Three reasons why I am a Baptist, with a fourth reason added, on communion

Prefatory Note

If any one wislies to know why the following pages are given to the public, the reason is easily furnished. The Author was invited, some months since, to preach a Discourse at the Dedication of a Baptist Meeting-House. He complied with the invitation, and deemed the occasion suitable for giving some of his reasons for being a Baptist. Many brethren have expressed a desire that these Reasons should be published, giving it as their opinion, that the publication would promote scriptural views of Baptism and Church Government. In deference to the wishes of those valued brethren, the Discourse has been expanded into the following Treatise, and is now submitted to the public. That the day may soon come when there shall be, as in apostolic times, " one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism," and one form of Church Government, is the Author^s fervent prayer.

J. M. Pendleton.

(iii)

PEEFACE TO THE THIRTEENTH THOUSAND

My thanks are due to a generous public that my Httle book has attained a circulation quite unexpected on my part. Having transferred the ^'copyright" to Messrs. Graves, Marks & Co., and they being about to bring out a new edition, I have made some corrections and improvements which will, I think, be regarded as adding to the value of the work. In Appendix No 1, I have given a fourth reason for being a Baptist, which embraces the subject of Communion at the Lord's Table. If some of the views presented are compara tively new, I imagine they wiU, on examination, be found true. In Appendix No 2, the ' perpetuity' of the covenant of Circumcision is maintained.

In former editions of the work, language was used in reference to Mr. Drisler, (on pages 87, 88,) which I am now satisfied, does that gentleman injustice. That language is materially modified. It was employed at first because I labored under a mistake of which, I am happy to say, I have been convinced. I will not, if I know it, allow my unmerited censure to rest on any one.

My earnest desire is, that my little book may, by its advocacy of the truth, be the means of doing good, and I liope it will not be thought improper for me to express my gratification, that I have heard oi fourteen persons who were led, by its perusal, to renounce the errors of Pedobaptism. I tliank God that I have not employed my pen in vain.

October. 1856. J. M. P.

THREE REASONS WHY I AM A BAPTIST

Were I to state that I am a Baptist because Baptists believe the Bible to be the word of God, and cordially subscribe to the doctrine of salvation by grace — ^justification by faith — regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and all kindred topics — some other person might say, ** I belong to a different religious communion for the same reasons." It is necessary, therefore, that my reasons embrace the distinctive peculiarities of Baptists. In other words, I must show why Baptists differ from other religious denominations.

REASON FIRST.

I am a Baptist theriy

Because Baptists regard the Baptism of infants AS UNSCRIPTURAL, AND INSIST ON THE BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS IN ChRIST— AND OF BELIEVERS ALONE.

In showing the vaHdity of this reason, I must enter into an investigation of the subject of Infant Baptism. The investigation will, I trust, not be wanting 1*

G THREE REASONS,

in impartiality and courtesy. May it result in the development and maintenance of truth !

My position is that there is no Scriptural authority for infant baptism. Neith'er precept for, nor example of it can be found in the Sacred Writings. In establishing this position I shall, in opposition to the requirements of logic, assume the burden of proof and attempt to perform a work of supererogation. That is to say, I shall endeavor to prove a negative.

Baptism is a New Testament ordinance. This the Westminster Confession of Faith concedes. The Mew Testament, therefore, should settle every question relative to baptism. This is the universal opinion of Baptists. Pedobaptists, however, are not wil- >^ing — as we shall see — to make an exclusive appeal to the New Testament in determining who are proper subjects of baptism. More of this in another place.

My object at present is to show that there is no authority in the New Testament for infant baptism. Let us see. *'To the law and to the testimony."

1. The account given of John^s hajotism affords no justification of infant baptism.

In the third chapter of Matthew it is thus written : **In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye ; for

the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand Then went out

to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them : generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? . Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance : And ,/ think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father : for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham."

From these verses we learn that John preached repentance — that those whom he baptized confessed their sins — and that descent from Abraham was not considered a quahfication for baptism. There is nothing in the narrative that can suggest the idea of the baptism of impenitent adults or unconscious infants. And this is equally true of the account of the Harbinger's ministry given by the other three evangehsts.

