CHAPTER III: OATHS.

Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God.

1. It is imagined by some that Christ abolished the oath, in saying, "Swear not at all." (Matt. v, 34.) There is a slight errour in the translation of his words into English, but not enough to conceal the true intent, to wit: that they should not swear by the less, but only by the greater. (id. 35, 36.)

2. Of the legality of oaths, under the dispensation of Christ, an eminent example is found in the Angel, who "swear by him that liveth forever, that there should be time no longer." (Rev. x, 6.)

3. And in the dispensation of the final gathering and holiness of Israel, God will exact of all men to swear by his name.

[1 Isa. lxv,16. Neh. xiii, 25. Deut. vi, 13. Ps. lxiii, 11. [2 Jer. v, 7.

(Isa. lxv, 16. Jer. xii, 16.) In the very discourse in which it has been supposed that oaths were abolished, Jesus said, "Think not I am come to destroy the Law." (Matt. v, 17.) Yet that was the Law which required these oaths.

1. It is profaning, the name of God to swear vain oaths, such as are not appointed in the Law, or are not necessary to justice. The oath was appointed of God for great occasions, and not to be made a light thing of by familiar use.

2. In the conversations and communications of men, let your communication be yes, and no; for he that is not worthy of credit in these, is more to be suspected of falsehood

[1 Isa. xlv, 23. 1xii, 8. Heb. vi, 13, 16. Gen. xxii, 16, 17. [2 Josh. xxiii, 7. [3 Lev. xix, 12. vi, 3.

when he swears. Profanity will not prevent falsehood.

3. Nor should Judges and Rulers, and those set in authority exact an oath in all cases of controversy among men. The habit of always swearing a witness in all cases of litigation about little trifles, tends to destroy the sacredness of the oath, by making it too common, and encourages perjury.

4. Be not too ready, after asserting anything with ever so much sincerity, to swear to it. Men are sometimes mistaken, when very sure. A word should be spoken on oath only with much deliberation and thoughtfulness. Otherwise it ceases to be the end of controversy. Great readiness to swear without due deliberation, would reduce the oath of the swearer to another man’s yes, and no, or below it.

5. The practice of swearing by the name of God, or of any holy person, or of any false god, or of any man, or place, or thing, or by any name, word, or place whatever, in our conversations, or in anger, is to be reprehended, and punished as a gross violation of this Law.

6. And all those modes of speaking which approach to, and resemble profane swearing, should be avoided; and if any one, after admonition, persists in them, he should be punished.

[1 1st Kings viii, 31, 32. Lev. v, 1. [ 2 Gen. xxvi, 28—31. xxi, 31. Josh. ii, 12 -14. Ist Sam. xx, 16, 17. [ 3 Gen. xxiv, 2, 3. 1 st Sam. xxx, 15. 2d Sam. xix, 7, 1st Kings i, 17, 51.

1. It is the duty of a judge to use the most careful discretion, in requiring an oath of a party or witness before him. If a witness is under reasonable suspicion of willful falsehood, an oath will seldom relieve it. If he is not corrupt, the truth can generally be got out of him without it.

2. The principal use of the oath, is to bind one for an act long in the future; and to be of any value for that purpose it should only be resorted to on great occasions, and with much deliberation.

3. In covenants between parties, it is proper only in cases where, from some reason, the Law would scarcely afford a remedy for the breach of the covenant, or there is no sufficient authority to enforce it.

4. So between a Prince, or Ruler, or Master and his servants; it is right to take an oath of a Steward, for the substance of another is in his hand, and no one knows what he does with it. And if a promise be made to a servant, by a great man, of some great favour, he may confirm it with an oath.

6. If thou swear by an oath to do anything which is known to thee, and it be sin, it is not an oath of the Lord thy God. Thou

[1 Lev. xix, I2. Num. xxx. 2. Deut. xxiii, 21-23. Nah. i, 15. Ps. xv, 1-4, 1, 14. Ecc. v, 4, 5. Job xxii, 27. [2 Acts v, 1-4.

1. There is, perhaps, no more difficult question in moral philosophy than that arising out of this class of oaths. The discussion of it for near three centuries, has failed of any satisfactory result.

2. One of the chief accusations of the Protestants against the Roman Catholicks was, that the Romish Priests, or some of the higher of them, exercised the prerogative of absolving Christians from their oaths.

3. This question had most consequence during the political struggles between Protestants and Romanists in Europe, which coutinued for three centuries, and during which the Pope not unfrequently absolved nations from their oaths of allegiance to Protestant Princes.

4. The same power had frequently before been exercised against Princes, who were not sufficiently subservient to the Pope, though of the Roman Catholick religion. Indeed, it is not improbable that the dread of that power, more than

[1 Lev. v, 4-13.

anything else, induced several Princes to encourage the reformation.

5. So terrible had this power become in the hands of the Popes, that by means of absolution* and interdict** the Pope, by a simple writing from the Vatican, could drag a powerful Potentate down from his throne, and the meanest of his subjects would refuse him homage. Not unfrequently by the exercise of these prerogatives, renowned Princes had been brought on their knees before the Pope, to kiss his feet, and beg restoration to favour.

6. Protestants maintained that such acts by Popes, Bishops, or Priests, were a mere license to commit perjury, and that the oaths of allegiance were, nevertheless, binding, and no power on earth could absolve the subject from his oath of allegiance to his Prince.

7. But in the progress of the reformation it not unfrequently happened that Protestants found themselves bound by oath of allegiance to Princes of the Roman Catholick religion; Princes whom they deemed it their duty to God, to oppose in arms.

8. They did not stand upon the obligations of the oath. The better sort of men, perhaps, in some way, persuaded themselves that the oath was not pleasing to God, and on the whole ought not to be kept, and so took to themselves a dispensation to violate it.

9. Taking example from them, worse men assume to disregard any oath they wish to be rid of, as often as they can do so without fear of punishment.

*Absolution extended not only to pardon of sins, but to releasing from oaths, obligations, or allegiance.

** By the Pope’s inderdict publick worship ceases, the churches are closed, the sacraments cannot be administered, nor the dead buried. There can be neither marriage nor baptism, or any religious act, till the interdict is withdrawn.

10. If it was dangerous to trust the dispensation of oaths, under circumstances when the propriety of keeping them was exceedingly doubtful, to the leaders, instructors, and pastors of the people, how much more dangerous to trust the same powers to the mass of the people, with all their temptations, to depart from obligations, voluntarily assumed, but which they no longer wished to keep.

11. This was the opening of a floodgate of crime, which Protestants have never been able to close. And a horrible comment it is on their affected indignation at the Roman Catholick Priests, for dispensing the obligations of an oath.

12. In the English and German revolutions of the last three centuries, as well as in the American revolution, whole nations of Protestants trampled on their oaths of allegiance, and sundered them as ropes of sand. Indeed; latterly, revolutions seem to have been entered on just as lightly, and upon just as small causes as though subjects were not bound by an oath.

13. If the mischief ended here, there would be hope for those nations which dispense with the administration of the oath of allegiance. But the doctrine once set on foot that a man may simply throw off the obligation of an oath, because he thinks it ought not to have been taken, has almost destroy-ed the force of all oaths.

14. The practice of the Protestants is grossly contrary to the Bible, as they read it. In the ambiguous statement of the Law, (Lev. v, 4,) whatever else may be in the dark, it appears that "if a soul swear to do good, or to do evil, and it be hid from him, when he knoweth it, he shall be guilty." That is, if, in the result, the oath unexpectedly requires a sinful act, he shall be guilty, whether he keeps or breaks it.

15. Further, the Law is not clearly set out; but it requires

him to confess, and to make a trespassoffering, and the Priest shall make an atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.

16. This much is, therefore, clear; that a man cannot, of right, put off and break such an oath; and that those who are unfortunately involved in it, must submit themselves to the Priesthood of God.

17. An eminent case in point is that of Jephthah, Judge of Israel, who, when he went out to battle against the Ammonites, vowed unto the Lord that if he would deliver them into his hands, he would make a burnt offering of whatsoever first met him, as he returned home in peace.

18. He did not know what would first meet him. Therefore, what the oath required, was unknown. He won a great victory; but as he returned home his daughter, his only child, met him. Yet Jephthah dared not to break his vow.* (Jud. xi, 30-37.)

19. A still stronger case is that of the Gibeonites, (Josh. ix,) who by lies and false pretences obtain a covenant of the Princes of Israel to let them live.

