IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (AAT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 |5 "' ^ I" 6" IIM 12.0 !.8 lA ill 1.6 V] ^: r ^ CJ c^J "^ # ^ ^^ ^^* Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST WAIN STREET WEBSTEK.N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Seric^s. CSHM/ICMH ColEection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques O' 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 oelow. □ a n / D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul^e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ ere de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur D Bound with other material/ Relie avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reiiure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certpines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film6es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6x6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue b' Gkneric and Si'EC'iFio Verbs 11 ^APTIZO: Primary - ... - 12 Secondary l*^- Summary - - - - 22 Generic a.'Ii> Si'kcific 23 Baptism : Mode of -'• Affusion. (Jod's Moue --------- 2.) Presumptions in Favor of Ajffusion 40 Objections 41 John's Baptism - 41 Burial in Baptism •'''^ Christ's Baptism - - <)1! Red Sea Baptism - *56 PART II. tNB'ANT Baptism ^* Re-Statement and Proo^ ^'^' Principal Objections Uroed Against the Foregoing Views - 101 sumjlabv - - -^ ~ -. ...--- 112 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. i>Al.S IT CHART No. l—BAPTizo - • • • CHART No. 2— The Bible its Own Intkrpreter ■ - - - •^•» 53 CHART No. 3— Burial in Baptism 00 Baptism of Christ - fi2 Baptism of our LORn <'.2 Baptism of our Lord . - - - «:» Baptismal Scene CHART No. 4-InENTiFiCATiON OF the Covenant of Circumcision vM. THE COVBNANT OF SALVATION - - CHART No. 5 CHART No. 6-lDENTITY OF THE COVENANT UnI.KR ALL DISPENSATION* ^ CHART No. 7— Chronolookial - - - - CHART No. 8-Identifi.ation of the Covenant of CmruMcisioN with - - i«tr» THE Covenant of Salvation - - - - CHART No 9— The New ani> Oli li entifieu - - - |! '■ PRi:i^^ACK. •♦f. I "J mr. Betwern' two and three yi'nrs since t!u> luitlmr nf tliis fi.'ini[ililot atinounood liis intention, if ri sutlicitMit nuiiilnT nf ,-ul\;ince nrders Odidil I'c olilftined, to prepare and publish, witli illuHtr.it i.in><, a simifwlifil dalporiite and eouiprLlifrisive work, to l>e entitled a " Cyclopi'dia >>( l>i[ili«ni. with a \ ie\v to HU|iply a com- plete cunipendiuni of infoniiatiun III! t vciy CMiict'i\alilf pliast! of the haptisnvjil (•ontroverny. A v(>ry enc(>nra;;ni'4 m s|i •n-c was u'lviii t" tiiat, intimation, aiul consitlerahle proi^resH ha.s heeii in.iiic in tlic preparation of tlio w^nk, l>ui it I1H8 lieen fonnd that the ih m unl-i iipnn t ime and si ri n m h, .ui.Hin'j out of pant oral and other pressing dntics, ai'' \i>> iimuh imi^, and i Aaetitii,' to nduut of very great i^xpedilion, \vhilc tin' w iir',% 1 ^ m> i,'ieat as t" rccpuri- a ureat deal of tnni . hi the meantinie l)relhnii are cnnsiaiitly uiiiin'^ foi the '" fyclopa'dia," it tininheil, or for thf next heint. thing at onr rM'iuiiaii'l, and sdiiirtiiiics a^iking tor exphma- tioiiH (if dillicnlt piiints, ami th,- ;in-.\w rini; '■( these coiinnnniciitions often materially increasi^s our lahoi'. I'dr tlusc reu-Hoii.s this hriefi'r, cheaper and leHs pretentions work is sent fintli as a sdvt of herald, first frnits, and partial pled-^e of the larger work, to meet tin dcinands di the hrelhren until tho titter ran lie e<»nipleted. Most i.f ilic uiai^nan. illusiralions intended for that W'-rk iiri- inserted in this, and it is inlicMd ihat tliey will greatly assist, the • ttnU'nl ot tlus HuhjiHa to a clear and cmrLcl understan«ii\ t..r tlu> flncidatii.n I.f 1 liis 1 |iie 4 inn. The greater the eneonrage- MM iti u'l-cii (., this unik. tin: grraur the stinmlus it will aiiord in pushing • Ih' ' < vi lopi.'din ' t(i ci.ni|)h'ti.in, tliou-h nndei' tlii; most favoralde condition* .!»•»•• -ii linii- yeai-H must necessarily elapse iK'iorc it can l>i^ issued. t a II not aware 'hat anyapnlouy is reipiireil for se^iding forth anotii(>rwork • •n luipiinm. It is presum(.> is closely related to and strikingly illustrative of one of the great cardinal trutlis of hmnan redemption. This great truth is to he seen by mankind in its clearest and most impressive aspect in the light of this ordinance, and for this )iiirpo.se tiod appointed it. In. proitortion, therefore, as the ordinance is concealed, 'iiisunderstood or neglected, the truth will be bedimmed and the success of (..'od's cause impeded. Its imjior* IS I Tilt PRKFACB. tanco 118 a r(jbably apologize for this work. But people soniotiuies overlook or ignore what is involved in a quosiii>n, and think only of the ([uestiou itself. But this is foolish. Sui)poHe wo admit that the difl'eronces of belief auioUf; Christian^ on tlu' nubject of bH|itisin relate only to some trivial affair some mere non-essential would it be safe to conclude that, therefore, they are unworthy of consideration 1 This iw what some people would have us do. But suppose the.se same parties had a grain of .sand or a piect* of cinder in their eye, and they were to l)e toltl thai a grain of sand or a [licco of ciinlerwasa mere insignificant thing not worthy of nakingany adoaliout, is it not likely that they would acknowledge the cajiability of trifles to produce pain and make mischief V So, I maintain, any matter, however trivial in itself, toat can divide the household of faith into 8e[)arate and warring 'actions, and pHMbice and perpetuate alienations and strife between Cliristian people, is no trifle, and it is clearly every Christian s duty to assist, as far as possible, in its removal. The merits of this work as a conti'oution to tliis end must be judgccl' by the reader and not by the author. .\lso, the tree will be known l)y its fruits. With all its defects (and the author is conscious of many), it is scut forth upon its missioii with the iu-dent hope and earnest pravcr that it may be a loui'Cf^ of light and strength and blessing to many. PuNNViLU;, April 1890. BAPTIZO: I'I'S IMMMAIIY AXl) S i:C() N D A IM' CSKS. ['. A (Ji; NKitic \' i:i;i'. . PART I. [T will l>o the author's aim in these piirjes to confine the discussion within certain nredeterniined sjuicf iiniits, lieiiee an effort will l>e made to express everythinjij in the hi-ietVst a)ul n»ost dii'ect manner consistent with clearness, and to omit everything not con- sidered absolutely vital to the strength and eonclusivoness ol" the argument. I will, iherc^t'ore, address myseU" 'it ouoe to the self- assigned task. The first intj i 'y will he. What Does Bavti/." Mean/ This word (px'onounced b((p'-flil-:<>) is of (Ireek origin, and was familiar to the Greek nation, wl ih; theii- language was a spoken dialect, for over a thousand years. It was also ii\ comnion use among the Jews, and doubtless well understood by them for nearly an eijual period. It has been in common use in the writings, con- versation, and public addresses of Christians for nearly two thou- sand yeais, and their Ixjok.s, pamphlets and otlu-r publications on the subject would make a moderate-si/ed pyrainid, yet scholarly Christian men to-day are divided, to some extent, in their judg- ments as to its meaning. It seems incredible that this should be so, yet so it is. Under these circumstances, it may appear pre- sumptuous for a non-professional in literature to attempt to throw any light upon it, but, presumptuous or not, the attempt is here made. The first re(iuisite to a proper understanding of the meaning uf any disputed word would naturally be an apj^eal to The Origin and Laws of L.worAciE. As Dr. Dale expresses it, " Wordi* have a life like that of the vine. They send forth branche.s, which nuiy be either a simple extension of all the peculiarities of the parent stem, with entire " iC>'l 11 10 dependence upon it, or still retaining their cf)nnection, tiny may, like the vine-brancli whose extronuty is turned down and planted in the ground, nuik (5 an additional source oi life for themselves; or, yet further, all dependence on the |)arent stetn may !)(> severed,, and, roott'd in th(; ground, tlu^y umke a new and iudt-j^t/jident source of life for themselves, with peculiarities which may he pro- pagated fitill ftirther." (Judiur />'a/>l's,ii, pp. .sG, S7.) Ii may be remarked, in addition to the forcooiiiM-, that the origin of all woids is sensuous. 'I'hat is, the lirst usr oi" vvi^rds is to describe something sensuous, or [)1 ysical, v/hethcr an ol'jt;ct, an action or a quality. This is iKM'.aus,; our e.irlici^t {'()nc;;j)tions a)-hysi(a,l, or purely mental coiicopLion-; are generated within the nund after it becomes sulli^iently mature to veoson, to rt'lect, oi* to originate tlioughts I)y its own volitions in- dependently of the bodily sonse.^. Tliese meta!)liysi(',;U coiiceijtions ai'C always, at first, described in tiguiMtiv(; language. Tleit is to say, it is impossible for the mind to i,imi r.nit them to mi;) thcr Jniud except by th(! use .)f a pattern, or ligiire of some e.irtli ly obji'et, action or (juality, previously known. ; re(|nir(; to make the experinu-nt Itefori; we will Ix; at)le to c /...|)i'ehend how inii\i'r.s;il this law is in its application. W c are, a.'- k, mnXttir of inct, eontirui- ally seeking for earthly coiiiparisoi;.s, ( r an.dogies by w hiidi to describe to others the thoughts and cmk tioi;s of oui- own minds. This figTU'ative use is souKitinu'S called Idie m.(!t;ii)hoi-ie;i.l. sometimes the tropical, sometimes the seeond;iry. etc Tlie fact i.s, how r vr, that by the long-continu<'.il and frequent use' of a word in this higher or figurative sense, it Ixicomes so familiar as th ; vehielc and repre'tsentative of a certain wili-de'liiied idea th.it W' gruliiJU' lose sight of the material pattern and retfiin only the idea its df. W heii this stage is reached the word loses its title to be cdled li^-'ir,tt i\ e., or metaphorical, and shouM l)e regarded simply as second ;n v. Alexander Campbell ( I)isc:i)le), says, "We sometimes siy that words generally have both a tn-ojier and a hgiiratix ; smu'. I presume that we may go furtlu>i-, and allirm that every word in current use luis a strictly ]n'oper and a ligurativo ace ■ptation.'" (Ohristiatt Bd.pllHrih, ]). \\9.) Dr. D.de says, " WIk-ii words once used in material relations are now used in immaterial, and tiiat every day, and witlwnit design on tin; [Kirt of the spra,kc. • to utter figure, and by reason of familiarity incapable (»f producing any such impression on the mind of the hean^r — in a woinI, tlie simi)le, necessary univ//';(* will be I'ound to be subject to them. Ihit this is a word of action, and words ot" action an; divisible into two gmieraf chiss( s. ( I ) Words ol" sjMcilic acti(Mi, mere modes of mention, — and ('2) woi'■{< ep, In.laie, Anoint, I'.niid, iiury, limine, lid'tct, Alilict, l!e\viln./>flzo, \fem(r a verb of action, must be either generic or spttcilic, and by- even a casual reference to the above lists it will be scHin that the distinction is very clear and easy of perception, hf^nee there should be no difficulty whatever in assiiriiing it to its projK'r class. The reader will perceive that thus i'-.iv we have dini loped two important distinctions that recjuire to be obseiv(3(l in (h^tonnining the meaning of ?;ny word of action. ( I) Whether it is useii in the primary or secondary sense, and (2) whether it is n wonl of generic or specific action. It is (|uite safe to atlii-ni that thiJI Imiitrl of tlie (Jreek word Baptizein. The idea of en ■i'.-i, is not, iiiclud-l in the meaning of the Greek word. It niejMis, simply, to \)\\i into or under water (or other substance) without determining whether the object immersed siidcs to the liottom. or tloitsin the li((uid, or is immediately taken out." ^liajilr.rin. pp. JS^i, !>!».) The late distinguished Dr. l)ale, Pi-esb;, terian. than whom there is no higher aflusioni.st authority, is e(|uany explicit and pronounced. He says, " Bajtlho, in primary use, e.K[)resses condition charac- terized by complete intusposition (iinie-s) without expressing, and with absolute indifference to the form of act l)y whieb such intus- position may be effected, as, also, witlioir, iimi'at.oMs — To MiaisE." (Classic B< 1 2)^11^'))), p. 81.) Dr. Gale Baptist, London, 1711, say-:, "The woid Jutjifizo, per- bap,s, does i -t so necessarily expre.'-s i he action of ])utting under water, as, in general, a thing's biMng in that eondition, no matter how it comes .so, whether it is put into the water or the water comes over it," etc. (Dale's Classic Jki])ti m, p. '>'> ) The National Ba/pilM (U S. A.), sp(>aking of Dr. Dale's "Cla.ssic ^Baptism," says, " He (Dr. D.) has brought clearly out what our own. 5 is> >t Izo, 1 hy , tho [>here class. I two II the iiieric fipt'iS- n the ptizo. and agree isvler, ary or writer rimary a tlni"! ir T. J. hiu'her W'*ll a^^ > (iriiek in the into or htr the .1, or iri in tliere lonnced. ch trac- ing, and h intus- MEIISE." izo, per- nntler o matter le water "Classic , our own. 13 '' ' examination had before proved, that the word baptizo does not, of itself, involve the lifting out from the fluid of that which is put in. In other words, that it is in that respect exactly equivalent to the English word immerse." (Judaic Jidptisvi, p. 25.) Dr. Wilkes, of Lexington, Ky. (Disciple), in a debate with Dr. Ditzler, in Louisville, Ky., in 1870, .said, " Suppose a man is sunk in water, is he not baptized ? The ({uestion whether he is rai.sed up again is not now under consideration. The (|uestion is, Is he not then iunnersed ? The answer is, He certainly is; and so with regard to drowning. Suppose a man is drowned, is he not then immersed ? Does not my frioml (Dr. D.) know that the Greeks did not include the coi^HejjXwnces of being put under water, as stay- ing in the water, or being drowned, as part of the primary meaning ing of the word ? They never did so 'in the world.' " {Louisville Debate, p. 525.) Dr. Conant, already (pioted, says, "The Greek word is used where a living being is put under water for the purpose of drown- ing, and of cour.se is left to perish in theimmeping element." (Bap- t/izeiv, p. 89.) The.se (piotations, which miglit be considerably multiplied, are all, with one exception, from iminer.sioni.st authorities — authorities, too, for the most part, of the very highest repute — and ought to .satisfy the minds of all im])artial pci-sons that the primary sense of baptizo invariably ex))resse.s, or describes, a complete envelopment within a fluid, or kindred substance, without limitation of time. This, of course, if practi.sed upon human beings would invariably kill them, and no one will be prepared to defend a meaning for Christian baptism that would produce such a result. Yet, as far as can be deterndned from their literature, this was invariably the result produced upon human beings among the Greeks, when- ever they were completely baptized in the foregoing fashion. This is partially conceded in Dr. Conant's admission above, that ." the Greek word {iKiptizo) is used where a living being is put under water for the purpose of drowning him," etc. But the fact is, that there is no recorded instance from the pen of any Greek writer, where they ever baptized a person in this way, except with the express intention of drowning him, and there is no such case on record where they did not succeed. I have frequently offered a reward for such a case, but hitherto without avail. Dr. Conant enumerates some eighty-six cases of what he claims to have been " literal, physical " baptism, and he claims to have " exhausted the use of this word in Greek literature," yet he supplies not one single case where the Greeks seem to have contemplated the removal of the baptized object from the baptized condition, though there is evidence clear and conclusive to the contrary ; also, that they regarded the object so removed as (t)/ -baptized. The admission of this point was extorted from my opponent, Elder Harding, in the Meaford 14 !