IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 tana "^ 140 u M III 2.0 1= 1.6 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut oanadien de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D D D D D n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pellicul^e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6X6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Cire uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur D Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolor^es, tachet^es ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Quality in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seula Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes 6 nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. Q Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires: Pagination as follows [1-9] , 10-46, 48-52, This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X ^ 1 1 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Library Dalhousie University L'exemplaire film6 fut reprodult grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Library Dalhousie University The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6X6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole —^- signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est i\\n\6 d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 TcL-A^i)iii^7Bi--ViM OPEN LETTERS A ON '-':'f^^.{'\- BAPTISM ! -:t;^- ''V By DUNCAN D. CURRIE, Of the Methodist Ohurch of Canada. ^' oS With an Appendix on certain Baptist inconsistences, in reply to Bev. John Brown, by the Editor of"TheWesleyan/' ^^^^>^^^^^^^^^^^^ HALIFAX: Printed at the "Wbsleyan" Book and Job Office, 125 Granville St. IS18. jf., ■■'^ OPEN LETTERS ON BAPTISM ! By DUNCAN a CURRIE, "' .1 » Of the Methodist Church of Canada. * i?* d '-h^ — — ■ '"^ :;';■, With an Appendix on certain Baptist inconsistences, in reply to Rev. John Brown, by the Editor of "The Wesleyan." HALIFAX: RONTED AT THI "WeSLEYAN" BoOK AND JOB OfFICB, 125 GrANYILLE St. I8t8. ( r :',' ■■[,-•; ■4. U-'"' ■.uruiife..^"^ ■ . ^l ij.. i(' \ ;7 0*'.4W 'ASn- T J. PREFACE. t mr. THese- (>pen Letters have been prepared because it has seemed to the writer that his ordination vows have called for their production. All Me- thodist ministers are required to promise, at the time of their ordination, th&t they will " minister the doctrines of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded ;" and that they will " be ready, with all faithful di'igence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word." * Some of the Baptist perioKlicals of this country, in criticising the Catechism of Baptism, published by the writer, some years ago, have deemed it proper to deal in personalities, for which the circumstances did not seem to me to call. Occasionally those personalities have been somewhat bitter, and at other times they have partaken so very largely of that distasteful spirit as to sug- gest that the writers knew, by personal experience, what is meant by the gall of bitterness, and what are the Donds of erroneous doctrine. There is a kind of instinct 'that leads some minds, when hard pushed in an intellectual encoun- ter, to attempt to cover their confusion by a resort to personalities. The To- ronto, Baptist, ^^ Bible Index,^' after the appearance of the first Letter of this series in the Halifax Wesleyan, immediately became strangely excited. It straightway resolved to turn "savagely" upon the writer. "We have a notion," it says, " to make it very uncomfortable for Mr. Currie." It may not bo improper to say that no circumstances can induce me, in the discussion of this important Biblical question, to descend to the use of in- vectives. However " savagely " others may assault, or however "uncomfort- able " others may endeavour to make my position, I must beg to be excused fifom making any response to personal assaults. It is not my purpose, or in- clination, at anytime, to introduce any topic, or to utter one word, to promote or enkindle unpleasant/ pei*sonal feelings, while participating in intellectual contests where unsavory personalities are, by others, sometimes introduced. These Letters are adoressed to the Eev. John Brown, a Baptist Minister of Paradise, in reply to a letter of inquiry from him ; and in so addressing them he appears simply as a representative of his creed. It may be compara- tively a small matter what Brother Brown, or the* wi'iter, or any other indi- vidual, may believe, or say, so far as the baptismal controversy is concerned. The great questions are : What is ti*uth ? What does God demand of us ? What should we believe, and teach ? The aim of the writer, in the publication of these letters, has not been to satisfy those who, for partizan purposes, would awaken controversy ; but to indicate what is the teaching of the Bible on the subject under discussion. Although several of the topics, which have been made prominent in these Lettei*s, have been more or less fully considered in the Catechism of Baptism, they are, nevertheless, here treated from a somewhat different standpoint. It ia hoped that these Letters will prove a fitting and useful supplement to the former work; and that they will help many peraons more clearly to recognize the way of the Loixl, and more readily to accept the truth as it is in Jesus. Moncton, New Brunswick, June 15, ISYS. D. D. C. ^',4'' . ■ i'l- ', I- A'^ ■'','■■'> I 4- .■■}■,. : ;//*ir^l" !'■'!''■ "^CJt "'iJ^ ■■ i .-M'l V.' •,»:<■' . fll\';ir:Mil I .; ■\}^i iiu- - \ J 1 > 1 ;;»:( ■ ''i ':^ < i . J,"-!?.' • 'M 0$" .■ . I '. •.■ .■(('" ■ I I. >}j'l.'vW'"''i-.'' • ;f fc^ ?frr: '■;•,> r ;. , - r.X-^'^- f ' V^i^iS ",. '' fi.b,-a' :^■f ^f^f A '.,. I, "tk V' ;■)■;■ < ,. • ' ''i ■«•'!'.• 5. ; » # J '"•«. '■ <■ ;,. ; : IMM \ I ■■ !•; :uy '■.,f>-'. ^ .i^'-iW CONTENTS. V LETTER NO. ONE. ,'' Letter from John Brown. 1—Pr^atory. H—Definitiona. Josenh Cook quote,' Baptist defini- tions oibaptizo defective. Baptist errors. Dipping, plunging, and immmcrsion not synonymous terms.— P. 7-9. LETTER NO. TWO. Ill— Mutilated Lexicons, The Toronto Bible Index. The St. John Visitor. Charges against the Catechiam of Baptism. Gieck lexicons have been mutilated. Greek word haptizo tampered with to favor imraersianist theoiy. Greek lexicons frequently changed. Greek lexicons made to sell. Lid- dell and Scott's lexicon mutilated. J. R. Graves. Letter from Professor Drisler. Bible and lexicons mutilated to teach immersion. Lexicons not reliable. — P. 9-12. LETTER NO. THREE . ' IV — Leocicograj>hical Testimony. Classic Greek, and New Testament Greek. JBaptizo means to sprinkle. Authorities quoted. V — Primary meaning of Baptizo. Primary meaning of haytizo was sprinkle. Proof given. Immerse the latest of all the meanings of baptizo. John Brown on dipping. Jngham quoted. 'Baptist doctors disagee. P. 12-15. LETTER NO. FOUR VI — Peshito. Dr. Judd. Dr. Angus. Syriac words for baptizo. Couch baptized with tears. Christ's garments baptized with blood. Christ's feet baptized with tears.— P. 15-17- LETTER NO. FIVE Baptisms by sprinkling. Land baptized with rain. :Y.[ Yll—Old Testament Baptisms. Purifying — baptizing. The Laver Baptism. Law concerning uncleanliness. How washing was done. The layer of Solomon's Temple. Josephus. How brother Brown washes. Laver baptisms by affusion, and not by immersion. The Syrian Leper. Baptizing the altar. Elijah. Origen. Bazil. Joseph's coat.— P. 17-20. LETTER NO. SIX Ylll—Paul and the indispensable Baptism. Paul his own best interpreter. There is one bap- tism. Baptism of Holy Ghost indispensable. Ezekiel indicates mode. Baptized into Jesus Christ. Does not mean water. No water mentioned. Burial. Putting on Christ. Complete by baptism. Not by water baptism, but by Holy Ghost. Circumcision and baptism.— P. 20-24. LETTER NO. SEVEN. IX — The Hebrew Scriptures. Baptists play fast and loose in reference to Old Testament. The Old Testament not out of date. X. Thus saith the Lord. Divers baptisms. Baptisms always by sprinkling. No other mode admissable. Mutilated Baptist Bibles. Dr. Graves' handkerchief. The divinely appointed mode of washing.— P. 24-27. - " LETTER NO. EIGHT. XI — The Baptism of Christ. Not John's baptism. Not Christian baptism. Not an example for us. To fulfill righteousness. "Was required by ceremonial law. All high priests to be sprinkled with water at thirty yeai-s age. Order of Melchisedec. Ordination involved sprinkling with water. Syl- logisms.— P. 27-29. t^ffS LETTEB NO. MNE. XnSaptiMing hifort Eating. Baptbinr household Aurniture. Furnitaro and lad'TidaaU bM»* tixed seTcral limes dsuy. Dr. Chvmp quoted. Ceremonial lar- required spriokllog. Mark caw these sprinklings baptisms. XIII— /%« LtU*r and tht Spirit. Paul mioted. Urganieation of Baptill churches. Roger Williams. Are immersed persons bajnized ? The Lord's Supper. The snbstanM better than tho'shadow.— P. 29-32. LETTER NO. TEN. S XIV— 7^« Covtnant qf the Church. Covenant with Abraham. I>esign of Mosaic institution*. How the word " Church " is applied. The church one in both dispensations. Points of the Covenant. The covenant to include not only Jews but Gentiles. XV — BaptutM in the Orteh Church. Baptism by sprinkling in Greek Church. Authorities quoted.— P. 82-36. LETTER NO. ELEVEN. Points. In£anli circumcised in apostolic times. Household baptisms. Objections. The '^express command " fallacy. Testimony of the Fathers. Intant baptism taught and practised by ^e martyrs.— F. 36-40. XVI— 7%< baptiem of Ir\fante. Infants admitted to the church. Scripture proof given. Infants baptized unto Moses. Infant proselyte baptism. Christ's_recognition ol 'nfants. XVU—Pedo-baptist Tettimony. Dr. Lange grossly miarepreseuteu. LETTER NO. TWELVE. Dernier resort of Baptists. Baptist garbling. Mr. Wesley and XVIII— /'artinj' Salutations.— F. 40-48. LETTER NO. THIRTEEN. D. 3. McDonald. Bible Baptisma. XlX—Immernoniet Syllogitmt. Their defects indicated. XX — Cloting Wordi. The baptismal controversy is producing goot*. results. lafltnt Baptism. Prince Edward Ibland. Albert Stewart DesBrisay. P. 43-47. -♦-♦■ :' y^Kps^-' It. A. nt Its. All and aied. tisiB* * -1 i ^».- - ■ ■■>. I*. OPEN LETTERS ON BAPTISM, LETTER No. I. MoNCTON, N. B., May ], 1878. Rev. John Brown, Baptist Minister : Dear Sir and Brother, — I have recently received a letter from you which reads as follows : — " Paradise, Annapolis, Co., N. S, 7 April 19, 1878. ) " Dear Sir and Brother, — Will you al- low me to call your attention to an ex- tract from the Toronto Bihle Index in the Christian Visitor of Nov. 28th, 1877 ? It has reference to page 12 of your Cate- chism OF Baptism, where you quote from a number of lexicons and give (among others) sprinkle as one meaning of baptize. This writer says that not one of them gives ' sprinkle' as a definition oftKt — absolutely not one. He also says that ' Cole and Dwight are not lexicogra- phers at all.' Now, brother, this is what I would like to know if you would favor mo with a reply. Is there any ground for such a denial P If these lexicographers give sprinkle as the meaning of baptizo, I will (though late) write to the Visitor, and der y what this writer affirms, and also to t!.e Bible Index. There is evident- ly a misunderstanding somewhere. By replying to this you will bestow a favor on yours, very truly, ... .j: , _.:,T. . :' , JOHN BrOWN, Baptist Minister. ;^ ■ . I. Pbepatgry. The Visitor to which yon refer was sent to me, by some unknown person, shortly after its publication. Through other sources my attention has been called to the article in the Visitor. Since the ap- pearance of the first edition of my Cate- chism of Baptism, wow nearly fourteen , years ago, its teachings have been repea-.- edly, but unsuccessfully assailed. I have sometimes been urged to reply to the as- saults made upon me, but have not deem- ed it necessary thus to do. Tour letter, however, and the recent developments in the literature of the baptismal controver- sy, suggest that the teachings of the Bible on the subject of bapti»m may be made clearer, and more acceptable to some, by the production of a few articles on that theme. Numerous testimonies have ap- peared, from time to time, which indicate that the Catechism of Baptism has already saved many persons from a "watery grave." Other efforts in the same direc- tion may not be in vain. A comprehensive reply to your letter will require the dis- cussion of some points not directly raised therein. In a few open letters, addressed to you, I will endeavor to show some of the eiTors of the Baptist Creed, and I will also try to indicate a more excellent way for the administration of baptism than that which is taught in the dogmas of your church. -. , 11. Definitions. Special attention should be given to definitions in our search after truth. In- accuracies in definitions must inevitably prevent the attainment of correct results in any investigation. Be v. Joseph Cook says {Lecture an Theodore Parker's Abao- lute Religion ;) " When Daniel Webster was asked how he obtained his clear ideas, he replied : * By attention to definitions.' Dr. John* son, whose business it was to explain 8 words, was onoe riding on a rural road in Scotland, and as he paused to water his horse at a wayside sprin(?,he was request- ed by a woman of advanced age to tell her how he, the great Dr. Johnson, author of a renowned dictionary, could possibly have defined the word pastern the hnee of of a horse. ' Ignorance, madam,' was the »'eply ; * pure ignorance.' For one, if I am forced to make a confession as to my personal difficulties with orthodoxy of the scholarly type, I must use, as per- haps many another student might, both Webster's and Johnson's phrases as the outlines of the story. Before I attended to definitions 1 had difficulties. After 1 attended to them in the spirit of the sci- entific method, my own serious account to myself of the origin of my perplexities was in most cases given in Johnson's words — • ignorance ; pure ignorance.' Theodore Parkei-'s chief intellectual fault was inadequate attention to deiinitions. As a consequence, his caricatures or mis- conceptions of Christian truth were many and ghastly." An examination of the definitions of the Greek word haptizo, given by some representative Baptist writers, will show how strangely defective those definitions are. Here are some specimens: Roger Wil Uams : " It means to dip, and nothing but dip;" and " dipping is baptizing and baptizing is dipping." Dr. Gale — "Dip- ping only is baptism." A. Carson — " To dip or immerse." R. Fuller — " Dip, sink, plunge, immerse." Prof. Ripley — " To dip, its radical, proper meaning." M. P. Jewett — "To dip or immerse." Dr. Oonant— — " To immerse, immerge, sub- merge, dip, plunge, imbathe, whelm." Dr. Conant, again says: " BapHzo has, in fact, but one acceptation, it signifies, literally, and always to plunge." These few quotations show that there are in them alone, at least eight different definitions given of the meaning of bap- tiao. Dr. Conant, who is. an emfnent Bap- tist writer of New York, in a recent work, gives sixty-three quotations from classic Greek authors, and translates the word in question immerse ten times, whelm forty- five times,, and overwhelm eight times. Ten times it is immerse against fifty-three times not immerse. A. Campbell, in his latest work on Christian baptism, gives twenty-four quotations in which haptizo occurs. He renders it sinh ten times. overwhelm ten times, and overflow once. Not in one instance does he render it dip. The following points, therefore, are ap- parent : 1. It is an error to say that haptizo means to dip, and nothing but dip. 2. It is an error to say that haptizo means immerse, and nothing but immerse. 3. It Ss an error to say that haptizo means to plunge and nothing but plunge. 4. It is an error to say that haptizo has only one meaning. 5. The definition of haptizo as gi^^ by Baptist writers is inaccurate. 6. The positions assumed by Baptists in reference tr the Greek word haptizo are both unsound and misleading. Scientific sailing masters take immense steamships^ with precious cargoes, across the oceans, and along our coasts. They sometimes are unible to see either sun, or moon, or stars, for many days. And yet they are able, with but i-are exceptions, to reach safely their desired havens. How are such results secured P Those sailing masters have scientific methods. Their course, from the very beginning, is clear- ly defined, by day and by night, in sun- shine and in darkness, in fog and in tem- pest. The slightest inaccuracy, in the beginning of their course, would involve yessel, and cargo, and crew and passen- gers in th.Q m^ost serious peril. Our course in our search after doctrinal truth, should be clearly defined from the beginning. The unscientific definitions that lie at the foundations of the Baptist creed, must inevitably lead to unsound and unsafe doctrinal conclusions. Look at some of the fbsurdities of your Baptist defi^nitions! May not a pen be dippe<^ in ink a thousand times without being once immersed therein P May not a vessel plunge amid the waves without being immersed therein P If you, dear brother Brown, will do me the favor to visit me this season I will show you a bathing tub, wherein you may recline, and wherein water may be either sprinkled or poured upon you, until you shall be thoroughly immersed therewith. Do you say : " immersion is baptism P" Tou can here be immersed by sprinkling or by pouring. And this will be an immersion without either dipping or plunging. What points are here apparent P 1. Dipping, plunging, immersing, are not synonymous terms. 2. Each of those terms has a meaning distinct from the others. 3. Each of those terms has a meaning peculiar to itself. 