20. The Law of God forbade Israel to make any league or covenant with the people of the country; and by the deep guille of the Gibeonites they were induced to violate this Law. Yet God held them and their children bound by the oath, throughout all generations.

21. For when, Saul, King of Israel, slew some of the Gibeonites, in violation of that oath, God punished Israel, at whose instance he did it, with three years famine, until the posterity

*Jephthah’s daughter was not slain and burnt. As she was not a lawful sacrifice, she was valued by the Priest according to the Law, (Lev. xxvii, 1-7,) and a sacrifice made instead. But as she was devoted, she could not be redeemed; (Lev. xxvii, 28-33;) therefore she was given to the service of the Tabernacle as a Nazarite all her life. For this reason it is not said that she or her companions lamented or bewalled her death, but her virginity. (Jud. xi, 37-40.) She could not be given in marriage; a very great misfortune in Israel; and this is what she and her companions bewailed.

of Saul were given up to be destroyed; the most conclusive evidence that in the judgment of God the oath was binding on the nation, though the taking it was sinful.

22. Had the Gibeonites and the Princes of Israel both understood that the oath was unlawful, and unlawfully obtained it seems that it would have been void.

23. But it would be wrong that the Princes should excuse the breach of an oath, made in favour of strangers, by saying it was contrary to the Law of Israel, which the stranger might be quite ignorant of.

24. Nor could they excuse themselves because the Gibeonites had deceived them, for that would present a temptation to all men, after receiving the benefit of a covenant, to seek some pretence for casting off the obligation. Deliberation should go before the oath; but, as far as possible, that should be the end of strife.

25. These cases and Commandments make a strong rule against the doctrine and practice of Protestants. Still the rule of the Romanists is inadmissible. For it is not to be endured that there should be any power within the State which can step between sovereign and subject, and absolve one from his obligation to the other.

26. Among a people who truly believe their religion, and will not profane their oaths, such a rule would at once transfer the real sovereignty to the Priests, to whom the power of absolution belonged.

27. If the Priest may absolve a citizen, and give him a dispensation to violate any oath, which, as citizen or subject he is bound by, the State has lost its power over him, and can bind him by no obligation; it depends on the Priest alone.

28. If he may absolve the Prince, the subject can have no

guaranty that what the Prince has sworn to at his coronation, he will perform in his reign. The Priest, in becoming the conscience keeper, becomes the common ruler of Prince and people.

29. This was doubtless the intention of the Law of Moses. Under that Law, officers of the Church were all officers of the State; for State and Church were one institution. And the delicate question of the obligation of oaths, not proper of themselves, but when the impropriety was unintended, was reserved to the men raised up of God as leaders and pastors of the people.

[1 Num. xxx, 6-15. [2 Num. xxx, 3-5.

Total—10 Sec., 663 words, 2,593 letters.

1. Wives, children and servants, being subject to an authority which may control their actions, cannot always perform what they may have sworn. Hence, the husband, the father, or the master, is made liable for all the consequences, if permitting them to take the oath, he will not allow them to perform it.

2. But some oaths he cannot disallow. If a higher authority interposes rightfully, they must yield to it, and that authority will shield them, and will be their avenger.

3. Those who are thus subject to the control of another, ought to be very careful not to incur any obligation which they may not be allowed to perform, without permission so to do, except upon very grave cause.

4. It is their duty, also, after incurring the obligation, to seek diligently to perform it. Though the husband, father, or master may interpose to prevent the keeping of the oath, they cannot appeal to him to shield them from their voluntary obligations. On the other hand, they are bound to seek his permission, to do what they have sworn. For so sacred is the obligation of an oath, that to seek a pretence for drawing back from it, is a violation of its intent and purpose.

CHAPTER IV:  BENEDICTONS.

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.

Total—2 sec., 83 words, 333 letters.

1. If blessings were only an expression of the good will and wishes of him who pronounced them, more appropriate forms of language could be found, and forms which would not seem to trifle with the name and power of God, Angels, and Saints.

2. Jacob pronounced blessings on his sons, and the sons of Joseph, whom he adopted, (Gen. xlviii, 15-22. xlix, 1-27,) because he had power from God to bless, and the blessing should come. Laban and Bethuel blessed Rebecca, when they gave her in marriage to Isaac, (Gen. xxiv, 60,) and the blessing was with her. Melchisedek blessed Abraham. (Gen. xiv, 19.)

3. But blessings are not limited to occasions of so great

consequence as these. It is our duty to bless, rather than curse; ever to bless all but the impenitent, who love iniquity.

4. While we should only curse, as a mere duty, those justly condemned, for whose repentance there is no hope, it should be our pleasure ever to bless, and to honour those from whom blessings flow.

5. The ancient Saints blessed in their salutations, in their greetings, and in their feastings. In consequence of this practice, John gave a commandment that no one should bid the schismaticks, who came among them, God speed, (2d John 10,) which was a very wholesome commandment, not to be forgotten in these days; for he that blesseth such, is partaker of their evil deeds. (2d John 11.)

6. The proper manner of the Saints, is, therefore, when they meet those who are entitled to blessings from them, instead of the ordinary salutations in use among different people, to salute them with blessings in the name of God, Saints, or Angels.

7. These salutations ought to be adopted on occasions of meeting and separating, and ought to be practiced neither in levity, nor in a gloomy and misanthropick mood; but in cheerfulness and hearty good will, which tends to blessings and happiness.

8. Parents should be an example in these things to their children, and Elders to all the people. The effect of the general adoption of this manner would be to put an end to most of the difficulties which occur among neighbours, and to smooth down the asperities of human life. In short, if the Saints bless with all their hearts, the blessing will not fail.

9. The less cannot bless the greater. (Heb. vii, 7.) But whom you cannot bless, them honour, with becoming reverence, as the Stewards of God, appointed to minister unto you.

CHAPTER V:  MALEDICTIONS.

Thou shalt obey the Lord thy God.

Total—3 sec., 125 words, 531 letters.

1. So general and widespread is wickedness among men,

[1 Rom xii, 14. Lev. xxiv, 11, 14-16. [2 Jud. v, 23. [3 Ex. xxii, 28. Lev. xx, 9. [4 Num. xxiv, 9.

that while the salutations so common among the Saints of the former days, "Peace be with you," "God speed you," and various others, are nearly forgotten; cursing and swearing, then rarely heard, have become features in conversation.

2. Thus the whole order of God in this respect, as in many others, is reversed. Cursing has become the practice, and blessing the exception. It is not singular that the curse has come, after being so oft invoked.

3. The whole practice of mixing up cursings in conversation, is an offence to God, and to all the Saints, and is a fruitful source of divers mischiefs.

4. Maledictions should only be invoked on such as, on deliberate and candid thought, are found condemned to them by the Law of God; and then the curse should be invoked as in the presence of God, the searcher of hearts; conscious that whosoever curses in the bitterness of his own corrupt heart, and not in the light of God’s truth, the curse will return upon him.

5. The different occasions of cursing are marked by different modes. When hospitality is refused to the embassadors of the gospel, by the instruction of Jesus, they wash their feet, or wipe the dust from them, as a testimony against the house or city in which they have been refused food and rest. (Matt. x, 14. Acts xiii, 51. xviii, 6. Mark vi, 11. Luke ix, 5. x,10,11.)

6. Maledictions are also pronounced on hereticks, schismaticks, and those guilty of gross and abominable immoralities, and acts of great cruelty and wickedness. For this purpose not unfrequently the Prophets, Apostles and Bishops pronounce the maledictions, and the whole body of the people say, Amen. (1st Cor. v, 5. 1st Tim. i, 20. Mal. iv, 6.)

CHAPTER VI:  PRAYER.

Total—3 sec., 109 words, 472 letters.

1. A great mistake prevails in regard to the proper occasions of prayer. Many pray at certain appointed times every day, or every week, without regard to the occasion, and think attention to it with perfect regularity a most important duty.

[1 Matt. vi, 6, 7. 2d Kings iv, 33. [2 Matt. vi, 9.

2. With such, prayer becomes a parrot like repetition of words, and tends more to hypocrisy than communion with God.

3. Man ought always to give thanks when he has abundance; always to pray, when in unprovided want.

4. But his wants are not the occasion of prayer, if he is able to put forth his hand and supply them. Rather should he help himself, and then give thanks that abundance was bestowed, so that he had but to reach forth his hand and enjoy.

5. How much annoyance do children often make, continually asking for that, which, perhaps, has already been refused them, or is being prepared with all possible expedition, or possibly is ready and waiting to be taken by them.