■ I i 1, 1 debate. " My opponent," he says, " took up a fjlass of water and put some money in it. He sai^l, ' Is not that money innnersed and baptized ? ' Presently ho took it out and asked, ' Is it baptized now ? ' No." Mr. Wilkinson — Hear, hear. Mr. Hardin*; — Yes, it was baj^tized ; and when it was taken out it was no longer baptized. Does he not know that this is the way baptism is referred to in the Bible ;' "' {[). .']()). " Whether the object immersed comes above the Avatcr ai^ain or remains under is not determined by the foix-o ol' the word. While it remain's undisr it is immersed ; after coming' np it has bicii iininersed " (p. S2). Now it would be a most remarkal)le circumstance if Christ used the word in a sense that inrolved momentar}' baptism only, to be fol- lowed by the inimediate unbaptizing of the individual. Surely He intended His discijdes not o)dy to he liii])ti/,c(l, hut to xhiy baptized. It would be e(|ually reuiavkable it" lb- inteiukil them to be bap- tized by immei'sion and stay baptizeil. If this was what He meant when He said, " Go, make disciples jjf all nations, Ii!ii»tizing them," then obedience to the coninuind would I'e more fatal than the deluge, for at that time all tln' bn'l people received primary bap- tism and were drowned, while the few good ones who received secondary baptism were saved ; \mt in the administration of the Christian rite, all the good ones wli^ ol'eyed the command would be drowned, and the bad uU'.'s vvho disohoyei] it would be saved. This, to my mind, supplies a very cogent proof that Christ could not have intended to use the word in the primary sense, especially when there Avas a s(e(Midary use at Imnd thit would much better answer His purp(js(f, and be attended with neither danger nor dith- culty — a use that could V)e practisid in ail age-i, countries and climates, and applied to all conditions of subjects. It is conceded, however, that some inunersion autliorities, though without sulH- cient reason, contend for the removal of the subject from the water as a part of the process couttmandeil by our Lord, and so make it to represent a burial and resurrection scene ; while others appeal to the dictates of common sense for taking the candidate out of the water. This latter position, liowexer, clearly implies that the author of the rite used a word of insufficient scope, leaving the common, or unconnuon, sense of men to snpjily what He had failed to express, in order to save His followers from a watery grave owing to a too literal observance of His connnand. Let those who have more love for immersic Lhan respect for the Saviour's ability to say what He meant, take shelter for their beloved theory in such a refuge, but I feel sure that conscientious people, not warped by prejudice, will hesitate before ado])ting such an interpretation, especially since the more modern and reliable immersion authorities have abandoned the " emersion " idea as any part of the meaning of the word. plje5 pres ehan or ii Br. the "in influj way. requ^ use (secoj lowei vast faeulj triea, T;j iirave Bm'tuo, Skcoxoahv. It will be observed that in this confosscdi}- primary baptism there is no hint of any olianp'c bcino' contemplated in the nature, character, (juality, cr condition of the baptized object, but simply immersion and nothi)i<^ more. And now I want to direct attention to the fact that in baptism secondary some such change is always contemplated, though a literal immersion never is. It will be remembered that in the extract jnst given from Dr. Wilkes, he affirms that " never in the world " did tlie Greeks include " the con- sequences of being put underwater . . , as part of the primary meaning of the word.' Yet hear wliat Dr. Conant has to say on this point. " The word Ixiptitcin during the whole existence of the Ureek as a spoken ' ngnage, had a perfectly defined and unvarying import. In its literal (primary) use it meant, as has been shown, to put entirely int() or under a litjuid, or other pene- trable substance, generally M'atei-, so that the object was wholly covered by the inclosing element. By analogy it expressed the coming into a new state of life or experience, in which one was, as it were, inclosed and swallowed up, so that temporarily or perma nently he belonged wholly to it." (B(ij>fi-,eiii, pp. !5(S-9.) This he calls the " metaphorical " use, but, for reasons already given, it should be called the secondary. Speaking of this word as em- ployed by Christ, Dr. ('onant further says, on page IGO, " The act which it describes was cho.sen for its adaptation to set forth, in lively symbolism, the ground-thought of Christianity. The change in the state and character of the believer was total ; comparable to death, as separating entirely from the former spiritual life and condition. The sufferings aTid death of Christ, those overwhelming sorrows which He himself expressed by this M'ord (Luke xii. 50) were the ground and procuring cause of this chfinge." Here Dr. Conant plainly teaches that baptism secondary im- plies a change of state, character, or conilition. No matter for the present whether he is correct or not about the character of the change, my point is conceded that Impti-.o secondary describes or implies a chnjige of condition on tlie part of the baptized object. Dr. Dale, doubtless the greatest aff'usioni.st authority extant, takes the same position. He lays it down as a distinct proposition that "in secondary use it expresses condition, the result of complete influence, effected by any possible means and in any conceivable way." In further confirmation of this position — if, indeed, it requires any further confirmation, —Dr. Conant, speaking of the use of the word in Creek literature, says, " Metaphorically (secondarily), one was baptized in calamities when he was swal- lowed up by them as by an ingulfing fiood: in debts, wIk.'u be owed vast sums and had no means of paying tbeia ; in, wine, when his faculties were totally overborne and prostrated by it ; with sophi"- triea, when his nunij was wholly confound.d by them," i'l 10 !!|!!i 'i ^! ! Surely it is now sufliciciitlj' clear what the distinction between the primary and sreon(ii>to is the root of the tree, and Ixcpfizo a stem, or branch growing out of this root. Thi.s stem as .shown in the diagram develops, not two branch words, but two aspects of the same word, viz., the pi-imar_y branch and the second- ary branch. The primary branch imvariably means to /'//(/-nierse, but never to <'-mer.se. It presents no variations, bonce is a naked limb having no branches of its own. The secondary branch is characterized by gi-eat diversity in regard to the changes it describes, hence it is prolitic of branches. The branches found on the lower side and those on the upper side lettered G. are all taken from Greek literature and have no reference whatever to any reli- gious operation. Those on the upper side lettered N. T. are descriptive of the New Testament use of the term. These are but some of the many u.ses of the term in its secondary sense, in sacred and secular literature. Then it will bo seen that on either side of the tree is a list of generic and specific verbs, by carefully noting which the reader will observe what an impassable gulf there is between the one class and the other, and how impossible it would be ever to make the words of these two cla.sses convertible, or interchangeable. The one is simply the name of a definite and specific action, and gener- ally a mere mode of motion, hence could never describe a great Christian ordinance, symbolic of some great spiritual operation, whether burying, resurrecting, washing, cleansing, quickening, or anything else involving result or effect. The one never contem- c"r"t 1 P IMMERSION Dil DENOMINATIONS. -ly «»_ ^ Baptists. Disciples. Christian Brethren. Mormons. I, i: \ . ii. Tunkers. I ■ ill: -.-•ti.i i:r '■' >t CHART NO. AFFUSSUN DENOMINATIONS. ■"•s — rf: — C Presbyterians Methodists. Episcopalians. Congregationalists. Roman Catholics. Greek Church. \,J '"»4,l/\»- Cleanse. Purify. Sanctify: Anoint. Build. Bury. mi Cover Baptize. P T I Z CHART NO. I IMMERSION DENOMINATIONS. Pour. Sprinkle. strike. Jump. Run. Fly. Shoot. Leap Walk: Baptists. Disciples. Christian Brethren. Mormons. Tunkers. • •^ / 1'! i! Hi I'J plates (ffect, the otlier always docs, and as h-ipfizo, vvlictlier |)riiiiary or sct'oiidfiry always dcsorilx's a result to Itf rcaclicd without descriltiiii,' the mode of reaeliiriir it, — in other words, as hiijttizit, like all principal " Ati'u- sion J)(ii()nunafions," inider the secondary limb, and a list of the principal " Immersioiust Denominations" under the primary limb. This will enable the reader to take in the whole situation at a glance, and gi'eatly assist him in retaining it. And now, to make "assurance doubly sure," I will supply a few testimoni(!s fi-om lexicographers, just to show that these great 'scholars" who have been so long and so triumphantly paraded before the world as at war with the atfusiou theory, are in almost perfect accord with the foregoing presentment of the j)rimary and secondary meaTiings of the terms. Ihis list incluiles u:ost of the lexical authorities (|Uoted against me in the Meaford debate, which I give in the same order as given by my o[)ponent. It will be observed that the ])iimary is first given, then tlu^ secondary, as used in the New Testament, the two l)oing separated by a semi-colon. 1. William Greenfield: Jiaptho (from Ixipio), to immerse, im- merge, submerge, sink ; in New Testament, to wash, perform ablu- tion, cleanse," etc. 2. Thomas Sheldon Green: " Boptlzo properly (primarily) to dip, immerse : to cleanse or purify by washing," etc. .">. John Pickering: " Bdjif'r.o, to dip, immerse, submerge, plunge, sink ; in New Testament., to wash, perform ablution, cleanse," etc. 4. .John Groves: " liaptizo (from hapto, to dip), iunuerse, im- merge, plunge ; to wash, cleanse, purify," etc. 5. Edward Robinson: " Baplizo, to dip in, to sink, to immerse; in New Testament to wash, to lave, to cleaiise by washing," etc. In addition to these I sunnnarize a few quotaticms relating tc the sacied, or New Testament sense. Schaitgennius : " Second, to wash, to cleanse (Mark vii. 4 ; Luke xi. H8)." Stokius : " Bdptlzo, to wash, to baptize; passive, to be washed, to be cleansed." Schleusner gives New Testament sense, " to cleanse, to wash, to purify with water." E. Leigh's Crltica Sdcvd, after giving the usual primary defi- 2 file I il '. f IP -t- ^^r-^r 20 111 :l' ! ilir nil nition, savH, " Yet genenilly, 'im'I very fre(|mintly, it in taken for any kind of \vaMliiM all such cases the undoubted allusion is to cleansing, as this is the chief and most natural function of water, especially when apjjlied to persons. This supposition is rendered little less than certain by the fact that in some texts the idea of wa.shing is brought distinctly to view both by the allusion of the writer and the tendering of the trans- lator. K.G., In Matt. iii. 11, 12, John the Baptist says, "I indeed baptize 3'ou with water unto repentance, l)ut He that cometh after me shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Then, changing th(^ figure, he adds, " Whose; fan is in His hand, and He will throughly purge His floor and gather His wheat into the garner," etc. Now, to understand these passages, we will view them in the light of .some others. In John i. 81, the Baptist says that he " came baptizing with water," in order to " manifest Christ to Israel " (the Jews). It might be asked how Christ would be manifested to the Jews by John's baptism with water. Let it be remembered, however, that the Jews were perpetually purifying themselves with water (See John ii. 6 ; Matt. xv. 2 ; Mark vii. 2-8 ; Luke xi. 38, vii. 44 ; Matt, xxvii. 24 ; John xiii. 5 ; Heb. ix. Thi 21 corc- the fact oi . ix. 14 : .\. 22 ; I .lohn i. 7-!> ; and compare Mark i. 4 ; Ijuke iii. H.) And now let the passage first (|Uot»'d ffom Matt. iii. 11, 12 he read in tlu; li ; isa. i. Ki ; E/ek. xxxvi. 25; 1 Cor. vi. 11 ; 2 Cor. vii. I.) But to fortify the forerjointj position, if need be, let me direct attention to the fact that the wor my imuiersionists for 'specific" action, to which of these classes this word in the New Testament belongs ^ Does not Dr. Conant distinctly classify it when ha says it expresses " the coming into a new state of life and experience ? " Also when he admits that it was "chosen for its adaptation to set forth in lively symbolism the ground-thought of Clu'istianity," and describes this "■round-th(»ught as the " change in the state and character of the believer?" If it describes a "change" of any kind it cannot be specific. In fact, whether we take the primary or the secondary use of the word, it is generic. The word unmerse is generic and not specific. An immersion can be performed by a variety of specific actions ; and it would be really interesting to have some " scholar " or ))upil come forward and tell us by what specific act an immersion must necessarily be performed, in fact, the very idea of its b'eing some'^hing to be performed destroys its claim to be ranketl as specific. In the secondary sense especially, there is no rational ground for dispute that bnpfizo is generic and not specific. How, for example, can any word of specific action describe the Spirit's opera- tion in the baptism of the soul ? Is it c aitendeil, on the one hand, that the Spirit is " poured out," " shed " down, etc. ? I answer, it can hanlly be the motion of the Spirit towards the individual that baptizes the soul, but rather the action of tlie Spirit upon the soul after reaching it. (We must speak after the manner of men.) Besides, if the Spirit is "poured," "shed," etc., this seems to de- scribe the action of some other person, and not the Spirit's own action, hence the specific action of pouring or shedding is not the baptism, but the mode of motion (so to speak) by which the Spirit reaches the individual, the language being modelled according to "rr: "WSBP"?