has given us of real discipleship, and of a real disciple, by his "faith in Jesus Christ; or the belief of the testimony which God has given concerning his Son; with the inseparable effects of this faith on his mind and external actions," which he instances in its having brought him to the water for the purpose of immersion; we say, that, from this view of the matter, there appears no real difference between Philalethes and his friend an Inquirer, or between him and us. For where the truth has been so effectual as to produce the required obedience, which it most evidently has upon the character above described, in bringing him to the water, we cannot in justice entertain any more doubt of the genuineness of his faith, or of the reality of his discipleship in so far, than we are justly authorized to do when we see him emerge from beneath the water. And why? Is it not. ecause of his manifest obedience, the evident effect of his faith in the divine testimony-that thus he shall be saved; because it is written, "He that believes and is immersed shall be saved." And thus he mani-. fests himself a believing and obedient disciple. But was this his character before he manifested his obedience in coming to the water? Certainly not in the judgment of Philalethes; for "he thinks that a bare intention, determination, or purpose to become either a real or avowed disciple, can constitute neither." And so think we. Still, however, we are at a loss how to distinguish between a real and an avowed disciple; seeing that according to scripture the former necessarily implies the latter. For he who will not confess Christ before men, he assures us he will not confess him, before his Father and his holy angels. Therefore, he requires baptism as well as faith to constitute a real disciple; and, therefore, our friend, the subscriber of the above, finds his real disciple in the manifest exercise of obedience, in having come to the water: but he afterwards seems to obscure this, by contrasting Joseph and Nicodemus with avowed disciples. But were they not avowed disciples? Did they not pay the same attention to the body of the crucified Saviour with the other avowed disciples, who followed him from Galilee? Again, are they not recorded as his disciples? And how could this have been, if they had not avowed it by some means sufficiently evident for this purpose? though, from what appears, their avowal was not as public as it ought to have been; but was, to a certain degree, restricted through fear.

2d.

Having in so far, done justice, as we hope, to the avowed sentiments of our friends, apparently at issue upon the subject under consideration, as well as to our own views of the matter; we shall close our remarks at this time with the following observations:-1st. That the Christian institution and its effects are purely divine-are all of God; as really as the creation of the world, and its effects are. That its professed and immediate end, in this world, is, to save a people from their sins; that is, from the guilt and dominion of sin; that so they may become sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty;-heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ. 3d. That the sole principle of enjoyment, all the blessings of this salvation, during this life, is the faith which Paul describes, Heb. i. 11, by which also the Christian VOL. III.

50

lives, Heb. x. 38. 3d. That all the means of divine appointment for putting us into the actual possession of this salvation, and keeping us in it, are means of enjoyment:-the salvation itself, in all its benign and blissful effects, being the free gift of God.

These four propositions, duly considered, would not only obviate the mistakes and difficulties respecting the design of immersion, but also of the whole system of means divinely appointed for the present enjoyment of salvation. For while some consider the use of these means as entitling them to the enjoyment of the proposed and promised blessings; and others speak of them merely as duties expressive of obedience to the divine authority, the performance of which affords only the answer of (what they call) a good conscience; that is, a consciousness of having done their duty; which, in so far, excul. pates them from guilt; a third class, and which, we fear, is by far the smallest, viewing the grand subject of salvation according to the above propositions, consider the use of means as neither more nor less than the rational and divinely appointed way for enjoying the salvation of God. Now, if our friend Philalethes' real disciple be of our third class, we could and would assure him, that he possessed a privilege after his immersion, which he did not, and in fact could not possess before, infinitely greater than either of the two he has placed to his account; namely, that in consequence of his immersion, he now belongs to a class or description to which the Lord has expressly and explicitly promised salvation, to which he did not belong before, not then being of the number of immersed believers. Consequently, having now a promise of salvation which he had not before, he can now realize what he could not before, merely for want of testimony. Nevertheless, understanding the great subject of salvation according to the above propositions, he lays no undue, no unreasonable, nor unscriptural stress, either upon his faith, or upon the act of it performed in his immersion; as if his belief and immersion had any procuring or entitling virtue, more than the act of receiving a gift or believing a promise has, when freely exhibited to every one that will receive it; that is, of being merely and simply the means of enjoyment of the good thing freely proposed. Not so, however, the two preceding classes above described. These constitute the two extremes between which the truth lies untouched, whole and entire. The former, using the means for the purpose of entitling them to the proposed or promised favor: the latter, merely for the sake of performing a duty to keep things straight between them and their God,-merely to avoid the painful reflections and fearful apprehensions of a guilty conscience. Having made these observations not so much, if at all, for the sake of our much esteemed correspondents, Philalethes and an Inquirer, of whose intelligence in relation to the contents of the above propositions, and the subjoined description of professing characters, we entertain no doubt: but more especially for the sake of many, whose attention may not have been called to these things; wishing truth, peace, and love to become universally prevalent, we take our leave of the subject.