Paul, in explaining John's baptism, says, ''John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him who should come after him, tliat is, on Christ Jesus." Acts, xix. 4. Here it is plain that John I'equired repentance and faith in the Messiah in those he baptized. There is not the remotest allusion to the baptism of any who either did not or could not repent and believe in Christ. Baptists, so far as the subjects of baptism are concerned, certainly copy the example of the first Baptist.

2. The disciples of Christ baptized no infants during his ministry.

The only I'eference we have to the baptisms administered by them before the Redeemer's death and resurrection is in John iii, 26, and iv, 1, 2. It

ight be inferred from the third chapter that Jesus imself baptized, but the first two verses of the fourth chapter explain the matter as follows : ** When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples," &c.

Baptism was not administered by the Savior, but as his apostles acted under his authority, he is represented as doing what was done by his direction. The fact, however, which deserves special attention is that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John. There is a distinction between making and ha.'ptizing disciples. First in order was the process of discipleship to Christ, and then baptism as a recognition of discipleship. Could infants be made disciples? Manifestly not. Then, according to this passage, they were not eligible to baptism ; for the inference is irresistible that none were baptized who were not first made disciples.

The portions of Scripture quoted, taken together, may be considered fair exponents of the baptismal practice from the beginning of John's ministry to the death of Christ. I do not ask whether infant baptism is named ; is it even indirectly alluded to ? Let the candid reader answer.

3. The oft-repeated verse, "• Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me : for of such is the kingdora of heaven'^ — does not justify ivfant hai^- tism.

For what purpose were 'these children taken to Christ? That he should baptize them? Evidently not; for he did not baptize. Were they carried to him that his disciples might baptize them ? If so, it is marvelous that the disciples rebuked those who had charge of them. The preceding verse shows why these children were taken to Christ. **Then were there brought imto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray : and the dissiples rebuked them.*' Matt. xix. 13. There was a specific object in view. It was not that tlie *' little children" might be baptized, but that the Savior might put his hands on them and pray. Who has the right to infer that these children were baptized or that baptism was named in their presence ? It is often argued that the phrase, ''of such is the kingdom of heaven,'* indicates that those children were '* members of the visible church.'' This does not follow. The Savior does not say that these children were of the kingdom of heaven; but he says, ''of such is the kingdom of heaven." The idea of resemblance is clearly presented. Rev. A. Banies, in his notes on the passage, says, '' Of such as these — that is, of persons with such tempers as these — is the church to be composed. He does not say of those iyifanis, but of such persons as resembled them, or were like them in temper, was the kingdom of heaven made up. It was proper, therefore, that he should pray for them.''. Mr. Barnes is good Presbyterian authority, and is highly celebrated as an expositor of Scripture. In Matthew xviii, 3, the Savior says, ** Except ye be converted, and become as httle children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Here we have again the idea of resemblance between little children and converted persons, but there is not a word concerning infant baptism. May I not say that the JSTew Testament, from the birth of John the Baptist to the death of Christ, is as silent as the grave in reference to the baptism of infants ? However, if Pedobaptists were to admit this, they would still insist, many of them at least, that there is authority for their practice bearing date subsequent to the Redeemer's death and resurrection. Let us see whether there is such authority.

4. The commission given by the Savior to his apostles just before his ascension to heaven, furnishes no plea for infant baptism.

The circumstances connected with the giving of this commission were' replete with interest. The Savior had finished the work which he came down from heaven to accomphsh. He had offered himself a sacrifice for sin. He had exhausted tl^e cup of atoning sorroAv. He had lain in the dark mansions of the grave. He had risen in triumph from the

WHY I AM A BAPTIST. It

dead, and was about to ascend to the right hand of the Majesty on high. Invested with perfect media, torial authority, he said to his apostles: ''All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in 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." Matthew, xxviii, 18, 19, 20. Mark records the same commission thus: *'Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Marie, xvi, 15, 16. Luke represents the Savior as saying, ''Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day ; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Luke, xxiv, 46, 47.

Surely the language of this commission is plain. Matthew informs us that teaching, or making disciples (for the verb matheteuo means make disciples) is to precede baptism — Mark estabhshes the priority of faith to baptism, and Luke connects repentance and remission of sins with the execution of the commission. ]^o man can, in obedience to this commission, baptize an unbehever or an infant. The unbeliever is not a penitent disciple, and it is obviously impossible for the infant to repent and believe the gospel.