^ ini ; I ill B III. I.! ill*, u. it M f li 24 mans conceptions, and most probably, nay, undoubtedly in allusion to the visible element used in the outward rite. It is evidently the effect produced upon the soul by the Spirit, and not any external movement of the Spirit towards the indivifizo is always and everywhere, as I have shown, a verb of generic action. And they w^ould be ecjually at fault if they ever gave pour or sprinkle as definitions of the word, for pour or sprinkle are also verbs of specific action and can- not translate a verb of generic action. Yet some immersion orators have been known literally to shout themselves hoarse dal words. They never tell us how the effect th^y descril)e is to l)e produced, hence we are left in all such cases, in the absence of speciHc instructions, to select our own mode. If this be so, then, unless God has given specific instruc- tions how to baptize, we are left to choose whatever mode is most congruous and convenient But it will pi'obably be asked just here, lias God given us any such specific instructions on this sub- ject ' I reply, directly I am not aware that He has, especially with reference to Christian baptism, but indirectly I believe He has; anil I e([ually believe that these indirect instructions, or inti- mations, strongly favour Affusion as God's Mode of applying the baptizing element, and to the evidences of this the reader's most earnest and impartial attention is invited. 1. In Hebrews i.x. 10, we read ab )ut " divers iv ifiJtin(j.s " that were performed in the ancienb tabernacle. In the previous verse this tabernacle is called "a figure (Greek, parabolre, doubtless used in the sense of type) for the time then present (the old dispensa- tion) in which (tabernacle) were offered both ;/ifts and nacriticefi," etc. Then, in ver.se 10, we are told that these "gifts and sacrifices " were composed of " meat>, drinks, divers washings, and carnal *Tt is .siucorely hoped that none of tlio above atiiteiiients will bo given in quotations, either verbal, or written, dissociated from their legitimate connec- tions. T. L. W. 26 I iji;!! it! i i ' !: IS! i!'i I' i ' 4 '< ilil ordinancos inipof ed on tliem until the time of r(>formtition," or new dispensation. Now, observe that the meats and driidvs, not only, but also the "divers washinjjs,'" were all included in the "gifts and sacrifices " of verse 9. But as it is the washings with which we have nioiu particularl}' to do, we will disiniss the meats and drinks with the remark that they were doubtless the meat and drink offerings of the tabernacle. But what were the washings ? Were they "gifts" or "sacrifices ? " They must have been one or the other, as any careful reader can see. And no man can properly interpret the passage until he has classified them. It is morally certain that the meats and drinks were the gifts. It is just as morally certain that a washing cannot be intelligently classified under that head. And can it be classified as {j sacrifice ? Directly, perhaps not ; indirectly, I hope to show, it may. It wall be observed by a reference to the place that there is no break in the apostle's argument between verses 10 and 13,otdy in the intervening verses the superiority of Christ, the antitype taber- nacle, and of His blood over that of " goats and calves," is pointed out, then verse 13 etc., the conclusion from the premises just laid down is drawn, and this conclusion is that, " If the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more the l>lood of Christ," etc. Now, observe, the blood of bulls and of goats and also the ashes of the heifer were all purifying elements obtained by sacri- fice. It would be proper, then, speaking metonymically, to call this blood and ashes "sacrifices." In such case it would be proper to say that the puiifi cations effected by these elements were effected by sacrifices. Here, then, we have washings, or purifications " of the flesh," effected in the ancient tabernacle by .sacrifices. In fact, the very design of sacrifice is to secure remission and purification through atonement. (See vs. 22 23.) Thus far, then, the washings performed in tht iabernacle point to the .sacrifices of v. 9. But these washings were diverw {((iaplioros), " different, separate, un- like," which can hardly refer to the diverse modes of a- away of the tilth of the flesh. The blood of hulls and floats did this, ceremoni- ally. (Heb. ix. 18.) The " washinn; oi" the body with pure water" (Hel). X. 22) does this synd)olically. ((I) The ba|)tism that .saves us is " the answer of a jfood con- science toward Cod." 'J'he revised version (Maitr.) reads, " incpiiry, or appeal." It .seems clear that the idea is that of our conseit nees echoinp^ back satisfactory responses or answers to God's voice in us appealing,' to us for love, ol)edience, trust, etc., probably in allusion to the custom of the Chureli in putiino- certain (juestions to the candidates for ritual baptism, and the candidates answering these interrogations. Petfr had pmbably noticed that the.se answers did not always correspond with the individual's conduct, so he appar- ently hints at the fact that the baptisja that saves us is the one that enables the conscience, and not mei'ely the lips, to senn- secrated for uh, throu<^d» the veil, that is to say, Hi.s Hesh ; and hav- injr an Hijrh Priest over the house of God ; let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, havin<:f our hearts spiinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." It is evident, therefore, from all these considerations, that the antit3-pe baptism of Peter is the same thin<>' that the author of Hebrews rcifers to in chapter ix. 11-14, and x. li)-22, and that this savin<(, antitype baptism is placed over aj^'^ainst the typical l)aptisms pt-rformed in the ancient tal)ernacle by " the blood of bulls and j^'oats." Thus is proved, beyond successful contradiction, that type bajitism as instituted of God, and antitype spiritual baptism effected by Himself, are both performed by sprinkling. 8. Another point having an impor'^ant bearing u[)on tliis <|ues- tion nuiy be found in Titus iii. -5. " Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." The point is this : We are saved " by the washing of regene- ration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." But we have found in the passage just considered that we are saved by " baptism." It is to be presumed, however, that there is but one way of salvation, hence, if baptism saves in one case, th(! .^ame kind of bap- tisuj must save in every case. We have shown that Spirit baptism sometimes saves, therefore Spirit baptism must always save, and as this washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost saves, it must be Spirit baptism. The antitype baptism of Peter saves, and the " washing of legenei'ation," etc., saves, therefore they are the same baptism, by the ag ncy of the Spirit and the merit of the blood, and in either case it is by affusion. The blood "sprinkles" us, the Spirit is ''.shed on us abundantly," (v. 6). Gotl's way of baptizing, therefore, is by affusion. And now, to assist the reader in linkir.g these texts together and retaining the argument in his mind, we submit thf accompanj-ino- convenient and connected arrangement of them. (See Chart No. 2.) M EXPLANATION OF CHART No. 2. The design of thi.s Chart, as the title implies, is to so link texts of Scripture togetlier as to make tliem explanatory of each other. Tlie cereniouial law is said to have had " a shadow of good things to come,'' i.e. of spiritual thin n a) a be .a >■, 3 0. 05 05 tt K 1^ 3 13 o cc % t % X • *-■ « s e-s C 50 c ■^-" »^>'. .^ 3 « * i n-r * Si TST K* s ^ fl bl r Vk< _. c -a-*. gpf 3 ^ a. 3 Oh '•««<> «l> .a s OS OS CO K ffi « 5 C ~ 5 "3 I" 5c .25 * ** in a a PQ t ■a ^ 2 9 DOOOOO i y 3) ^2 1 ■a 000000«|| 1 > i J3 to -2 01 04 li "*• « — * K Q a""** * a" o'S'3 o l-S ' a > S « S -=3 S o S fc H ki W 9 go ? "* 1 u og S J-o P 9 (S ill re CO tOj sai an mi sei 0* 35 frlauce. The left hiiiul cohiinii contains chicHy alliisinns Ut the visible type, symbol, or ontwiii-d service by which the truth finds expression, while the right- hand column contains chiefly the explanations of these outward forms of expression; heixce we have placed " Shadow " at the top of the left-hand coiunni and " Substance " at the top of the right. The tabernacle of the Jews was a place of sacrifice aiid devotion, the centre of religious interest to that nation, and the earthly dwelling-place of Deity, or the heaihpiarters of dehovah on earth; hence it afforded an approjniate and expressive type of any |)ers()n or place in which .lehovah specially dwells This tabernacle had ai elaborate system of sacrifices, jxirifications and oihercei-e- nionial observances, conducted by a siiecialiy anointed [triesthood. Attention if. called especially to tlio high-|)riestliood. (The reader will jylease now open his IJible to the ninih cha])ter of Hebrev.s, and consult the text vh we proceed.) .See this high-jiriesthood referred to in verse 7. Here we find this functionary offering the "blood" of sacrifices " for himself and for the errors (sins) of the people.' The tabernacle is then referred to (vs. 8, !>), and is distintttly called "nji'liii'v ((ir. ;w(y((/«>/('f, a type) for the time then present' (the old ilispensa- tion). In this tab rnacle, the writer says, " were offered both (ilfh and sucri- Accs," but they were impotent to save, for they " could not make him that did the service perfect as {)ertaining to the conscience." Jn the ntxt verse, he says they "stood (consisted) oidy in meats and drinks, and divers wa.shings " ((Jr. Ii((j)fi.'>iu<>is,) etc. Now, thes:- divers baj)tisms, according to the construc- tion of the sentence, as well as tlie meats and drinks, uuist have been included in the "gifts and sacrihcis. " (iifts th^y could not have teen. These were, undoubttdly, the nusat and drink offerings that were " ofi'< red " in the taber- nacle. We have, iheivfore, in the Chart, linked the baj)tism8 with the sacrifices. (Jbserv • the meats and drinks and other carnal ordinances are placed at t ach side of the tabern cle. Tliey have no necessary relation to our subject, hence we follow them no farthi r. Th ■ baptisms we re])re8ent as immediately con- nected with, and proceeding from th" sairifices. \Vhat these saciticial baptisms were is indicated by following the column downward.s. "The blood of bulls and goats," of "goats mid calves." and also "the ashes of an heifer," were siicrijirrs. "Sprinkled, " on " unclean" objects anil individu Is they "jnuified," (l)apti/.ed) t^'tui, cereirriniially and typica ly, but they could not purge them )■(•((/((/ or linno'dlij, because they "could not take away sins,'' therefore "they could not m ke him that did the service jierfect as pertaining to the conscience." 'J'hey corrld not give him a good conscience by prrg ng away his guilt. They C(ml(l only put away "the filth of the tiesh '' in a figure, and this is not the k nd of baptism that saves us (I Pet. lii. 21). They were (//ivc.sc — different kinds. This diversity is to l>e sought for in the classes of objects ba])tized, and not in the modes of ailministration. Diversified classes of objects there cer- tainly were, as will be seen by a reference to the enclosin-e to the right of "unclean tfesli." Also, read verses 19-22. Thus these diverse purification.'* correspond, circumstantially, with the diverse baptisms referreil to iti verse 10. And now the reader will please pass to the right-hand column. Here we trace thi- correspondence between the type and antity])e it^ woven into the same chapter and verses a'ready examined. First, we ha\e the high-priest- hood of Christ in connection with "the greater nd more perfect tabernacle not made with hanis." He offered, not " bulls and goats, " but Uiinsilf, for the .sins of the W(, rid, and "by His own blood," sininkles our "hetrts," or " ctmsciences," and "purges them from sins," (called "dead works," and an "evil conscience,"') and thus Yiy this "greater" bapti.sm in the "greater tabernacle," saves us from sin and guilt, and gives us "the answer of a gor-d c(m.science toward (Jod." "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, .sanctifielh to the purifying of the flesh ; llmr unirh muri' shall the blood of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit ottered Himself without spot to (Jod, purge your conscience from dead works (sins) to serve the living (iodT' (vs. i;3, 14.) H' 36 Next we come to the antitype baptism of 1 Pot. iii. 21. This, he says, \h " mjt the putting away of *1- tilth of tlie flesh." (This is a left-hand cohuuii bai)tism.) But it is " tlie answer of a good conscience towards (Jod," and " saves us," tiierefore it is a rigiit-liand coluum baptism. (8ee tlie exposition of this passage in the body of the work, pp. ii7-.")l.) Then, in Acts xxii. 1(5, we have tlie command of Ananins to Saul of Tarsus to *' Arise and be baptized and wash away his ."ins." Without controversy this teaches the washing away of sin by baptisui. it will hardly be claimed by aii\ respectable authority that there are t\v ) waj's of washing away sin, therefore it' baj)ti8m ever does it, the same baptism always does it. This seems incontro vertible. Yet our next j)assage says, " The blood of .lesus Christ cli^anses us from '(// sin '" (1 John i. 7), tiierefore it follows that the blood of .lesus Christ l)aptize.s. Yet the liiodd of Christ, like the ty])e blood, is "'sprinkled," therefore the " ouu l)api.ism " that saves us is by sprinkling; and if the baptism that saves us is by sprinkling, why must its shadow that doesn't save us be by immersion ! In other words, if the real baptism that takes away s'u, the baj)tism which Ciirist Himself administei's (See Afatt,. iii. 11 ; Acts ii. 3'-i), is performed by sprinkling, wliy shovdd not its outward symbol or shadow corresiiond lo tiie inward reality ' In the next enclosure Paul says(jod "saves us by the washing of regenera- tion, and renewing of the Holy (Jhost.' Evidently, as we liav ■ sai' I'ero is but one way of salvation. Spiritual baptism has been shown to b. t.. .. , , there- fore this washing of regeiien'tion, etc., is spiritual baptism. Tnere is not a shadow of reason for applying the tirst clause to water baptism, as some do, and the second clause to Spirit l)aptism. 'I'lie cleansing of tlie soul from sin is as truly the work of the Spirit as the renewing of it in "righteousness and true holiness."' The blooil of bulls and goats could not take away sin, but it typitieil that which could ; and what it ty|>ilied was not water, either in a brook or a tank, l)ut " the precious blood of Christ." ( >bserve, too, that the H(jly Gliost who saves us, is "shed on us." We shall see the leason presently. And now we come to a prophecy found in Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 20. (See Chart, left-hand column. ) N\'e i)lace tliis passage in this column partly because it is an Old Testament prophecy, and partly because we regard the language as figura- tive. At the same time we have no doubt as to its rightful claim to stand in the other column as a rejuesentati\e (jf Spirit baptism. The word water is doubtless used here in a figurative sense for Si)irit. (See dso Isa. xliv. 3, 4 ; xii. 3 ; John vii. 38, 3!t ; iv. It), 14 ; Isa. xli. 17. IH ; Ezek. xvi. !) ; John iii. 5 ; Eph. v. 20 : 1 .lohii V. (■) ; Rev. xxii. 17 ; Prov xi. 2;"), and elsewhere, where it is undoubt' r.'" used in this sense.) And we have no doul)t whatever, but that the process '. ■■: is here described is the same as that in Titus iii. .">, 0. It will l)e seen ' i each passage describes a cleansing, and each describes a renewal; aiid :■: cleansing in each case is undoubtedly a cleansing from sin, and each is a renewa of the spirit nature. And both writers employ the language of figure in allusion to the outward form of cleansing. E/.ekiel represents sin inider its pre- vailing forms, as " Hlthiness," and ''idols;" Paul uses no figure, but says the l)rocess he describes "saves us. ' There is as little doubt that what 'iod promises l)y Ezekiel is salvation, resulting in the renewal of the heart and spirit, and followed by obedience, or " walking in (iod's statutes, and keeping His judg- ments." Are there two operatiy ji) '. In I Christ •inkling, reality ' egcneia- ro is but ,, there - is not a " do, and sin is as and true t typitied )r a tank, host who ee Chart, se it is an as tigura- nil in the loubtless ) ; John h. V. 20 : ubt'v.'" less '■ ■ ■ '■ een aud V renewa tigure in ■r its pre- says the promises lirit, and is judg- 'i if so, kiol Ood irinkling Spirit be -pirit hi literal . Tliis is I'll water, lal Israel liiider the i])pointed visible symbol of spiritual blessings, especially the washing of regeneration and renewing of the irloly (iliost, is the sprinkling of clean water. Now, notice the last text in the right-hand column, Mark xvi. 16. Here is faith, here is baptism, here is salvation, in the hrst clause. I have shown that Spirit baptism saves, and always saves. Here is salvation, therefore here nuist be Spirit baptism. Faith is only the condition of receiving it, but faith itself does not save. Water baptism — the symboUy i)utting away of the filth of the flesh ■ — Peter says, does not save. The blood of Christ, through the agency of the eternal Spirit dm's save, and is called Spirit baptism. It is conceded on all hands that there is "one baptism," ;ind as I have shown, (*/(/;/ one that saves, therefore this one saving baptism mu.'