6. Like this is the conduct of the children of our heavenly Father, who continually importune, year after year, for what God has never found them worthy to receive, or what he is preparing for them, or has already bestowed upon them in abundance.

7. The Lord Jesus, in his day, taught his Disciples to pray, "Give us this day our daily bread," (Matt. vi, 11,) because he had taken them from the business at which they laboured, and sent them out preaching without purse or scrip.

8. But that instruction is no reason why he should pray, "Give us this day our daily bread," who has bread for himself and all in his house for a whole year, and a like abundance for all other wants. Such a one should give thanks for what God has bestowed upon him, and, perhaps, pray God to inspire him with meekness and charity to so use it that it shall be a blessing, and not a condemnation.

9. Not only do thousands pray for what is already supplied to them in abundance without the asking, but also mistake the direction of their petitions; asking of God what they have only to ask their neighbours or their rulers for.

CHAPTER VII:  THANKSGIVING.

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart.

Total—2 sec., 108 words, 518 letters.

1. There is a natural buoyancy of spirits in the constitution of man, which will not live down to the demands of misanthropy. It is the native thankfulness of the heart, for blessings bestowed, favours conferred, and happiness enjoyed.

2. In that false system of religion, which condemns all the pleasures of life as sinful, and enjoins on us the selfinfliction

of gloom, pain and misery, in this life, as the price of happiness in another, this natural thankfulness is condemned as sinful.

3. Give it a voice, and it will speak the praises of God; motion, and it will act the gratitude of the heart, inspired with an afflatus from the heart of the Redeemer of men.

4. In the Jewish Church, singing, instrumental musick feasting, and dancing, were all used in praising God. But it is worthy of remark, that they used them or not, according to the extent of their blessings or calamities. (Ps. cxxxvii. 4.)

5. While in Egyptian bondage they had no national feasts but on the destruction of the firstborn of Egypt, the feast of the passover was instituted. (Ex. xii, 3-10.)

6. On different occasions new feasts, sacrifices, and dances were instituted, and new psalms and songs composed for their various thanksgivings; both national, sectional and individual.

7. The use of all these modes of praising God, and giving thanks to him, prevailed among them, and were anticipated in the Church of the latter days. They were regarded as most acceptable forms of worship. (Ps. cxlix, cl.)

8. Dancing and instrumental musick should, therefore, be regarded as forms of religious worship, acceptable to God, when done to his praise, and the magnifying of his name.

9. And though it may not be positively sinful to join in a dance which was not instituted to the praise of God, yet as tending to an unprofitable mixing with unbelievers, the practice should be avoided. It may cause some to stumble.

10. Be admonished, therefore, that whatsoever you do, you do it in reference to the law of God, being guided thereby in all things; rendering due thanks and praise unto him for all his goodness, and assembling your neighbours with you to be joyful in the Lord.

CHAPTER VIII:  SACRIFICE.

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy might and with all thy strength.

4. Of the choice of thy fields, that which is good for food without change or addition, and whatsoever is used for bread for man, that is holy unto the Lord thy God, and shall be offered unto him as an offering, and lifted

[Page 107]

Total—5 sec., 236 words, 992 letters.

1. Of the first institution of sacrifices the Divine Oracles make no record. But the date of them goes back to the first of men.

2. Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam, offered sacrifices; Cain, of the fruits of the field, and Abel of the firstlings of his flocks, (Gen. iv, 3-5,) and God had respect to the offering of Abel, and not to that of Cain.

3. Why God had respect to the offering of Abel, and not to that of Cain, is not stated in Genesis; but the most common inference has been that it was merely because Abel offered of the flocks, and Cain of the fields.

4. This reason alone seems quite insufficient; for other offerings than those of slaughter are often acceptable, and required by the Law.

5. The Book of Jasher* gives as the reason, that Cain "had brought of the inferiour fruit of the ground before the Lord;" (Jasher i, 16;) whereas, an offering, to be acceptable, should always be of the best.

6. Sacrifices continued in all ages, from Adam till Christ;

*The name Jasher is not that of a man, the author of a book; but of the book itself; and signifies the upright or just: the Book of the Upright, or the True or Upright Record.

but there has been a wide field of argument as to the propriety of their continuance subsequently.

7. The general, though not quite universal, sentiment among Protestants is, that no form of sacrifice should be offered since the offering of Christ for the redemption of mankind.

8. Romanists hold that the Eucharist, as often as it is repeated, is an offering anew of Christ a sacrifice for the sins of men; and in supporting their theory, offer some testimonies, clearly enough showing that, in all the ages, the chosen of God will offer unto him acceptable offerings; (Mal. i, 11. Rev. viii, 3;) but fail to show that that in particular is the offering spoken of.

9. Both Protestants and Romanists are in the dark in this matter; not only for want of a proper understanding of the true nature of a sacrifice, but also of the prerogatives of the Priesthood, in all its divisions.

10. It is the prerogative of the Melchisedek Priesthood to offer certain sacrifices, and to administer certain ordinances and sacraments. Wherever that Priesthood is found, there those sacrifices, ordinances and sacraments may be looked for.

11. The Melchisedek Priesthood existed in the times of the Patriarchs, and offered sacrifices. The same Priesthood, during the continuation of the Jewish nation, existed in the persons of several Prophets, who erected and sacrificed on altars at other places, than the sanctuary in the keeping of the Aaronick Priesthood, (1st Kings xviii, 30-38. 2d Sam. xxiv, 25. Jud. vi, 25, 28. xiii, 16-20,) which the Aaronick Priesthood were forbidden to do. (Deut. xii, 10-14)

12. Jesus, as well as most of these Prophets, came of other tribes than that which held the Aaronick Priesthood, and it is witnessed of him that he is a Priest after the order of Melchisedek. (Ps. cx, 4. Heb. v, 6, 10. vii, 17, 21.)

13. His Apostles were made partakers of the same calling, (Heb. iii, 1. Matt. xvi, 18, 19. xxviii, 18, 19. Eph. ii, 20,) and inducted into the same Priesthood; for they were of tribes to which the Aaronick Priesthood did not pertain, and administered sacraments and ordinances over which it had no power.

14. The Apostles, therefore, are Priests after the order of Melchisedek. Being inducted into that Priesthood, they have power to administer the sacraments, and offer the sacrifices which pertain to it.

15. And it is particularly worthy of remark, that the only offering made by Melchisedek, of which the Bible makes any mention, is that of the bread and wine, (Gen. xiv, 18,) which is everywhere recognized as a sacrament, if not a sacrifice.

16. It is, therefore, clear from the testimonies in the Bible, without reference to any other revelation or law, that the rites peculiar to the Melchisedek Priesthood continue.

17. Christ himself is the one sacrifice, great above all others, offered once in fact; offered ever in symbol; who was offered, not upon an altar, nor by a Priest, after the manner of all instituted sacrifices, but a natural sacrifice; yielding himself, who had done no sin, to the wrath of sinners; that by his sufferings he might bring them life.

18. This is the true and proper idea of a sacrifice. It is a something valuable given, or yielded up to be destroyed, as the sole or necessary means of saving something else. From this natural, originated all sacerdotal sacrifices.

19. And as the Eucharistick Sacrifice is a symbol of the natural sacrifice of Jesus, so sacerdotal sacrifices are all voluntary offerings, in lieu of natural sacrifices. Instead of being burdensome to those who offer them, the design and effect of the institution of sacerdotal sacrifices, is to diminish the necessity for the natural.

CHAPTER IX:  MONUMENTS.

[1 Gen. xxviii, 16-18. Josh. iv, 3, 9, 20, 21. viii, 32. Jasher ii, 13. Josephus Ant. B. 1, ch. ii, 3.

Total—6 sec., 264 words, 1,251 letters.

1. The Scriptures mention but a few instances of the erection of monuments, to preserve the memory of the revelations of God’s majesty and mercy. But those there mentioned were of an early date, and show that the Law was kept in the beginning.

2. It is worthy of note that travellers find many ancient monuments in the land of Canaan, of Israelite origin, and

prophetick ages, which are nowhere spoken of in the Bible.

3. But that country has so often changed masters; so often been desolated by destructive and long continued wars, that many of its monuments have been destroyed; others lost; and such a multitude of false tales put affoat in regard to them, that little is now known of the genuine Israelite monuments.