4. If it could be proved, as is claimed by the Baptists, that immersion is baptism, then it is manifest that baptism may be accomplished by sprinkling or pouring. Many and serious must be the miscon* ceptions of Christian truth that inevitably grow out of the use of definitions, so de- fective as those employed by leading Bap- tist writers. Why may we not have a de- finition of the meaning of haptizo at once comprehensive and logical. Such a defi- nition is possible. In some circles we have such a definition already. It indi- cates onBonndness of immersionist the- ories. Hence we are not likely, very soon, perhpps, to have a thoroughly philosophi- cal definition of baptizo from Baptist sources. And yet, until accurate defini- tions are secured, tho baptismal contro- versy will be involved in difficulties. Tours very truly, «&c. LETTER No. II. MoNCTON, N. B., May 1, 1878. Dear Sir and Brother ;— III. MUTILATED LEXICONS. The Toronto Index and St. John Visit- or affirm that the meaning of haptizo, as given in my Catechism of Baptism, are not correct. It has seemed extremely strange to me that respectable Baptist periodicals should make so erroneous ^n assertion. Not one statement was made in the Catechism of Baptinm without the most positive assurance that its positions, on the points under discussion, were ab- solutely impregnable. And yet, assertions have been made, by respectable assail- ants, that I have incorrectly quoted some of the Greek lexicographers. It was clear that there was something wrong somewhere. The mystery has at length been solved. It is ascertained that different editions of the lexicons of the same authors give different meanings of baptizoi In some instances, different copies, of the same edition, of a lexicon, give different mean- ings of the word baptizo. Some persons have recently made the remarkable dis- covery tnat lexicons are made to sell. Lexicographers and publishers, it ap- pears, strange though it may be, desire to make money out of the sales of their books. Their lexicons are sold for use in universities, colleges, academies and other schools. Baptists will not patronize those publishers whose lexicons give the offen- 10 sive words " pour upon," and " sprinkle,' as meanings of baptizo. Scholars, and teacbers, of other denominations, do not ujeasuve the value of a lexicon by its ren- dering of the one word baptizo. Lexicons, therefore, have been so changed as to suit the scruples of Baptist teacbers, and thus secure a wider market. Let us see how Liddell and Scott's lexicon has been manipulated ; and that may be taken as a sample of other muti- lated publications. DejJiis Liddell aud Scott, of (Ixford University, founded their first Greek lexicon upon Passow'a work ; aud this was republished in New York, under the editorship of Professor Drisler. It is much less voluminous than Fassows, and more convenient for use in schools. From the " Graves-Ditzler Debate," p. 404, (Southern Baptist Pub. Society Report) I quote as follows : " Of late this lexicon has been com- pletely manipulated " by immersionists. Yet it does not sustain them for the sim- ple reason that their whole theory is so monstrous, unscientific, and absurd, it cannot be sustained. " Liddell and Scott, first, define baptizo, " to dip repeatedly, dip under;" second, they erase the second part, and put it ' dip repeatedly ;' then tbey change again and give ' wet, pour upon.' . . . . In the sixth edition it is patched again. They now put in * immerse,' a word not in any early editions. Here they have changed, re-changed, and changed again this lexi« con on this one word. They have done so on no other word. It is a good lexicon — admirable. But who can attach any im- portance to what they say on this word after these facts ? It is a good lexicon, though, only because it is simply a con- densed translation of Passow." The charges made against Liddell and Scott's lexicon were easily sustained by a comparison of the lexicons in use. An explanation was therefore sought from Professor Drisler, of Columbia College, New York, — the American editor of the lexicon. Professor Drisler wrote, in re- ply, to Dr. Graves, a Baptist minister, as follows : " New York, February 9, 1876. " J. R. Graves, LL. D., " Dear Sir : — Soon after the appearance of the American edition of Liddell and Scott's Greek lexicon, changes were made in relation to the article baptizo, which I never saw, Rev. Dr. Duncan (who made those changes), an Alumnus of our Col- lege, and at the time editor of the South- weat Baptist Chronicle (I think), of New Orleans, even before consulting me, de- nied the truth of any intentional altera- tion to suit any personal or sectarian views. In reply to a request from him, I stated what I here repeat to you : that the artiole baptizo stood in the American lexi- con, ""3 it was given in the first English edition from which it was printed ; the first half of the lexicon having been set up before the second edition was received. In this second edition the whole article is as follows : " Baptizo, fut. idso (baptoj to dip re- peatedly ; of ships, to sink them, Polyb. 2, 51, 6, etc. Pass. To bathe, Eubul. Naus. 1 ; hoi bebaptismenoi, soaked in wine, Lat. vino maledi, Plat. Sjmp. 176 b, ophlemasi bebaptisthai, over head and ears in debt, Plat. Galb. 21 ; meirahion baptisomenon, a boy drowned with questions, Heind. Plat. Euthyd. 227 D.-2, to draw water, Plat. Alex. 67, ef. bapto. — 3, to baptize. New Testament. " You will see that here the significa- tions ' to steep,' * to wet,' ' to pour upon,' and ' drench,' are omitted. I had no the- ory to maintain which should pervert the proper signification of the word, nor had the publishers ; and I made no change in the article, as it stood in the English copy. " In the last English edition the article is given as follows : " Baptizoo ful. ioo, to dip in or under water, Aristoph, philoon, of ships to sink them, Poly. 2, 51, etc. * * * -TnTr-rrrrrrrTii tbe re- , as 6. auco and nade ch I nade Col- outh- New 3, de- Itera- iarian lim, I at the a lexi- aglish. I; the setup ceived. tide is dip ve- Polyb. . Naus. ae, Lat. lilemasi n debt, omenon, Heind- V water, baptize, lignifica- ir upon,' 1 no the- rvert the noi* had ibange in Englisb be article or under ps to sink 11 " The above statement meets, I trust, your entire question. Tours very respectfully, « . H. DUISLER." Dr. Graves, who is the most prominent Baptist controversialist in America, pi*o- fessed to be acquainted, previous to the publication of Professor Dr'sler's letter, with the manipulations of the lexicon, and the reasons therefor. And he explains as follows fGraves-DUzler Debate, p. 317) : " Professor Drisler, of Columbia Col- lege, New York, brought out an American edition of this great lexicon. In the meantime scholars in Ens^land and on the continent examined the definition of hap- tizo, and the authority quoted for it, and remonstrated with Liddell and Scott, and called their attention to the fact that the authority cited did not at all sustain such a definition. Convinced of the ^fact they struck it out of their second edition, as a definition unsupported by any Greek authority. Professor Drisler, in the spirit of a true scholai", published a card, inform- ing the people that his second edition would be conformed to the second Eng- lish edition, anc' * to pour upon ' was struck out of his next edition. . . . Professor Duncan wrote to know why the American did not conform to the English edition. He was informed that it would be made to do so. Thus the question we ai-e discussing has been forever settled by Pedobaptist sprinklers thmselves." What points are now made apparent ? 1. The meaning of the word baptize, in Liddell and Scott's lexicon has been re- peatedly changed. 2. The early editions gave as significa- tions of baptizo : " to dip repeatedly " — not one dipping, but dipping repeatedly ; and " to wet," " to pour upon," etc. 3. The early editions never gave im- merse as one of the meanings of baptizo. 4. An American edition of Liddell and Scott was tampered with, without the knowledge of his editor, wbile it was pass- ing through the press, and so mutilated as to favor the immersionist theory. 5. Dr. Graves asserts that the changing of the signification of baptizo, was through the influence of English and continental " sprinklers," and that Professor Drisler acquiesced in the changes. 6. Dr. Graves, having made his state- ment, rejoices because he imagines that, by this nice little arrangement, this ques- tion " has been," as he says, " forever set- tled by Pedobaptist sprinklers them- selves." 7. Professor Drisler, however, gives an- other coloring to this picture. It was not a " sprinkler " that did this at all. It was Rev. Dr. Duncan, the editor of the Baptist Chronicle, who " stole this march " upon the unsuspecting editor of the lexicon. 8. Professor Drisler distinctly affirms that he made no change in the article as it stood in the English copy. 9. Tho changes made by Rev. Dr. Dun- can in the lexicon, were, apparently, spec- ially in the interest of the immersionist creed. 10. Dr. Graves has been as erroneous in accounting for the mutilating of Liddell and Scott's lexicon, as he has been in teaching the Scriptux-al mode of baptism. 11. Dr. Graves' account of the changes in the lexicon, and of the agency by which the changes were made, is charac- teristic of himself. He is about as accu- rate and candid in his statement of this lexicon affair, as he is when discussing other phases of this controversy. 12. The lexicans, though important, are human productions, and their utterances are to be cautiously received. And now, Brother Brown, do you not see that it is very easy for Baptists to say d ^™^s^^m 12 that they have Liddell and Soott, and all the great scholars, and a host of others besides, who give the rendering you need for baptizo, and not one of whom, " ahso- hdely not. one" gives sprinkle or pour. As your denomination has changed our good old English Bible, and issued a mutilated edition, that teaches immersion, and obat practically, so far as such a partisan book can, unchristianizes all christians who are not immersionists, so you have issued mutilated lexicons adapted to the necessi* ties of your creed. Of course, Baptist readers, and students and teachers, will buy the books that teach their theology. Why should they not ? Mutilated lexi- cons are probably now in evei*y college and academy in the land. Why should not mutilated lexicons, that do not favour sprinkling or pouring, be as plentiful as mutilated Bibles that teach immersion ? So long. Brother Brown, as your denomi- nation accepts and approves mutilating tactics, in this theological controversy, you are not likely to be delivered from the thraldom of doctrinal error. « LETTER No! III. MoNCTON, K B., May 2, 1878. Dear Sir and Brother .— IV. LEXICOOBAPHICAL TESTIMONY. The testimony of the Greek lexicons is important. We should remember, however, that such testimony is human, and, there- fore, not infallible. You are no doubt aware that some lexicons are designed to explain classic Greek, where hcvptizo is used in the sense of overwhelming with debts, taxes and bui'dens ; and intoxicating, drowning sinking ships, inundating, etc. — that is, it is used in the sense of abusing, aspersing, pouring abuse upon people ; but in the Scriptures it is never so used. In classic Greek it was never used in any religious or ceremonial sense. Some lexicons, on the other hand, were written solely to define New Testament Greek. These vary according to the taste or purpose of the lexicographer. In these lexicons New Testament words are, at times, explained from New Testament standpoints, and at other times from the cla£ 'ic standpoint, and, heAce, these lex- iconu aic ;nore or leas minced, and per- plexing, and misleading. The point upon which you appear to de- sire information is, not whether bop^izo, in classic Gre>.k, means sometimes " to im- merse," which of cour&e, it does; but whe- ther the lexicons give sprinkle, or pour, among their significations of that word. Let me give you the testimony of some of the best Greek lexicons, so far as they indicate that hajptizo may be cor- rectly rendered either "to sprinkle" or to "pour upon." Please allow me, also, to refer you to the Southern Baptist Publication Society Report of the " Great Carrolton Debate," 1876, pages 27r 31, where this topic is discussed, and whence I am drawing largely for materials for these letters. First of all, I will give you four author- ities, who did not write lexicons, but who spoke from the standpoint of lexico- graphy, defining, and rendering the word in question. They are earlier than any lexicons we have that defines baptizo— Hesychius and Suidas, who belonged to the fourth and tenth centuries, only de- fined partially the root bapto. '^r . 1. TertuUian, who wrote in the year 190, defines baptizo " to sprinkle," (per- fundere.) 2. Julianus, 4th century, a most learn- ed critic, defines it " sprinkle " (perfun- dere.) 18 eligiouB lid, were Btament )he taste la these are, at sstament from the hese lex- in(1 per- lar to de* iptizo, in " to im- but whe- or pourr aat word, of some far as y be cor- 3prinkle " lUow me, •n Baptist e " Great ges 27r ased, and materials )f ir author- , but who lexico- the word than any haptizo—' longed to , only de- the year de," (per- ost learn- (perfun- 3. Augustine sanctions this as to its religious import. 4. Euthymius, a learned Greek father of the fourth century renders baptizo." to sprinkle," (rantizo.) , 5. Schwarzius — " to sprinkle, to be- sprinkle, to pour upon." 6. Grimshaw — " besprinkle. 7. Kouina, a native Greek, "beoprinkle." 8. Wahl4831," to sprinkle," (perfundo.) 9. Parkhurst — " wash, wet, besprmklo." 10. Saicer — " immersion or sprickhng." 11. Sophocles^, " bathed Cbaptized) in tears, 12. Schneider, " sprinkle, wet." 13. Leigh—" to sprinkle." 14. Wolfius—" sprinkle." 16. Walaeus, " sprinkling or immersion." 16. Vossius — " to sprinkle." 17. Arst — " perfusion. 18. Schsetgennius, " to p'" .r forth." 19. Stephanus, " New Testament mean- ing, abluo, Zai;o, cleanse, wash, besprinkle." 20. Scapula, " New Testament meaning* abluo, lavo, cleanse, wash, besprinkle." 21. Hedericus, " New Testament mean- ing, abluo, lavo, cleanse, wash besprinkle." , 22. Budseus, abluo, lavo, cleanse, wash, besprinkle." 23. Schrevelius, " to wash, to sprinkle." 24. Ewing, "pour -abundantly upon." 25. Gazes — native Greek scholar, " shed forth." The remaining Greek lexicons, from which we will quote, are among the best extant. They have, however, been muti- lated, in some of their editions, so far as the word baptizo is concerned. Some editions , or parts of editions, of these lexicons, do not give " to sprinkle," or " to pour upon," as meanings of baptizo, while other ediUons, or parts of editions, do. It is very easy, therefore, for some controversialists to a£B[rm that certain great lexicographers give only to dip, or only to plunge, or only to immerse, as the meaning of baptixo. I will quote from the unmutilated editions. 26. StokiuEh— who holds a very high rank among lexicographers, gives among other meanings, *' wash, wet, besprinkle;" he says : " The washing or cleansing can be, and generally is accomplished by sprinkling the water, Mark vii. 4 — Luke xi. S8. Hence,, it is transferred to the S)^:crament of baptism." 27. Sohleusner says : " (1) To immerse in water ; to plunge into water, from bap- to. But in this sense it never occurs in the New Testament, but frequently it does in Greek (classic) writers. (2.) to wash, or sprinkle, or cleanse with water Not only to wash, but to wash one's self, can be proved by many passages. Hence it is transferred to the solemn rite of baptism.'* 28. Liddell and Scott — " to wet, to pour upon, etc. 29. Frederic Passow, who died in 1833, devoted his life to the preparation of his great lexicon. It is admitted by German, English and American dcholars to be the most learned, critical and scientific Greek lexicon ever published. The edition of 1841. is in three volumes of nearly two thousand pages each, double columns and fine print. The popular German lexi- con of Drs. Rost and Palm is a successor to that of Passow. Liddell and Scott's lexicon is chiefly a reprint and abridge- ment of Passow's. Passow says " Bapti- zo, from bapto, oft and repeatedly to im. merse (one immersion is not baptism,) to moisten, to wet, to sprinkle gener- ally to besprinkle, to pour upon, to over- whelm, to bui'den with taxes, debts, etc. ; to baptize, to suffer one's self to be baptized j to bathe, to wash," a I 14 r 11' n Now, brotber Brown, in the preeenoe of auch testimony as those twenty -nine wit- nesses, give beaiinpf upon the question under consideration, do you not see how ab- surd it is to say, as your leading writers of- ten do : " All the lexicons teach what the Baptists teach." "All the greatand learned men, of all the ages, jlieve just what tho Baptists believe about the word haptizo." " All the scholars OF NOTE in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, and all the rest of the world, have admitted again, and again and again, and always must admit, that hahtizo never had, and never can have, but one meaning, and that meaning is either plunge, or immerse, or dip ?" (See Cramp, Cox, Conant and yourself.) V. PBIMABY MEANING OP BAPTIZO. Will you allow me, brother Brown to remind you that immersionist writers get strangely confused and mixed sometimes with regard to the primary meaning of haptizo. Some of them afifirra that its primary meaning is to immerse. You need not search far nor long, if you will adopt proper methods, to discover how greatly your people are in error upon that point. If you will carefully examine the authorities you will ascertain that the following statements are correct : — 1. No lexicon gives immerse, or dip, as a meaning of hcytizo, in Greek, earlier than Poly bins, B. C. 165; next comes Dio- dorua Siculus, B. C. 6Q to 32 ; next Strabo, B. C. 54 ; and still later Josephus and Plutarch. 2. Though haptizo, in later classic Greek, means to immerse, it is a derived, a late, remote, and rare meaning. 3. The laws of language, and the sci- ence of language, show that to sprinkle is the primary classic meaning of the word haptizo. 4. The lexicons show that immerse is the latest of all the meanings of baptiM. 5. No Greek writer used haptizo in the senstt of immerse in the earlier ages of Greek literature. ■ ■■''r-''-.:.J--"^<*y ''^' 6. All the earliest occurrences of hapti' zo, for centuries, wex'e cases of metaphor- ical use only, and in the sense of sprirkle and pour — not one of them dip — not one of thorn itiimorso. Pindar, born B. 0. 5^2, Aristophanes, B. C 450, Alcibiades, B. C. 400, Demosthenes, B. 0. 835, use it for asperse, and pour abuse upon the peo- ple. Plato, born B. C. 429, uses it three times to mtoxicate, and once to confound with questions. Aristotle, so far as I can discover, was the first to use haptizo in a literal sense, and he uses it in the sense of " to overflow," whose primary-meaning is aspersion. 7. Aristotle used haptizo in the sense of " overflow," two hundred years before Polybius. Hence, haptizo meant overflow two hundred years before it meant im- merse. Immerse therefore was not the primary meaning of haptizo. 8. Plato used the word haptizo in the sense of " ovewhelm," nearly two centuries and a half before haptizo was used in the sense of immerse. According to Plato, baptizing meant applying the element to the object — the element coming upon it. Let me refer you, for additional infor- mation on this topic, to two Baptist sources which you may appreciate 1. Tou will find in the Halifax Christian Messenger, of May 31, 1876, an article by " J. Brown," which I assume was written by yourself, wherein you say : " P. does not like my dogmatism. That I can not help, but I can assure him that bapti>io means to dip, only to dip, and nothing but to dip, and can never be made to mean 15 nmei'se Ifl of baptUo. izo in tbe er ages of B of hapti' metaphor- ^ )f sprinkle p — not one orn B. 0. A-lcibiades, 835, use it on the peo- 68 it three confound :ar as I can \aptizo in a ,he sense of meaning is the sense ears before mt overflow meant im- ?as not the )tizo in the wo centuries used in the g to Plato, element to g upon it. ional infor- iwo Baptist iate I'o .ijv' ax Christian article by was written "P. does it I can not hat bapti/.o nothing but de to mean anything else." I don't know what effect this quotation had upon "F." He may not have liked it. He may have been un- reasonable. He may not have had any taste for " dogmatism. ' But, so far as I am concerned, it is qaite E<.d perfectly understood. Of course, it vrt'.a er^e^'^'ted by those who understood arci opo'-re both langur.ges precisely as the Pficrec. r?riosra tbeziaeelvea njiderstood and spo!k3 ^■.-.OE. AU ti'.e Ch7i9tian sects in Syric, r.nd i~. the Bast, m^de use of this versioi\ errclt^sively." Ap. oid Syri?,^ vrriter says (Bibliotheca Orier.talis! Aflf3e:3sani, torn. 3, page 212) : " E'lo the rsai o?. the Old Testament (books) and of the New Teotamerit, were translated v^ith great pains and apouraoy by Thaddens and the other apostles." Origen, who was bom in the year 185, m^^ 10 quotes its title in the year 215, as a famil* ' iar work. Dr. Angus, Baptist, in bis Bible Hand Book, pages 8 and 36, says : *' The Pesbito (or literal) Syriac veision of tbe Hebrew and Greek Scriptures be- longs probably to the fiist century Internal evidence and tradition agree in ascribing it to the first century. It is of great critical value. Several ancient Ara- io versions, and the Persian versions of the Gospels printed in the London Poly- glot) were made from the Pesbito." 1. This version, therefore, is in the lan- guage in which Christ preached. 2. It is the oldest, purest, most literal and valuable version of the whole Bible known in ihe world. There are three words in ancient Syriac literature by which baptizo is rendered namely : amad, aecho, and tzeva. 1. Amad is the word most used. Gas- tell, Buztorf, and other Syriac lexico- graphers render aviad : " Primarily, to wash, to baptize, to make wet with rain, to bedew, to sprinkle with water ; and de- rivatively {aphel) to immerse. 