-t be Spirit baptism. Water baptism is simply its outward visible form, or expression, impotent to save, therefoi-e it is highly improbable that an inspired writer would couple faith and shadow baptism, as conditions of salvation, when he might just as easily and much more safely and consistently have written in the true. To exhibit the incongruity of such a supjiosition let us place the two views side by side and look at them. " He tliat believeth and is bajtti/ed with tniter .shall be saved." " He that believeth and is baiitized with the Spirit shall be saved." The reader can take his choice, but for my own part 1 very much prefer the latter. And this view, I fancy, receives a great deal of support by placing the last clause of the text in the converse light. " He that believeth not (and is not baptized with water) shall be damned." "He that believeth not (and is not baptized with Spirit) shall be damned." The latter view receives additi(mal strength, not only, but almost absolute confirmation from the following Scriptures : "By one Spirit are we all ba}itized into one body " (Christ). "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." And, " If any man be in Christ he is a new creature," etc. " In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." (1 Cor. xii. l.'i; (Jal. iii. 27: 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15.) Being persuaded by the foregoing and other considerations that the text under consideration refers to Spirit and not water baptism, 1 liave placed it in the right-hand column of the chart as an example of saving bai)tism. And it is because I believe it to be extensively misunderstood, and often perverted, that I have put it in the chart at all. And now, to sum up, if 1 have correctly interpreted and linked the texts on this chart, then we tind, 1. An elaborate system of sacrificial, or ceremonial baptisms, performed in the ancient tabernacle, and svd)se.iueutly in the temple, continued during a period of nearly fifteen hundred years, and administered, no doubt, hundreds of millions oi times, hence a.s familiar to every Jew as his own voice, ai all by spriiiklin(i. 2. That these Itaptisms were all typical of the cleansing of the soul from sin by the sacrificial blood of Christ, which has also been shown to be baptism, and it, also, is administered by sprinkliii,i. And if it has been proved that the former were baptisms, then it follows irresistibly that the latter is; or if it iias been proved that the latter is baptism, then it follows, irresistibly, that the for- mer were. 3. That the cleansing of the soul from sin, through the agency of the Holy Ghost, is, by a most unmistakable imi)lication, called baptism, yet is performed bv shedding, (bnibtless in allusion to the mode of applying its symbol, water. 4. That this view is greatly strengthened by the fact that when Uod, in prophecy, promised the very same blessing referred to in the last paragraph, He described the bestowment under the figure of "sprinkling clean water," and the undeniable inference is, that if the cleansings referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are baptisms, then this, also, is baptism. It is for these, and other cogent reasons, that I have affirmed in this work that every purification mentioned in the Bible, no matter what the nature, 3 38 object, element, agency, instrumentality or mode, is a Otase of baptism; yet, as a matter of fact, in nearly every such case, when the mode is revealed, it is by applying the element to the object, and not liy jjutting the object into the element. And now it will l)e in ori.or to ex])lain the last item on the Chart, quoted from .las. i. KJ, 17- God is greater than man. He is superior in His nature, attributes, functions, j>rorogatives, authority, and in every way. and it is proper that this fact should, in all suitable ways, l)e taught to man and recognized by him. One way of impressing us with this truth is by re})resenting (jod as above us in space, though in this respect )\e is just a.s truly beneath, befcn-e, Ijehind, and all around u.s. (lod being represented, however, as ahoir us, all his gifts and Idessings are accordingly rei)resented a.s " coining down." The Bible is full of this plu'aseology, but James, in the text (pioted, seems to sinn up the vvIkjIc by saying, " Do n(jterr, my beloved l)rethren. Every good gift and every ])er- fect gift is from ahotw and coiin-lh (Imrn from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness neither shadow of turning." Now, it follows from this that in giving His Spirit, blood, salviition. Son, Comforter, or nvthing else to us, it is appro])riate to desci'il)e it as " couiing down:" hence, if the l)aptism of the Spirit of (iod is a bestowment of blessing upon us, and not a giving of us to the blessing, it should be represented as descending upon us. And if this be true, then it ecjually follows that wlien the bestowment of this ''good and perfect gift " is to lie made visibk^ bj- a material symbol, consistency and common sense demand that the material symbol sliould cleHrcinl upon us, and not vice vev-iK. Immersion, therefore, is unphilosophical and irrational, and it is believed that in the body ttf this work it is proved to be entirely unsiij)ported by Scripture. (See, es])ecially (Hijiitliins to Part 1., ]). 41, etc.) "Do not err, therefore, my beloved lii\;thien; " the element, in Christian baptism, should (h;scend upon the individual ; but the individual should never descend into, or rise up out of the element, for Christian baptism is not a funeral and resurrectiii lUj /'>i'ce tiW it falls into the Salt Sea." {Anal. Concoi'dnvce, Art " J( Ian.") Smith in his Bil)le Dictionary calls the Jordan the " Descender," and says that " the two principal features in the course of the Jordan are its descent and its windings. From its fomitain -heads to the point where it is lost to nature, it rushes down one continuous inclined plane, only broken by a series of rapids or precipitous falls. Between the Lake of Tiberias and the Dead Sea, Lieutenant Lynch passed down twenty seven rapids." Elder Sweeney of Kentucky — the great profe.ssional Di.sciple debater on baptism — in a debate with Rev. .). H. Pritchett of the M. E. Church, South, in 1808, said, "He (Mr. P.) wants to know why 'John went from Jordan over there (to vEnon) when there was more water in Jordan than there.' I have gone from a great quantity of water to a less cjuantity many times to baptize. If I were at a large, turbid, swirling and dirty stream, and one difiicult of access, I -would go to a smaller and better one if I could find it" {Sweeney- Pritchett Delate, p. 122.) Rabbi Joseph Swarz, for sixteen years a resident in tlie Holy Land say.", "The Jordan .... is so rapid a stream that even the bes*^. swimmer cannot bathe in it without endanger- ing his life. In the neighborhood of Jericho (where John is supposed to have baptizedi, the bathers are compelled to tie them- selves together with ropes to prevent their being swept away by the rapidity of the current." {A Desc7'iptive Geography, etc. of Palestine, p. 43.) 44 i-ti' i* Rev. D. A. Randall, a Baptist, who travelled in Palestine, thus writes: "According to the usual custom of visitors, we commenced arranirements for a bath, when our .-sheikh interposed, declarin^^ the current too swift, and tiuit it would he danj^erous to enter the stream ; that a man had been drowned in this very place only a few days before. But we had not come so far to he thwarted in our plans by triHes. Beinj^ a good swinuner I measured the strenj^^th of the current with my eye, and willin/ God" etc., Part II. pp. 2;].'5-4.) Rev. W. M. Thompson, missionary in Syria and Palestine twenty-five years, says, " Tht; current is ast(mishingly rapid. . . It i-equired the most expert swimmer to cross it. and one less skilled must inevitably be carried away, as we had melancholy proof. Two Christians and a Turk, who ventured too far, were drowned witliout the possibility of rescue, and the wonder is that more did not share the same fate." (The Land (tvd tlw Book, Vol. II. pp. 45;'5-G.) This is at the place where " our blessed Saviour was baptized." (lb.) Lieutenant Lynch, who traversed the entire Jor(hin, and whose statements none (juestion— indeeil, he seems to have been an inunersionist — gives us an account of his descent in iron boats, one of which was destroyed by the violent current dashing it to pieces against obstacles: "The shores (seemed) to flit by us. With its tumultuous rush the river hurried us onward, and we knew not what the next moment would brinj; forth — whether it would dash us upon a rock, or plunge us down a cataract" (p. 255). They arrived at El Meshra where John baptized. The banks are ten feet high, save at the ford, and the water is suddenly deep. Here he moralizes how " the Deity, veiled in flesh, descended the bank . . . . and the impetuous river, in grateful homage, must have stayed its course and gently laved the body of its Lord " (Quoted by Dr. Ditzler in Wdkcs-Dltzlev Delxde, p. 629). A demand for miracles is nothing in the way of the immersion theory, but we happen to remember that "John did no miracles," (John x. 41), and that when the Jordan " stayed its course " for a few hours for the ehihiren of Israel to pass over, the waters " stood upon an heap," liut if it had to "stay its course" for two hundred days it would be a marvellous heap indeed. Nothing but the immersion theory would make a demand for s\icli a heap of water. Lieutenant Lynch testifies that when pilgrims came to bathe he anchored below them, " to be in readiness to render assistance should any of. the crowd be swept down by the current, and in danger of drowning .... accidents, it is .said, occurring every year." (Pp. 261, 265. Lou. Deb., 629.) But the Jordan is not only swift, but extremely cold. Rev. 'Icri Jon tone bei-s then proo he Jord viole of inter dang hot some acter consi hapti not 45 William Henderson of th(> London Methodist Conference, a personal iicciuaintanceand friend, wrote nie from (Jlencoe, March iMth, 1>S87, us follows: "Oidy four years a^o I was throuirh Pai.>stine in OctoI.er. All streums were dry hut .Jordan. Was chilled in it at once, thou.njh th.ere liad been no rain for five months and every day hri<,dit aii(l hot. Is fed l.y sprinf]fs— a rusliin^j stream. It still over- Hows tlie inner huidcs part of the year with cold snow water. No water for ablution in all that vullry except small fountain of Elisha, at old Jericho, and the Jordan. 1 did not believe John, as .son of a priest, innner.sed in Jonlan, because I roui.n NOT believe it. My iimer Judnrment said, vNipossihlr. (It did not occur to him that tlie Jordan nu<,dit ' stay its c(an-se.' ) No spring's of water up throuo;h wilderness (of Judea), .so they went to Jordan. Our mule ami rider fell on mountain breakiiio- jar of water we brought from Mar Saba, and we felt sad over the loss." The coldness of the Jordan waters Is also attested l»v Dr. Kitto wl lo says, 'he Rev. water i.s . . . . idiniys cool." This is to be accounted for, tirst, by the fact that it rises in the spi'ings which abound at the base of Hermon and Anti-Lebanon, and is continually fed l^y tlie melting snows wduch perpetually crown these mountains ; and, secondly, 1)ecause of the rapidity of the current not giving the waters time to warm before they reach the Dead Sea. The cold- ness ot these waters is abundantly attested. Yet, (3) The Jordan valley is said to be "one of the hottest valleys in the world, owing to its great de])res.sion at the lower part where John baptized." ])r. Smith, in his Bilile Dictionary, Art. " Palestine," says: "Buried as it is between such lofty ranges, and .shielded from every breeze, the climate of the Jordan valley is extremely hot and relaxing. Its enervating influence is shown by the inhabitants of Jericho." The Schati-llerzog Eiicyc, Art. " Palestine," says, "The Jordan valley is especially tropical and dangerou.s.'' And, now, let the reader put tht se few incontrovertible fact.s together and ponder them. I. John nmst have baptizeil gn^at num- bers, ju'obably a million, or more, and a very large proporti(jn of them, doubtless, at or in the -Jordan. 2. There is ab.solntely no proof that he had any help, but there are strong ptesumptions that he had none. 3. He "did no nnracle." (John x. 41.) 4. The Jordan where his baptisms were chiefly administered was a very violent stream, utterly unfit for the immersion of lar«>e numbers of men and women. 5. The climate where John baptized was intensely and even dangerously hot. G. The water was intensely and dangerously cold, especially for weakly constitutions, and in such a hot region, though it is unfair to presume that John's baptism was somethinfT onlj'- suited to rugged constitutions. If so, it was char- acterized by at least one serious defect. 7. Add to the foregoing considerations the fact that multitudes of those who received this baptism must have travelled long distances, many of them on foot, not expecting, when they set out, to be baptized by John before i 46 thuir return, iukI c<)nsi'(|U(!ntly not provided with chaiijjji's of rai- ment. H. 