4. The best known ancient nations, whose books are lost, are Egypt, Assyria, and Chaldea, whose histories have been preserved by their monuments; and their claim to ancient renown, which tradition had preserved, but books ignored, has been recently fully vindicated.

5. The universal practice of erecting monuments, in all the early nations, was the result of Law, not caprice. All Archaiologists concur in this, that as their knowledge of God diminished their monuments became inferiour, till, with the loss of true religion altogether, the construction of monuments was, to a great extent, abandoned. Instead of monuments, they then erected statues, and, forgetting the living God, worshipped them as gods.

6. The expense of constructing enduring monuments is not great. The most valuable material should not be sought for, as it is more likely to be demolished for new structures; but rather that which, after being demolished, will be of little or no value.

7. For common monuments, brick, laid in strong mortar, is preferable. The brick should be made of different sizes, with every one a letter sunk into the end, and laid up in order, as type are set.

8. In this style of building the side of every structure of brick could, with little expense, be made a monument, covered with records; and as the brick would be of little value

for any new structure, these works would seldom be demolished.

9. To make the temptation to demolish them less, the whole interiour mass might well be constructed of gravel and rough stones, mixed with lime and sand, which would very soon harden, and become massive stone.

10. It would be preferable to impress the letters into the brick, rather than emboss them, because they would be more durable; but either style could with propriety be adopted, in interiour tablets, properly protected from weather.

11. In this style of building the walls of houses should be divided in pannels, and each pannel filled with an inscription, beginning a little above the earth’s surface, and placing each line above the last, in succession, as each is below the last in the pages of a book.

12. Or, a draught might be made of each pannel, with its proper inscription, with regard to the size of the letter bricks, and by that they could be laid up so as to read from top to bottom, in the usual style.

13. As these monuments would be valuable as structures, and nearly valueless as materials for future structures, they would be most likely to be permanent.

14. But in the construction of them, some events might well be briefly commemorated on a single brick, and occasionally a brick be laid with the inscribed side within the wall, so that no process of destruction would blot out its testimony, short of tearing the monuments down to the foundation, and breaking up each brick.

15. Such monuments would withstand the elements as long as any other material, and could be constructed without difficulty, in most countries. When made of pressed brick, they would present a fine appearance.

CHAPTER X:  BLESSING OF INFANTS.

Thou shalt serve thy God, and obey him.

1. The blessing of infants is no new sacrament. It was practised by Jesus Christ during his ministry. (Mark x, 13-16. Luke xviii, 15-17.) After the practice of baptizing infants was introduced, in the days of the apostacy of the Church, it was confounded with confirmation.

2. But there was such a manifest impropriety in confirming unconscious infants, that that sacrament was necessarily postponed to a later period of life. By this means blessing, as a sacrament, was quite lost.

3. Yet it is retained among Romanists, the eastern Christians of various sects, and some Protestants, not as a sacrament, but as a nonessential ceremony attending baptism, or sprinkling, which most of them have substituted for baptism.

Total—4 sec., 267 words, 1,100 letters.

The name by which a child is blessed, that is its name. Those who bring a child to be blessed, should determine what name they wish, and if there is no good objection, it should be blessed by that. But if any just objection appears, he who blesses should bless by such name as is most proper.

CHAPTER XI:  BAPTISM.

The Lord thy God shows a multitude of mercies unto them that keep his Commandments.

1. The language, "born of water," as found in this Law, and in the discourse of Jesus to Nicodemus, is sufficient to settle the controversy as to the manner in which baptism should be administered.

2. For a birth is a coming forth out of something that covers and conceals. Such is baptism, only when the subject, being covered in water, is brought forth out of it.

3. It would be folly in the extreme to say of one, upon whom a few drops of water had been sprinkled, or a small quantity poured, that he was born of the water. It cannot even be said that he is sprinkled, or poured. It is the water that is sprinkled, or poured.

4. Nor can any one say that this language, "born of the water," was not used of baptism. For if baptism is not the thing here spoken of, then there is another ceremony to be administered in water, besides baptism, so entirely essential that without it no one can enter into the Kingdom.

5. And that other ceremony would also be baptism; that is, an immersion in water. For as no one can dispute that, it is necessary to be born of water, in order to enter into the

[1 John iii, 5.

Kingdom, so, whether baptism is or is not an immersion, nevertheless, immersion is essential to entry into the Kingdom.

6. This discourse of Jesus with Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, has given a further key to the manner of administering baptism. He reproached Nicodemus for not understanding what it was to be born again.

7. Why that reproach? Because the Jews were at that time making considerable numbers of converts to their faith, all of whom were baptized; and they always spoke of this baptism as a new birth.

8. Maimonides, one of the most distinguished of the old writers on Jewish theology, after relating that proselytes were received into the Jewish faith, males by circumcision, baptism and sacrifice; and females by baptism and sacrifice, adds, "A Gentile who has become a proselyte, and a slave who is set at liberty, (on embracing the faith,) are both, as it were, new born babes; which is the reason why those who before were their parents are now no longer so." (Clarke’s Fleury, B. iv, ch. i, p. 273.) Hence a master in Israel could not be ignorant how a man should be born a second time.

9. Baptism was most clearly treated as regeneration, or a new birth, by Jesus, during his ministry. He said to Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, "Ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matt. xix, 28.)

10. In what had the twelve Apostles followed? The re- generation. What is regeneration? Butterworth says: "Re- generation, is the change and renovation of the soul, by the spirit and grace of God. (John iii, 5, 6.) It is called the new birth, and consists in the infusion of spiritual life into the soul, (John v, 25,) whereby it is capable of performing spiritual

actions, and living unto God. (Rom. xiv, 3." But. Con.)

11. Buck says: "Regeneration, a new birth; that work of the Holy Spirit by which we experience a change of heart. It is to be distinguished from baptism, which is an external rite, though some have confounded them together. The evidences of it are, conviction of sin, holy sorrow, deep humility, knowledge, faith, repentance, love, and devotedness to God’s glory." (Bucks Th. Dic., p. 395.)

12. These are standard writers of Protestant theology, and their definitions express the doctrine of most Protestant sects. But they are irreconcilable with the teaching of Jesus.

13. For if regeneration is a change of heart, evidenced by conviction of sin, and repentance, as Buck says; if, with Butterworth, it is a change and renovation of the soul; how could he undergo that change? how could he be convicted of sin, and repent, who was without sin? (Heb. iv, 15. vii, 26.)

14. The language of Jesus, "ye who have followed me in the regeneration," just as truly implies that he whom they followed was regenerated, as that they who followed were. And as he who was without sin, could not repent and turn from sin, and was nevertheless regenerate, so repenting and turning from sin, is not regeneration.

15. The change of heart or turning from sin to holiness, which has been mistaken for regeneration, is in the gospel denominated repentance, and is a prerequisite to baptism, without which no one, once in sin, can become regenerate.

16. In this view of the matter, Paul spoke of the baptism of water as the washing of regeneration, and that of the Spirit as the receiving of the Holy Spirit, shed abundantly on us through Jesus Christ. (Tit. iii, 5, 6.)

2. But no man may have baptism of water,

1. To be a lawful candidate for baptism, it is necessary to have faith toward God, and to repent of all sin. Without these prerequisites, baptism will avail nothing.

2. Without faith it is impossible to please God. (Heb. xi, 6.) This faith does not consist merely in believing in the existence of God. It is necessary to believe in actual communion with him; in the language of Paul, that he is the rewarder of those who seek him. (id.)

3. In sending out the Apostles to preach the gospel in all the world, Jesus gave them this promise, "He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." (Mark xvi, 16.) Believeth what? The word preached. Thus belief is a prerequisite to baptism.

4. So Philip taught the eunuch of Ethiopia, when he inquired of him why he could not be baptized. "If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest." (Acts viii, 37.)

5. But faith toward God will not alone qualify one to receive baptism. It is equally necessary to repent of all sin, whether of action, word, or thought.

6. The Apostles, when they received their commission to

[1 Mark xvi, 16. John iii, 18, 36. Acts viii, 37. xvi, 31, 32. Rom. x, 9. [2 Matt. iii, 1, 2, 5, 6. Luke xxiv, 47. Acts ii, 33. iii, 19. [3 John xvii, 3. Matt. xi, 27. Luke x, 22. Eph. i, 17. 18. [4 John iii, 5. Matt. iii, 13-16. Mark i, 9. John X, 1. [5 John iii, 3. Mark xvi, 16. Matt. xi, 27. Luke x, 22.

preach the gospel in all the world, were sent to preach repentance, and the remission of sins, (Luke xxiv, 47.)

