whom I am connected. But I hope, Sir, that I can with some sincerity say, "Let the righteous smite me, it shall be a kindness; and let him reprove me, it shall be an excellent oil which shall not break my head: for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities."

But when I consider that some, for whom I have had an affectionate regard, have come forward, and, in the heat of their zeal, have denounc ed the whole Pedobaptist church, in all ages, as belonging to "Antichrist" I cannot but be amazed at the blinding influence of party prejudice; nor can I but entertain a jealousy of my own heart, and a fear that something of this blinding nature has had undue influence in dictating what I have written. Should this be found to be true, I shall have deep cause of humiliation before God and man. It behoves me to look to Him who knoweth all things, and to say, "Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts:" and if there be any of this blinding leaven within me, "purge me and make me clean."-Save me from whatever may wound thy cause, injure thy friends, or dishonor thy name; and cause me to do unto others only as I would that they should do unto me.

Now, dear Sir, with as I hope, real and fervent desires for your best good; for the peace and prosperity of Zion; for more real and apparent union among all the members of Christ's body; and with assured expectation, of meeting you and all the Baptist denomination at the tribunal of God, I bid you a solemn and affectionate FARENOAH WORCESTER.

WELL.

MAY BAPTISM EVER BE REPEATED FROM SCRU

PLES OF CONSCIENCE?

WE think not. 1. Nothing in the word of God gives countenance to such a practice. Nothing more is said of a second Chris. tian baptism, than of a seventh, or seven hundredth. The idea of a second Christian baptism is not suggested in the word of God. No denomination of Christians, amid all the varying opinions of the church, have ever adopted such a practice. It is a child of fanciful, and self sufficient individuals. Scruples of conscience, not dictated by the word of God, have no more claim to obedience, than a desire of profit, or sensuality. A man may as well be rebaptized to promote his convenience, or his party views, as to satisfy. a scruple of conscience, not dictated by positive Scripture authority. God has given but one rule of action; this is not conscience, but his revealed law. Many ways may seem right unto a man's conscience, and yet be the ways of death.

2. The difficulties, not to say impracticability of this system. render it extremely doubtful. Though in some instances the opinion against the persons concerned might be general; yet, whe mrade them judges of another man's conscience and heart, judges of an administration, visibly performed in a right manner, by persons duly authorized? What a vast majority of cases would be satisfactory, or only doubtful to most persons, where some would instantly condemn. Every individual must then judge for himself. What a field is here in which ignorance, prejudice, resentment, and enthusiasm, may spread their desolating fires.. What an engine of chaos in the churches. How often does an hour of peevishness, or even sadness, diffuse a sackcloth of darkness over an excellent character. This excellence may again be recognized, when the gloom of ill nature subsides; but, before this takes place, he is rebaptized. It was his parent or minister with whom he was displeased, and during the paroxism of his displeasure, he imagined the validity of his baptism destroyed. What must he now do go, and be unbaptized? It will instantly be replied, not for passion nor gloom; but for a conscientious scruple must a person be rebaptized. But, who shall decide? It is common for men to make most solemn professions of conscience, when their friends view them under the influence of passion. In this case how shall the minister exculpate himself, who rebaptizes, while probably he has good hope of the parent or minister, first concerned in the administration? Is his conscience nothing? Shall he not be allowed to obey his convictions of propriety and duty? Shall the second baptism depend on the compound conviction of the person and minister? In its very nature is it not a presumptuous, wicked, and impracticable office to deter

A QUESTION CONCERNING BAPTISM.

39

heart to administer baptism, and our parents to offer us in bap.