'I'hen consider the utter inipracticiihility of so many per- HOHH of hotii sexes, even if ani[)ly provided with chanjjres of rninient, ex('lianijin<' the wet for the (h'V on the hanks of the river, in open (hiy, witli the crowds eontiinuilly conun^f and j,'oin^. !). The eipial improhal)iiity of tlu'ir allowin<,r their wet {jfarments to dry upon their bodies. AntI to all these wo add, 10 One of the greatest im]ii'ohahilities of all, vi/., that this whole Jciwish nation, HO conser\ ative in mattfsrs of religions ceremony, suddeidy a(U)pted a mode of ceremonial puriHcation so utterly diverse from anything they had ever been accustomed to, cumbered with so many almost insup(;rable obstacles, and that a Jewish priest, of all other men, practiced the putting of men and women, publicly, under water, by thousands and tens of thousands, yet no word of reujonstrance or complaint apparently, from any source, not even from those strait- laced tradition-worshippers, the Pharisees. The thing is absolutely incredible, and if ther • is a .semi-reasonable mode of interpretation not involving such absurdities, it ought to be adopted. But why, after all, did John go to Jordan and to /Knon where there was "much water," if not for immersion [)U' ses i* It is claimed by the very same ]tersons who ask this i\u \ that the three thousand baptized in Jerusaleni on the day of x ^nuecost were all inunersed, and when we object that there was not sufficient water available to them in the city for such a pui'pose, we are assured that there was abunchmce of water in Jerusalem — no less than "fifteen acres" — and no ditliculty at all on this .score. Why, then, we ask, did John go to the hot and dangerous valley of Jor- iil?.i ; W ■, i, i; (r li i; r 'I tween a pint and a quart, which no Hindoo can well be without. The Hindoo bathes every day, that is, he pours the water from his lota over his body, usually at some stream. The secret meeting of the Sepoys took place, generally, when they went to bathe, all with their lotas in their hands.' "The Rev. Dr. Jamieson : 'The usual mode of bathing by the Hindoos is by poiirmg water over their persons from a ves.sel called a lotd, even when they stand on the brink of a river. In washing hands, both Hindoos and Mohammedans always pour water on them. They say that to dip them into the water defiles the water, and the more you wash the more unclean they are." (lb., p. 884.) With this atrrees the ancient Jewish custom. " Here is Elisha the son of Sha])hat, which poured water on the hands of Elijah." (2 Kings iii. ] I.) Now, in presence of these f;icti>, it is difficult to see how John could have done otherwise than go to a running stream for bap- tismal water, e\en to spriidvle, which was undoubtedly the ancient custom among both Jews and Greeks, and still is, as Dr. Dale clearly proves. And no other theory can lay any respectable claim to so nmch probability, consistency or proof, and where no precon- ception stands in the way. no doubt the facts supplied would carry conviction to the great majority of reflective minds. Tliis view, too, receives very gretit support from the fact that, on and after the day of Pentecost, when the new dispensation be- gan, the ceremonial law vanished, and the distinction between clean and unclean was blotted out, we read no more about going to rivers, streams, or " much water " for purposes of baptism. Such a case does not exist in the record. It only exists in the imaginations of men. They have even tried to force the Philippian jailer to vio- late the law and expose his own life (Comp. Acts xvi. 27, and xii. 19), by letting Paul and Silas outside the prison at midnight to im- merse him in some stream. Still John went to " yEnon near to Salem because there was much wafer there," and what need had he for much water, even from a running .stream, to .sprinkle on the ])eople ? a. " Much water " may not amount to such floods, or lakes, or overflowing rivers, as some imagine. When Hezekiah, king of Judah. saw that Sennacherib was come against Jerusalem, "he took counsel with his princes and his mighty men to stop the waters of the fountains which were without the cit}' ; and they did help him. So there was gathered much people together, who stopped ail the fountains and the brook that ran through the midst of the land, saying. Why should the kings of As.syria come and And nvuch water?" (2 Chron. xxxii. 8,4.) The "much water" in this case amounted to a few springs orfovmtams, and the little brook Kedron, all of which it was possible for the people to "stop " from flowing in a very short time. Now, suppose John had been bapti'^ing at abl a till (1 in I thj nitl UlJ fa) th 49 ithout. ■om his ting of .11 with by the L vessel er. In s 2^our r defiles ey are." 5 Elisha Elijah." )Vf John for bap- } ancient Dr. Dale bie claim 3 precon- ild carry act that, ation be- een clean to Such a Lginations ler to vio- id xii. 10), ht to im- there was ater, even or lakes, ih, king of , " he took : waters of I help him. >ed all the [' the land, find much 1 this case ok Kedron, om flowing apti'^ing at gomg these same Jerusalem springs, and at this same brook Kedron, and the evangelist had said it was "because there was mnch water there," the record would have been just as true and consistent as the one in Chronicles, but what \\H)uid have become of the immer- sion theory? Yet it is possible that there was no more water at JEnon than at these fountains. The argument for immer.sion, in such case, is not very strong. b. The phrase "much water," is from the Greek polla huAafi, waters many, and not waters much. (See the same phrase, Rev. i. 15 ; xiv. 2 ; xvii. 1 ; xix. G, and the margin of the R. V.) The word JEnon, according to Dr. Smith, " is merely a Greek version of a Chaldee word, signifying ' springs.' " So Dr. Dale : " Fountains, springs." Matthew Henry says, "Many waters; that is, many streams^ of water ; so that wheiever he (John) met with any that \vere willing to submit to his baptism, water was at hand to bap- tize them with ; sludlotv, perhaps, as is usual where there are many brooks, but such as would serve his pui-pose." (Com., in loco.) c. There is great difficulty in locating yEnon,as no place can be found by travellers in that re£,don where there is very much water, except the Jordan. I have found one immersionist authority who thinks he has locatCv. it in the " Wady Farah, about six miles north- east of Jerusalem," as the source of the brook Kcdt, or Ciierith, He says, " It is a very interesting spot, entirely unknown to Chris- tendom." This is a somewhat significant consideration. There is no disposition, however, to deny that there might have been plenty of water at /Enon for the immei'sion of men and women, but if there was, it is highly improbable that the Jews, who were so scrupulous about puritj-, would have used their fountains for this purpose. Besides, it is tolerably certain that John was baptizing in ^'Enon after he was baptizing in Jordan, hence it is somewhat strange, if it was for innnersion purposes he went to /Enon, that an inspired writer should say he was baptizing there because tl^ere was much water, when there must have been a great deal mon at Jordan. If, however, we understand him to mean that it was because there were many springs or fountains of living water there, all is consistent and clear. The foregoing considerations, it is believed, if they do not afibrd ahsolute proof against this immersion objection, do, at least, afibrd a strong ground of support for the aft'usion theory, and establish the consistency of its claims. It is objected, 2. That baptism is said to be a " burial " and " resurrection " (Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12), and the afi'usion theory has nothing in it corresponding to such a view, while the evident allu.sion is to the immersion and emersion of the candidate in baptism, as a great many scholars affirm. This, to many minds, especially the more untutored, is probably the most convincing of all the arguments in favor of immersion, hence it frequently proves efiective in turning the minds and deciding the action of young converts, who often 50 111' a; f- ill I .! iiif ■m I, lit n know little more about interpretinj^ the Bible than "unconscious babes," when they are told that they must be " buried with Christ in baptism." But I hereby enter my strongest disclaimer against such a distortion of this Christian rite. My reasons are, (1) That it is almost universally conceded that the design of Christian baptism is to symbolize the cleansing away of sin tlirough the instrumentality of the blood of Christ, by the agency of the Holy Cihost. If it be not symbolic of this, it is difficult to under- stand why it is called baptism at all. If it was only intended to represent a burial, why was it not called a burial ? If tliis is what it means, let the reader edify himself by rendering it "bury " in all passages where the word occurs, as, f.f/., " Go teach all nations, hary'tncj them." "Whosoever believeth and is buried .shall be saved." " I huvT/ you in water, but He shall bury you in the Holy Ghost." "' Ye shall be buried in the ^oly Gliost not many days hence," etc. But if the.se renderings express the correct idea, then tlie idea of cleansing away sin in baptism nnist be given up, for certainly no single symbol can faithfully represent a purification and a funeral both at once. Such jxn idea is preposterou.s. Hence, before the baptismal controversy goes any farther, it should be definitely understood whether .symbol baptism has to do with the cleansing of the soul or its burial. The two proce.sses are .so unlike, the two conditions are so unlike, the two agencies employed are so unlike, the elements entering into the two things are so unlike that, I repeat, Christian baptism cannot possibly Hgure or .symbo- lize both. We are compelled to choose between the two. Let not our innnersionist friends look upon this demand as a mere technical quibble designed to embarra.ss their position. It is nothing of the kind. It is an honest demand, and all honest and intelligent ini- mersionists must see its reasonableness and feel its force, and for sheer consistency's sake, if for nothing else, they must meet the demand. If it be a burial and not a cleansing, then we must abandon the idea of Spirit .symbolism altogether, for the " "^ater would then represent, not the Divine Spirit, but a grave, the latter and not the former being the proper place of interment for the dead. In such case the Spirit is entirely unrepresented in the transaction, for the water cannot possibly be employed to represent both the Spirit of Go'inal argument. Let us have the 3D H m z ^ o E^ • CO — • o t 00 4^ CD CD t/) CO #-+ Th sionists express vi.3,4, word, s symbol Also, tl our res or the those I the In jmblic Why si sentati commc Tl point I true, r yet I repre8( 2. baptisi 3. candid as mu( 4. the gri out of bury r 5. repres grave, convei taken grave. and oi 6, repres about into V formii transii a drai Christ baptis Divin throu in baj esseni BAPTI and tl opera sense reprei appoi the pi by th the li y%. 1 *' 55 EXPLANATION OF CHART No. 3. This chart, recjuirea little explanation. It is ccntendod by the Immer- sionists that the word bnidizo always n)ean.s to inunerse. If so, it ought t(j express the same meaning when m ruiulert'tl. It is also contended that^Roin. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, are a distinct recognition of immerse as the meaning of the word, since the allusion in these places is to a literal burial in water, tigurin>< or symbolizing the baptism of men and women into Christ, His death, and His grave. Also, that the removal of the camlidate from the l)aptizing element is a tit'ure of our resurrection and Christ's. If this be so, it can be no reflection ujKin\'arist or the sacred ordinance He instituted to represent the facts expressed, and those logically implied, by means of a picture. This is all 1 have done here, if the Immersionist's claim be correct; yet I have never used this diagram in a public lecture that I have not been accused of "caricaturing a sacred ordinance." Why should this be so V It is not considered a caricature to use pictorial repre- sentations of the Lord's Supper, or the crucifixion. There is nothing more common in books, and on the walls of houses, yet nolxidy complains. The points to be observed here, are, 1. That the same water, at the same p(nnt of contact, and at the same moment, must, if the innnersion theory be true, represent three such diverse things as Christ, His death, and His grave, yet I am not aware that water is ever used anywhere else in Scripture to represent either. If so, let the text be (quoted. " j I? 2. The person baptized must represent, besides his own candidacy for bjiptism, a corpse for burial. 3. If the water rei)resents Clirist as well as a grave, then putting the candidate into the water must represent the putting of a corpse into Christ, as much as it does the putting of it into a grave. 4. The administrator of the Christian rite, in putting the candidate into the grave would need to rei)resent a sext(jn or an undertaker; and in taking it out of the grave would need to personate God, for sextons and undertakers bury men, but God Almighty raises them from the dead. 5. If putting a candidate for baptism into the water is intended to represent the putting of him into Christ, into His death, jiiid into His " licjuid grave," then the taking of him out of the water must e([ually represent the converse of putting him in, hence, in this operation, the candidate is figuratively taken "out of" Christ, "out of" His atoning death, and "out (jf " His grave. The latter idea is unobjectionable, but to take a person out of Christ, and out of His death, is a very (jraix allair. 0. It is somewhat unfortunite, too, that this operation is not a symbolic i representation oi anything. There is not a shadow of a shade of symbolism / about it. It is purely and exclusively scenic, or dramatic. Putting a live man v- into wfvter to represent the putting of a dead man into a grave, and tiius trans- forming the man into a corpse and the water into a grave is j)urely a s/km/i. transaction, as is also the resurrection part of it, and to all intents and purposes, a dramatic one at that. And this is a most unfortunate travesty of the rite of Christian bai)tism. 7. It has always been the belief of the Church that the water in Christian baptism was a sfniilml — not a symbol of a grave or death — but a symbol of the Divine Spirit, designed to symbolize also the cleansing ot the soul from sin \ through the agency <>f the Holy Ghost. Two things, then, are to be symbolized i in baptism, the Si)irit's agency, and the cleansing effect. These are fltr tiro I essential things, hence in the absence oi these, or either of them, therk is no { BAPTISM. Yet, in the scenic burial and resurrection the Spirit is unrepresented, i and the cleansing doth not appear, conse([uently thvn: /.s no IxtiditiHi in such an I operation. I therefore Isoldly commit myself to the statement, with a full sense of the responsibility involved, that immersion for baptism, when used to represent a burial and resurrection scene, is an utter vitiation of the sacre(l rite appointed by our Lord Jesus Christ, and a pure superstition invented during the post-apostolic age. These are the principal points intended to be illustrated by this diagram, and it is desirable that the texts referred to may be studied in the light it aflfords. 