caused them to be christened, once and for ever; and who have since, against their parents' faith, laid the same foundation over again for themselves? We can behold them in no other light than as C 2 |