7. Very soon after receiving this mission, when Peter was inquired of by his congregation what they should do, (to be saved,) he replied, "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 Spirit." (Acts ii, 38.)

8. This repentance is that conversion, or change of heart, of which the sects so often speak under the name of regeneration; their errour being chiefly this, that they think that to be regeneration, which in fact is its necessary prerequisite.

9. But baptism will be unavailing, if it is not administered by those duly authorized of God. The doctrine of the Roman Catholick Church, that it may be administered, not only by a Priest, but by a layman, a woman, or an infidel; and that it will be valid, so the intention is right, is absurd.

10. For, baptism is the sacrament by which and in which sins are remitted, and unauthorized Priests, laymen, women and infidels have no authority to remit sins.

11. This doctrine is made very plain in the gospel. The authority conferred on the Apostles by Jesus, was to go into all the world, preaching repentance and the remission of sins to every creature; (Luke xxiv, 47, 48;) witnessing unto them, he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; and he that believeth not, shall be damned; (Mark xvi, 16;) and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. xxviii, 19.)

12. The reason of this rule is plain. For sin is an offence against God. He being the party wronged, has the right to forgive or to withhold forgiveness.

13. Nothing is clearer, therefore, than that he has the right to prescribe the conditions on which he will forgive sin, and the

manner in which he will do it, and to confer the authority to grant the remission, upon whomsoever he will; and that no man can validly exercise that authority, except he that is duly authorized of God.

14. All sects substantially admit the soundness of this rule, by confining the administration of the rite, under ordinary circumstances, to those whom they regard as God’s Ministers. Their occasional aberrations from the rule grow out of the defects and innate follies of their various systems of theology.

15. Nor is there any other door into the Kingdom, by which men may enter. Children under eight years old, are not subjects of baptism, because at that tender age there is not a foundation for intellectual responsibility. If made liable for the consequences of their conduct, they have not the intelligence to so act that their conduct shall be the counterpart of their intentions.

16. But the sole fact of their freedom from the stain of actual sin, does not authorize them to enter the Kingdom by any other door; for Jesus was without sin, (Heb. iv, 15,) and yet it was necessary for him to be baptized. (Matt. iii, 13-16. Mark i, 9. Luke iii, 21.)

17. Not pursuing these special cases any farther, the general rule is so clearly laid down, that no one can come into the Kingdom, except through valid, authorized baptism, that it is only a matter of surprise that any believer of the gospel should have ever doubted it. Nor is it possible that any who has faith in the gospel should be in doubt on the subject, after reading the testimonies in God’s word.

3. For the keys of the ministry of the remission of sins, in the sacrament of baptism, hath the Lord your God bestowed upon his

Total—3 sec., 133 words, 580 letters.

1. The keys of authority to baptize for the remission of sins belongs to the Priesthood after the order of Melchisedek, in all its grades. Priests of the Aaronick order are also authorized to baptize for the remission of sins.

2. John the Baptist was of the Aaronick Priesthood. Yet his principal ministry was in preaching repentance and baptism for the remission of sins; that is, the baptism of repentance. (Matt. iii, 1-3. Mark i, 4. Luke iii, 3.)

3. And when Jesus gave the Apostles the plenary authority, in all cases throughout the earth (Matt. xxviii, 18) to remit and retain sins, (John xx, 23,) their first use of the power in behalf of new converts was in the washing of regeneration, or baptism for the remission of sins. (Acts ii, 38.)

NOTE I.—THE MANNER OF BAPTISM.

1. A most singular and uncalled for controversy exists among Christians, as to the manner of baptism, there being three rites or forms in use, each of which is offered as a valid manner, to wit: immersing the subject in water, pouring water upon him, and sprinkling a few drops on him.

2. The Greek Church, which uses the New Testament in the language in which it was written, has always practised

[1 John xx, 23. [2 Luke xxiv, 47.

immersion, and denies that the members of the Latin or Roman Church are Christians, because they are unbaptized.

3. The oldest Church edifices in Europe, both in Protestant, Greek and Romanist countries, are provided with baptismal founts for the immersion of adults; and it is matter of undisputed history, that sprinkling and pouring were not used until quite modern times, except on the plea that the health of the subject would not admit of immersion.

4. Romanists, among whom sprinkling and pouring originated, justify it, not by Apostolick institution, but by the authority of the Church to change forms and ceremonies.

5. It is not a little singular that Protestants, who deny all authority of the Church over the sacraments, and claim that the Scriptures are a complete rule of faith and practice, should follow the Romanists in that for which they claim no warrant from the Bible, and justify under the authority of Romish Councils.

6. But nearly all Protestants do so follow the canons of the Church of Rome. The Methodists have carried the folly farther, by leaving the question of the manner to be determined by the subject. (Discipline, ch. i, sec. xxi, 1. ch. iii, sec. ii, pp. 103, 109, edition of New York, 1836.)

7. And this folly is practised by numerous other sects, though it carries with it the scandalous admission that the ministers of those sects are not capable of instructing their converts in religious ceremonies, but need to be instructed and guided by them.

8. If three manners had been originally instituted, the Minister of God, rather than a new convert, would be the proper person to judge which was appropriate to the occasion. And if one mode was instituted, and that had fallen into doubt, it is ridiculous that the solution of that doubt should be re-

ferred to one not yet inducted into the Church, rather than a Minister of God’s Law.

9. But it is nowhere pretended that more than one mode of baptism was originally instituted; and among those who are acquainted with early Church history, and the Greek language, no pretence is made that the mode was other than immersion.

10. Romanists, who instituted other forms, admit unhesitatingly that they rest on the authority of the Church, and not on warrant of Scripture.

11. The apparent doubt which hangs over the subject in the English language, grows out of the fact that the Scriptures have never been duly translated.

12. The English version of the Bible was made by sprinklers; not baptizers. When they came to the words rendered in English, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, (Mark xvi, 16,) they translated all but one word. The word, "baptistheis," they did not translate. To have done so would have decided the controversy in favour of the Baptists. They Anglicised it into the word "baptized," and thus left the controversy where they found it.

13. These translators, when the sacrament of baptism was not involved, found no difficulty in translating the same word. Translating the Old Testament, not from the original tongue, as the title page represents, but from the Septuagint, they made no difficulty in translating "and Naaman went down and dipped himself seven times in Jordan;" rendering "ebap-tisato" "dipped."

14. In the Greek language this sacrament is always named by the word "baptizo," which invariably signifies "immersion;" whatever cavillers may say to the contrary, when they have an audience who do not read Greek. Of numerous ex-

amples, the following, selected from the classicks, will be satisfactory:

15. "But when the sun had dipped himself (Greek, baptized himself) into the flood of the ocean, and the dark shining moon lead in the stormy night, then went forth the war-like men who dwelt in the northern mountains."—Orpheus.

16. "When a piece of iron is taken red hot from the fire, and is dipped (Gr., baptized) in water, the heat, being quenched by the peculiar nature of the water, ceases."—Heraclides Ponticus.

17. Polybius, describing a naval engagement between the Romans and Carthaginians, in which the latter were defeated, says that "on account of the weight of the vessels, and the unskilfulness of the rowers, they sunk (Gr., baptized) many of them."

18. In relating the siege of Syracuse, he says: "The greater part of their vessels being sunk (Gr., baptized) they were filled with consternation." In speaking of the naval engagement between Philip and Attalus, which happened near Chios, he says: "Attalus seeing one of his quinqueremes (galleys with five oars in a seat) sunk (Gr., baptized) by one of the enemy’s vessels," &c.

19. "As when one dips (Gr., baptizes) the vessel into the fountain of water."—The Greek Scholiast on Euripides.

22. "Finding Cupid among the flowers, I caught him and

plunged (Gr., baptized) him into wine, and drank him up."—Anacreon, in his Ode on Love in the Heart.

23. Aesop, in his fable of the Ape and the Dolphin, relates that the dolphin having generously undertaken to carry an ape ashore, who had been unfortunately wrecked at sea, became vexed with him for telling him a falsehood, and sinking (Gr., baptizing) him, "killed him;" that is, he plunged him under the water, till he was drowned. In the fable of the Shepherd and the Sea, he says: "The vessel being in danger of being sunk," (Gr., baptized,) &c.

24. Diodorus Siculus, speaking of the sudden swelling of the Nile, says: "Many of the land animals are overtaken by the river, and being sunk (Gr., baptized) perish."