2. The next Syriac word is aecho. All tbe lexicons define it alike—" to wash, be washed, cleansed." " He that is baptized (eecho — washed,) needeth not, save to bap- tize his feet, but is clean every whit," John xiii. 10. " But ye are baptized (secho) by the Spirit of our God," 1 Cor. vi. 11. Here' is the application of the element to the person. 3. The other Syriac word for baptizo is tzeva. Furst, an eminent German Rabbi, in one edition of his lexicon gives : " tzeva i— to moisten, to wet, to sprinkle, to im- bue. In a later edition he gives it : "to moisten, to besprinkle, to baptize." The lexicographers substantially agree as to the meaning of tzeva : some give immerse aa a seoondary meaning. Frjm the Pesbito Syriac we learn :— » 1. No Syriac lexicon gives immerse as the general, or as the primary meaning of baptizo. 2. Amad, the Syriac of baptizo, means to wash, to sprinkle, to bedew, to wet with rain. The Syriac and Arabic are precise- ly the same words with same roots, 3. Amad, (baptizo), is translated' from louo in Greek — to wash, to pour, to sprin- kle ; but is never the translation of the Hebrew or Greek words for immerse. 4. The Pesbito lenders bapto, in Rev. xix. 13, to sprinkle {ZelachJ : " And he was clothed with a vesture sprinkled (bap* tized — aaperaitj with blood." This ren» dering of sprinkling for bapto, was given in the Pesbito in the first century. 5. Psalm vi. 6, is rendered, "I have baptized (tzeva) my couch with my tears." There could not be any dipping, immers- ing, or plunging of his conch into his tears. 6. Ezekiel xxii. 24, is rendered : " Thon art the land that is not baptized (tzeva) " — cleansed, in the English-— "no ; upon thee the rain has not fallen." The mode of this baptism is clearly indicated— the falling rain. 7. Luke vii. 38, is rendered : " And be- gan to baptize his feet with tears." 8. Luke vii. 44, is rendered : " Simon into thy house I come, water upon my feet you gave me not, but she (the woman) with her tears my feet hath baptized." So reads the old apostolic Syriac — the ver- nacular of Christ. She bowed down over the unsandeled feet of JesuH ,- the tears dropped down one by one, and fell upon his feet, and Jesus calls this a baptism. Let us remember that the Pesbito has come down to us from the days of the apos- tles, and that the lexicons that are of any value were written fifteen hundred years I. '^ 17 wo lenrn :— mmerse as the y meaningf of haptizo, means ew, to wet with bio are preciae- [10 roots, lanslated' from pour, to sprin* nslation of the r immerse. hapto, in Rev. ich) : " And he sprinkled (bap- lod." This ren- apto, was given century. aered, "I have I with my tears." lipping, immera- ich into his tears, endered: "Thou aptized (tzevaj " sh — "no; upon len." The mode indicated — the iered : " And be- ith tears." adered : " Simon iter upon my feet she (the woman) ith baptized." So Syriac — the ver- bowed down over FesuH,- the tears ae, and fell upon this a baptism. t the Peshito has e days of the apos- as that are of any in hundred years after their day. How important, then, is the testimony of vbe Peshito 1 It olcarly in- dicates, by the baptism of the Psalmist's couch with tears, by the baptism of the Saviour's garments with the sprinkled blood, by the baptism of the land with rain, by the baptism of our Lord's feet with the woman's tears, and by its uni- form use of the word, that in the time of our Saviour and the apostles, sprinkling was the mode of baptism. Tours, &o. LETTER No. V, MoNCTON, N. B., May 2, 1878. Dear Sir and Brother, — VII. OLD TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. The purifying — cleansing — washing or- dinances of the Old Testament are called baptisms. Paul, in Hebrews ix. 10, speaks of them as " divers baptisms." That pu- rifying is synonymous with baptizing is plainly taught in the Scriptures. In John iii. 25, it is said : " Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying." The con- text shows plainly that the question was about baptizing. The answer given by John to his disciples admits of no other interpretation. Paul calls the baptism of the Holy Ghost a washing : " According to bis mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost ; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour," Titus iii. 5-6. Let us look into the Old Testament and see if, by divine arrangement, there was any specific mode apiio^ted for those baptisms. THE LAVEB BAPTISMS. One of the most perfect Old Testament historic records of baptism we have, is that of the Laver Baptisms, whereby the Hebrew priests, during fifteen hundred years, daily suughf symbolic cleansing. In Exodus XXX. 18-21, we read (^f this laver : " Thou shalt also make a laver of brais, and his foot also of brass, to wash withal ; and thou shalt put it between the taber- nacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein. " For Aaron and his sons shall wash (rachats) their hands and their feet there- at CeJcJ out of it. " When they go into the tabenxacle of the congregation they shall wash with wa- ter that they die not." In Exodus 40. 12, we read : " Thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabeiTiacle of the congregation, and wash them with water.*' Verse 30 reads : " And put water there to wash withal (ekj out of it." Ver-je 31 reads : " Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and their feet thereat (ex auton) out of it." This washing was con- tinued, daily, until the time of Christ. It is admitted by Baptists that these washings were baptisms. They claim, however, that they were immersion^. Let us see. There was a general law among the Jews tbat " whatsoever an unclean person toucheth shall be unclean." The water that an unclean person touched in wash- ing would be unclean, unless it was ".run- ning water," " a fountain," or a " gath> ering together of waters " perpetually supplied with springs. Every uncleanness required baptism. (Lev. vi. 28 ; Lev. vii. 18-21 ; Lev. xi. 36 ; Numbers xix. 9-22. Hence, if a priest or any other Jew, had dipped a hand, or even fingers ^n the laver, all its waters would have thereby become unclean, and the laver would have to be emptied, and purified, before it could bo i- ■■''■"£: 18, naed again. The Isver was so oonatrnot- ed that no one oonld tocch its water, only as it poured out at tbo cocks, which wero placed at the base of the laver. And the laver was so protected that nothing oonld get into it, and die there, and thus cause its defilement. Tue laver in Solomon's temple st^od upon twelve molten oxen, was eight feet nine inches deep, and the top of it was twenty-one feet from the floor. It was so arranged that no one could, either by de- sign or accident, touch its waters, only as they ran out of the cocks that were ar- ranged for that purpose. They had to literally wash (baptize) out of it, not in it. The water was forced into the laver by machinery at the bottom, from a water course or aqueduct prepared for that pur- pose. To have immersed in it would have made the whole contents of the laver un- clean. The priests and meats, were wash- ed with its waters. The law provided that water that had cleansed any object there- by became unclean. Jcsephus, in speaking of the priests washing at the laver, uses the words "wash" and "sprinkle" interchange- ably : " The sea to be for the washing of the bands and the feet of the priests" " Whence the priests might wash their hands and sprinkle their feet." " When be had sprinkled Aaron's vestments, him- self, and his sons." What in Exodus is called washing, Josephus calls sprinkling, (Antiquities viii. ch. 8. 6-6 — iii. ch. 6. 2.) Josephus was a high priest in the days of the aooatles, and must have known what this washing was. In the ordinary conversation of daily life we speak of a person as being washed, as the Scriptures frequently do, when only the hands, or feet, or some other part of ibe person is washed. May I not assume, brother Brown, that you, daily, submit yourself to the process of washing P Please permit me to inquire, without being considered too inquisitive, what your mode of daily washing is P Do you consider it necessary, in order Ihat you may be washed, to send for Dr. Car- son, who taught that " this washing means dipping," and get him to dip you daily P Or, do you send for Dr. Conant, who teaches that this washing means " liter- ally and always plunging," and get him to plunge you daily P Or, do you consider a daily immersion essential to a daily washing of jourself ? Or, if you take water in your hands, and apply it to a portion of your person, as others do, is not that a washing of yourself, in the or- dinary sense of the term / The Scriptures speak of such applications of water as wa hings, and call those washings, when religiously performed, baptisms. What points are here apparent P 1. The priests washed out of (ex auton) the laver, not in it. 2. Paul calls these washings baptisms These baptisms were with the water of the laver. They were performed out of (ek), not in the laver. Dr. William Smith, in his Students Old Testament History, says these baptisms were " at " the laver, but *' not in it." , 3. In these baptisms the water came from the laver, through the openings at its base, and came down upon the persons baptized. There was no immersion, no dipping, no plunging in these baptisms. 4. In every instance of baptisms, in connection with the laver, it is either " wash out of it," or " wash with water," not( Qree ■OS. i but curs, is. toil edtbe with and tl the pei ed eith fi. T fifteen John w and uni 6. Th baptism haptismi mode of pointed, church f( miliar to the foreri have baj. shall bap ■^ What of Naamf second BJ 1. The hnman aJ the time d 2. Naaj the leprof 3. God of his lepj water up[ xiv. 7* 4. Naai tell him ol cleansing 5. N&al Mliaha. 19 the , that •ocesti [juire, Bitive, p Do r ibat r. Gar- means daily P it. wbo " liter- et bim ionaider a daily ou take it to a rB do, ia 1 tbo oi- ,oripturea water aa igs, wben tP (ex auton) baptiams ater of tbe mt of (ek), Smitb.in istory, saya laver, but Tvater came openinga at tbe peraona meraion, no baptiama. japtiama, in it ia either with water," not once ia it waah in, or bathe in, in the Greek. " In the whole fire books of Ho- ses, in the Oreek, ' wash tn" never oocurs hut once, where any personal washing oo- curs, and in that instance it is, aa it often is, with." Ezekiel xvi. 9 : " I have wash- ed thee with (en) water I annointed thee with (en) oil "—that is, the water and the oil were poured, or sprinkled, on the person. The person was not immera- ed either in the water or in the oil. 5. Tbe layer baptisms extended through fifteen hundred years, until the voice of John was heard crying in the wilderness, and until the time of Christ. 6. The inference is inevitable, that the baptisms of John, and the subsequent baptiams of apostolic times, were by the mode of sprinkling, which God had ap- pointed, which had been the usage of the church for centuries, and which was fa- miliar to all the people. Hence, we hear the forerunner say, Mark i. 8 : "I indeed have baptized you with water : but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." . THE SYRIAN LEPER. What are tbe chief points in the story of Naaman the Syrian, aa recorded in the second Book of Kings, and fifth chapter? 1. The leproay, a diseaae incurable by hnman agency, prevailed in the Eaat in the time of Naaman. 2. Naaman the Syrian was afflicted with tbe leproay. ^ " . ' 3. God provided for cleansing the leper of bis leproay, through the sprinkling of water upon him seven times, etc. Lev. xiv. 7' 4. Naaman learned that Elisba could tell him of God'a appointed mode for the^ oleanaing of the leper. 5. Naaman sought instruction from Xllisha. 6. Elisba, the man of God, revealed to him the way of the Lord '■ " Go," accord* ing to God'a appointed mode, and " wa.-«b," that is, " sprinkle " seven times, " and tt\y flesh shall come again to thee, and tbon shalt be clean." Sprinkling is God'a ap- pointed mode of washing : Thus ahalt thou do unto them to cleanse them, sprinkle clean water upon them, and they shall be clean. 7. Naaman went, and, our version saya, " dipped himself seven times." The Sep- tuagint Greek version says .* " he baptized bimself seven times, according to the say* ing of the man of God." 8. This baptism seven times must have been a sprinkling seven times, because this sprinkling was God's appointed mode, and was indiapensible to cleansing from the leprosy, and Naaman was cleansed. 9. Here washing, sprinkling, and bap- tizing are synonymous terms. BAPTIZING THB ALTAB. In 1 Kings xviii. 33, we have part of the record of the baptism of an altar by Elijah : " And he put tbe wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the wood, and 'aid. Fill four bar- rels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood." The Hebrew and Greek veraions both read, four " pit- chers" with water, instead of four " bar- rels." Origen, who was the moat learned of all the Greek Fathers, and who was bom in the year 185, eighty-four years after the death of tbe apostle John, speaks of this as " baptizing the altar.^' Bazil, a Greek Father of the fourth cen- tury, (A. D. 310,) says : " Elias showed the power of baptism on the altar, having consumed theviotim tthe water was 20 for the third time poured upon the altar. . . ...The Scriptures hereby show that, through baptism he that" etc. He poured water on the wood, and Bazil calls that " baptizing the wood." :1 - : THli COAT OF MANt COLOES. In Genesis xzxvii. 31, we are introduced to Joseph's coat of many colors : " And they took Joseph's coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in blood." The Hebrew reads : " And baptized the coat with blood." Mark these points : 1. The coat was more or less stained with blood. 2. The Peshito version renders this pas- sage : *' Sprinkled with blood." 3. The blood with which the coat was stained was the blood of " a kid of the goats." 4. There would not have been blood enough in such a kid, to make it possible to immerse, either an outer or an inner coat, of a person of the age of Joseph. 6. According to the nature of things, as things were in Joseph's time, and ac- cording to the nature of things, as things are now, Joseph's coat was not immersed in the blood of the kid, though it was bap- tized therewith. .; . • 6. Hence, this Hebrew baptism proba- bly was by sprinkling, as the Peshito says it was. ' ' Tours, &c. LETTER No, VI. MONCTON, N. B., May 3, 1878. Dear Sir and Brother,-— VIII. PAUL AND THE INDISPENSABLIi! BAPTISM. In our efforts to understand Paul's re- ferences to baptism, in his epistles, we must allow Paul.to explain himself. There always has been, in the cbnrch, and pro- bably always will be, a clt ss of persons who rigidly, concerning religious things, adhere with great intellectual acumen and force of -will to the letter, while there is always another class, who exhibit greater breadth and depth of spirit and sentiment. Paul belonged to the latter class, and may be considered a representative man of that class. He affirms concerning him- self that he was made a minister, " not of the letter, but of the spirit : for the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life," (2 Cor. lii. 6.) In all his epistles he gives prom- nence to the spirit above the letter. When Paul sp iaka of the great work that baptism does for us, it is clear that he speaks of what Christ does for us. His aim IS to show how essential is the bap- tism of the Holy Ghost. He knew the tendency of some minds to over-estimate the value of outward forms, and to ander- estimate the inward and spiritual grace- Hence, he prefers that others shall attend to the comparatively unimportant work of water baptism. Paul thanked God that he baptized none in Corinth, except Crispus, Gains, and Stephanus and his children, " For Christ sent me," he says, " not to baptize, but to preach the Gos- pel," 1 Cor. i. 17.) "there is ONE BAPTISM." Paul tells us there is " one baptism," (Eph. iv. 5.) There is one Lord — our Lord Jesus Christ ; there is one faith— the faith of Christ ; there is one baptism, the baptism of Christ. This is the bap- tism of which Christ spake when he said : " I will baptize you with the Holy Ghost." This is the baptism that cleanses, and washes " whiter than the s«ow." This is the baptism which " doth bow save us," and which is difteremt from that symboli- cal ba new t] ting a 8peak( says 7 fcized i] Christ, never ' • away o) tism 18 Ghost, ' liord. , minis 6ra Holy Gl vidual. baptism, minister ; subject i{ EzekieJ Christ's d generatioi "one bap bolical ba *be people be blessed] sprinkle shall be oli within yoi statutes." " baptJ Let us baptism, ii and see wl 1. This car.38 it 11 li^e, One again, tha^ j Water bat fture. Weal I Christ Jesf [Ghost, 2. The tJ ■,^|ESSi2££^"^'^ n id pro- pevBons things, oQen and bbere ia , greater ntiment. ass, and ,ive man aing bim- •j «' not of the letter ^ ; » (2 Oor. Lves pvom- 3tter. reat work clear that for VIS. His a the bap- ) knew the ^er-estimate id to mdev- dtual grace* shall attend ortant work hanked God )rinth, except Luus and his me," he says, tch the Go9- PTISM." me baptism," ne Lord— our ,8 one faith— B one baptism, lis is the bap- when he said : e Holy Ghost." ■ cleanses, and »ow." This is BOW save ns," m that symboli: eal baptism with water, which can not re- new the heart, but symbolizes the " put- ting away the filth of the flesh.' ' Paul speaks of this " one baptism " when he says : " For by one Spirit are we all bap- tized into one body," that is, into Jesus Christ, (1 Cor. xii. 13.) Man's baptism never yet converted a soul, or washed away one's guilt. The indispensable bap- tism is the " one baptism " of the Holy Ghost, which is given by Christ Jesus our Lord. " In this " one baptism," the ad- ministrator is Christ ; the element is the Holy Ghost; and the subject is the indi- vidual. In the less important symbolical baptism, the administrator is Christ's minister ; the element is water ; and the subject is the human person. Ezekiel, m looking into the future, saw Christ's day, and was glad ; and told his generation of the double baptism — the " one baptism " of Christ, and the sym- bolical baptism with water, with which the people of the new dispensation would be blessed, (xxxvi. 25-27 :) " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be clean And I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes." " BAPTIZED INTO JESUS CHRIST." Let us analyze what Paul says about baptism, in the sixth chapter of Romans, and see what points are suggested thei'e : 1. This can not be water baptism be- cav.38 it implies a change from death unto life, One becomes dead, buried and alive again, that is, he becomes a new creature. Water baptism can not make a new crea- Iture. We are made new creatures through I Christ Jesus, by the baptism of the Holy I Ghost, 2. The terms "death," "dead," "bu- ried," " raised up from the dead," " walk," " planted," aad " crucified," which Paul here uses, are manifestly not to be inter- preted as having to do with the " outward man " which is the body, but rather with the " inward man " — " the Ridden man of the heart." Hence, this must be Christ's baptism of the Holy Ghost renewing the " inward man." 3. This baptism must have been Christ's baptism with the Holy Ghost, because the persons baptized, were " baptized into Jesua Christ." And it is only by Christ's baptism of the Holy Spirit that we are baptized into Jesus Christ. 4. The best interpreter of Paul, is Paul himself. He shows clearly that it is not by the baptism of water, that we are bip- tized into one body, that is, into Jesus Christ. ^ ' . ■ / 5. There is no mention of water in the passage under consideration. 