4 I '^1 Q6 1 1 J I 9: -i (8) And if this in the principle on which the apostle's lan<^uftf(o in verses 3 and 4 is to be understood, it oujjfht to be fair and right, and even retjuisite, when he employs other fifi^ures in the immediate context, illustrating substantially the same or very closely related things, to interpret such context on the same prin- ciple. That is, it' in verses 8 and 4 he is describing some- thing that is to be literally acted out, or represented in a scenic way, can any reasoii be assigned why he is not doing the same thing in verses 5 and (i ? Are they less important < And if not, then we must go through the sham operation of planting the camlidate, in the likeness of Christ's death, and then planting him in the likeness of His resurrection, and afterwards of crucifying him, though it is somewhat strange that the crucifixion should not precede the burial. It would seem a little incongruous to bury a man and resurrect him, and then crucify him afterwards. The fact is, that no man can interpret these beautiful and appropriate figures of spiritual truth on the principle of a .scenic representation of what they describe without forcing into the apostle's language a mixtui'e of incongruities and absurtlitie.s. Those hinted at above are l)ut a part of what any careful reasoner can easily detect. I therefore, again and for the foregoing reasons, enter my solemn and earnest protest against such a perversion of the apostle's words. But, it may be said, as it has often been said, that things are usually put into the water to be wa.shed, and therefore immersion is the most appropriate mode of baptism. This statement, however, is not only misleading, but illogical. It is a palpable begging of the (juestion at issue, and as far as it is intended to apply to per.sons it is an unfounded assumption. But, suppo.se we admit for argu- ment's .sake, that the most usual way of washing per-sons is to put them into the water, still the (question remains, — Is it because people think the word wa.sh re([uires this, and that the person to be wasbi>d cannot be made clean without it ? Or is it to suit their own convenience ? If the latter, then this plea has no weight what- ever in the baptismal controversy, inasmuch as those who immerse claim that the word imperatively demands this, and that nothing else can possibly .satisfy its demands. They imperiously I'ule out the idea of convenience, sometimes, too, at great in-convenience, saying we have no right to take this into the account at all. Just as soon as a man admits the rio-ht to consult convenience in reijard to the mode of baptism, he abanilons the primary claim and accepts the secondary, he surrenders specific action and accepts generic ; or in other words he gives up the immersionist's contention altogether and accepts the position for which the afiusionist contends. But, as a matter of fact, when we put things into the water to wash them, the putting of them in is no part of the washing, but merely a preliminary step to bring the object and the cleansing element into such convenient" relations as to facilitate the operation. Neither is the removal of the object from the water any part of the [Jilt; po.s 1 57 cleansing process. It rather implies that tht> process is completed. Hut in immersi()n-V)aptism the putting- in and takino- out are the (iswiitbd thiiii/s, being designed to repi'esent burial ami resurrection. Then, again, wlien persons are put into the water to wasli them, which is the exception rather than the rule, it is a vary rare thing comparatively to put them completely under tlie water, no one, ab- solutely no one imagining this to be essential; but in immerniou baptism it is said to vitiate the whole operation if the smallest })ai-t of the individual is left out of the water. Complete immersion is the thing contemplated, and is esxcnlUil to this kind of ba|)tism. No one will contend for th's in a washing, therefore tlie plea for putting people into water to wash them is no support to the immer- sion cause whatever, because there is no analogy. Besides, when ])ersons and things are put into water to bo. washed, it is with a view to a physical and not a i-eligious cleansingi a literal and not a symbolic purification. When we wash religiously we are not supposed to go to work as if we were about to give the candidate a bath. If we did this, we should be provided with soap, sponge, towels, etc,, and do a little scrubbing. But this would greatly degrade a religious purification, therefore this plea for put' ting people in the water should be abandoned. The fact is, that in religious symbolism the use of a small (juantity of the syndjolie element, simply to suggest and represent the truth to be taught, is <|uite sufficient, and far more beconnng than the use of a large (juantity ; e.g., the eating of a morsel of bread, and the drinking of a few drops of wine in the Lord's Supper, are far more proper and becoming than the eating of a full meal. (See 1 Cor. xi. 22,) The propriety of the former, and the impropriety of the latter are seen {)y all, in this ordinance; then why not the same rule apply in regard to baptism ? Another objection to the plea for putting people in the water to wash them is, that it is an attempt to interpret an ancient religious rite in the light of a modern, and merely secular custom, instead of trvinsf to harmonize it with the custom of the age 'n which itorinin- ated. For, notwithstanding the oft-repeated a.ssertion of immersion- ists to tlie contrary, few facts are better authenticated than that the ancient bath, as applied to persons, was generally by affusion, as were all manner of ceremonial purifications, hence the ancient model of Christian baptism strongly favors affusion. But having objected to the immersionist's interpretation of the passages referring to burial, I will, doubtless, be expected to pro- pose some other, having a claim to greater consistency. This is easily done. (1), I assume that these passages have no reference whatever to ritual or symbolic baptism at all, and I think I see sufficient proof of this in the passages themselves. In the first place, this baptism is a baptism " into Christ." This I take to be in a spiritual sense and with reference to a spiritual effect. The word " Christ " must 58 ■■ * III 44 I-- bo unclorstood ns rt'ferrinf]f to His niy.stical Ixwly, the Church. (See, 1 Cor. xii. 12, 27 ; Eph. i. 22, 2^ ; Col. i. 18, 24.) The author of these texts liim.self nays, " Jf any man he in Christ, he is a new creature," etc. Whatever the bajitisin is, tlien, it involves the makinji; of us new creatures, i.e., it involves our regeneration. This point is fur- ther sustained by the phraseology in Col. ii. 12. In verse 11, Paul is speaking of regeneration under the tigurt' of circumcision. He calls it a circumcision "not made with hands," "the circumcision of Christ," and it results in the " putting ofi'of the body of tln' tlesh " (sins), therefore it must be the regeneration of the soul. But he says this is effected by our " having been buried with Christ in baptism." Consecjuently, this baptism is not only a baptism into Christ, but a being buried with Him. Are these things true of ritual baptism ? If so, ritual baptism regenerates us and unites us to Christ. (See Rom. vi. 5, R.V.) But furtlier, in this baptism we are " risen with Him." " Risen " doubtless means (|uickened, or brought again from the dead. Paul, in writing to the Ephesians, said, "You hath He quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." Tlie same thing only not imputed to baptism. " If then ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is seated on the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are upon this earth. For ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in God." ((yol. iii. 1-3.) The same thing is again referred to here, and certainly implies that these Colossians were regenerated and made children of God. The same thing is alluded to in verse 13 of chapter ii. The un- regenerate state is called a " being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh," and the regenerate state is described as a being quickened together with him. The quickening, then, is the regeneration of the nature, which is made still more certain by reading the remainder of the same sentence ; "having forgiven us all our trespa.sses." Now, let the reader note this very important fact : The apostle is speaking of regeneration in ver.se 11, under the similitude of circumcision. In verse 13, he speaks of the same thing under the similitude of a ((uicken- ing, or resurrection. In verse 12, coming between the (jther two and connecting them, he speaks of our being " risen," or quickened with Christ in baptism. The question, then, naturally arises, Does he not speak of the same process in all these verses ? Who can doubt it? But in verse 12, he ascribes the effect to baptism : " Having been buried wiih Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him. ' That the " risen with Him " is a spiritual and not a ritual process is put past controver.sy by the statement that it is effected " by the faith of the operation of God ' etc. { A.V.) or, "through faith in the working of God." (R.V.) Surely it is by faith in the working of God and not by the working of a pair of clerical arras that we are regenerated. Then there is nothing left in this passage that can relate to a ritual process, except the burial. wd mi 59 All the rest is spiritual, palpalily ho. And why dva.^ in the ritual for the burial any uiure than t'(jr tht; resurrection, the circumcision, or the quickening ? Is it not luminously evident that a spiritual operation i.s heinj^ figuratively descrihed, under various aspects, all the way along ? And is there not a Spirit haptisu) that regenerates ? Paul (in Titus iii. 5) says, ' Not by works of righteousness which wi^ have done, but according to His niercy He saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." May it not be this of which the apostle speaks? If so, it is possible that ritual baptism is not meant here. And if Spirit baptism is more ethcacious than ritual baptism, this possibility is exalted into a very high degree of probability. And if regenerati(;n is ever ascribed to Spirit baptism, this probability is exalted into litth', if anything, less than absolute certainty. And now, to remove the last shadow of doubt and make assurance doubly sure, this same apostle declares (in Galatians iii. 27-29) that "As many of you as were baptized into Christ, did put on Christ." All fleshly distinc- tions are removed, and ye are made " one man in Christ," and " if Christ's, then Abraham's (spiritual) seed and heirs according to the promise." (Comp. Rom. iv. 11, etc.) Also, in 1 ('or. xii. 1J3, he plainly and uneiiuivocally teaches that "by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body" (Christ), and have these same fleshly distinc- tions reinove.d. " Now ye (the Church), are the body of Christ," (v. 27). We are baptized into the one mystical body of Christ, then, liy the Spirit of God, md not liy the bonds of a man; and Paul, in the verses in question is making no allusion to ritual baptism at aU. (2) In confirmation of this view, if confirmation can be recjuired, let the reader consult the following texts, and see how extensively the believer's spiritual union with Christ is set forth by this apostle in language strictly analogous to that enq)loyed in these burial- baptism texts. (Rom. vi. o, ; Gal. ii. 20; Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12; Rom. vi. o practiced the coverin<4; of the ho(lv in water in ritual I.aptism; nor is it f»jr one \\dio interpreted such hapti.sm as a burial and resurrection; there is not only one such, but one lei,d(m ; but what is .sou^dit is (piite other than this, to wit: one wlio bcdieved that fliis corerhni tcilh ituitrr wa.s Chri.stian baptism." {Chi-(sti,- Ii^hed." (See Exod. xxix. 4-7.) This view is still further sustained by the fact that when our Lord's authority to teach in the temple was called in (juestion by the " chief priests " ^it was the priest's function to teach), He immediately appealed to the baptism of John. (See Matt. xxi. 23-2').) If this theory be accepted, then 1 call attention to the fact that the Jev/ish high priest was "wa.shed" at the door of the tabernacle in the presence of the whole congregation. (See Exod. XXX. 17-21; and xxix. 4, etc.) This washing, too, was most likely effected by sprinkling. At all events we know that the Levites were thus cleansed, (See Num. viii. 7) ; and Josephus says, {Ant. B. 3, c. 8, s. C), that "Wh^n Moses had .sprinkled Aaron's vestments, himself and his sons, with the blood of the beasts that were slain, and had purified them with spring waters and ointment, they became God's priests." Again (in B. 3, c. 6, s. 2), he says, " Within these gates was the brazen laver for purification, having a basin beneath of the like matter, where the priests might wash their hands and sprinkle their feet." Surely such a testimony, from a Jew, living contemporaneous with the apostles, and an author of unquestionable repute, ought to be conclusive on a over idea Eth here nius tho'j tism reas( dip, won " Th read poin posi G5 (luestion of this kind. But even if the theory of sacerdotal cleansinj^ be rejected, still it must have been a Jewish ceremonial purification of some sort, else it could not have been a fultiiment of that law, and the Jews never put men under water to cleanse them, hence the probabilities are all against the immersion theory in this case. It is morally certain, therefore, that Christ ivu,^ not immerml Those who think otherwise are welcome* to the comfort of their credulity. 4. I nee n's seed. I.xii.l3.) \er bond il body) lone bap- T)raham's seed, and heirs according to the promise (covenant)." (Comp. also, Rom. ii. 28. 29 ; ix. 8; John i. 47; Rom. vi. 3-5 and Col. ii. 11, 12, RV.) Thus, it will be seen that the covenant God made with Abraham was the Gospel covenant, by virtue of which redemption is secured to our world, and that this blessing is imparted by the agency of the Spirit (Spirit baptism), and that this was included in, and con- stituted an essential part of that covenant, and not some new thing, the I'esult of some afterthought on the part of Jehovah, hence, the facility with which the Jews embraced type and symbolic baptism at the announcement of the coming of the promised seed, and after- wards. (See Matt. iii. 5-7 ; Luke iii. 7 ; and Acts ii. 88-42.) This thought will be amplitiod under proposition 8. 3. This covenant included infant cliildren. A few references will sufhce. It distinctly specified and included "all the families of the earth." This is all-sufiicient in itself, but for the benefit of those who wish to trace the thought throughout the Scriptures, we refer to Gen. xvii. 1l>, 18, 19, 21; xxi. 8,4; Deut. xxix. 10, 13; Acts ii. 89 ; vii. 2-8. 4. This cove'n ant was " everlastinf/" and must, therefore, still he in force, and. as it can neither he "disannulled nor added to," it must still include infant children. (See Gen. xiii. 15; xvii. 7, 8, 13, 19; 1 Chron. xvi". 15-18; Psa. cv. 8-11; Heb. xiii. 20; Matt, xviii. 10; xix. 13, 14; Mark x. 18, 14; Luke xviii. 16, 16 ; Rom. v. 18, 19 ; 2 Cor. v. 19.) This covenant should not be confounded with the covenant made at Sinai 480 years later. The latter was a covenant of cere- monies, and was only " added " to the other for the purpose of illustrating, foreshadowing and keeping in mind the " good things," or spiritual blessings contained in the original promise, and thus, by drilling the people as a " schoolmaster," in a better knowledge of God's loving purposes concerning them, repressing transgressions until (Christ) the seed should come to whom the promise (in his type-representative, Isaac) was (originally) made." (Gal. iii. 17-24.) The law was a glass, mirror, or type of the " good things to come," but it always wore a " veil." But when the plan of salvation by faith in Christ was more plainly and openly revealed, we had no more need of the "schoolmaster" (v. 25), for now, "we all with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." (Spirit baptism or regeneration. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 18; Titus iii. 5; Col. iii. 10, 11.) The covenant of pedagogic ceremonies, therefore, has " waxed old and vanished away " (Gal. iv. 22-81 ; Heb. viii. 6-18), but the covenant made with Abraham remaineth. But it may be argued by some that the covenant under which we live is called a " new covenant," and therefore cannot be the same as the one that was made with Abraham. This objection looks plausible, and is entitled to respectful consideration. I have 5 i^- ^'^ |f JX--:- . . ■H already pointcil out that Abraham receivod salvation ( ju.stiHcatiori by faith) under the provi.sion.s of that covenant. (Soe Cien. xv. 6; Rom. iv. .'), etc.; (!al. iii. (i ; Jas ii. 2-'i. i I have also shown that we (Gentiles as well as Jews) receive salvation under the provisions of the siune covenant. Now, if it be true that we also receivt; salva- tion miller some other, then M'e must receive it undri' > wo covenants. But what are the facts ? It is customary with the in pired writers to call a per.son or thin>,' "new " that is only " r(?-newed," espticially when the renewal developes .some more spiritual aspect of such pet son or thin,' and iier people a joy is st't forth n",ler the majestic ti. ix. 10); "the regeneration," (Matt. xix. 28): the "ministration of the Spirit" and the "ministration of righteou.sness," (2 Cur iii 8 !i . Comp. also vs. G and 11). The new covenant, therefore, is sin i ply the new or spiritualized form of the old, — the new dispensation nr man agement, — in wliich its spiritual features and significance are ampli- fied and more lully brought to view. E.g., Abraham's seed proves to be a spiritual seed; his inheritance proves to be a spiritual iidieritance ; his two wives and two sons prove t'> possess an "allegorical" and spiritual meaning; Jerusalem, the ancient city, develops into the metropolis of the heavenly Canaan ; the taber nacle, temple and priesthood appear in a spiritual garb; circum- cision, the ancient seal which distinguished the fleshly seed, blooms into a " circumcision not made with hands ; " in fact, nearly every- thing pertaining to the old dispensation, as well as the ceremonial law, had "a shadow of good things to come," and now we have the very " image," or substance of those things. So conspicuous is this fr( in CO Gc m,' pu I'lict, aiul so grt'Jit Its iKipoit: MCI", tliat "aflisptn- ition" orconunis- sion was givon to the ajmHtle Paul to ixpuuiul tlie spiritual mean- ing; of this " mystery, wliicli from the beginnini,' 'f the world had hinm hid in God," but " is m)W revt-aled untf» His holy aj/osties and prophets by the Spirit." (Eph. iii. 1-10: Gal. '\.2r, 17.) And I ven- ture to say, that nc u/m can correctly > r intolli^rem y interpret the Scriptures who i^Miores this considenition. If this explanation be correct, then the term "new covenant" need ^ive u> no trouble. 5. The 8('(d of this covninnl was ('hrumrifiiini.and ffiis seal iva.-< to l)e "in the flesh " of (hoxc who irrve nititlea to its hencfil.s, ''for av rverladiivj covenant," irhich cr'uhnitly means thut the ohl'iga- tioii to a/)/>l>J fh>' " token " to all vew-anaers viUJike the covenant ' t self ne rev be revoked. This beivn ,so, the neallw) of persons liaiming the henefits of the covenant, i Itlier in thcoriiji nxd, or some other dirineii/ appointed fomi, ncii.st still In oblojaton/. {St<^ Gen. xvii. 10-14. and Rom. iv. 'll. 12.) I apprehend that a ^'reat deal of mi.sconception exists re'^'aidine; the seal and sealing in connection with the word covenant in Scrip- ture. Certainly it is a tiirurative expression taken from the cuntom of sealing lepcal documents among nun. In connection with the divine covenant there is no literal sealing; dune, but something so analogous as to justify the use of this teini. The idea of sealing is to make a thing, especially an agreement or contract, sure. Web- ster defines it, " That which eonrirms, ratifies, or makes stable; as- surance; that which authenticates; that m dch secures, makes reliable or .stable." This being the idea of sealing, it will be readily seen that in a C(jvenant or contract between two part.es it is a mutual pledge of fidelity or good faith — a giving to each other some token or as.surance that the conditions and stipulations of the contract will be faithfully kept, and for either party, or any party, to annul, or tamper with such a seal before the term of the contract has expired, and nil its conditions been carried out, would be an ex- ceedingly questional)le and even criminal proceeding Now, trans- fer this idea to a covenant between God and man, and it will be seen that any religious rite, no matter what its outward form, may serve tliis purpose; only the human body and soul being the pr(/- perty to wliieh the covenant of redemption pertains, and inasmuch as this covenant involves the eternal .salvation of this property from sin, and death, and hell, so it is proper that the seal should be in some way aflixed to this ])roperty, and that each party to the contract should give a pledge to the other that .said property should 'le lield sacred to the end contemplated by the contract. The itt sts involved being everlasting, the covenant, to be of any [lermanent value, must also be everlasting; and consequently, a seal or " token ' being (mce ado|)ted it can never be annulled, even by God himself, except in cases where the conditions are violated on man's part ; nor can it ever be di.sregarded by mankind with im"- punity If, therefore, God ever appointed a seal to this covenant, 74 that seal must still exist in some form, else God has withdrawn His guarantee of fidelity in repaid to the salvation of men, and has thu-s practically released us fnun our obligation of fidelity to Him. This would lie a sad condition of things indeed, and if true, would go far to extinguish the world's hope, and undermine men's contidence in God's faithfulness. But is it >o ? We know that God made an "everlasting covenant ' witii mankinlc Scriptures. (See ])i;ut. xxx. (1; Jer. iv. 4; ix. 20; Rom. ii. 28, 2i); iv. 11, etc. ; Col. ii. 11-13. with many others., I wish to show, in the second place, tlmt si)iritual circumcision and regenera- tion are the same thing.* In Deut. x. l(i ; xxx. G; Jer. iv. 4, we read of the " circumcision OL tlie heai-t, " wliicii cannot be a literal transaction, but must l)o spiritual : and I can conceive of no spiritual state to which it e;ui refer, if not to the removal of sin and the regeneration of the nature. The apostle Paul says, in Rom. ii. 2iS, 29, that " He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the Hesli; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circum- cision is that of tlie heart, in th. spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of aien, but of God." It is evident from this pa.ssage tha*, circumcision, in its true significance, is something spiritual, something pertaining to the heart. When the Psalmist felt the burden of sin pressing heavily upon liis .soul, lie prayed, " Create in me a clean heart, God, and renew a right spirit witiiin me." (Psa. Ii. 10.) And what is this but regeneration ? The same thing is called " purifying the heart." (Acts xv. J).) God pronused His ancient people (Jer. xxxvii. 20) that He would give them "a new- heart and a new spirit," by which is doubtless meant the regenera- tion of their hearts. If it be not this, I know not what can be meant. I know of no spiritual operation, other than regeneration, that could be appropriately described by such language, h- ' > cer- tainly a renewal. Regeneration is a " renewing (;f theK jly Ghost," and " that which is born of the kSpirit is spirit." This circumcision, described by the apostle, is a process wrought " in the heart and in the spirit," something " whose praise is not of men, but of God." (See also I Sam. xvi. 7 ; 2 Cor. x. IS). Something of which only the Lord takes cognizance and commends, and not like the circumcision of the flesh that men performed and afterwards boasted about. (Gal. vi. 12.) It must be a .spiritual operntion, therefore, and I confess I cannot understand what spiritual operation is mentioned in the Bible that could be appropriately described by such language, exce])t regeneration. This view is further confirmed by the state- ment in chapter iv. 11, that Abraham "received the sii/D of circum- cision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had," etc. Now, it must be evident to all reflecting minds that if fle.shly cir- cumcision is a " sign " of righteousness, then righteousness itself must be the thing signilied (or si(/n-itied). And how is righteous- ness produced in us, (Alt by regeneration ? The new man is " created in righteousness and true holiness." (Eph. iv. 24.) The true cir- cumcision, then, is that divine; operation in us which results in righteousness and true holiness, and that opeiation is the new birth ; ■'Note. — Tlie tonus "apirituul oircunicisi!>n," aiul " regeneratisurd. And if it was not a covenant of spiritual blessings, why did God enact that " no uncircumcised person should eat of the Passover?" (Exod. xii. 48.) And if it was not a covenant of spiritual blessings, why was it engrafted upon the ceremonial law which was " a shadow " of spiritual things to come, and a religious "schoolmaster" to bring us to Christ? (John vii. 22, 23 ; Gal. iii. 24 ) And if it was a mere promise of an earthly 80 inheritance, why did a distinguislied Jew, inspired of God, oppose its continuance, and tell his brethren that if they wei*e circum- cised Christ would profit them nothing, that they were " fallen from grace ? " And why did he say that if he preached circum- cision " then was the offence of the cross ceased ? " Does not this piove that circumcision and the cross were two rival ways, as it were, of trying to realize salvati(jn, one by the works of the law and the other by grace ? And why did this same distinguislied Jew speak of circumcision as the making of " a fair show in the flesh . . . . lest they should sutler persecution for the cross of Christ," if the " everlasting covenant " of which it was the seal was totally disconnected from the covenant of salvation, and still in force { And if not still in force, when, and why. and where was it repealed ? Has God receded from this covenant made with the fathers ? And why was this earthly covenant alone calkd \\n "everlasting cove- nant ? " for, as a matter of fact, in all the chapters of Genesis where the covenant is made directly with Al)rahan), the seventeenth chap- ter, where circumcision is introduced and appouited, is the only one in which the covenant is called " everlasting." Again, 1 would direct attention to the fact that while the covenant or covenants made directly with Abraham are recorded respectively, or refei'red to, in chapters 12, 13, 15, 17 and 22, the seventeenth is the only one in which circumcision is mentioned, and there it is expressly com- manded. Now, if the covenant of spiritual blessings is recorded in the other chapters, and the covenant of land onl}^ in the seventeenth, can any reason be assigned why this lesser covenant, or covenant of land, should be provided with and distinguished by a neai, or " token," and the greater covenant, or covenant of heavenly bless- ings, left without a seal at all ? Does not this consideration present a. very strange incongruity ? And again, why was the covenant of land only, established especially with Isaac i (Gen. xvii. 19, 21.) Was not he the special child of promise ? Was not he the child of Abraham and Sarah's old age, born when she was " past age," hence miraculously born, and in this respect, among others, a type of Christ i Was he not the " allegorical " (^^typical) representative of the sj^i ritual covenant, pre-eminently ? (Gal. iv. 22, etc.) Was it not because of Abraham's belief in God's promise that " Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed, and thou chalt call his name Isaac," that his faith uas "counted for righteousness?" (Rom. iv. ll)-22.) And wa.^ not the pronusc that Abraham should be a " father of many nations," an \/' i itoin. iv. 17, and Gen. xvii. 16, with H^b. xi. II.) And is it n- a fact, that in pursuance of tlie same promise God changes Aoram's 81 name to Abraham, (multitude of nations), and Sarai's name to Sarah (Princess), because she was to become a "mother of nations," and that " kings of people (were to oe) of her ? " Yet it is a fact that both these changes are recorded in the seventeenth of Genesis, in connection with the covenant of circumcision, and nowhere else. (See vs. 5 and 15.) But to give the reader a bird's-eye view of this whole question I have prepared tliu accompanying chart (No. 4), in the centre of which, at the base is a small semi-circle representing the 17th chapter of Genesis, which contains the covenant of circum- cision. The rim of the circle contains references to this chapter, either direct or by clear and express implication, found in other parts of the Bible. Along the lines running from these references to the small semi-circle in the centre will be found the number of the verse or verses in the 17th chapter to which the reference points. In this way any reader may, in a few moments, test the matter and thus satisfy himself of the fact that, however contrary it may bo to his former teachings or belief, the principal, and even many of the most spiritual references of inspiration to the covenant God made with Abraham, point direcMy to this 17th chapter. How this happened, if the covenant of circumcision contained no promise of spiritual blessings, but only of land, 1 must leave those who so teach to explain, I cannot lay claim to sufficient genius. But, probably the most cogent and unanswerable argument of all is the fact that the apostle Paul distinctly testifies (Rom. iv. 11, etc.), that Abraham " received the niyii of circumcision " (" token of the covenant," Gen. xvii. 11), " (( ,^e((l of the ri(jhteousnefeo|.lo by the apostle, viz., ninissiou of sins, and the <,dft s..f the Holy G ost. (2; As conditions of r- o-dvin;' these blessings two tuings are involved, vi/., faith and r ( lutance, the one expressed, the oth» r implied. (3) Subnnssion to one rite, \\y.., baptism, is enjoined, and this, it will be observed, was by a Jew, and on the great inauguration day of the new dispensation ; and, (4) For his authority in offering these blessings, enjoining these conditions, and requiring th.; observance of this rite, he appeals to some existing covenant or "promise;" and, (5) This covenant included Jews, and their children, and also Gentiles. It is manifest, therefore, that no man can intdh'gently explain these words until he has foimd that covenant or ■ omise. This is the iirst thing to be done. And leniembcr that the responsibility of identifying it does not rest upon the PaKlobaptist's shoulders a^cae. The Antipffidobaptist i^ equally bound Ijy it, and must either show us some covenant in which all these elements meet, or confess him- self nnable to interpret this text. He will probably beg the qnes- tion, as he has always hitherto done, by saying that the children mentioned in the text " must he adult children, because they miisi he," etc. ; but, if so, we take tho liberty of urging upon him the necessity of putting his fingt^r upon any covenant God ever made with the Jews which di <- <> ?l>> <^ '«l> 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 % '^.