I lay it doAvn as a principle of common sense, which commends itself, to every unprejudiced mind, that a commission to do a thing or things authorizes only the doing of that thing or those things specified in it. The doing of all other things is virtually pronibited. There is a maxim of law — Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.'^ It must necessarily be so; for otherwise there could be no definiteness in contracts between men, and no precision in the enactments of legislative bodies, or in the decrees of courts of justice. This maxim might be illustrated in a thousand ways. Numerous Scriptural illustrations are at hand. I will mention a few: God commanded JSToah to make an ark of gopher-wood. He assigns no reason why gopher- wood should be used. The command, however, is positive and it forbids the use of every other kind of wood. Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac for a burnt- offering. He was virtually forbidden to offer any other member of his family. Ay more, he could not offer an animal till the original order was revoked by him who gave it, and a second order was given, requiring the sacrifice of a ram in the place of Isaac. The institution of the passover furnishes a striking illustration, or rather a combination of illustrations. A lamb was to be

*The expression of one thing is the exclusion of anotLef killed — not a heifer — it was to be of the first year — not of the second or third — a male — not a female — - without blemish — not with blemish — on the fourteenth day of the month — not on some other day — Clie blood was to be appHed to the door-posts and lintels — not elsewhere, &c. The constitution of the State of Kentucky supplies many illustrations. I avail myself of but one. It is provided that Judges (appellate and circuit) shall be removed from office by the Governor "on the address of two-thirds of ^^ch house of the General Assembly/' and provision is also made for their removal by impeachment. These are the two methods of removal known to the constitution. I ask if all other methods of removal are not virtually prohibited ? Let every man divest himself of prejudice and answer.

In application of the principle I have laid down, and of the law-maxim I have illustrated, I affirm that the commission of Christ to the apostles in requiring them to baptize disciples, believers, prohibits in effect the baptism of all others. It will not do to say we are not forbidden in so many words to baptize infants. The same may be said of unbehevers ; ay, of horses, and cattle, and bells.

Rev. F. G. Hibbard, a Methodist minister "of the Genessee conference," in his work on "Christian Baptism," comments with some severity on an ex» tract he makes from "Jewett on Baptism. '^ Jewett, in illustrating the view of the commission already presented says, ''If I commission my agent to purchase for me a lot of Webster's la7*ge dictionaries, does he not violate his instructions, if he also buy on my account a lot of the al>ridgments ? But he says, 'You did not forbid the purchase of the abridgments/ Did not forbid the purchase ! I answer, it ivas not necessary for me to insert in your commission a prohibition against purchasing other books. Your instructions were definite ; and when I directed you to buy the large books, you must have known that you had no authority to buy small books ; you have done it at your own risk."

Mr. Hibbard says, "All this shows just how far ^ome authors look into a subject before they pronounce upon it. The analogy, however an unpracticed reader may be influened by it, is an unfair and perfectly puerile statement of the case. For in the first place, Pedobaptists do not take their authority for baptizing infants from the mere absence of a prohibition of such a practice, as the pretended analogy teaches. We know not, indeed, how a Christian author could make such a representation of the opinions of his brethren. All we affirm touching this point is, that the total absence of a prohibition, in this particular commission, does not prove a universal prohibition; it proves nothing at all, either pro or con. And yet our author attempts to prove that the absence of an express prohibition, in this specific case, does directly prove a general prohibition. Furtliermore, the analogy is without any just force whatever, because, although a command to buy large books, is no authority for the purchase of small books ; and a command to baptize believers is no authority for baptizing mfants, yet as such commands contain no prohibition, there may exist circumstances, or there may, in another way, be instructions communicated, to authorize the purchase of the small books, alias the baptism of infants ; and this may be such a perfect matter of understanding between the master and the 'agent,' as to render it wholly unnecessary to specify it. And this, we maintain, is the exact state of the case in relation to infant baptism." Pp. 235, 236.