6. Paul distinctly -says that the regen- eration wrought through this baptism (v. 11) was " through our Lord Jesus Christ." Therefore, it was not a regener- ation wrought through water, but by the Holy Ghost: 7. Immersionists assume that " burial" 'n the Scriptures meant placing the body beneath the surfaco, as is now generally done when the dead are buried. Their assumption is incorrect and misleading. They erroneously assume that our Sav- ior, having died, was buried beneath the s'urface, and then they build an unsound theory upon an unsound basis. Jeremiah says (xxii. 19/1 concerning Jehoiakim the son of Joash : " Tell the king he shall be drawn forth outside the gates of the city, and buried with the burial of an ass." He was left on the surface of the earth with- out any covering whatever — ^left to decay, where the beasts of the field might prey upon him." . r 22 PUTTING ON CHBIST. What points are suggested, in Paul's reference to putting 09 Ghrist in Gal. iii. 27F 1. We maj put oa Ohrist. Paul shows, in BomR.n8 r.iiu 14, tbr/o this does not mean " csaking prcTision for the fiesh." Manifestly this does not mean a physical act, but ratbsr r. cpm tual Trork' 2. Ken do not put oa Ob-nst by raoeiv- ing water baptism. Many have received water baptism, and yet have not put on Ohrist. 3. There i?. *^ " baptism into Christ," wbicb iavojTea n. putting on o2 Christ, and which is A different thing from baptism into water, or Trith \7ater. 4. SoKe psrcons Lave pet oa Obriat, who Hsyer were imtaerced, or dipped, or plunged ia 'tr.ntar, cs a Teligious ordi- nance; cad roiaa pemoEs have ^snt on Christ. T/io sever rsoeived water baptism, by sprJclrKag, o? otherwise. 5. Paul, in 1 Cor. niii. 13, esplsics what he mepiis by being baptiised into Jesus Christ: "IT'or by one Spirit," no': by water, "are ne eil baptised into one body." coKPriBTB mt EAPTiaat. What pois«t» fire sujrgeoted by Paul, in his ref^rsaca to baption, ia the second chapter of Oolcssians P 1. Some perecas bad besn made com- plete. This completeness includes more than baptiemjil vctero c?.n do for us. It inolrides tba regeneration of tbe soul, which io r. spiritual xrork. Siccon Hagus received water bnptisa, rnd r.nque^tion- ably he received t* bv the crthodos mode, but his water baptism did not make him complete. '' 2. If Paul, in th;8 paeeage, speaks of water baptism making a n^an complete. then he teaches baptismal regeneration by water. 3. If water baptism makes a man com- plete, then water baptism creates the fact, instead of being the symbol,— declara- tion,— or sign and seal, of that complete- ness which is the great work of Ghrist. 4. If water baptism makes a man com- plete, thee there is nothing left for Christ, by his baptism of the Holy Ghost to do, in order to make men complete. 5. "Pcvl is speaking of spiritual things, not of the bod^', vrhen he says, ye are "rooted" and " builded," and "cir- cumcised," and "dead," and "buried,'* and " risen," and " complete." He w speaking of a change so comprehensive and radical that it is a " complete '* ch:;:.cge, not c change that a£ects the body merely, brt a change of heart. 6. Paul uses the terms circumcision, and bapticn interchangeably; and what he ^ttrbctes in one plaice to circr-mcision, he attributes in another place to bsjtism ; inc.icp.ting tbst ore takes the place o? the other. 7. This ohpuge of nature, whereby one is made . a ne-v creature — made " com- plete," covild ne73r be eicected by man, Ecr ^ Eica's baptism, no? by water. Neither dipping, nor plunging, nor im- mersing i:xto w?,ter, no? sprinkling, nor pouring with water, can make a man " complete." This ia a regsnsration that water baptism can never accomplish. 8. We are made " complete in him,'* that is, in Christ. This is a regeneration that Christ works in us, by the baptism of tb^ Holy Ghoet. Paul, writing toi Titus, speaks of the great work wrought in the believer, (Titus iii. 5-7 :) " Not by works of righteousness which we havel done, (not with man's baptism with 23 ^generation I man com- ttes the fact, >l^_-deolara- ot complete- o£ Christ. I 6 man com- £fc for Christ, Ghost to do, ete. 01 spiritual jnhe says, ye a," and "cir- ,na "bnried," ete/' He i« jomprehensive i « complete ' at afiects the 02 heart, pcnmcision, and ; and what he o ciTcr-mcision, ace to bsjtism ; the place oS the ire, whereby one e— made "com- •lected by man, nor by water. mifpng. tto'f ^"^* 7 eprinkiing, nor ,n mal^e a man regensration that r accomplish. ^raplete vn ^*»^'" is a regeneration a, by the baptism Paul, writing to eat work wrought iii. 5-7 " Not by Bs which we have I's baptiam with water), but according to bis morcy be sav- ed U8, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of tbe Holy Gho8t ; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being jn stifled by his grace, we should be made heirs ac- cording to the hope of eternal life." 9. This baptism Paul calls " the circum- cision made without hands." Hence, not •water baptism, which can never be ac- complished without hands. 10. Paul says this baptism is " the op- eration of God " — the work of God the Saviour, who said : " I will baptize you with the Holy Ghost," and who makes us " complete" by this baptism. 11. Paul distinctly afl&rms, in the fol- lowing chapter, that in this renewal of the nature : " Christ is all, and in all." 12. There is no mention of water in this Ipistle. 13. If water baptism makes us com- pete in Christ, then without water bap- ism we are not complete in Christ. How ,hen is it with those children who die in fancy without water baptism ? Have Ihey gone hence without being complete Christ ? 14. If by water baptism we are made mplete in Christ, how important that r infants should early receive water .ptism. . 15. Paul calls this baptism " the circum- ion of Christ," the circumcision not ade with hands, but made by Christ, owing that Paul uses the words " cir- mcision " and " baptism " as synony- us terms ; and that this is not man's iptism -with water, but Christ's which is ;th the Holy Ghost. [16. Simon Magus, the sorcerer, it may assumed, was baptized with water, by ilip, by the most orthodox mode, (Acts viii. 13.) If Paul, in Romans 6, and Gal . 3, and Col. 2, is speaking of man's bap- tism with water, then Simon Magus must have been " baptized into Jesua Christ-— baptized into his death — buried with Christ by baptism." If Paul, in those baptisms meant water, then Simon Magus must have "walked in newness of 2i/e,-" and must have had his old man " crucified with Christ;" and being dead in Christ he must have been " freed from sin." If such blessings could be had by water bap* tism there would be nothing left for Christ, or for the Holy Spirit to do for us, in order to the renewing of our nature. But it evident that we do not receive those benefits by water baptism, by the fact that Simon; Magus ,was baptized with ' water by the apostolic mode, but was nevertheless, " in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." Simon was in a most extraordinary predicament for a man who had received water baptism and, therefore, according to the Baptist theory, had been " baptized into Jesus Christ," and " buried with Christ," and been " freed from sin." 17. The error of the Baptist interpre- tation of the passages under considera- tion arises from asuming that the word baptism applies to the external ord»\^ance administered by man ; whereas it refers to the gift of the Spirit as dispensed by Christ. Paul explains the sense ia which he uses the term, in 1 Cor. xii. 13, " For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, bond or free." It is the b9 ptism of the Spirit that introduces a sinner into tbe body of Christ. Through the baptism of the Holy Spirit we become united to Christ, and are sealed unto the day of re- demption, (Eph. iv. 30,) and are made members of his body, of his flesh, of bis bones, (Sph. v. 30.) Being thus members of his own body, we are one with Christ oar head in his death, barial and resurrec- tion, and glorjr. Though a man were im- mersed in the Jordan itself, or sprinkled with the waters of the Jordan, it could never truly be said of him, unless he is baptized with the Holy Spirit, that he is crucified with Ohrist, or buried with Christ, or that he sits in heavenly places with Christ. * J, ! . Tours, (fee. LETTER No. VII. MoNCTON, N.B., May 4, 1878. Dear Sir and Brother, — IX. THE HEBREW SCBIPTUBES. You are aware brother Brown, that when we appeal to the Old Testament, and quote its teachings on the subject of bap- tism, we are met by some Baptist writers, with the a«t>ertion that we, in this dispen* sation, have nothing to do with the Old Testamerit. Some of your co-religionists play fast and loose on this point, I am pleased to be able to quote from the Arti- cles of Faith and Practice of the Nova Scotia Baptist Churches,as follows : " The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Tes- taments are the words of God, in which he hath given us one only rule of faith and practice." But, mark what Dr. Wayland, a Bap- tist authority, says, in his " Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches," p^ 85. " The fundamental principles on which our difference from the other evangelical denominations de- pends, is this : We profess to take for our guide, in all matters of religions belief and practice, the New Testament, the whole New Testament, and nothing but the New Testament." Here is a contradiction that is sugges- tive. Why this blowing hot and blowing cold P Is it that, among Baptists there must be a rejection, within certain limits, of the Old Testament, because those ora- cles teach invariably that the mode ap- pointed by God for the application of water, in cleansing ordinances, was sprink- ling P How else are we to account for the peculiar attitude in which Baptists stand in reference to the Hebrew Scriptures P The Old Testament Scriptures are not yet out of date. " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine," etc. (1 Tim. iii. 16.) Of course the apostle here was speaking of the He> brew Scriptures. His opinion of the Old Testament differs widely ftom that of most Baptist writers on this subject. When He who taught David how to sing, and touched Isaiah's hallowed lips with the live coal from off the altar, and who baptized all his ancient seers with sacred fire, had risen from the dead, and was journeying with the disciples to Emifiaus, it wad through the Old Testament Scrip- tures that light entered into their sorfls, and their hearts were made to bni-n. These Hebrew Scriptures shall never become out of date while the nature of things remains. The word of our God shall abide. We may still profitably follow the example of those Bereans, who " were more noble than those of Thessalonica, because they received the word — (the Old Testament) with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures — (the Old Testament Scrip- tures), daily, whether these things were so,therefore many of them believed," (Acts xvii. 11-12. X. THUS SAITH THE LOBD. In the Old Testament Scriptures there ^re records of cleansing ordinances which 25 i« sugges* ttd blowing [)ti8t8 there tain limits, > those ora- ) mode ap- jlication o£ was sprink- ount for the .ptists stand jriptures P ares are not lure is given ;)rofitable for ,) Of course g of the He- m of the Old rom that of this subject. , how to sing, wed lips with iltar, and who •8 with sacred ead, and was >B to Emifiaus, Lament Scrip- to their sotfts, »bt»ni. These rer become out hings remains. i\\ abide. We ir the example ire more noble I, because they )ld Testament) I, and searched estament Scrip- ae things were wlieved," (Acts '1 '.'• ■■ E LOBD. Jcriptures there rdinances which Paul called " divers baptisms " (Heb. iz. 10.) It ia " divers washings " in our ver- sion, bat " divers baptisms " in the Greek. The Lord who appointed those cleansing ordinances, also appointed the mode. What is that mode P What saith the Lord P Besides those portions of the Bible which clearly teach, inferqntiaUy, that the mode of the application of water, in the cleans- ing ordinances of the Bible, was sprink- ling, there are several passages that spec- ially declare it in the plainest terms. 1. Thvs aaith the Lord : " And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, .... he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times," (Lev. xiv land 7.) 2. The priests, at thirty years of age, received ordination; wherein they were baptized with water and anointed with oil. Not until they "fulfilled" this "righteousness" could they enter fully npon the work of the ministry and the priesthood. The mode of that baptism I was divinely appointed. Thus saith the \Lord: " Thusshalt thou do unto them, I to cleanse them t " Sprinkle water of purifying upon them," (Numbers viii. 7.) [This was "the law" that "it became" lour Saviour " to fulfil " at thirty years of [age, when he was ordained for his public linistry. Our Saviour was " an high iriest," and " every high priest was or- iained," (Heb. 1-3.) 3. Thus saith the Lord : Until the water >f separation should be sprinkled upon >ne, who had become unclean, by contact rith a dead body, he should be cut off ^rom Israel ; " because the water of 8epar> |ktion was not sprinkled upon him," (Num. ix. 13.^ - ^ 4. Thus saxth the Lord : " And a dean erson shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it npon the per- sons that were there," (Num. xix. 18.) 5. Thus saith the Lord : " And a clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean," rNum XIX. 19). 6. Thus saith the Lord : " Bat the man that shall be unclean, and shill not puri- fy himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord: the water of separation hath not been sprink- led upon him," (Num. xix. 20.) 7. Thus saith the Lord : " And it shall be a perpetual statnte unto them, that he that sprinkleth the water of separation," etc. (Num. xix. 21). Here it is clearly taught that God's appointed mode for cleansing persons was sprinkling. These divers washings of the Old Testament are spoken of in the New Testament as bap tisms," (Heb. ix. 10.) 8. Thus saith the Lord : " So shall ne sprinkle many nations," (Isaiah lii. 15.) This prediction has already been fulfilled in part, and is being more and more ful- filled. The people of many of the nations of the present day have been sprinkled in the ordinance of baptism by the Messiah of whom Isaiah spake, thongh Jesas bap- tized not, but his disciples, in his name and in his stead'." 9. Thus saith the Lord : " Then will I smjmkle clean water upon you, and ye sball be clean." This was spoken through Ezekiel when predicting, " the blessings of Christ's kingdom" There was not only the baptism with water foretold, bnt the baptism of the Holy Ohost : " And I will put my Spirit within you," (Ezl. xxxvi. 25-27.) Did yon ever, brother Brown, see this prediction fulfilled, so far as the bap- tism of water is concerned, in the midst of Baptist congregations." In the midst 26 i-" of other oonj^regatioiiB, and on many oo* caaions, this word of the Lord is net bound, oi* hindered, but has frt,:^ course, and is glorified. • .,i ?<„ „„ . 10. Thus aaith the Lord ; " Sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh," (Heb. ix. 13). 11. Thits saith the Lord ; These divers sprinklings were "divers baptisms," (Heb: ix. 10.) 12. Thus saith the Lord : Mosys sprink- led with blood both the tabernacle." etc. (Heb.ix. 21.) ,. ^ , . v . Thus saith the Lord : Moses not only sprinkled many things with bloody show- ing that there was cleansing through blood, but also took " water " and " sprinkled both the book, and all the peo- ple/* (Heb. ix. 19.) Here we have a " thus saith the Lord ' ' which shows that infants were baptized in vast numbers, by divine appointment, and by sprinkling. Paul, who ought to be good authority, calls those sprinklings " baptisms." And if. as he says, " all the people " were bapt'z- ed it is certain that infants were bapti'i.ea. 14. Thu^ said the Lord : These baptisms were purifying ordinances. " It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these," (Heb. ix. 23.) . , 16. Thus saith the Lord ; " It is <5lear, by allowing the Holy Ghost to be his own interpreter, that baptiffig does not mean dipping, nor plunging, BOr immersing, nor even sprinkling or pouring; but baptizing means washing, cleansing, purifying. And, by allowing the Holy Ghost to be his own interpreter, . the washing, cleansing, purifying of re- generation is through the Holy Ghost $hed on vs and is the work of Christ; whereas the divinely appointed mode of the symbolical baptism with water, is the sprinkling of water upon the person . Now, brother Brown, it must be impos- sible, as God baa appointed this " pat. teru," this " shadow," this *' sprinkling,' * as Ms mode of cleansing, or baptizine, that he would be so inconsistent with himself, as teach that another mode, so radically different from sprinkling as im- mersion is, should be also a proper mode. There is no such thing in the Bible as im- mersion, as the symbol of cleansinfj or blessing, or mercy. There is not one. Thus saith the Lord, in either the old Tes- tament or the New Testament, that teach- es immersion. In making this statement, I except always, of course, those editions of the Scriptures, that have been mutilat- ed to suit the emergencies of the imuier- sionist creed. I am aware that it is as easy now, in some places, to find Bibles that have been so changed as to teach im- mersion instead of sprinkling, as it is to £>id Greek lexicons that have been so change^, as to deceive even some of the elect. Dr. Graves once said to Dr. Ditzler : " If I hand a lady my handkerchief and ask her to wash it, and she should sprinkle a little water upon it, is the handkerchief washed ?" Dr. Ditzler might have re- plied by saying : " If she should dip it, or plunge it, or immerse it, in" water, is the handkerchief washed ?" Not in either case would the handkerchief be washed ac- cording to the requirements of secular life. In secular life neither sprinkling nor im- mersion is washing. Washing in secular I life means more than either a sprinkling ( or an immersion. The question now un- der consideration is not what the process) of the laundry may be; but what modehaBJ i ** -^LmiU ! J-JW J-— JJ-iJ!UiliJ-i' 27 God fixed in his coromonial economy as his mode oC symboheal cleansing. Yours, &c. LETTER No. VIII. MoNCTON, N. B., May 6, 1878. Dear Sir and Brother, — XI. THE BAPTISM OP CHRIST. The baptism of Chi'ist was different, in its design, from that baptism which John administered to others. John's baptism implied, on the .part of those who received it, the act of repentance. It was for the remission of sins. Those who received it confessed that they were sinners. It in- volved a profession of faith in him of whom John was the forerunner, It was suppos- ed to be followed by the bringing forth of fruits meet for repentance, and a fleeing from the wrath to come. It is obvious that Christ never submitted to a baptism in- volving those peculiarites. Christ's baptism was not " Christian baptism." " Christian baptism " had not then been instituted, and was not institut- ed until after the resurrection, and when the commission was given : " Go ye there- fore, and disciple all nations, baptizing them," etc. " Christian baptism " is into " the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," (Matt, xxviii. 