3. A second baptism destroys the first; this practice would destroy infant baptism. If one person may be baptized a second time on account of some scruple in his mind, another may, and every body may. Of what validity, authority, or importance, is that ordinance, which any person may invalidate and destroy at pleasure, according to his will, or scruple of conscience? Why should a man baptize his household, as was customary in the days of the apostles they may, when advanced in life, deny this baptism. Is not this sacred trifling, a gross profanation of the ordinance? It relieves no difficulty to say such a custom is not common, and little harm can be done. It may be common, and if the question be affirmatively answered, it may with propriety become common, if worldly interest, caprice, or fashion shall offer a temptation; for seruples of conscience, not dictated by the word of God, have their origin in some such selfish affection. In such a case a person would not be merely permitted, but compelled to deny his infant baptism. It is a dream equally absurd to suppose men may choose respecting duty. If a person may be baptized again in any given instance, he must be. For a man to suppose he is at liberty to do a thing, and at liberty not to do it, is to make himself his own inclinations, the rule of his duty. This indeed seems to be the wickedness of the system we oppose. It supposes baptism, not founded on the immutable principles of God's word, but on the scruples of men, which may vary and change every hour of their lives.

4. The doctrine of re-baptizing makes the validity of the ordinance depend on the subsequent views of the subject. If a person supposes he has been baptized aright, then he has; if he supposes it was an empty formality, then it was; it was no baptism. The validity of baptism depends on the subsequent scruple, opinion, whim, or caprice of the subject. Such a person might more consistently at once avow himself an anabaptist. No parent nor minister can determine, that the administration was proper, valid baptism; for they know not what fancy or scruple may afterwards direct the views of the child. Is not this infinitely degrading the holy ordinance of baptism, making it the creature of fancy and imagination?

5. On the supposition, that known sincerity of heart is necessary in the agents to constitute real baptism, no person can ever be certain, that he has been duly baptized; for no man can ever know the heart of his minister or parents. He will, therefore, always have some ground for apprehension, for fear, and serious anxiety. To gain deliverance from this melancholy uncertainty, prudence would dictate a second baptism to every man. So is infant baptism torn up by the roots and destroyed, by re-baptizing. Here another insurmountable difficulty occurs. The person re-baptized cannot know the heart of the minister; from this evil there is no deliverance, but a new

baptism, as often as he doubts his minister's or his own goodness. This is a legitimate consequence of the system. The scruple, which justifies a second baptism, will equally justify a thousand baptisms of the same person. The scruples, which suggest the practice, are so indefinite, so general, and so un. certain, that they admit no precise limits. The man who is re-baptized to-day, because his parents were not sincere in their dedication of him, may find it equally necessary to be baptized again to-morrow, on account of his own insincerity to-day; the next day he may discover he was not sincere the day before: so may he proceed in daily baptisms as long as he lives. The man who is re-baptized because the first minister, who baptized, was not an orthodox or sincere disciple of Christ, may very soon be convinced that the second mimister is a worse man than the first; he may be equally disappointed in the third, in the fourth, and in the four thousandth. He is bewildered in a melancholy labyrinth in a dark night of error, he is lost in boundless chaos, without one star of reason or Scripture to guide his course, or to cheer the horrid gloom.

To say these are extravagant cases, which will never happen, is to say nothing to the purpose. If these things do not happen, it is merely because human folly and absurdity have some bounds; it is not owing to any check or limitation in the theory. The system embraces and justifies all these monstrous consequences. The man, who pretends he will be satisfied with one re-baptism, may as well pretend, that he alone has found the North on the waters of St. Lawrence, while others declare it is on the coast of Labrador, on the Frozen Ocean, and at the Arctic pole. From the whole, we learn how necessary it is to abide by the instruction of God's word. The moment we leave the sacred pages to follow our own opinions or feelings, we wander in a trackless desert, or are tost on the wild billows of error and delusion. EUSEBIUS.

Samuel T. Armstrong, printer, Charlestowns

IN WHICH THE LIBERTIES AND PRIVILEGES OF CHRIS-
TIANS ARE RESCUED FROM THE BONDAGE WHICH
CLOSE COMMUNION BAPTISTS WOULD
IMPOSE ON THEM.

By SAMUEL AUSTIN, A. M.

"When a strong man armed, keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace. But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he shall take from him all his armor, wherein he trusted, and livideth his spoils."

Why dost thou set at nought thy brother ?"

LUKE, XI. 21, 22,

ROMANS, xiv. 10.

PRINTED AT WORCESTER,

BY THOMAS & STURTEVANT.

MAY, 1806