Mr. Hibbard has been pronounced by a distinguished Baptist minister, *'the Carson of his denomination on the subjects and mode of Baptism." This is high eulogy ; for Baptists consider Carson's work on Baptism the ablest which the baptismal controversy has elicited. Far be it from me to disparage Mr. H.'s book. It displays more ability and scholarship than any Methodist work I have read. With a disposition, therefore, to do him perfect justice, I solicit the reader's attention to the concession made in the foregoing extract. A more comprehensive concession could not be expected from a Pedobaptist. It is conceded that *' a command to baptize believers is no authority for baptizing infants,'^ Yery well. This is the position Baptists have ever maintained. The commission of Christ to his apostles requires the baptism of behevers: therefore it does not, Mr. H. being judge, authorize the baptism of infants. It may be more satisfactory to present the argument in syllogistic form. Here it is : A command to baptize believers is no authority for baptizing infants : The commission contains a command to baptize believers : therefore the commission is no authority for baptizing infants. If there is a flaw in this syllogism, or if it does Mr. H.'s concession the least injustice, I am not aware of it. I conclude, then, that Mr. H. will not hesitate to say, with Baptists, that the commission does not authorize infant baptism. Still he insists strenuously on the baptism of infants, and argues that there is authonty for the practice, independent of the commission. This is strange indeed. For it is plain from the consolatory assurance subjoined to the commission, that the Lord Jesus intended that it should remain in full force to the end of the world. Here, then, was a commission given by Christ, which enjoined baptism upon believers to the close of time — a commission which, according to the general view of Pedobaptists, originated Christian baptism — a commission in which there is no reference to infants at all — and yet infants, as Mr. Hibbard teaches, are to be baptized ! It is strange that his philosophical mind did not perceive that the perfect silence of the cGmmission, in regard to infants, furnishes, to say the least, strong p7'ima facie evidence against the vahdity of their claim to baptism.

But, says Mr. H., referring to Mr. Jewett's illustration, *Hhere may exist circumstances, or there may, in another way, be instructions communicated, to authorize the purchase of the small books, alias the baptism of infants ; and this may be such a perfect matter of understanding between the master and the * agent,' as to render it wholly unnecessary to specify it. And this, we maintain, is the exact state of the case in relation to infant baptism."

Mr. Jewett's commission to his agent to buy "Webster's large dictionaries, is intended to represent Christ's commission to his apostles to baptize believers. Mr. H. says, *'a command to buy large books, is no authority for the purchase of small books;" but he urges that authority to buy small books may be given in another way. The question, however, arises, Is it given? And Mr. J.'s illustration supplies a negative answer. For if the agent had authority to buy small dictionaries, it is inconceivable that the principal should call him to account for buying them, and require him to sustain whatever loss might accrue from the purchase. Thus it appears that while Mr. H. complains of the unfairness of Mr. J.'s analogy, he overlooks one of the most important points in the analogy. The agent, according to the illustration, could have had no au- 2^ aiority to buy small books, and yet Mr. H. will have it that the authority was so well understood between the principal and agent, that it was needless to specify small books in the' commission of the principal to the agent! **And this, we maintain, — says he, — is the exact state of the case in relation to infant baptism/' That is to say, the matter was so well understood between Christ and his apostles that they were to baptize infants ; that it was ** wholly unnecessary'' for him in the commission to command them to do so ! A private understanding, apart from the commission, was it? If Mr. H.'s view is correct, it is difficult to say why the commission was given at all. If the apostles understood that they were to baptize infants — and if that understanding superseded the necessity of the mention of infants in the commission — surely their understanding that they were to baptize believers, disciples, rendered it needless for believers, disciples, to be named. Moreover, the apostles had baptized the disciples Jesus made during his ministry — and they baptized no infants — to say the least, it has never been proved that they did — if, therefore, the Savior had intended that both believers and infants should be baptized, it is much more reasonable to suppose that he would liave mentioned infants than believers. The apostles had witnessed many exemplifications of believers' baptism — of infant baptism they knew nothing — and it was specially necessary for the baptism of infants to be enjoined in the commission, if the Savior considered them proper subjects of the baptismal iite. Why was not their baptism enjoined ? Why ? The only answer is, it was not the will of the author of the commission.

From this somewhat extended examination of the commission, I feel fully authorized to say that it furnishes no plea for infant baptism. I know it will be said — for it has been said a thousand times — that if infants are not to be baptized because they cannot beHeve, they cannot be saved because they cannot beheve. If the salvation of infants depends on their faith they cannot be saved. They are incapable of faith. They are doubtless saved through the mediation of Jesus Christ, but it is not by faith. It seems to me that our opponents egregiously fail to accomplish their object in urging this objection to our views. They must intend to make us admit the propriety of infant baptism, or force us to a denial of infant salvation. But we make neither the admission nor the denial. As soon as we say that infants are not saved by faith, but without faith, their objection is demolished.