19- 20.) Christ could not have been baptized into his own name. Christ's baptism was not intended as an example for us. There is not one word in the Scriptures which says that we are to follow Christ in this ordinance. His baptism was an official act, and we are not required to follow him in his official acts. The baptism of Christ was a fulfilment of some hind of righteousness. There was some righteous requirement, or command, or ordinance that demanded his baptism. To " fulfil" implies a compliftncQ with, or obedience to, some rule, or ordi- nance or command. Christ oonld only " fulfil righteousness," therefore, by obe- dience to law. Christ went to John who was an executor of the law, and a preach* er of righteousness according to the terms of the law, and requested John to baptize him ; that, thereby, the righteous require- ments of the law might be fulfilled. John at first declined to do so, but upon under- standing the grounds upon which Jesus came to him for baptism, he dismissed his objections. It was not the moral law that required the baptism of Christ, for its provisions do not require anything of a ritualistic or ceremonial character. It must have been the ceremonial law that required this baptism, for it was a law that required an outward rite. Christ was under obligations to keep the ceremo- nial law. He did not come to destroy, but to fulfill. He was the end of the law for righteousness to all believers. The ceremonial ] aw required the conse- cration and annointing of rJ. the high high priests. This is sometimes, in the Scriptures called their ordination. Every high priest, whether of the tribe of Levi, or of some other tribe, was consecrated, and anointed, or ordained, (Hebrews viii. 3.) This ordination involved the " wash- ing with water," (Exodus xxix. 4;) and anointing with oil. According to Euse- bins, Cyril of Jerusalem, and, others this custom continued among the Jews until the time of Christ. The law prescribed the mode of both the washing and the an- ointing. In both there was the applica- tion of the element to the person : •' Thus shall thou do unto them, to cleanse (sanc- tify — consecrate) them ; sprinkle water of f r^^^ 28 purifying (cleansing— sanotifying) upon them," (Numb. viii. 7) ; "And the Lord said unto Moses, speak unto the priests... ...thou shalt sanctify him !and ho that is higb priest among his brethren, upon whose head the annointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated." etc., (Lev. xxi. 1-10.) The law never required the high priest, in order to bis consecration, to be immersed in water, nor in order to his an* nointing, to be immersed in oil. The attempt is sometimes made to show that the ceremonial law only required this sprinkling of those higb priests, at thirty years of age, who were of the tribe of Levi. It is affirmed, by some, that as our Sav- iour was of the tribe of Judah, he was not, even though he was an high priest, requir- ed to fulfill this law. It is urged by the objector, that " Ohrist could be a law unto himself," and need not, in all these things, submit to the requirements of the cei'emo- nial law, like his brethren in the office of the high priesthood. But the law does not limit tbis requirement to the tribe of Levi. The high priests were sometimes seleeted from the other tribes. Our Lord came spiritually into that office, and yet he did not belong to the tribe of Levi, Paul says : " For every priest taken from among men (not necessarily from the tribe of Levi) is ordained," (Heb. v. 1. It was important that Ohnst should be a perfect high priest. In him should be :7ound, in every particular, all that was required, by the Levitical law, of any higb priest. He was to be greater than any of the Levitical priests, priest for ever after cbisdec," (Heb. v, 6,) He was to be " a the order of Mel- He was to be " a priest for ever." The Levitical priests " were not suffered to continue by reason of death ; but this man because he contin- ueth ever hath an unchangeable priest- hood," (Heb. vii. 23-25, He was a priest " after the order of Melcbisdec." He was of the rank of Melchisedec — both a priest and a king. " None of the kings of the Jews were priests, nor were any of the priests ever elevated to the office of king. In Melchisdec those offices were united and this fact constituted a striking resem- blance between him and the Lord Jesus," (Barnes in loc). The Jewish priests were made such " without an oath," but Jesus " with an oath." " For such an high priest became us who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens," Heb. vii. 24-26. Christ's superiority to the Jewish high priest did not exempt him from the neces- sity of fulfilling the requirements of the law. In the epistle to the Hebrews he is called a high priest ten times. In his me- diatorial work he is continually perform- ing the functions of the " high priest of our profession." It was required of Ohrist in order that he should " fulfill all righteousness ' ' that he should be consecrated to the office of high priest as the other high priests for centuries had been. There was no alter- native if he would magnify the law and make it honorable. John, than whom a greater prophet had not been born of v. man, was the properly qualified person to perform this work. He was of the priest" ly order, on the side of both his father and his mother. He was the messenger sent to prepare the way for the great high priest. As the ordination of Christ required the annointing oil, ae well as the sprinkled water, he must either have had that oil poured upon his head, or the descent of the Holy Ghost upon him, of which the 29 iblo prieat- raB a priest 5." He was oth a priest ings of the any of the fice of king, were united iking resem- Lord Jesus," priests were I," but Jesus ach an high tly, harmless, ers, and made eb. vii. 24-26. ) Jewish high om the neces- iments of the Hebrews he is 8. In his me- lally perform- high priest of in order that ousness ' ' that the office of gh priests for was no alter- the law and , than whom a len born of v. lified person to as of the priest* >oth his father the messenger the great high Christ required as the sprinkled re had that oil the descent of a, of which the oil was the symbol, was his annointing with " the oil of gladness above his fel- lows." As the high priests had been, for fifteen hundred years, ordained at thirty years of age, so Christ at that age was also ordain- ed, according to the ceremonial law. " Wherefore in all things it bohovod him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful high priest in things pertaining to God." Heb. ii. 17. If Christ did not receive the sprinkling of water, at the age of thirty, as his sym- bolical consecration to the office of high priesthood and ministry, then he did noi " fulfill all righteousness.'* But, it is manifest, that he did fulfil all righteous- ness, therefore he must have been sprink- led with water when he went to John to be baptized by him. We have sometimes been asked for an " express command " for the baptism of infants. We may with as much empha- sis, ask for an " express command," or one word of the ceremonial law, or one word of the Scriptures, that required our Saviour to be either dipped, or plunged or immersed. Where, in the Old Testa ment or in the New Testament is there I any such obligation ? What " righteous- Iness," expressly commanded, or directly I or indirectly required, for its fulfillment [the dipping, or plunging, or immersion [of Christ at thirty years of age, or at any jother age ? Our points, or some of them, may be [indicated in the following syllogisms : 1. Every high priest was ordained. 2. Christ was an high priest. 3. Therefore Christ was ordained. 1. The fulfillment of all righteousness, >y an high priest, required ordination at bhirty years of age. 2. Christ as an high priest, was ordain- ed at thirty years of age. 3. Therefore Christ our high piiiest was ordained at thirty years of ag«.' 1. Every high priest was sprinkled with water at the time of his ordination, at thirty years of age, in order to fulfill all righteousness. 2. Christ, as a faithful high priest was made like unto his brethren, in all.thinga and thereby fulfilled all righteousness. 3. Therefore Christ, at thirty years of age, was sprinkled with water. 1. Those symbolic sprinklings with water were called baptisms. 2. Christ received the symbolic sprink* ling with water. ' 3. Therefore Christ, in being sprinkled with water, as the law required, was bap- tized. Tours, f thele rill; b, lotuatii *n, w£ fiveth Are tists whl fmpressil ism, arj irmativJ 31 complete ; jft uncover- ' pots and jlcB,' I van ley were im« 1 have no louUit'B, and der to dilute liter . • • * ' means also tccurate wbcn ey were im- i , : The tables, were "bap- avotion to bis , wortby of a (tanding by so hose Pharisees know of a moro ig the religious mersion. Moses prinkle the vcs- 3curethe result kll the Jews" de- their daily bap- s we well may, intended as re ;re is no difficulty 18 being observed uld be performed appointed mode : ,0 them to cleanse water of purify- tbem." uirements of the Qg to the law of ia manifest that the Jews" did not 58, and their houae- mersionists claim certain that the _ Pharisees and all heir tables, beds, ooaohe*, brazen vessels, etc., were per- formed by sprinkling. XIII. THB LBTTEB AND THE SPIRIT. Paul telle us (2 Oor. iii. 6) that some- times " the letter killetb, but the Spirit giveth life." It is well when there is such a oombination of^iroumstances that there naed come no conflict between the letter and the spirit ; but, occasionally, in the natu- of things, there inevit&bly will be such a conflict. When such conflicts do come the letter should yield, and the spi- rit take precedence. The Paptist churches in the United States owe their origin to Roflrer Williams. In the year 1639 he was immersed by Ezekiel Holliman, who had never been himself immersed ; and in 'n Holliman was immersed by Williams. They then organized a Baptist Church. This was in Prowdence, Rhode Island. The lett&)' of Baptist ecclesiastical law provides that baptism sheuld be performed by a person who has himself b:en baptized. According to the letter of this law, the Baptist Churches in the United states have been founded by a person pho was not baptised at all, or baptised contrary to the letter of their law. It is assumed by Baptists, pi'obably, that the Baptist Churches in [the United States are well established, lotwithstanding that, in their origin ^tbere was an irregularity, and a violation )£ the letter of their law. The letter would dll ; but, it may be assumed, the spirit ictuating Roger Williams, and his breth- in, was right, and, therefore, the spirit riveth life. Are we asked if, in our judgment. Bap- bists who have been immersed, with the Impression that their immersion was bap- ^m, are' baptised ? We reply in the af- Liouative. Not, however, because their baptism was according to the letter, for the letter is against them, and killetb; but, because they have complied with tha spirit, and the spirit giveth life. And herein do we stand on the broad platform of Scriptural and Christian charity. But, upon what ground do our Baptist brethren stand in reference to this point P If Whitfield, Wesley, Luthel-, Knox, Poley.mrp, and Paul, receive baptism by sprinkling, in a good conscience, and put on Christ, and adorned the doctrines of the Bible, do Baptists put on charity, and accept the spirit in whit.h they acquiesced in their baptism as sufficient, even though, in their judgment, there may have been a deficiency in the outward form P Can our Baptist brethren say that though such men of God were, in their opinion, not snripturally baptized, as regards the letter, yet the spirit in which they acquiesced in their supposed baptism, made it acceptable in the sight of God P V; It is not, by any Christian Church, 'supposed to be essential that in I'eceiving the Lord's Supper, we should, as regards outward forms and the time of night, do precisely as Christ and His apostles did. In the one sacrament as in the other it is the spirit that giveth life. Why should it be thought, even from a Baptist stand- point, that in the sacrament of baptism the spirit can not give life P It is a to6 great leaning towards the better that makes some persons attach unnecessary importance to forms, and ceremonies, and dress, and vestments, and meats, and holy days. Those things are the shadows of better things, whereof "the body is Christ." It IS not well to chase the shadow too far, but rather seek after the 82 body which is Ohrist, and the spirit whioh Ohrist doth give. Tours, Ac. LETTER No, X. MoNCTON, N. B., May 12, 1878. Dear Sir and Brother,-' XIV. THE COVENANT OP THE CHUECH. God entered into a covenant with Abra- ham whioh may bo called the Covenant of the Church, He designated the family and descendants of Abraham as his people. The covenant was not only to include Abraham and his descendants, according to the flesh, but other nations also who were not of the Hebrew stock. " Thou shalt be a father of many nations (in the margin it reads, multitude of nations.) Neither shall thy name any more be cal- led Abram, but thy name shall be Abra- ham f»r a father of many nations have I made thee. ... I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. . . . And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee . . . Yea I will bless her (Sarah), and she shall be a mother of nations. Kings of peoples shall be of her," (Gen xvii ; 4, 5, 6, 7, 16). It is evident from the terms of the covenant that God never meant to limit it, and its benefits, to the one comparatively small nation of the Jewish stock, but meant that his word and his saving power should go forth from Jerusalem, and throughout Judea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of che earth, until " many nations," even a " multitude of nations," shall rise up to call the Saviour blessed. It is evident, from the Mosaic institu- tions, that God regarded the covenant made with Abraham as the cuvenant of the church, as he had " sworn unto their fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and to Jacob, ' / (Deut. xxix ; 18.) The design of the Mosaic institutions was to establish Israel with whom God already had a covenant relation, that from that people there might not only come the " Desire of .11 nations," but that from them, and. from him, there might'*go forth the light to lighten the Gentiles, and to reveal the God of Abraham, and the Saviour of the woi-ld, to all the nations of the earth. Sometimes when tb^ people of God are spoken of in the Scriptures there is a special reference made to God's covenant dealings with Abraham : " Blessed be the Lord God of Israel who hath visited and redeemed his people ... to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to re- member his holy covenant; the oath which he sware to our father Abraham," (Luk? i : 68-73,) The people whon^God calls his people, in both dispensations, and in all ages, constitute " the church" in the sense in which the term is used in the Scriptures. The word " church" frequently occurs in the Old Testament, and was familar to the literature of the Jews before Ohrist. In the apochryphal writings the word is frequently used. In Acts vii : 38, we read : " This is he that was in the church in the wilderness." The psalmist says , " In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee," (Psalm xxii : 22.) The word church is applied to the people of God in the same sense, when used in both the Old Testament tand the New Testament. In both dispensations the church has professed essentially the same religion, with substantially the same doctrines, and the same requirements . The pro- phesies of Scripture show that the church of this dispensation is the same as that of the fon ing of t indicate I this one I are now [same bo in Ohris I to .the et [in Ohris I In this c (one Spii jChrist; ( lone bapti iQod and JNeither t ■identity c ]God, dep ritualistic Services n lain. T] Dhurch ax Althouj to Abraha tnd the sa jovenant i tre spokei the si] ^od will I fathers," lis holy ( rare to A ire the chi the covenai lathers," ( te coven a] God in ( hundred a disannul, t of none eff( In varioi [braham ii id they Icounts fo 88 lign of tha iblisb Israel a covenant 3ople there " Desire of them. and. th the light > rovoal the riour of the ! the earth, of God are there is a id's covenant HesBcd be the I visited and perforin the re, and to rc- ; the oath r Abraham," is his people, in all ages, the sense in le Scriptures, itly occurs in IS familar to (efore Christ. a the word is vii: 38, wo in the church salmist says , , will I sing sii : 22.) The he people of rhen used in md the New church has same religion, me doctrines, The pro- at the church line as that of I tihe former dispensation. Paul in speak • ' ing of the olive tree (Romans xi : 17, 24), I indicates the oneness of the church. Of tins one church, Paul says, " the Qentilos" [are now made " fellow heirs and of the iMme body, and partakers of his promise [in Ohrist by the Gospel . . . According to .the eternal pui-pose which be purposed in Ohrist Jesus our Lord," Epb, iii : 6, 11 In this one church t^ere is one body ; and lone Spirit, one Lord — our Lord Jesus jOhrist; one faith^the faith of Christ; lone baptism — the baptism of Christ ; one God and Father of all, (Eph. iv : 4, 6.) ■Neither the existence nor connection, nor [identity of this one church of the living [God, depended upon its ordinances, «r ritualistic services. Those ordinances, or lervices might change, and the church re- lain. They have changed and yet the church and its covenant remain. Although God made different promises to Abraham they obviously belong to one ind the same permanent covenant. His jovenant transactions with the Patriarch tre spoken of, throughout the Scriptures, the singular form. "The Lord thy ^od will not forget the covenant of the [athers," (Deut. iv : 31) " To remember lis holy covenant, the oath which he fare to Abraham," (Luke i : 72.) " Te re the children of the prophets, and of le covenant which God made with our ithers," (Acts iii, 25,) "This I say, that le covenant, that was confirmed before God in Ohrist, the law, which was four indred and thirty years after, cannot ^annul, that it should make the promise none effect," Gal. iii : 17 [In various parts of the New Testament )raham is called the father of believers, kd they are called his children. Paul kconnts for this, by referring us directly ' to the covenant with Abraham, of wbioh circumcision was the seal or token. " He (Abraham) received the sign of olronm* oision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being unciroum • cised, that he might he the father of all them tHat believe, though (in the later dis* pensation) they be not circumcised," (Rom. iv : 11). The following points are apparent : 1. God made a covenant with Abraham » whereby a church was founded, the people of which were to be God's people, and God was to bo their God. 2. The church established by this covenant, was to continue through all generations ; and the covenant was to be an everlasting covenant. . 3. The peculiar relation between be- lievers and Abraham is founded on the covenant with Abraham, and so long as Abraham continues to be the father of believers, and they are his children— -so long this covenant must remain in force. 4. The principles of both dispensations are one :— love God with all the heart, and our neighbors as ourselves. Deut. vi. 4, 5 : —Mark xii.228-34 :— Romans xiii. 8-13 :— Romans xiv. 17, 18. 5. Neither John the forerunner, nor Christ, nor the apostles, uttered a word, or gave a hint, indicating that the old church was to be discontinued in Christ's day, or that a new church was then, or at any other time, to be organized. Ohrist came not to destroy his church, but to cleanse, to reorganize, to change in some important particulars, and to thoroughly purge the floor. 6. To the membership of this church infants were admitted by the terms of the covenant. There never has been an ordi- 34 diuance of God, exoludiag them from the training and car involved in their ad- mission to the church. Hence infants are still entitled 'i,o discipleship in the church, by its initial ry rite, which ia the sym- bolic baptism with water. 