25. In another place he says: "The Admiral’s ship being sunk, (Gr., baptized,) the armament was thrown into great confusion." In another he says: "The river rushing down with a violent current, sunk (Gr., baptized) many and destroyed them."

26. Baptizo always denotes a total immersion. If only a part of a thing be immersed, still it is an entire immersion of that part, and the context limits its extent. Thus, Polybius says: "The foot soldiers passed through, (the water,) scarcely immersed (Gr., baptized) to the paps."

27. The Fathers of the Protestant Reformation, and the most learned Protestant Divines, have admitted, contrary to their practice, that immersion is the proper form of baptism.

28. Thus Calvin, though he contends that "whether the person who is baptized be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, or whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no importance," yet says, in the same section, "The very word baptize, however, signifies to immerse; and it is

certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient Church." (Institutes, Book iv, ch. xv, sec. 19.)

29. "Baptism is a Greek word, and may be translated immersion, as when we immerse something in water, that it may be wholly covered. And although it is almost wholly abolished, (for they do not dip the whole children, but only pour a little water on them,) they ought, nevertheless to be wholly immersed, and then immediately drawn out; for that the etymology of the word seems to demand."—Luther.

30. "Christ commanded us to be baptized; by which word it is certain, immersion is signified. Baptizesthai, in this place, is more than niptein; because that seems to respect the whole body, this only the hands. Nor does Baptizein, signify to wash, except by consequence; for it properly signifies to immerse for the sake of dying. To be baptized in water, signifies no other than to be immersed in water, which is the external ceremony of baptism. Baptizo differs from the verb dunai, which signifies to plunge in the deep and to drown." —Beza, (on Mark vii. 4.)

31. "The act of baptizing is the immersion of believers in water. This expresses the force of the word. Thus also it was performed by Christ and his Apostles."—Vitringa.

32. "Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is certain immersion is signified."—Hospinianus.

33. "To baptize, among the Greeks, is undoubtedly to immerse, to dip; and baptism is immersion, dipping. Baptismos en Pneumati agio, baptism in the Holy Spirit, is immersion into the pure waters of the Holy Spirit; for he on whom the Holy Spirit is poured out, is, as it were, immersed into him. Baptismos en puri, ‘baptism in fire,’ is a figurative expression, and signifies casting into a flame, which, like water, flows far and wide; such as the flame that consumed Jerusalem.

The thing commanded by our Lord is baptism; immersion into water."—Gurtlerus.

34. "The words Baptizein and Baptismos, are not to be interpreted of aspersions, but always of immersion."—Buddeus.

35. "Baptism is immersion, and was administered in former times, according to the force and meaning of the word."—Salmasius.

36. "The word Baptizein, to baptize, is nowhere used in the Scripture for sprinkling."—Venema.

37. Professor Fritsche, a disciple of Hermann, (in his Com. on Matt. iii, 6,) says: "Baptism was performed, not by sprinkling, but by immersion; this is evident, not only from the nature of the word, but from Rom. vi, 4."

38. "The word baptism, according to etymology and usage, signifies to immerse, submerge, &c.; and the choice of the expression betrays an age in which the latter custom of sprinkling had not been introduced."—Augusti.

39. "The word corresponds in signification with the German word taufen, to sink into the deep."—Brenner.

40. "Baptism is perfectly identical with our word immersion or submersion, (tauchen oder untertauchen.) If immersion under water is for the purpose of cleansing, or washing, then the word means cleansing or washing."—Free Inquiry respecting Baptism, Leipsic, 1802.

41. Again, "The baptism of John, and that of the Apostles, were performed in precisely the same way; that is, the candidate was completely immersed under water." Speaking of Rom. vi, 4, and Gal. iii, 27, it says: "What becomes of all these beautiful images, when, as at the present day, baptism is administered by pouring or sprinkling ?"—id.

42. "An entire immersion belongs to the nature of baptism. This is the meaning of the word." "In the word Bap-

tizo and Baptisma is contained the idea of a complete im-mersion under water; at least, so is Baptisma in the New Testament."—Bretschneider.

43. "The word baptize signifies in Greek, sometimes to immerse, sometimes to submerge."—Paullus Com.

44. "Baptism consists in the immersion of the whole body in water."—Scholz, on Matt. iii, 6.

45. Professor Lange, on Infant Baptism, says: "Baptism, in the Apostolick age, was a proper baptism; the immersion of the body in water. As Christ died, so we die (to sin) with him in baptism. The body is, as it were, buried under water--is dead with Christ; the plunging under water represents death, and raising out of it the resurrection to a new life. A more striking symbol could not be chosen."

46. Bloomfield, in his Critical Digest on Rom. vi, 4, says: "There is here plainly a reference to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion; and I agree with Koppe and Rosenmuller, that there is reason to regret it should have been abandoned in most Christian Churches, especially as it has so evidently a reference to the mystick sense of baptism."

47. Rosenmuller (on this passage,) says: "Immersion in the water of baptism and coming forth out of it, was a symbol of a person’s renouncing his former life, and, on the contrary, beginning a new one. The learned have rightly reminded us that on account of this emblematical meaning of baptism, the rite of immersion ought to have been retained in the Christian Church."

48. Neander, in his letter to Judd, says: "As to your question on the original rite of baptism, there can be no doubt whatever that in the primitive times, it was performed by immersion, to signify a complete immersion into the new principle

of the divine life which was to be imparted by the Messiah."—Judd’s Reply to Stuart.

49. Dr. Knapp, an eminent and pious German divine, speaking of the passage in question, says: "We are, like Christ, buried as dead persons by baptism, and should arise, like him, to a new life." "The image is taken here from baptized persons, as they were immerged, (buried,) and as they emerged, (rose again.")

50. John Wesley, on Rom. vi, 4, says: "Buried with him, alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion."

51. "It being so expressly declared here, Rom. vi, 4, and Col. ii, 12, that we are buried with Christ in baptism by being buried under water; and the argument to oblige us to a conformity to his death, by dying to sin, being taken hence; and this immersion being religiously observed by all Christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our Church, and the change of it into sprinkling, even without any allowance from the author of this institution, or any license from any council of the Church, being that which the Romanist still urges to justify his refusal of the cup to the laity; it were to be wished that this custom might be again of general use, and aspersion only permitted, as of old, in case of the clinick, or in present danger of death."—Whitby.

52. "Anciently those who were baptized put off their garments, which signified the putting off the body of sin, and were immersed and buried in water, to represent their death to sin; and then did rise up out of the water, to signify their entrance upon a new life. And to these customs the Apostle alludes, when he says: ‘How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his

death? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism."—Archbishop Tillotson.

53. Chrysostom proves the resurrection from the Apostolick mode of baptism, as follows: "Our being baptized and immerged in the water, and our rising again out of it, is a symbol of our descending into hell or the grave, and of our returning from them."—Chrys. Hom.

54. "In the time of the Apostles, the form of baptism was very simple. The person to be baptized was dipped in a river or vessel, with the words which Christ had ordered, and, to express more fully his change of character, generally assumed a new name. The immersion of the whole body was omitted only in the case of the sick, who could not leave their beds. In this case sprinkling was substituted, which was called clinick baptism. The Greek Church, as well as the schismaticks in the east, retained the custom of immersing the whole body; but the western Church adopted, in the thirteenth century, the mode of baptism by sprinkling, which has been continued by the Protestants, Baptists only excepted."—Edinburgh Ency. Baptism.

55. The word Baptizo is still used by the Greeks, and they mock to utter scorn the absurdity of supposing that it means sprinkle or pour. They employ terms of contempt for those practices, and always immerse any members who join their Church from other Churches, where they have only received sprinkling or pouring.

56. Professor Stuart says: "The mode of baptism by immersion, the Oriental Church has always continued to preserve, even down to the present time. The members of this Church are accustomed to call the members of the Western Churches "sprinkled Christians," by way of ridicule and contempt. They maintain that Baplizo can mean nothing but

immerge, and that baptism by sprinkling is as great a solecism as immersion by sprinkling; and they claim to themselves the honour of having preserved the ancient sacred rite of the Church free from change and corruption."—"The Mode of Baptism."

57. "The Oriental Church has not only preserved un-changed the custom of immersion, but declares it so essential that they rebaptize those who were sprinkled, and by way of contempt call them "sprinkled Christians.’ "—Augusti.

58. Walch says: "The Greeks not only immerse the candidate thrice under water, so that the water closes over his head, but consider that such a mode of baptism is essential. They reject sprinkling."—History of Religious Controversies.