5. There is no instance of infant baptism on the day of Pentecost,

This fact is worthy of special consideration. The apostles were, on that memorable day, copiously imbued with the Holy Spirit — they were baptized in the

Spirit — tliey were endued with power from on high. All things whatsoever Jesus had said to them were brought to their remembrance. They were requifed for the first time to show their understanding of the commission of their ascended Lord. How did they understand it? How did they execute it? First, the gospel was preached. The people were pierced to the heart, and said, **Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said unto them, ''Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.'' No one contends that the command, *' Repent,'' is applicable to infants, and it is certain that the injunction, "Be baptized," has no reference to them ; for it is as clear as the sun in heaven that the same persons are commanded to repent and be baptized. It is supposed by some, however, that the phrase, '' The promise is unto you and your children," refers to infants. The term children evidently mean^ posterity, and the promise cannot be divested of its relation to the Holy Spirit. This promise was not only to the Jews and their posterity, but to Gentiles — ''to all that are afar off!" This restriction is laid upon the promise — ''even as many as the Lord our God shall call." And whether the term "call"

is used in its general sense, as in Proverbs viii, 4, or in its special sense, as in 1 Cor. i, 24, it is in either case inapplicable to infants.

Did any obey Peter's command, *'Be baptized?'' It is written, *'Then they that gladly received his word, were baptized : and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." The baptism was limited to those who gladly received Peter's word, and as infants were obviously not of that number, to infer that they were baptized is utterly gratuitous. There is nothing in the Pentecostal administration of baptism which intimates that infants were considered proper subjects of the ordinance.

6. There is nothing like infant baptism in the account given of Philips s labors in Samaria.

The reader can examine for himself the eio^hth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. There it will be seen that Philip began to execute the commission of the Savior hj preaching. He ** preached Christ unto them." He doubtless remembered the words of the risen Redeemer, *'Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that belie veth and is baptized shall be saved," etc. The Samaritans *' believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" — and what then ? ** They were baptized both men and women."

Here was a practical exposition of the commission of Christ. Is there anything in this expositioD which can suggest the idea of infant dedication to God in baptism ? Surely not. Philip's plan of operation was evidently uniform. Hence, when he fell in with the Ethiopian eunuch — as we learn from the latter part of the same chapter — he first ''preached unto him Jesus.'* The eunuch professed /az^A in the Messiah. Then Philip haiotized him. As ** faith confes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," there must be preaching before faith, and there must be faith prior to baptism, because this is the order established by Christ, in the commission. Alas for those who invert this order !

7. The household baptisms recorded in the New Tes\ lament do not sustain the practice of infant baptism,

I will take them in their order. In the tenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, there is an account of Peter's visit to Cornelius. He preached, and the Spirit was poured out. His Gentile hearers spoke with tongues and magnified God. Then said Peter, *' 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." Here was a household baptism, but there are things said of the subjects of this baptism thal^ could not be true of unconscious infants. One fact, however, settles the whole matter. In the second verse of the chapter it is said that Cornelius ** feared God with all his housed Can infants fear God ?

The baptism of Lydia and her household is next in order. The reader will please read the narrative,. Acts, xvi, 13, 14, 15. No one denies that Lydia was a believer. She was, therefore, a proper subject of baptism. But it is inferred that as her household was baptized, infants must have been baptized. This does not follow, for the very good reason that there are many households in which there are no infants. The probability is — and it amounts almost to a certainty — that Lydia had neither husband nor children. She was engaged in business — was *'a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira '' — which was about three hundred miles from Philippi. If she had had a husband and infant children, is ifc not reasonable to suppose that her husband would have taken on himself the business in which she was engaged, allowing her to remain at home with the infant children ? She evidently had no husband with her ; for it cannot be supposed that she violated conjugal propriety so far as to reduce her husband to a cipher, by saying '^ my house^'' etc. Nor can we believe that the sacred historian would have spoken of the house of Lydia, in verse forty, if she had had a husband. The most reasonable inference is that her household consisted of persons in her employ — that they believed and were baptized as well as Lydia — and that they were the ''brethren'' whom Paul and Silas ** comforted," when released from prison, they *' entered into the house of Lydia."