4 XT. BAPTISM IN THE GREEK CHUECH. It is often affirmed by Baptist writers that baptism is administered in the Greek Church only by immersion. Some of the popular cyclopedias have made the same erroneous statement. " Ignorance, pure ignorance,"^© doubt, on the part of the authors of the (Cyclopedias, is the cause of their mistake. It is well known that, al- though in some localities immersion may prevail, yet baptism by sprinkling is, in many places, the prevailing practice of the Greek Cfiurch. Baptists are accustomed to say that there is no baptism but by immersion, or dip- ping, or plunging. Hence, in their judg- ment, the baptisms by sprinkling, in the Greek Church, are not baptisms at all. Baptists, therefore, ignoring the "sprink- lings," as they call them, of the Greek Church, affirm that the Greek Church only baptizes by immersion. In their judgment it would be impossible to baptize in any other way. The baptist way of putting their statement, however, is not as accu- rate or candid as is desirable, and is hot only disingenuous but misleading. The testimony of reliable witnesses, showing that in the Greek Church bap- tism is performed by sprinkling, or pour- ing, ifl of greater value, in the settle- ment of this question, than any testi"^ony can possibly be that seeks to prove the negative. Dr. Cramp says, in his pamphlet on Christtun Baptism, p. 45 : " The New Testament was written in Greek. In speaking of baptism the apostles ased the Greek word baptizo. Christians nowadays differ in opinion as to the meaning of that word. What can be fairer than to sub- mit the question to the Greeks them« selves ? They must surely understand their own language." Let us take Dr. Cramp's advice, and see what the Greeks say, and do. 1. Clemens Alexandrinus was a Greek Christian ; and he applied the word hap* tizo to denote purifyings, by wetting the body, by washing the hands, and by sprinkling around, and over, one on a couch. 2. Cyril was a Greek Christian ; and yet he calls the sprinkling of the ashes of an heifer under the Jewish law, a bap- tism. 3. Origen was a Greek Christian ; and yet he calls the pouring of the water on the wood and altar in Elijah's time a bap- tizing of them. 4. Nicephorus was a Greek Christian ; and he expressly mentions the case of a man who was baptized by sprinkling, when lying upon his bed. 5. The native Greek lexicographers, in , explaining the meaning of Greek for the] Greeks, as the authors of English dic- tionaries explain English for the English,! do not give to dip or immerse as the! meaning of haptimo. Hesychius defines it j by one word which is antleo, to draw orj pour water. Suidas defines hapiizo byj the word pluno, to wet, to cleanse. 6. Rev. Jos. Huber, Presbyterian, says :| " I resided upwards of three years in thej capital of the Grand Seignior's domin- ions, in a Greek family of the first respec- tability. During that time I waspresenti at four 'baptisms, — two in the family, andi two in the immediate neighborhood. Itl is the custom among the Greeks either toi have their children baptized publicly ini their chu which lat I nearest 'after tht I pass rou] ison pres( ! sistiug of 1 through i piece of i thus invi xnentionei I my posse ' may be s< in Danvi : were all i I room. I a basin of then sen room was fant and which he and the pi presented laid on hi the -Fathi thrice dij dropped S( giving it that I m Constanti the ordint sion in a ( the infant Before th( a basin tism. 7. Rev. iestiiie son "I wen {Church t ready for 1 covered, I warm wat iinto it. I nudit;^, wi held it V other he oil. He its feet I with his and poun of the F (Memoirs 35 ans nowadays aning of that than to sub- prfeeks them* understaiid us take Dr. at the Greeks 3 was a Greek the word hap- y wetting the .nda, and by ver, one on a christian ; and of the ashes ish law, a bap- Christian ; and the water on h's time a bap - sek Christian ; 18 the case of a by sprinkling, icographers, in if Greek for the )f English dic- tor the English, inmerse as thej chius defines it! \leo, to draw orf nes hapUzo hjl cleanse. sbyterian, says :[ ee years in the I ignior's domin- the first respec* le I was present I the family, andl yhborhood. Itf Greeks either tol zed publicly inl their churches, or else in their houses ; in j which latter case the parents invite . their nearest relations and neighbours, and after the ceremony, while refreshments 1 pass round, the father gives to each per- son present a token* of witnesship, con- sisting of a small piece of Turkish money, through which a hole is pierced and a piece of narrow ribbon inserted. I was thus invited to attend the four above- mentioned baptisms ; and I still have in my possession two tokens : the other two may be seen in Mrs. McDowall's Museum, in Danville, Kentucky. The company were all seated on the sofas around the room. A table stood in the middle with a basin of water on it. The priest was then sent for, who upon entering the room was received by the father of the in- fant and led to the baptismal water, which he consecrated by a short prayer and the eign of a cross : then the mother presented to him her babe, which he laid on his left arm ; and in the name of the -Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, he thrice dipped his hand in the water, and dropped some of it on the child's forehead, giving it a name. I may remark here, that I never heard, during my stay in Constantinople, of adult baptisms, nor of the ordinance being performed by immer- sion in a single instance. Most generally the infants are baptized in the churches. Before the altar stands a tripod holding a basin of consecrated water for bap- tism. 7. Rev. Pliny Fisk, missionary to Pal- [estihe some years ago, says : "I went one moniing to the Syrian Church to witness a baptism. When [ready for the baptism the font was un- covered, and a small quantity, first of warm water, and then of cold, was poured I into it. The child in a state of perfect nadit;^', was then taken by the bishop, who I held it with one hand, while with the other he anointed the whole body with oil. He then held the child in the font, its feet and legs being in the water, and with his right hand he took up the water and poured it on the child, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," (Memoirs of Fish, p. 357). 8. Rev. Benjamin Kurtz, in his Tour through Europe in 1825, says : " We our- selves once witnessed the baptism of an infant in the great Cathedral of St. Petersburg, by pouring." 9. Delingius, as quoted in JBooe officiated in the manner that has .been described. The vessel on this occasion was not quite so splendid being of silver. The hropylo was a handsome affair, twisted with gold and scai'let threads. It was sent out specially from St. Petersburg for the occasion." The following points may be noticed : 1 — The Greek Church baptizes infants b^' sprinkling. 2 — The Greek Church in commemora- ting the anniversary of the baptism of Christ, sprinkles the foreheads of the peo- pie, as Christ in his baptism was sprink- led by John. Dr. Cramp says : " What can be fairer than to submit the question to the Greeks themselves P" The Greeks have spoken, and still do speak, and their testimony is worthy of all acceptation. Yours, (kc. LETTER No. XI. MoNCTON, N. B., May 13, 1878. Dear Sir and Brother, — XVI. THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS. In our examination of the nature of the Covenant of the Church it seemed ap- parent that the Head of the church has graciously provided for the reception of infants into its discipleship by its initia< tory rite. la the old dispensation male infants received circumcision, and infants male and female sometimes received bap« tism. In the new dispensation circam- cision was practised to some extent at least, throughout the apostolic age; among the Gentiles it was finally discontinued Gentile converts embracing Chtistianity received baptism, and the children of all such also received this initiatory rite into the discipleship of the church. Let us appeal to the Scriptures to as- certain whether infants are in the Coven- ant of the church or not, and are entitled to admission through the door to the church, and to the benefits of its nurture and admonition. Deut. xxix. 10-12 : " Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your Grod ; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God," etc. Genesis xviii. 19, , shows that ihe household was included. Numbers iii. 27-28, shows that infants of a month old and upwards are included im the charge of the church. Joel says: " Gather the people, sanctify the congre- gation, assemble the elders, gather the children and those that suet '^^he breasts," (Joel i. 16.) Here children of the tender- est age were recognized as members of the church. The congregation — ekklesia, the church was to be sanctified. In what way? by what rite P by what mode? was the congregaion sanctified. They were sancti- fied by the sprinkling of water upon them. Sanctifying the congregation meant puri- fying, cleansing, setting apart from the un- holy and unclean. How was this done ? In Numbers viii. 7, and xix. 13, the mode of purifying the people, and separating them from the u iholy is clearly indicated ; " Sprinkle water of purifying upon them." B1 received bap- ition circam- le extent at icage; among discontinued Chtistianitj hildren of all aiorj rite into ;h. iptnn^s to as- in the Coven- d are entitled door to tlie of its nurture jtand this day our God ; your )ur elders, and len of I^raelj that thou lant with the nesis xviii. 19, was included. t,hat infants of ire mcluded im 3. Joel says : fy the congre- rs, gather the > ♦^^he breasts," L of the tender- s members of ition — ekklesia, ified. In what mode? was the ley were sancti< iter upon them, ion meant puri- irt from the un- i this done ? In 3, the mode of ^parating them ■ly indicated : ig upon them." Paul in Hebrews (9th chap.) also indicates how the sanctifying of the people was done. He says Moses used both blood and water. He sanctified — purified — " purged " — baptized, " the tabernacle and and all the vessels of the ministry, and almost all things," by sprinkling them with blood, (Heb. ix, 21-22.) And he ea,ncii&e(i " all the people," by sprinkling them " with water," (Heb. ix. 19.) What points are iiidicat^ed here ? 1. A.11 the people were sanctified. 2. The people were sanctified by the sprinkling of water upon them. 3. Paul says all the people were sprink- led- 4. Paul calls these sprinklings baptisms. 5. Among the people were many infants. 6. Hence infants received baptism by sprinkling. 250,000 INFANTS BAPTIZED. In 1 Cor. X. 1,2, it' is shown that all the Israelites were baptized unto Moses, There must have been, at least two hun- dred and fifty thousand infants among them, when they came out of Egypt. They were neither dipped, nor plunged nor im- mei'sed. They passed " on dry ground through the midst of the sea," (Ex. xiv. 16.)" " The heavens dropped " rain ; " the clouds poured out water" upon them, (Ps. 77. 17.) The Egyptians were immersed, but not baptized. The sprinkled people, Paul says, were all baptized under the cloud. Here are some important points : 1. AUthe people of Israel were baptised. 2. They were not immersed, nor plung- I ed, nor dipped. 3. They were baptized by the falling [rain. 4. Many of the Egptians were immers- I e J, but there immersion was not a bap- tism. 5. Many thousands of the Israelites who were baptised unto Moses were infants. 6. Those infants were baptized by sprinkling. 7. The baptism of the Israelites was very different in mode from the baptism of the Baptists. OTHEB INTANTS BAPTISED. The Babbins, ancient and modern, bear testimony to the baptizing of proselytes, including infants, in the old dispensation. That the ceremony of baptizing was a prevailing custom in those times is appar- ent, from the question put to John, by those who were sent to him from Jerusa- lem : " Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not the Christ, neither Elias, neither that prophet P" (John i. 25.) They did not inquire : What new rite is this P But why do you administer it? Lightfoot says : " The baptizing of infants was a thing as well known in the church of the Jews, as ever it has been in the Christian church.'' Many authorities might be quoted indicating the same truth. INFANTS PARTAKERS OF CHRIST'S BAP- TISM. . > The several occasions on which Christ had contact with infants — his making them a standard of Christian character ; his ajQ^rming that " of such is the kingdom of heaven ;" his blessing them ; and his displeasure shown towards those good peo- ple who would keep infants from being brought into close relationship with Je- sus ; all go to show, that our Lord recog- nized, as still unrepealed, the provision of the covenant which entitled children to a place in the church. We should re- member that Christ spoke thus concern- ing children as a Jew, to Jews who had always regarded infants as in church re- lationship with their parents. If our Sa- 38 viour had intended to cut off infants from the benefits which, through the covenant, they had for ages, surely he would have given to his disciples an intimation there of. It is manifest that no such intimation was given. Hence we may infer : 1. Christ's covenant of the church, made with Abraham, guaranteed to in- fants the right, while the covenant should endure, of admission to ^he church. 2. Christ virtually x-ecognized, by what he did with infants, and what he said of infants, during his public ministry, that no change had been made or contemplat- ed, in the relationship of infants to his church. 3. This right of infants, to discipleship in the church was recognized by the apos- tles, both in the circumcision of infants, and in the baptism of households, during the apostolic age. 4. There is no authority, outside of Christ, that can rightfully deprive infants of the benefits which were pledged to them in the covenant made with Abraham, 5. Infants may, therefore, be brought into the fold of the church by its initia- tory rite. \ : 6. The initiatory rite whereby persons are admitted to the church is baptism. 7. Therefore infants may be made dis- ciples by baptism. 8. When infants were brought to Christ he recognized them as partakers of grace. He blessed them in his life, and in his dy- ing on the cross. ITiey as a class are saved through his blood. He did not give to them, when brought to him, the sym- bolical baptism with water, because that baptism with water had not then been required of any person, either adult or in- fant. "Christian baptism" was not in- stituted until the commission was given, after the resurrection of Christ from the dead. ! \r. INFANT INITIATION. The believing Jews, even through all the apostolic age, circumcised their child- ren, (Acts 15th chap, and 2 1st chap.) A. Campbell, an immersionist, in his work on Christian Baptism, p. 335, says : " The believing Jews down to the end of the New Testament history circumcised their children. Paul publicly declared, by an overt act, that he had not commanded them to desist from circumcising their children. What points are suggested by this cir- cumcising of children, in the apostolic age, long years after the day of Pentecost P 1. The old church was not abolished though there were changes in its ritual. 2. The changes that were made did not exclude infants from the churcti. 3. Therefore infants are still entitled to tb initiatory rite into the church. OUE AUTHOEITT FOE BAPTIZING. Our authority for baptizing either in- fants or adults, is the command given by Christ, just previous to his ascension into heaven : " Gro ye therefore, and make dis- ciples of all nations," hy first " baptizing them " (as one of the oldest and best ver- sions reads),., and then " teaching them," etc. (Matt, xxviii. 19-20.) In all the New Testament writings the references to household baptisms, and church member- ship, are in thorough accord with the theory that infants are entitled to admis- sion to the fold of the cburch. Hence we may infer as follows : 1. Make disciples — learners, adherents of all : it is impossible to do this without making disciples of infants. ' ^ '• ti 2. God has provided that persons should "^SSf- 39 iras given, , from the trough all heir child- hap.) A. his work ays The nd of the icised their .red, by an commanded ising their )y this cir- e apostolic Pentecost P t abolished its ritual, lade did not m. 1 entitled to arch. PTIZING. g either in- nd given by icension into id make dis- " baptizing md best ver- shing them," In all the references to :ch member- rd with the ed to admis* i. jllows : a, adherents^ this without arsons should he made disciples — learners, adherents in infancy. • 3. Being a disciple— learner, adherent, involves previous baptism. 4. Therefore infants are entitled, from the beginning of their discipleship, to its sign and seal, which is baptism with water. 5. The commission is as wide-reaching, and all-embracing, as the atonement of Christ ; make disciples — learners, adher- ents, of all for whom Christ died ; all na- tions ; which, of course, includes all in- fants whom you can br'ng into the fold. 6. Christ died for all infants. They have been bought with his most precious blood. Therefore they are his. Bring them as early as possible into the fold. Claim them for him. Put upon them Christ's max'k — his sign and seal, which is baptism with water, in the beginning of their days. Treat them as his disci- oiples — learners, adherents ; and train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. INFANTS FORBIDDEN. The most formidable objection urged against infant baptism is that it is no where "expressly commanded" in the New Testament. The weakness of this point will appear if we remember that there are many things that may rightly be done that are not expressly command- ' ed. in the Scriptures. 1. There is no mention made in the New Testament of women taking the Lord's Supper. We think there are good reasons why women should take the Lord's Sup- per, as there are good reasons why infants should be baptized. But Baptist logic would exclude them. 2. There is no record that John the -baptizer was ever baptized. 3. It is not expressly mentioned that John ever baptized a woman, or boy, or girl. 4. It is not said that "the twelve" ever baptized a woman, or boy, or girl, and yet Baptists do this, without any express command, or apostolic example. 5. There is no record that any of the .seventy disciples wer e baptized. 6. There is no record thai* ever any one was baptized by thetn. 7. There is no record that shows that Ananias, who baptized Paul, was himself baptized. 8. There is no record of the baptism of the seven deacons. . ; 9. Hence we are not to infer that be- cause certain things are not "expressly" mentioned, therefore they never trans- pired. 10. The genius of the New Testament requires of us many things that are not "expressly commanded," such as Sabbath Schools, Bible Societies, Temperance or- ganizations, etc . , ■ ,, , . . INFANTS BAPTIZED BY THE FATHEBS. The testimony of the Fathers of the early church, in reference to infant bap- tism, was clear, and their practice was thoroughly in accord with the require- ments of the Scriptures. Justin Martyr, who wrote about forty years after the apostolic age, speaks of some who must have received baptism in infancy, before the death of the apostle John. Irenseas, born while the apostle John was still liv- ing, testifies to the fact of infant baptism in the church. Origen, a learned Father, born in the year 185, speaks of infant bap- tism as universally prevailing. Tertull- ian, bom in 160, found infant baptism a universal practice in the church. The council of sixty-six bishops, one hundred :» -ir'- >v 40 and fifty years after John's death, in the year 254, found infant baptism prevailing universally throughout the Christian world. Infant baptism has been an ordi- nance of the church in all the intermediate ages. If infant baptism had not prevail- ed in apostolic times, and come down from the apostolic days, its introduction, as a new doctrine, and a radical change, would have been resisted, with a storm of oppo- sition, that would have made a manifest mark in the church. The following points are suggested : 1. Infant baptism prevails in the Chris- tian church to-day. 2. Infant baptism has prevailed in the Ohi'istian church, in all ages, since the time of the Fathers. 3 . Infant baptism was the faith of the martyrs. 4. Infant baptism was practised in the catacombs. 5. Infant baptism was taught and prac- tised by the i'athers who immediately succeeded the apostles. 6. Hence we may infer that infant bap- tism, was the practice of the church, in the days of the apostles. 7. Infant discipleship existed in the church two thousand years before the time of Christ. 