59. Dr. Wall says: "The Greek Church, in all the branches of it, does still use immersion."—History of Infant Baptism.

60. Dr. Knapp, (Professor of Theology in the University of Halle,) says: "In the Greek Church they still hold to immersion. It would have been better to have adhered generally to the ancient practice, even as Luther and Calvin allowed."

61. Stourtza, a native Greek, (in a work published in 1816,) says: "Baptizo has but one signification. It signifies, literally and invariably, to plunge."

62. The Greek Patriarch, Jeremiah, says: "The ancients were not accustomed to sprinkle the candidate, but to immerse him."—Walch’s Controversies, out of the Lutheran Church.

63. Christopulos, a Greek, in his "Confession of Faith," says: "We follow the example of the Apostles, who immersed the candidate under the water."

64. The great standard of the Greek Church is the Pedalion, (the Helm,) duly authenticated by the Patriarch and Ho-

ly Synod. The Pedalion speaks thus: "We say that the baptism of the Latins (Roman Catholicks) is baptism falsely named," (Gr., Pseudonum on Bapzisma.) Again, "The Latins are hereticks of old, specially from the very fact that they are unbaptized," (Gr., Abaptistoi.) Again, "The more ancient Latins, the first to make innovations upon Apostolick baptism, practised pouring, (Gr., Epikusin,) that is, they poured a little water upon the crown of the child’s head. And this is still practised in some places at the present time. More, however, now, with a bunch of hogs’ bristles throw a few drops of water thrice upon the child’s forehead." Again, "Observe, then, that we do not say, that we rebaptize (Gr., Anabaptizomen) the Latins, but that we baptize (Gr., Baptizomen) them, since their baptism (Gr., Baptisima) is a lie in its very name. It is not baptism at all, but bare sprinkling," (Gr., Rantisma.)

65. A celebrated treatise, authenticated by the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Alexandria, is called Rantismou Sleleleusis, (an exposure of sprinkling.) Here are the titles of some of the chapters:

"A Demonstration that Sprinkling is not Ancient, and that the Proofs
adduced by Papists are Lies."

"Reproofs of the Fathers against Sprinkling."

"A Demonstration that the Law of the Church to admit the Latins as Baptized was made when they were accustomed to Baptize as we do. Also Witnesses from Latin Authors that Srinkling was not received then by them."

"A Demonstration that Baptism is the Command of the Lord; Sprinkling that of Satan."

"A Demonstration that Sprinkling, being Satanical, is opposed to Divine Baptism."

"A Demonstration that Sprinkling, being a Heretical Dogma, is under Anathema."

66. If any one point is made out in theology, it is this: that Christian baptism, in the days of Christ and the Apostles, was an immersion of the whole body in water, and that

there is no authority for any different mode, but the assumed power of the Roman Catholick Church to change the ordinances of God.

67. And the thing made out is not that one mode of baptism is better than another; but it is that immersion only is baptism; that pouring and sprinkling are not.

NOTE II.—THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.

1. It has been already shown (post xi, 2, note, p. 119) that faith and repentance are prerequisites to baptism. These facts alone ought to put an end to all question as to whether infants are proper subjects of baptism.

2. Calvin has made a most ingenious argument in favour of baptizing the children of believers, on the assumption that baptism came in place of circumcision, which was administered to infants. (Institutes, B. iv, ch. xvi.) All Pedobaptists follow him.

3. It will not be necessary to trace the course of his argument, for the following reasons: 1st. Faith and repentance were not requisite to circumcision; and, therefore, if baptism was substituted for circumcision, it was upon new conditions, which excluded infancy. 2d. Circumcision was not administered upon females; therefore, if baptism was a substitute for it, females would be excluded. 3d. Circumcision was the seal of the covenant, by which Abraham and his posterity have the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession; (Gen. xvii,10-14;) and as that grant was for a thousand generations, at least, (1st Chron. xvi, 15-18. Ps. cv, 8,) the seal of circumcision has not been superseded, but must be kept by all Israel, on pain of forfeiting all share of the inheritance.

4. There is another objection to Calvin’s argument, which

reduces it to an absolute absurdity. If the children of believers are entitled to baptism, as a substitute, because Abraham’s children were to circumcision; then are their servants also, and all slaves bought with money or born in their houses; for all the servants of Abraham and of his posterity, whether born servants, or bought servants, were just as much entitled and required to be circumcised as his children; and this without reference to age, faith, or any other condition, except owing service to Abraham and his posterity. (Gen. xvii, 10, 11, 23, 27.)

5. An attempt has been made to prove infant baptism by several New Testament cases, of the baptism of a whole household. But in no one of these cases is it mentioned that there was an infant in the house. In the present dispensation several hundred instances have occurred of baptizing a whole household; yet never a child under eight years.

6. The rule may, therefore, be laid down as a safe and universal one, that believers, whose hearts are free from the love of sin, and they only are subjects of gospel baptism; and that such are truly buried with Christ in baptism, and raised, resurrected or regenerated to a new and holy life.

7. Nor is it necessary to submit the question of baptism to the Church to be acted on by them. The Apostolick practice was, and now is, to baptize all of eight years old and upwards who offer themselves for baptism, professing faith toward God, and repentance of all sin. None but hypocrites, and those who come to mock the sacraments, or the Ministers of God, are refused. Nor are they delayed from night till morning, or from morning till night.

8. The candidate need not be questioned as to the general soundness of his faith. It is enough that, like a little child, he be ready to learn of the Minister of God.

CHAPTER XII:  BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD.

For the Lord thy God is a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children,
from generation to generation, even upon all that hate him,
and showing a multitude of mercies unto them that keep his Commandments.

1. A special dispensation was given to baptize for the dead at Nauvoo, in 1842, and the waters of the Mississippi, in front of the city, sanctified for that purpose, until a place for baptism, should be prepared in the Temple. (D. & C., ciii, 10.)

2. Such a place was made in the Temple, but in the rejection of Nauvoo as a holy city, the baptisms there administered were rejected, and the dispensation forfeited. (D. & C., ciii, 11, 13, 14.) The rejection took place at the time of the exodus from Nauvoo, subsequent to which all baptisms were invalid.

3. Those baptisms, administered down till that time, were valid, when done by competent authority. But those who were baptized, if they followed leaders whom God did not call, were also rejected, with their dead; which leaves the dead without saviours; and yet dependent on the charity of the living. (Mal. iv, 6.)

4. The records of those baptisms were never set in order in the Temple, and are lost. It is necessary, where the baptisms

[1 1st Cor. xv, 29. 1st Peter iii, 19, 20, Ezek. xxxii, 31.

are valid, that due proof be made before a Recorder, and the baptisms recorded anew. In cases of rejected and invalid baptisms, the rightful representatives should be baptized, as though it had not been done.

5. A dispensation to baptize for the dead at Voree was given August 9th, 1849, and the waters of White River sanctified for that purpose.

6. A dispensation was given to baptize for the dead at Saint James, during the session of the General Conferance, in 1855, and Fount Lake sanctified for that purpose.

Degrees of consanguinity are ascertained by counting each generation, up to the common ancestor, and down from him.

1. When the candidate claims baptism for the dead by revelation, in any form whatever, the Administrator should inquire and judge of the validity of the claim, and the Recorder should briefly state the revelation in the record.

2. Care should be taken that this record is sufficient in substance; otherwise the baptism may be set aside as invalid.

1. Baptism for the dead is an ordinance of the Temple, and it is only by special dispensation, in consequence of the poverty of the Saints, that it is ever administered out of a Temple. Hence those who withhold of the funds due for the construction of the Temple, are refused baptism for the dead.

2. Those who are under condemnation for disobedience to any word of this Law of God, whether it be a Commandment, a statute, a precept, or whatsoever word it may be, are unfit for saviours of others, because they are not themselves in a

state of salvation, nor even progressing forward towards it.

3. But those who are not regular members of any family, duly organized, have no place to bring those for whom they shall be baptized; they have no home for them to abide in, in the everlasting life. The chief thing in the salvation promised in the gospel, is in the family relation, and love, of a holy people. They who lack that relationship, are unsaved themselves, unprepared to save others.

The Chief Shepherd and Counsellors in the Presidency baptize for the dead without being set apart to that calling.

9. But there shall be one record before the King, unto which all records of bap-

[1 D. & C., cvi, 3.

Total—9 sec., 417 words, 1,842 letters.

NOTE ON BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD.