Arguments for Young Disciples.—NO. II.
FAITH, HOPE, LOVE.

ADMIT, says an objector, that your first argument is sound; yet may it not still be true, that faith is of different sorts, or possessed of different natures?

If, then, there be human and divine faith, as respects subject, object, and author, there is human and divine hope and love as respects subject, object, and author. As respects the person, or subject of faith, if he be human, his faith, hope, love, must be human, or they cannot benefit him; unless man can be advantaged by angelic faith, hope, and love. A faith that is not human, as respects its subject, can

save no man.

But if human apply to the object, or thing believed, or to the author or person who produces it, then such a human faith pertains to human affairs, and must be confined to the present state. And if divine apply to the object or thing believed, or to the author or person who produces it; then such a divine faith leads to divine things, and produces divine effects upon the subject of it.

If faith mean more or less than the belief of testimony, then hope and love must mean more or less than hope and love; and who but the Pope can tell, how much more or less than the common acceptation is implied in the faith, hope, and love of the New Testament!

Thus you will send the patrons of mystic faith to the Pope for their illumination, and oblige them to sit at his feet for their edification in the Christian faith.

"Now," says Paul, "abide faith, hope, love; these three." They are not one, but three. And as they yet abide with us, we must treat them with equal courtesy and respect. If we mystify faith, we must mystify her two sisters: and if we give one of them two or seven natures, we must be as liberal to the other two, for they are all of one family. We regard them all as spiritual, holy, heavenly, and divine, when they have spiritual, holy, heavenly, and divine objects in contemplation; but we regard them as a natural, common, and carnal sisterhood, when they have natural, common, and carnal objects in admiration.

Your second argument with the mystics, then, is this: Gentlemen, if you mystify one term or principle, you must mystify every other principle and term in the Apostle's doctrine: and who can tell where and when this mystification shall cease-The Pope? Then protest

no more.

Note on Hope.

"Hope that is seen is not hope; for what a man sees why does he yet hope for."-Paul. This affirms hope to be of the same meaning in Paul's vocabulary as it was in the common dictionaries of that age. So we contend that if any word in the New Testament is to be inquired after, it must be sought for in the dictionary.

Common usage deposes as follows:-He that desires and he that expects, and he that hopes, are not always the same person. A de

sires what he cannot always expect. B expects what he does not always desire. But C desires what he expects, and expects what he desires; and therefore C is said to hope: for when we hope for that which we expect, but see not, then we do with patience wait for it. This is hope, and neither faith nor love.

Note on Love.

Love can be better felt than expressed. There is no controversy about the meaning of this word. We have, however, burthened it with epithets. We have natural love and spiritual love, or we have carnal love and Christian love. But love is affection mingled with admiration. We have admiration without affection; but we cannot have affection without some degree of admiration. The object characterizes the affection. If a father love a child it is parental love; if a child love a father, it is filial affection; if a husband love his wife, it is conjugal love; and if a Christian love a Christian, it is Christian love.