8. Infant discipleship has existed in the church, nearly two thousand years since, 9. If there is any force in the theory of '[the survival of the fittest," the recognition of the discipleship of infants in the church will probably continue for some ages to come. Yours, &c. LETTER No. XII. MoNCTON, N. B., May 14, 1878; / Dear Sir and Brotherr" XVII. PEDOBAPTIST TESTIMONY. Controversialists who advocate that there is no baptism without dipping, and who teach that infants should not be bap* tized, frequent! V, when no other resource is left in the argument, flee io peddhaptist testimony, as they call it, for refuge. That is, Baptist's desire to make it appear, that certain supposed authorities, in the church or elsewhere, who do not believe Baptist doctrines, have " admitted," or " confess- ed," that the Baptist doctrines are true. Such testimony is, like that of the lexi- cons, only the testimony of fallible man ; and is, when compared with tHe teachings of the Bible, of inferior quality, and more or less erroneous. It is possible to select passages, either with or without flagrant garbling, from the writings of theologians, and encyclopedists, which will misrepre- sent the author and mislead the reader » and thus make the author appear to teach doctrines he never believed, and with which he never had any sympathy. In the estimation of some classes of minds it seems to be a fine thing to be able to say, that the Rev. Dr. So-and-so ; and " all NOTE-WOBTHY divines ;" and " all the great scholars ;" and " all the profound lexicographers ;" and all the ministers •' of note" of all denominations ; have al- ways " admitted ;" and admit now ; and always must admit; and never can do anything else but admit — that is, if they are persons " of note" — that, though they believe in infant baptism and practice it, and believe in sprinkling and teach it, and were never immei'sed nor immersed others yet the Baptists are right, and all others. 2. quota con'ec light quotec testim tists nottl that t make hones They \h « 41 [I. 14, 1878. MONT. >cate that pping, and aot be bap* er resource pedobaptist ifuge. That ppear, that the church ve Baptist r " conf 688- 8 are true. f the lexi- llible man ; \e teachings y, and more )le to select 3ut flagrant theologians, [1 misrepre- the reader » ear to teach I, and with athy. i classes of ig to be able and'SO ; and " and "all :he profound le ministers ns ; have al- t now ; and ever can do at is, if they though they I practice it* teach it, and lersed others id all others are wrong. (See Graves, Oox, Oampbell, Cramp, and yourself.) Do you think, brother Brown, that if you had pedobap- tist testimony enough to make a library, as extensive as the Pope's library in the Vatican, that you could thereby prove the Bible to be wrong ? The testimony of ten thousand inconsistent or mistaken men can not make putting a person under water an essential part of baptism, if the Bible does not make it so. What you call pedobaptist testimony, does not prove your doctrines ; it only proves that, if what you say be true, those pedobaptists are, or were, either weak-minded, or dis- honest, or both. The testimony which Baptists quote, and represent as having culled from pedo- baptist divines and scholars " of note," may be divided into three classes : 1. Some writers, without having exam- ined, critically, the many connections in which the Greek word haptizo, and its root bapto, are found in Greek literature ; and without having given very much at- tention to the sinuosities of the baptismal controversy ; have made ill-advised and erroneous admissions. Those admissions prove only that they are not competent to speak, authoritatively, on the question at issue. 2. Other writers are made to speak, and quotations are given, which are partially coci'ect; but which are put in such a light as to misrepresent the person quoted, and mislead the reader. If the testimony of such persons were, as Bap- tists represent it to be, it would prove, not that Baptist principles are sound, but that those pedobaptists ** of note," who make such confessions, were about aM dis- honest as it is possible for such men to be. They are made to appear as men who sub- scribed to one creed and believed a difler* ent one; — who taught the doctrines of their ahvirch in their pulpits, but confess* ed in the press that those doctrines were not true ;— who, through all their minis- try, baptized adults and infants by sprink« ling, but admitted that such practices ore unscriptural and wrong. No jury, in any court, would accept testimony f i om wit- nesses who would appear as inconsistent, as Baptists make their witnesses to be. If pedobaptists should accuse their Bap- tist brethren of " admitting " and " con- fessing " that the doctrines they preach were erroneous, and their mode of bap- tism unscriptural; those baptists might call them " accusers of the brethren ;" and yet our Baptist brethren appear not to see that they are really accusers of the brethren, and uncharitable in the ex- treme. 3. There is a third class of this testi- mony, where pretended quotations are given which are either instances of flag- rant garbling, or are utterly without foundation. Dr. Cramp, m the Christian Messenger, Feb. 22, 1865, says : " Every record of brptism in that book (tbe New Testament) is an instance of dipping, as John Wesley, and ministers of all Chris- tian denominations, have again and again confessed." Of course, John Wesley never made such an untruthful and ab- surd " confession." The Christian Visitor of Jan. 5, 1871, and of other dates about that time, i-epresents Dr. Lange, the emi- nent commentator, as saying : " All at- tempts to make out infant baptism from the New Testament fail. It is totally op- posed to the spint of the apostolic age, asd to the FUNDAMENTAL PEINCIPLES of the New Testament." The italics and capitals are given as t lej appear in the v. r/ 42 Vieitor. Dr. Lange never published any- thing like that. He taught, over and over again, views of baptism directly opposite to those attributed to him in the Viaitor. As Wesley and La^nge are " note-wor- thy "• divines ; and have been put upon the stand by Baptists to testify in the in- terest of immersionist dogmas ; let me give a quotation or two from each of them : ■sf. " , •'• Wesley says, Works, vol. 6, p. 12 : " It can not be certainly proven from Scrip- fure that even John's (baptism) was per- formed by dipping Nor can it be proved that the baptism of our Saviour, or that administered by his disciples, was by immersion. No, nor that- of the eun- uch baptized by Philip The words iaptize SLndhaptisvi do not necessarily im- ply dipping, but are used in other senses , That washing or cleansing is the true meaning of the word haptizo is testified by the greatest scholars and most proper judges in this mattei*." Lange, in his notes on Matthew 28 : 19, says : " The Baptist exegesis-^in everj case, first complete religious instruction, then fcaptize, is incorrect It is unna- tural and unscriptural to treat children as if they were adults ' Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptiz- them,' etc. Or, more correctly, according to the reading — ' make disciples of all, and having baptized {baptizantes) them, teach,' etc It will be observed that in our Lord's word«i, as in the church, the process of ordinary discipleship is from baptism to insti'uction, that is, is admiss- ion va. infancy to the covenant and grow- ing up into all things." Lange also says, in his notes on Acts 16 : 15 ; " The prac- tice of infant baptism does not rest on inference, but on the continuity and iden- tity of the covenant of grace to Jew and Christian, the sign only of admission be- ing altered." Many passages might be quoted from Wesley's Works, and from Lange's Works, to show that they never could have said anything like what Bap- tist publications attribute to them. So it is with many of the " testi- monies" which Baptists publish as ex- tracts from persons who hold and teach opposite views. It is surprising that Bap- tist writers give so largo an amount of space in their publications to those muti- lated, fictitious, garbled testimonies from pedobaptisi scholars " of note," It is probable that the frequent reiteration of those testimonies has led many persons to believe them. Many excellent men have contributed, doubtless, to the circulation of such spurious coin because they found it in a Baptist store-house. And, probably, large numbers of persons, who were not able to discriminate, have been deceived, and caught, by chaff like that. Now, brother Brown, please tell me if you do not think that the " Pedobaptist Testimony" argument, as urged by your co-i'eligionists, is rather too thin P There are many persons, perhaps, who ca,n not discern the fallacy, and absurdity, and quackery, involved in your handling of Pedobaptist Testimony ; but yo-u ought to be able to see these defects in your argu- ments, if others do not. Of course, you will remember that it is only a few cen- turies since Copernicus and Galileo dis- covered and demonstrated, that the sun does not roll around the earth each four- and twenty-hours ; and that the sun is the centre of our material system. Previous to their day "all the learning of the world," and " all the note-worthy scholars that ever lived," as you say, would have 8 ions and point agree creed think been error, hold Ohrif Bapt this imm< 43 " testified," and " confeaBed," and " ad- mitted/' that the prevailing astronomical opinions, of former times were correct, and yet those opinions would have been entirely erroneous. Their testimony would have proved nothing but their own ignorance. It is precisely so with many who have testified concerning the mean- ing of bcvptizo, and the genuineness of Baptist doctrines generally. I can give you the names of scores of men, whom your writers have called " scholars of note," who never knew, all put together, one half as much about the baptismal contro- versy as you do. There united testimony if put into the balances would weigh no more than yours alone. It mattei's not wh9t a thousand such men, or ten thou- sand mutilated lexicons may say. Lot us prove all things, not by the vain teachings of lexicons, or other books, that repeated- ly need revision and correction, but by the word of the living God that changeth not. XVIII. PABTINft SALUTATION. In replying as I have done to your let- ter of inquiry, I have referred to points not directly raised therein ; but which be- long, nevertheless, to the same great theme. Through well-conducted discus- sions of this subject, mists, and doubts, and errors, are dispelled. There is one point upon which we can thoroughly agree, and that is this : — If the Baptist creed is a sound creed, all persons who think they are Christians, and have not been immersed in Baptism, are in gross error. Hence it follows, that, if Baptists hold the truth on the baptismal question, Christ has no Church on the earth but the Baptiat Church, and has no disciples in this world but the people who have been immersed. , / ^ a It your theory be right, how few com- paratively are the people of Qod ; and how manifest and lamentable has been the failure of Christianity! How vast the grand army of other churches who be- lieved on Jesus, and who loved the Sa- viour,->a multitude indeed whom no man can number, some of whom suffered at the martyr's stake, and others of whom passed away in the triumphs of the faith : — a^id yet, if the Baptist theory of bap- tism bo correct, all those, because they were never immersed, were never " bap- tized into Jesip Christ ;" and, therefore, must have gone out into the outer dark- ness, where the vireeping and tears abide forever. Pie ase excuse me, brother Brown, if I express my astonishment that you do not see the unscripturaluess, and inconsisten- cy, and narrowness of your creed. There are breathings of better things among your brethren. When you meet on Christian platforms with ministers of another belief, and call them brethren ; when you advocate " open communion ;" and when you unite with others in Chris- tian work ; you practically and logically break away from the trammels of immer- sionist dogmas, and show that you have outgrown your creed. I trust, dear brother, that both of \\» shall be permitted, successfully and joy- fully, to finish the work our Master has given us to do ; and that when ready to enter into the "better country,', where all his people see eye to eye, we, both, and those to whom we minister, shall hear Him say : " Well done, good and faith- ful servant ; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things : enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." Yours, &c." LETTER No. XIII. MONCTON. N. B., May 24, 1878. Rev. D.G. McDonald, Oharlottetown. Dear Sir and Brother,—' I have had the privilege of examining your Bible Baptiama, in which you have referred, occasionally, to my Catechiam vf Baptiam. I do not propose to review your work ; and yet, by way of acknow* ledging your kindness in speaking as you do of my Catechism, 1 may be allowed to call your attention to one point, at least, which otherwise might pasjL unnoticed. In your book we have an illustration of the fact that it is not difficult, generally, to say a great many things on the wrong side of a great question. We have further illustrations of this, sometimes, in politi* cal discussions. The daily issues of lead- ing newspapers may contain columns of reading matter, relative to the strength of the political parties of the day. The discussion may continue long. There is a practical way, however, of making an end of the controversy, and that is by a re- sort to j&gures. Let the ballots be de- posited, and counted. The result may then become apparent to all men. So it may be, to some extent, in reli- gious controversy. Discussions may be protracted. Books may be written. There is nothing, however, like coming to the point. You have ventured to do this, in giving a number of syllogisms in your Book. Please allow me to say that^ in my judgment, those syllogisms are the best parts of your volume. Arguments, that to many minds would be inexplicable, or misleading, may be made clear by a well- constructed syllogism. I admire your boldness in allowing your arguments to be subjected to so practicable a test. Let us look at some of these. XIX. IMMEBSIONIST BTLLOOI8M8 : On page 49 of your book, you have giv- en the following syllogism : " 1. In giving the commission Ohrist chose not rantizo— not cheo but baptito. " 2. The primary, literal meaning of baptizo according to all the learning of world, is to immerse, or its equivalent. " 3 Therefore in giving the commis- sion Christ commanded his disciples to immerse those whom they baptized. It may be well here to reflJind the gene- ral reader that every regular syllogism contains three and only three proposi- tions, called — (1) The Major premise, (2) the Minor premise, and (3) the con- clusion. The unsoundness of your argument as indicated in this syllogism, is apparent for several reasons, a few of which may be indicated as follows: ^ 1. The minor premise (2) is ambiguous, in saying "immerse, or ita equivalent.^* This indefiniteness shows that the syllo- gism is fatally defective. It ought to be apparent to any person, even at a superfi- cial glance, that neither dip, nor plunge, nor overflow, is the "equivalent" of im- merse. An island may be immersed, with- out being either dipped or plunged ; and the primary cause of the immersison may be the sprinkled rain. A very modemte application of the scientific method of reasoning is sufficient to show that neither dip, nor plunge,>can be the " equivalent " of immerse. 2. Tour Minor premise (2) is also irre- parably defective, in saying that the "primary" meaning of baptizo, is "to immerse," or, etc. Let me refer you to the Southern Baptist Publication Society Report of the Oarrolton Debate, p. 33-36, from which you have largely quoted in 1 45 >ai8X8 : have giv on Ohrist baptizo. eaning of eai-ning of ivalent. le commia- isciples to )tized. d the gene- syllogism ee propoai- premise, }) the con- igument as s apparent which may ambiguous, equivalent" t the syllo- ought to be at a superfi- lor plunge, ent" of im- lersed, with- anged; and ersison may 1*7 modemte method of that neither squivalent " s also irre- ; that the izo, is "to efer you to bion Society te, p. 33-36, r quoted in your book, where you will find proof, abundant, that haptito never meant to im- merse until several hundred years after it had been in use by Greek writers ; and where you will also ascertain that its primary meaning was to sprinkle. 3. Your Minor premise (2) also contains a statement which betrays, either a lamentable want of knowledge, or a sad inability to discriminate between right and wrong, on the part of him who con- structed the syllogism, Your syllogism says, " all the learning of the world" shows that baptizo means immerse. The cause which compels its advocaf ^ to utter such palpable absurdities in its defense, tnust be defective, from bottom to top, and from centre to circumference. ". 4. Your minor pr^^mise (2) being de- fective, it follows iaevitaoly that your conclusion can not be true. Hence, Christ in giving the commission did not com- mand his disciples to immerse those whom they baptized. On page 153, of. your book, you have given another syll )gism, as follows : " 1. If Christ intended that baptism in the Christian church, should take the place of circumcision in the Jewish nation, there would have been some intimation of the change given in the New Testament. " 2. But the New Testament is silent upon any such change, therefore. "3. No such chaiige was intended by Christ." The defect in this syllogism is that its minor premise (2.) has not been proved, and can not be proved. Paul, in speaking of baptism, and not merely baptism with water, bu^ the higher— the real baptism* calls it circumcision— (See Col. 2 and else where). Hence, tte argument, of which the above syllogism is the climax, is un- sound, and misleading. Let us look, however, at this syllogism, from an anti-Baptist standpoint ; and slightly altered, so far ati the major premise is concerned. Let us read it as follows : (1.) If Christ bad intended that infants, iu the Christian Church should not be received into its fold as in tlie former dis- pensation, and by the proper mode of bap- tism, there would have been some intima- tion of the change given in the New Tes- tament. " (2.) But the New Testament is silent upon any such change. " (3.) Therefore, no such change was in- tended by Christ." The force of this syllogism, will be manifest at a glance. It indicates clearly, according to your own reasoning, thci pro- priety of baptizing infants. On page 175, of your work, you have another syllogism, as follows : . " (1.) Paul taught the Ephesian churcb "all the counsel of God." "(2.) Paul said nothing about infant baptism. " (3.) Therefore, infant baptism is not found in all the counsel of God. The defect in this syllogism is chiefly in the Minor (2) premise. How do you know that Paul said nothing to the Ephe- sian brethren about infant baptism P Yon have assumed what can not be proved. In your Major premise you use the word "church" as if you sought, thereby, to create the impression that Paul had, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, declared "all the counsel of God." Paul did not de- clare all the counsel of God, in his Epistle to the Ephesians. A great deal of the counsel of God, is contained in other parts of the Bible, and not in the Epistle to the Ephesians. Paul said a great many .-■».. 