1. To millions of mankind the gospel was never preached in life. If it is not to be preached to them in another state of being, then the salvation which the gospel promises is not offered to them. And if the gospel is not preached to them at any time, then they are denied the possibility of entering into life.

2. Many Christians, unwilling to admit that salvation was not offered to all men, have asserted that those to whom the gospel was not preached were saved, on the general ground that as they did not know the Law of God, they were not under condemnation for breaking it.

3. Admitting this to be true, the consequence would be that ignorance of the gospel was as pleasing to God as obedience; and the just conclusion would be, that the gospel was not revealed to save men, but as an excuse for damning them. For, if all who are ignorant of the gospel are to be saved, universal ignorance would have produced universal bliss.

4. If they fall back on the old Christian faith of the Fathers, that there is no salvation without obedience to the gospel,

[1 D. & C.., cvi, 4.

then without preaching to and baptism for the dead, those to whom the gospel was never preached may justly claim that they were lost; not because they would not obey, but because they could not hear.

5. If, to avoid both horns of this dilemma, the Christian shall say that the sincere and wellmeaning of every nation will be saved, whatever his religious faith, then they are not saved by the gospel, but by their own righteousness; not by obedience to the word of God, but by integrity to the institutions of their several countries and nations.

6. God, having established the rule that all shall be destroyed who obey not the Law of the gospel, (2d Thess. i, 8. ii, 12. Rev. xxii, 14. Mark xvi, 16,) has provided for the preaching of the gospel to the spirits in prison, (1st Peter iii, 19. iv, 6. Luke xxiii, 43,) and the baptism for the dead, (1st Cor. xv, 29,) that salvation may be offered to all men, and only those lost who take pleasure in unrighteousaess. (Matt. iii, 10.)

7. When Jesus had finished his testimony on earth, and offered himself for the sins of men, he went in the spirit and preached to the spirits in prison, (Ist Pet. iii, 19, 20,) and opened unto them a dispensation of the gospel, before he ascended to heaven. (John xx, 17.)

8. The dispensation being opened, and he having, by a stainless life, and a sacrifice of himself for the salvation of others, become worthy of the keys of the resurrection and everlasting life, ascended to heaven, received all power, and sat down at the right hand of God.

9. Those who become partakers of the same calling with him, as they leave their ministry on earth, go to minister among the spirits of the dead; that they, by obedience to the gospel, may be saved, as are the living.

CHAPTER XIII:  CONFIRMATION.

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy might, and with all thy strength.

1. The birth of the spirit is fully illustrated by Jesus, in his discourse with Nicodemus. Assuming that a ruler of the Jews could not be ignorant what a birth of water was, he seizes upon a familiar illustration of the other, to which the dry hot climate of that country gave peculiar force.

2. The severity of climate in that country is not in its wintry frosts, but its summer heats; so that the coming of the blessed is compared to the shadow of a great rock in a weary land. (Isa. xxxii, 2.)

3. Passing over the parched plains, under a cloudless sky, with the sun’s rays pouring down like the blast of a furnace, when the traveller is ready to perish, suddenly he hears a sound of wind. Immediately it sweeps past. The cooling breeze comes upon him. His lungs are inflated, and his strength renewed. He feels himself another man. So is every one that is born of the spirit. (John iii, 8.)

4. A more splendid exhibition of this power occurred at Jerusalem, at the first Pentecost after the ascension, when the outpouring of the spirit was so abundant that those present spoke in tongues, and every one understood in his own language. (Acts ii, 1-11.)

[1 John iii, 5.

It cannot be expected that every one who receives the laying on of hands, will receive with it a powerful and overwhelming inspiration. But he will receive a spirit of truth sufficient, if cherished, to guide him into all truth, and make him wise in the things of God’s Kingdom. Such should avoid looking for marvels, and be content with substantial wisdom and enduring knowledge.

1. It is a mistake to suppose any one will possess all the spiritual gifts, who has the laying on of hands, or that he will have any particular one he may choose. The spirit divideth gifts severally, as he will. (1st Cor. xii, 11.)

2. Paul enumerates the gifts of the spirit, as wisdom, knowledge, faith, miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, tongues, and the interpretation. (1st Cor. xii, 8-10.) Of these every servant of God, obedient in faith, repentance, and baptism, will, by the laying on of hands, receive his portion, sufficient to guide him to life, if he will follow its inspiration.

4. For when they lay their hands upon

[1 Acts viii, 17. xix, 6. 1st Cor. xii, 7-11. [2 John xvi, 13.

Total—4 sec., 146 words, 625 letters.

NOTE ON SPIRITUAL GIFTS.

1. When Jesus sent his Apostles to preach to the nations of the earth, he commanded them, "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. And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; (with impunity;) and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." (Matt, xvi, 15-18.)

2. This promise, as broad as the earth, and as long as time, just as much assures signs as salvation. The believers of the gospel which the Apostles were sent to preach, are as certain that signs will follow them, as that they will be saved.

3. It makes a simple issue of veracity between the Lord Jesus Christ, and all those sects who say the signs do not follow. Inquire of any Christian sect if the signs follow them. As oft as they say they do not, so often be assured, on the oath of Jesus Christ, that they do not believe the gospel.

4. But the signs do not go before unbelievers. They are not given to beget faith in their minds, but to benefit the faithful.

[1 John iii, 8.

CHAPTER XIV:  EUCHARIST.

Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto, nor adore anything that thine eye beholdeth,
or thy imagination conceiveth of; but the Lord thy God only.

Wine is to be preferred for the blood of the sacrifice, and bread of wheat for the flesh; but the expressed juice of any edible fruit whatever is lawful, and bread of any grain. No article of commerce should be used for wine, on account of the practice of adulterating so perfectly that the fraud cannot be detected.

2. For this is the one great sacrifice, which

[1 Matt. xxvi, 26-29. Mark xiv, 22-25. Luke xxii, 19, 20. 1st Cor. x, 16. xi, 23-26, B. of M., Moroni iv, v.

Jesus Christ was the real sacrifice, of which the bread and wine are the symbols. By consecration, and not by any change in their physical nature, structure, or identity, they become the body and blood of Christ, that by eating them we may truly feast upon him as a sacrifice and live.

Total—3 sec., 273 words, 1,164 letters.

1. It is not right to stay away from the table of the Lord, because any one there has wronged us. The table is the

[1 John vi, 53. [2 1st Cor. xi, 29. [3 1st Cor. xi, 28. Matt. v, 23, 24.

Lord’s; not ours. We partake, seeing his body and blood in the bread and wine, and if we stay away, stay in contempt of him.

2. But it is our duty, as we approach the table, to examine ourselves, whether we have wronged any one; and, if so, to make restitution first, and partake of the sacrifice afterwards. Any one who persists in going to the table, knowing that another has just cause against him, will be hardened in iniquity.

NOTE ON THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST.

1. The most common doctrine among Trinitarians is, that Christ was God, from eternity to eternity, according to the theory of the Creed of Saint Athanasius, (ante pp. 51, 52,) and possessed all the attributes of the Godhead; that God, being infinite in all his attributes, his Law was infinite; and, therefore, the violation of it an infinite sin; that as man was finite, and therefore incapacitated to endure an infinite punishment, there was no way by which he could be redeemed from the stain of sin, and consequent everlasting destruction, but by a vicarious and infinite atonement; that Jesus Christ, being Almighty God, infinite in all his attributes, offered himself a sacrifice to appease the wrath of God; or, in the language of the creeds, "to reconcile his Father unto us;" that by his infinite sufferings, paying the debt which we by our sins had contracted, we might be released therefrom, come into the favour of God, and live forever.

2. This theory involves the dogma that justice and mercy are antagonist, and not collateral attributes, and that justice is so vindictive that it must have its demand, without reference to the reformation of the subjects of its exactions, or the

amount of intellectual and physical happiness enjoyed in the creation of God.

3. And it involves the further dogma, that the exactions of justice are so undiscriminating, that they are equally satisfied so the demand is paid, no matter who pays it; a dogma which, though not particularly obnoxious in the mere voluntary payment of money, presents a very different aspect, when it exhibits itself in inflicting pain on an innocent being, who, through excessive generosity, may volunteer to suffer as proxy for the guilty.

4. Such dogmas could only have got footing among men in times of ignorance and barbarism. They, in fact, grew up among a people not half redeemed from Pagan superstition. But once thoroughly established as a part of the creed of Christendom, the mind is progressively hardened in them as it advanc