This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1846. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... REASONS. Sometimes it-is said, that those denominations that practice different modes of baptism, discard immersion because it is less convenient, and more self-denying and crossing to human nature; while sprinkling, pouring, washing, &c, accord better with comfort, ease, and popularity. It is quite possible that there are some who thus regard immersion, and reject it for no better reasons. The piety of such, we should regard in much the same light, as the piety of those who set up an exclusive claim to self denial, based upon the mere mode of administering divine ordinances. So far as I am personally concerned, did our Saviour require it, I could be immersed every day in the year, and much of the time should count it a luxury, instead of a self-denial. But to be rigid and self-denying in regard to a single duty, or supposed duty, while we are no more self denying and consecrated to God, in other respects, than our neighbors, is not the most conclusive evidence of a better faith He that " tithes the mint, the anise, and cummin" to preserve his consistency, should be careful and not " omit the weightier matters," such as " judgment, mercy, and faith." But the real question now persented for our consideration, is not, whether immersion requires more self denial, or is even the better mode of baptism. No: you inquire, " why not adopt it as the exclusive mode, and become a Close Communion Baptist, and thus end all controversy upon this subject ?" As this is quite a common question, I will now proceed to offer, briefly as possible, some of my " reasons ' for a different course. 1. I dare not become a Close Communion Baptist by adopting such a course, because I must then virtually admit, and to be consistent prove, that immersion, total immersion, and nothing but ...