46 things in his preaching to the Ephesians that are not in his Epistle. As the Minor premise in this syllogism is incapable of proof the conclusion is not true. On page 182, of your book, you have this sylloyism : " (1.) The ordinance of baptism Is a' lAMitire command. (See Matt. 28 : 19, etc.) ^' (2.) The baptism of infants is not commanded in the word of God, ergo. *• (3.) The bap'/.8m of infants is not of God." - In this syllogism you make what is cal- led the commission, (Matt. 28 : 19) the positive command. To whom is the com- mand given? In your argument, of which this syllogism is the objective point, you get curiously mixed on the "positive command" question. Tou argue as if the command was given to adults, or adult believers, aad that they are com- manded in the commission to get baptized. Tou seem to forget that the commission is to properly authorized ministers, and that they should make disciples of all, baptizing and teaching them. How can the ministry of a church bap- tize all persons, or all nations, if they do not baptize infants P The weakness of your Minor pramise (2) is apparent from the fact that the com- mission is to ministers, and is general, and inclydes all, and does not discriminate, against infants, and in favor of adults. The manifest fallacies of yoiir syllogism show that your argument against infant baptism is unscriptural and untrue. There are other syllogisms in your volume which are equally open to objec- tions, but to which it is not necessary to refer. XX. CLOSING WORDS. There is a paragraph on page 119,of your book, wherein you quote from my Catech • iam of Baptism ; and wherein you have the following sentence : " Come out from among them and do as the Baptists do- as the Apostles did — baptize the people because they are saved, and not in order to save them." Let me remind you that this is one of the grounds upon which in* fants are baptized — " because they are saved." They are partakers of saving grace through the atonement ; and dying in infancy are " caught up into heaven." Infants are as clearly entitled to bap- tism, as the believing adult who has never been baptized. Baptism no more saves one than coronation makes one a king. Coronation can only make one a king who is a king already. Coronation is the out- ward and visible sign, and seal, and au< thoritative declaration, of what already exisst. It is tht; symbol of a trae and real kingship, So is the baptism with water. In the baptism of an infant there is the outward and visible sign, and seal, and authoritative declaration, of the grace of which the child is a partaker through our Lord Jesus Christ. The baptism of water is a symbol of the real baptism of the Holy Ghost, whereby the child is made a subject of the- Xingdom of Heaven. There may some- times, very properly, be serious doubts about the propriety of baptizing some adult T^evBornB. But there never need be a doubt as to the propriety of baptizing an infant, " because they are saved" — of such is the Kingdom. If Simon Magus had baptized in infancy, it would have been perfectly proper, for he was then in the Kingdom. But it was a mistake to bap* tize him, as an adult, upon the profession of his faith, because he was not, after all, really a saved man, bui; was in the gall of bitterness, and in the bonds of iniquity. . The disoaision of this subject, throngh the pulpit, the platform and the press, in the Prorinoe where you reside, has not been in rain. It hia especially been my priTilege to hear of excellent results that followed the labors of t late Rev. Albert Btewart DesBrisay, who eloquently de- fended the truth, in ssveral discussions of the baptismal question, in different parts of Prince Edward Island. Many, through his masterly presentations of the truth as it is in Jesus, were led to embrace more excellent thories oil the subject of bap- tism, than those that are held by the Bap- tist churches. Our gifted DesBrisay was called to his f eward while yet the dew of his youth was upon him ; and while eloquent teachings were waiting to leap from his lips. May eur discussions of this irrepressive ques* tion be always, in all Obristipn sincerity, as his were; and may we be erermore Ibokingfor the truth, as he was ; and ben- eficial must be the results. Yours, &o. APPENDIX. CERTAIN INCONSISTENCIES,. IN REPLY TO BSV. JOHN BROWN, BY THE EDITOR OF THE "WESLEYAN." Mt Dkab Six: — ^You seem determined, upon obtaining notoriety. And you seem fair- ly in the way, too, to be gratified. Your name, tome months ago, came to the sur&cef through persistent letter-writing in ths Met' HngtTt and again by a reckleti newspaper en- counter with one of the first thinkers in the ProTinces. Up to that time, we poor Pro- Tinciallsts were in utter ignorance of your existence. Since that time, few who bad eyes for denominational weekly literature hare been permitted to wiak you out of sight. The Korth and South had a dreadAil war orer their John Brown ; we by the Eastern sea- board are now in the midat of ours. I take you to be a good man, notwithstanding certain foibles ; and so would sare you from one false conclusion. This energy of letter writing now going on directed to you, is due to some- thing more than your mere name, character, abilities, or sentiments. Behind you there is a brotherhood, pious and sincere — in the ma- jority of instances inoffensire and charitable ; but you are supposed to represent a class of Baptist Ministers and people who are so ac- tire in propagating contracted notions, that they must of necessity be mot by arguments from intelligent sources. You are in danger of imagining that you hare reached import- ance, whereas you are but a mere figure- head. Twice you have addressed me by letter — this time through your church organ. It has occurred to me that you need a little illumi- nation, and that I may possibly be the humble illuminating instrument. Brother Currie is engaged upon your creed— or rather upon a particle of the Christian faith which you and your class magnify into quite undue propor- tions. I will confine myself to other gronad. I shall likely tell you some plain things, bnt as I am informed you are a gentleman, and as I have no doubt you are a Christian — ^you see I am more liberal than you dare to be re- specting me — I anticipate that you will thank me before we separate. I have no acquaintance with you. I am in- formed however, that you came from Enf- land — that land of religious freedom, aad from the feet of Spurgeoa — that man of mnl- tifarious eloquence and rare courage. This renders the problem of your immersionist idioayncracy the more perplexing. Spurgeoa has written much — few men more; bat he rarely alludes to baptism. You too, write much, but of your voluminous lines, baptisffl is, directly or indirectly, the beginninf, middle, and ending. In fact this benighted Dominion has as yet received fit>m you, the N 49 Boul of the Mefsenger, but this one faint ray •^aptism means to dip and nothing else ! Where did you imbibe this passion for bap- tistic controversy — this hallucination as to the ignorance or obstinacy of all churches save your own, and your special mission for tSieir recovery ? Robert Hall — I fear you will not thank me for citing a name which is dear to us as it can be to you — was an enthusiast, buthis was the enthusiasm of a well-rounded Christian discipleship, w^hich gave baptism a subordinate place and opened a large heart and a free table to the whole Christian family. Bunyan was more anxious about wooing sin- ners from sin than disposed to bombard the Churches with imraersionist ammunition. You, I suppose, have reached tlie final stage of belief peculiar to your class, in imagining that- you are descended direct from Christ and the Apostles. Pray, how many sermons did our Lord preach on Baptism ? Where are the Apostolic Epistles upon Baptism ? My dear •Sip, you have mistaken your calling. Christ sent you to preach the Gospel to sinners, ■while you are captivated with the delusion thiKt the Christian Churches are in danger of •perishing through ignorance, and that you ^UbVe essential knowledge which mankind did •ndt possess before you were born I !.{,.■ ■ The following passage occurs in your Mes- se'naer letter to me :-— .' . , ■,7i * .' '/■'•■■;•■>; :- ■■ ■ ^;- ' ■-;•• Error has always feared the truth, but sooner or Irfter it will have to flee before it rf5> Ihe "darkness befor^ttie rising sun. And tp) surely as infant baptism and sprinkling mj)pse out of the di^kness of error And super- jtij^ion, sp sure wilLit be overcome land borne ^»iwril)y the power of the Word of the Lord, «ad" tb^ light of the Sttn of Righteousness'. ,)32heitime may be distant, butJtis scrb to fif^y^^t needs n^ ppebet to predict tliatn , '' .TKeri are inen who w()uid characterize that u^u^e'as the uiterailce of either a fool or ^U^'TTOftic. 1 will give no such judgment. ^JBufjft^iil say that it betrays a contracted "icri^fefl, a limite'i historic^ education, and a low ministcirial motive. .. " ■i^ ■ r-.' Another anomaly presents itself in your present position. Have you retained the principles learned from Spurgeon ? If so, why do you uot launch some of your bolts against close-communion ? What would you do with Spurg'Ton to-day if he presented himself at the Lord's table where you were officiating f He is an open-commiinionist — admits people to the sacrament who are not " of thQ same faith and order." He is irregular, my brother. If you would receive him to commune, why no*^ us ? Some of us baptize by immersion, (which others of us think irreguiar also ;) surely we have equal claims with Spurgeon. But the tact is, neither Spurgeon, nor Hall, nor Bunyan could get the sacrament in any Baptist Church in Nova Scotia to day. So you have reached this point, that your old master and minister would be refused bread and wine at your liands, even when your object was to remember Christ's death and passion ! If you would commune with Spur- geon, you must cross the ocean— it is ■ not enough that he should come to you ; and even in London, with your present principles, you could not consistently countenance the great preacher, the first ornament of your Church I Either he must come in, like Emory, having his head shaved and his nails seraped (meta- phorically) or go out like Pentecost — an expelled disciple. Yours is the highest Bap- tist caste. The shadow of an unbeliever ftill- ing upon your skirts is contamination. And ii»ith you, to be strictly logical—- to be thoroughly consistent — ^the bulk of Ohristianfe are unbelievers— nothing morel' You demaiid^ several requisites of faith -which may be thtit suttimedupt'^'i^^^'-^^i^^'- 4.r,ji;t!>r; :!»tfc"tf Infant Baptism. . .iL...tj*:u:.:if .1, •: j . i. Beljief in Calyiaifra)^ , i ' t •• ••»j r>^.:f . .. 5, 'B^et ui. {,he scr^ptui^alness of tbs BAPtint Church. .-fiftii 1 >.'^ You will not commune with — 1. Any who are not baptized by immersion. 2. Any who are baptized by immersion, ., but who are not members of the Bap- tist Church. 3. Any who, though baptized by immer- sion, commun* «t any time witli mem- bers of any other Church. ■ I will resume this subject next week. Per- haps you can persuade the Messenger to copy my letters, since you- blame me for not in- serting yours. If so you will indeed accom- plish something in this controversy. Mean- time, I am. Yours truly, The Editob of the " Wesley vn." My Dear Sir : — ^Few will understand my reasons in thus addressing you. I can only i&form inquirers that, for nearly a twelve- month, you have been trying the extent of my courage and patience. So far back as November you charitably hinted in the Mes- stngtr that I was in error, in darkness, and so forth. I am anxious to show what you consider darkness, and what light — ^to show the standard by which you judge me — your own creed and practice — and thus alppeal to public judgment as to whether yott or I may be right or wrong. Iii January you asserted in the Same paper thftt I endorsed a systeih which was "destructive to tens of millions" — Infant Sprinkling'*-a system which ycni riaid is an " anmeaning and unsoripturol fiirce." Ten letters you have written within that time- there may be ot^re, for I have lost occasion- alrBUmbevs of that pyeclous pftper — and the burden ol then hM b^en sonrething of (he 8Ame all tiicough, excepting the use of my nAitw. At leBgUi you wrote yottr ''Open Letters" to both Mr. Carrie and myself. Tou hare succeeded in waking up both of u«. Weli» do the results corre^ond with your eacpe^ations ?.....; I now resume my subject. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, your illustrious tutor, declined to visit America. The world was thus spared the pitiable spectacle of the first Baptist Preacher being virtually exclud- ed by some of the Baptist Churches of this continent. How do you feel about this radi- cal inconsistency of your brethren? In Nova Scotia, as you know, there are but few Pro- testant churches which would refuse to admit Spurgeon to the Lord's table ; and of those few some are Baptist Churches. I know Ministers of several Protestant denomina- tions in these Provinces who have been at the Sacrament in the London Tabernacle, Spur- geon officiating. Do you follow your master in this respect? r i:'.iU:j:i This anomaly would be laughable if it were not too painftiUy serious. You are the only class of christians who fi-aternize with other churches and yet exclude them. "We expect little from the Episcopal body, and less from the Roman Catholic. They both hold con- sistently to their sacerdotal belief. We are not ch'jrches in their estimation, and so they discard us. But you are with us in the pub- lic assembly, and against us at the Lo^d^ tabfe. You invite us to your pulpits, and shut us out from your communion. ^ I have been thrice in Convention* where your ministers and people were represented. We had glorious times. One thing only re- mained to seal our fellowship before the world<-^to obey the injunction — "Thit do in remembrance of me." But we dwre not moot the idea. The Baptists would hare t(dcen offence. Who was it that Midi "Our system unchurches every Pedo«b«ptiil' community. We need net be surpiiMd tif other denomiitetions should be tenqiteti ta compare u» to the Buphratean bort^npm <^> the Apocalypse." These are the word* «f Robert HaU, the world's first, glreatest tfa^ tist, and I feel just now very mtwjti l»ke yietdl- ing to thp temptation he speaks of! 51 Does it occur to you that the barrier you have erected between believers is quite as insurmountable as that which separates Ro- manism from Protestantism, or Hindooism from Christianity? There is but one way by which the churches can gain your approval, and that is by turning Baptists. You separ- ate christian man and wife, compelling them to partake at two different tables. You con- demn this in the social life of India ; you very properly denounce the same principle in the Bomish economy, against which the Baptist church has waged valiant warfare. Why should you encourage it among yourselves? Thus we have the secret of your restless- ness in seeking controversy. At heart, though you do not presume to say so before the world, you regard yourselves as f^"^- only true church. Every convert to immersion you count as we do a trophy won for the Sa- viour. You have a special hankering after Methodist converts, and this is the reason that controversy with you is confined almost exclusively to Methodist polemics. The chief agitation in our church to-day is with your body, and the only dread of proselytism we have is in the Baptist direction. It is really pitiable to find that, in making out, a circuit plan for a single week, our ministers have to consider the possibility of being caught by a flank movement. I have myself, on several occasions, been recalled from dis- tant places to guard the tender lambs from one who was not their shepherd. In walking about Zion we have something additional to do beside what was enjoined by the Psalmist. We must not only tell her towers and mark her bulwarks, but also keep out the Baptists. Bemember I am writing of a class in the Bap- tist church, and not of the whole. It has noble-minded, honorable meA and women, who wotild not stoop to proselytism. There is just one other contradiction I would note between your teachings and your conduct. You einphtiisize the great Apostolic CommisBion, but you reAise to carry it out in all particulars. *'He that belie veth and is baptized shall be saved." You insist that this settles the question of adult believer*! baptism. But there have been instances, to my knowledge, in which you neither could nor would baptize believers on profession of their faith. I refer to sick and dying peni- tents. What provision have you for such cases ? None at all I And yet the Commis- sion stands — " He that belie veth and is bap- tized shall be saved." Either you should cease building arguments upon Christ's com- mand, or be prepared to carry it out — as we do ! And that is not the worst. A penitent on & sick bed, refused the ordinance of baptism, must also be refused, in your economy, the consolation of the Lord's Supper. Thus both sacraments of the church are, in your hands, subject to conditions which Christ never enjoined. With you, only persons la health can conform penitentially to the com- mands of Jesus Christ. You have no mode for cases of exigency. And yet, all the his- tory of the Bible, all the invitations and pro- mises of the gospel, all the experience of believers, goes to show that the christian re- ligion, teas specially designed to meet ccues of emergency. The Boman Catholic Priest only refuses the sacraments to heretics ; you refase them to the children 8f God, the heirs of the Kingdom. From the Lord's purpose in the Great Com- mission you exclude 1. All Infants — one-fifth of the race. 2. All Sick and Infirm— one fifth of the race. You are prepared to carry out the Great Commission only with three-fifths of the hu- man family. Do you imagine this is Christ's Commission which you hold? And if so, we you administering it in accordance witk Christ's intentions? The same inconsistency follows your sys- tem all through. Baptism with you is possible only in certain countries and in special fftoft- ^; A ) 62 tions. The utmost powers of human inven- tion haye been exercised to bring your mode within the limits of common life and decency. Baptistries in churches, warming water, cut- ting ice on the Lord's day, rubber clothin g to keep the minister dry, and weights to sink the dresses of female candidates — these are among the numerous inventions brought in to accomodate this Christian ordinance to your peculiar mode. I can give you the name of a beloved minister in Boston, who avers that, by standing in the water during the time necessary for baptizing some scores of candidates, he contracted a cold which hap laid him aside from his work and may carry him to his grave. He is a Methodist withal — the more the pity I I presume you follow the instructions given in "The Minister's Manual," published by J). Lothrop & Co., Boston. At least, it is a standard code with your class in the United States. To us, following a simple, rational mode, these are curious instructions : The Minister is minutely told how to pro- ceed in Baptism. Committees are to be kept for preparing Candidates — men for men and women for women. He is instructed to take a staff in first wading into the water, that he may know the ground. To take a handker- chief, and where to keep, and how to use it on the candidate's face. How to press both hands on the candidate — to be sure of a flrnv, footing — ^then by the continued pressure of the left hand upon the chest, to lower the person under the water. (This is not dipping, at all events). Then he is to say, "In obe- dience to the great commission, I baptize thee, &c. All this has a very Apostolic look — has it not? The great commission, too I When that commission cannot be carried out upon a sick bedl • , My dear Brother, you have invoked all this exposure. I had no intention of contend- ing with you, but you have thrown down a challenge the refusal of which would have been an acknowledgment of conscious error. "We both have better work to do ; let us take it up. Only do not imagine we are convinced of the force of your arguments and admire the beauty of your system, while we persist- ently cleave to the opposite. We are hearti- ly sincere in the opinion that immersion and close communion are both foreign to the spirit and genius of the christian religion. At least that is my position. Yours truly, The Editor of the " Wesleyan." . v.rt-^C^^SlC^j/^-Nca^^ ii