He

Love for Jesus is not the love of an idea, but the love of a person whom we admire with all affection and delight. It is best defined by keeping his commandments. How any one can love Jesus Christ and not keep his commandments, is too difficult for us to imagine. himself makes the keeping of his commandments the only correct definition of love to him. Of faith, hope, and love, these are rather the definitions than illustrations. But when any one says to you, that the term faith represents a mystic idea, then tell him that he must also affirm that the terms hope and love, and every other term, represents a mystic idea; and that thus we have no revelation from God at all. EDITOR.

Arguments for Young Disciples—NO. 111.

*BAPTISM, IMMERSION.

WHEN any one says that baptisma means sprinkling or pouring; you, being ignorant of Greek, tell him that, as you cannot decide when and where Doctors disagree, you choose to follow common sense in all doubtful matters. If you are asked how can common sense decide a matter of Greek criticism? your reply will be as follows:

Sir, do not all grammarians, linguists, logicians, and lexicographers agree in this point-that if a word be correctly explained or defined, the whole meaning of the word is in the definition; and that it will always make good sense, common sense, and rational sense, (if you please,) to substitute the definition for the word defined? All will acknowledge this who have common sense. But if any one, not having common sense, should hesitate, ask him to explain any word; and then substitute his definition for the term in the places where it occurs, until you have convinced him that every definition will make good sense in the place of the word defined.

Your antagonist being convinced of this, then you will proceed to apply this supreme and universal law to the definition of baptism. Baptism, says he, is a Greek word, and means to sprinkle or pour.

Well, now, we shall try if this makes good sense. Let us begin with Matthew, where the word first occurs: "All Judea and Jerusalem went out to John, and were baptized by him in Jordan;" that is, according to the definition, were sprinkled by him in Jordan, or were poured by him in Jordan. This required a power which John did not possess. To sprinkle water upon a person is easy; but to sprinkle a person in water requires more physical strength than the first Baptist possessed. Mark, it does not say that John baptized Jordan, but baptized the people. To sprinkle or pour Jordan would have been hard indeed—not much more easy than to pour or sprinkle men in it. It is, then, utterly inconceivable how baptism could import sprinkling or pouring, because it was wholly impossible either to pour or sprinkle men in or with Jordan. This will do for a beginning; and if your antagonist is yet unwilling to yield, go through the book to the end of it, and you will find that immersion will make good sense if substituted in all the places where baptisma is found in the Greek; and that neither sprinkle nor pour will make common sense any where.

EDITOR.

THE RADICAL METHODISTS ARE BECOMING ANABAPTISTS.

OFTEN were the Baptists called Anabaptists, by their jealous rivals. But they successfully rebutted the calumny, by showing that they never rebaptized any person whom they considered as having been once baptized. Not regarding a sprinkled infant, or adult, as baptized at all, they could not be charged with double baptism, for baptizing such, who afterwards confessed the Lord, and wished to be baptized. Their opponents were, at length, put to shame; they blushed, and called them Anabaptists no longer. Hence, all societies now call those who immerse on confession of the faith, simply, Baptists.

But in fact, and in the full import of the term, some reforming Methodists have become Anabaptists; and where it may stop, we cannot predict. Some persons have lately been rebaptized by the Radicals of our vicinity. The Methodists do positively teach, that a sprinkled infant is scripturally baptized: and hence, John Wesley had the good sense to say, that no Methodist preacher should immerse, on any account, one who had been sprinkled in infancy by either the Church of England, or the Methodist Episcopal Church. But, in defiance of John Wesley, and of the Apostle Paul, who taught but one baptism, the Radicals are turning Anabaptists: for we have it on testimony that would be credited any where, that one of their preachers is now baptizing, and has baptized, (that is, immersed,) those who were, by the Methodists themselves, once sprinkled "in the name of the Trinity;" and that, too, with the consent of his brethren. Thus, in the rage of proselytism, these new Anabaptists have seceded from John Wesley, and from all other religious communities in christendom: for, no other community, of which we have read or heard, will baptize a second time those whom they regard as having been once baptized.