< 88 and at'terwar'ls renewed with Isaac and Jacob, and sealed with circumcision ; This is the pivotal question in this whole contro- versy, inasmuch as the issue in dispute practically turns upon it. In these pa-^cs I have been trjanj^ to identify the covenant of cir- cumcision ajid the Christian covenant as the same thinc^, and I now propose to show tiiat the i'ornier answers circumstantially to the brief outline sketched by Peter. (a) It involved remission of sins, or justification, (Read care- fully the entire argument in Rom. iii.; iv ; Gal. iii. 5, G ; Jas. ii. 23.) (b) It involved the gift of the Holy Ghost. ])oubtless, God's promise in Gen. xvii. 7, to be a God unto Abraham and his seed after him, involves this. In fact, if that covenant was a covenant of salvation, it must have included all the agencies, instruuioutalities and elements required for giving it effect, and the Spirit was a most essential factor to this end. But, as if to put the matter bcj^ond all doubt, the apostle Paul in Gal. iii. 14, distinctly mentions " the promise of the Spirit," as a part of " the blessing of Abraham," hence that covenant included " remission of sins," and " the gift of the Holy Ghost." But, (c) Its conditions wore, doubtless, faith and repentance. The faith is distinctly 7nentioned (Gen. xv. 0), and quoted by Paul (Rom. iv. IS 22), in direct connection with the argument that Abraham " received the sign of circumcision that he might be the father of £>jl them that believe," as an}?- one can see by carefully reading the chapter. Repentance is implied, though not specifically mentioned, just as faith is implied in Peter's language, though not specifically mentioned. An important rule of Scripture interpretation is, that where a condition is once expressed it must be understood as exist- ing in all .similar cases, though not expressed. Repentance and faith are frequently expressed as conditions of salvation, therefore they inust be understood as existing in both the cases under review, though in the one repentance is omitted, and in the other faith. (d) That covenant included both Jews and Gentiles. " All the families of the earth." .^.Iso compare Gen. xvii. 4, 5, with Rom. iv. 11, 17, and Gal. iii. 8, 14, 28, 29. In fact, the New Testment is full of proof. It is needless to (|Uote more. e. The only remaining point is the initial rite. We know that circumcision was the initial rite of the old dispensation, and that baptism is the initial rite of the new ; and if it be admitted that they are both signs, or symbols of righteousness, or regenera- tian, then the identification is complete ; there is not a solitary element wanting, and it is morally certain that had Peter been addressing a Gentile multitude, and made a change of one singrle word, substituting circumcision for baptism, there is not a scholar on earth who would be so foolish as to question that Peter's refer- ence was to the covenant 'of circumcision, or that would fail to see the completeness of the foregoing identification. It can hardly be said that it must have been the spiritual covenant, and not CHART NO. 5. J 91 the covenant of circumcision that Peter referred to, becn.use, admitting this distinction for arguii:ent'>s sake, the spiritual cov- enant liad no initial rite. No such rite waa appointed until we reach the 17th chapter, where circumcision was instituted. The only other conceivable excuse for rejecting this presentment of the case is unwillingness to acknowledge the substitution of baptism for circumcision as the initial seal. If, therefore, this one point can be satisfactorily established, every objection must vanish, the identity between the covenant of circumcision and the covenant of salvation must be admitted, and infant baptism, as a divinely appointed rite, must be recognized. To assist in the establishment of this point I will first illustrate the relation of all rites to the covenant of redemption by means of the accompanying chart, or diagram, (See explanation). EXI'LAXATlOX OF CHART Xo. 5. ThiH clir.rfc is n \cvy importanc ono. Ifc is designed to exhibit ai: a glance tlio great i'tuula'.-iertal a3i)eet4 of liunian redeuiption, and God'a principal mot'-Hxl of tficliii';^' thca to tlio world. Object iDustratiou is* the most practical, feasible, ciH-ricnt and speedy nicthoc' ot tPHcliiuvc known to iunn, iind the God o*:' nature md rcdjT.tption 'v.is ctnn'oyed it over since tlic Tree ol Life was planted in the g.iixlon of KdHu, and v/i)! eontitmo to use it t"iU tlio Ond of time. 'J'his chn,"fc 13 .np object illnfttralion to represent God'a system of object iU.nstiat'oos. In tl'c first place, let ifc be remri'iborod that liumrn rcdouiption embraces two tlii'T;/". — aioiicr.icjn'". aiid vo<^enoration, — descvil'ed by sonio theologians as redemption by ]n'ice, and redemption l\y power. These are ilu viiok sum of rc sin, by mooting the I'eqniromcntR of law, and thns vindicathig t!'i> )'i';hteonsnor,3 (>f the 'ink.' or Liuvgivtr. (Rom. iii. ^2'), 26.) 'J']>o I'lttov i'^5 rc'dsite to rc^iiiovo tbo pollution if pin and restore to the .-mbject a vli'tnoiia v.iy s '■ jusi riainj^, Avith Iu;ding in his boam^i, upon a lost world. By liin risin;; re hsiiqition for such a wor''l is to revealed, but th's and its cognate tra'Jis are ^pi!ilual and consequently i.'ivisiMe, hence God has adopted ar appropriate niA far-reaching syitciu of object illuslracions to make them tangible to the fu-nscs. They are- rOj^trcscntcd in the chart by the pillars of the smidlosc arch. Tim fihado'Vi of tlioso niDjus ave projected forward iiito space, as it vrere, and their or.tlincs falling upon tho curtain of eacl; dispensation, become visible to tho world in the rcsiicotii e rites and cercmouiee nie\itioned on the shadow-pillars, and the minds of men are thus impressed tlirough tha modiuivi of the eye. -Vnd those pillars represent all the standing ceremonies of the Church throughout all the ages of time. Atcmement involvoH sacrifice. " AVithoufc the shedding of blood is nc remiasion." (Hob. ix. L'2.) It wiil bo seen, therefore, that tho successive shadows repi'csenting atonement are all Kacritices. Regeneration involves pJcansing, therefore it will be observed that all the thadow« repreacnting this i. '■•■■■ f ■; If-- 1 ■ ; . , ... i . ■ ,■,,-. truth are piiritications. Altiir firo is understood to have been a type and symbol of regeneration. (Sue Jsa. vi. 5-7) Oiroumcisjon, in its spiritual import, ii described aa " the i)utfcing away of the sins of the Hosh" (by cutting off, Col. ii. 11), und baptism represents the 8:inie thing eifected by wasliing away sin. (Acts xxii. IG ; Tfcb. x. 22; Titrs iii. 5; and other places.) The purifications of the cfremonial law undoublerily typiiird and symbolized the cleansing away of sin, juK* as baptiaiu symbolizes the sume thing; henco those i>urification8 wore all ceremonial baptisms and are unifurmly so regarded, as is also circumcision, frequently, by the early fathers of the Church. Thus puritication and sacrifice, corresjKuiding to regcnerati be s])i ritual baptism or regeneration, and distinctly shown that this and the circumcision of Christ (v. 11) were identical. But at this point I want to emphasize the fact that the construction of the sentence here involves the same thing. To strip the apostle's statement of all expletives, he says, in substance, that "having been circumcised with spiritual circumcision, you are baptized with spiritual baptism." Or, to express the same thing conversely, " hav- ing been baptized with spiritual baptism, you are circumcised with spiritual circumcision." The one thing is, therefore, equivalent to the other, or results in the other. The idea evidently is that in Christ you are made '" new creatures," whether this great fact be described by the name and under the figure of baptism or circum- cision, therefore the two terms describe substantially the same !;hing. • In fact, no one can make sense out of the apostle's lan- guage on any other principle of interpretation. This point being established, it follows undeniably that as ritual circumcision was a " sign" of spiritual circumcision, and as ritual baptism is a sign or symbol of spiritual baptism, and these two terms in their .spiritual sense being the same thing, their respective signs must be the same thing, inasmuch as " things that are equal to the same thing are equal to one another," therefore ritual circumcision and ritual baptism are, in import, identical. 3. This point may be established in another way. Circumcision was a symbolic "seal of righteousness " (Rom, iv. 11), therefore the righteousness it symbolized must have been the spiritual seal of the covenant. I have shown that Spirit baptism, or regeneration, results in righteousness, and this is called the sealing of the Holy Spirit (Eph. i. 13 ; 2 Cor. i. 22) ; and this is no doubt what is meant by "the seal of the living God" (Rev. vii. 2); and as symbol bap- tism is a visible representation of spiritual baptism, so it must be a symbolic seal of righteousness, as circumcision was, hence they are fers t(, in the 1(1 pro- jsented V if the I, as the taught I'erence he Re- mptism aspired :)eak.ing \ a cir- body of buried baptism ivn that But at in of the apostle's ing been ed with ,y, " hav- sed with talent to , that in ■j fact be circum- bhe same tie's lan- int being ion was a I sign or ■ spiritual the same thing are nd ritual cumcision :efore the seal of the eneration, the Holy it is meant tnbol bap- must be a ;e they are ^i- CHART NO IDENTITY OF THE COVENANT OH ART NO. 6 UNDER ALL DISPENSATIONS w 97 iJentical.^ And what is this scaling but applying redemption to the individual, the seal standing as the representative and guaran- tee of every item in the contract; and this seal applied by the Spirit is the actual communication of those blessings, in such degree as to meet the present needs of the individual, hence called "the earnest of odr inheritance" (Eph. i. 14), and the earnest of the Spirit" (2 Qoy. i. 22). Then ritual baptism is simply the m.iking of this spiritual operation visible by means of an appropriate material symbol, hence it must be the seal in symbol, or the symbol seal. I confess to some sense of shame in arguing at such length a case that is so simple and transparent, yet I am sensible that the most momentous issues depend upon the way in which this question is settled, and I am equally aware that the point I am striving to rnaintain is very stoutly denied and opposed by all Antipsedobap- tists, hence the necessity for line upon lino. Now, to make the ground of my contention plain to all — far more so than any verbal argument that could be employed— I have devised the accompany- ing diagram. (See explanation.) EXPLANATION OF CHART No. 6. This chart is an attempt to illustrate the idea tliat the covenant by virtue of which men are saved is the same under all dispensations. The first intimation of redeniption, it is believed, is lound in Gen. iii. 15, where God said to Satan, " I will put eumitj' between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou slialt bruise Ids heel." The woman's seed here is, doubtless, Christ. His bruisini; Satan's ]u;ad is unques- tionably the breaking of Satan's poM'er and dominiou. (Comp. 1 .John iii. 8 ; Heb. ii. 14 ; Rev. xx. 1-3 ; and all the instances where Christ cast out devils.) The bruising of Christ's heel is, doubtless, His betrayal and crucifixion, or the death of His human body, (See Luke xxii. 3-0 ; Mark xiv. 21 ; John xiii. ti6, 27.) If this interpretation bo correct, then tlie whole scheme of human salva- tion was contained in that original curse pronounced on Satan, even as the fruit is contained in the bud, or the oak in the acorn. The covenant, with Abraham, to give him a numerous spiritual seed in and through Christ, by Isaac's line of descent, was simply the unfolding of this germ, and was designed to secure sal- vation, in provision, for "all the families of the earth." (See Rom. v. 18, 19; 2 Cor. V. 18, 19; 1 Tim. ii. 5, 0; Heb. ii. 9; John i. 29, and many other places.) The circles represent this covenant of salvation at the tliree principal periods of its development, viz., at Adam, at Abraham and at Cliri-t. Here we have, "first, the blade (as it were), then the ear, then the full corn in the ear;" or, first, the bud, then the flower, and then the fruit. It will be obsei'ved that the principal elements and individuals that distinguish this covenant are placed between parallel lines running all the way from Adam, or from Gen. iii. 15, to Christ. These elements and individuals are "Faith," " Righteousness," " Inheritance," ' ' Perpetuity," " Numerous Seed," including " Infants, " Jesus Christ," the procurer or source of all our blessings, and the " Holy Ghost," the divine agent in their bestowment. They are the same under all dispensations, only their manifestations are clearer and fuller the further wo come down to- ward Christ. The covenant with Abi'aham included all these blessings. Cir- cumcision was the divinely appointed "token " or " seal." Those who received this seal, received God's pledge of all those blessings, and gave (!od their pledge \i that they would love, serve, and trust Him, and tiie keeping of that covenant was the condition of receiving its blessings. The covenant under its "new." 98 o'r'spiri'titi'iiliijod fiirii\, i-'clmloH' no Hessi'ngs tluf; the olil did ik)!. Tt in simply God's covenant df snlv.ition under its Ohristian fonn. Its Henl - precisely tho same in its spiritual ai£;niticaIlC(.^ -ih circuiuciHiou — is ritual biiptimn, and thoao who receive this seiil tti-d.iy nxeivo (jod's pleilg* of theso samo blessings and give God tlieir jdedgo that they will love Him, serve Hini, and trust liiiu, and the keeping of this covenant is the condition of roceiviui,' its 1)lossini»R. Bap- tism, then, signifies and seals th',' same things ns circnnicisii)n (the diiiorences are explained in the body of tlie work). This covenant under its old form un- questionably included infant cliildren, and tlxo seal was applied to them when they were eight days old, The covenant being the same, but tlio dispensation being greatly improved (see L* Cor. iii. fill; Heb. vii 22 : viii. ('-13), and not the slightest intimation having been givei> by the Ahnigli*'y that children are now excluded from the covenant and denied the seal, the presumption is that they are still in the covenant, and tliat the seal is to be still ajjplicd. In fact, the texts quoted under the head uf •• Inianlij " in the oliart, together with the argument in the text of tliis worlv, m;dy its guardians during its minority and by itself ever afterwards, to be entitled to the protection. hoU'TS and iinuumities of the State, else it becomes alienized. So, especially, of the d'vine government. Every human being brirn is bound to comply with >od's requirements in order to share in His inheritance, otherwise he becomes an " alien frooi-tlvo commonwealth of Israel, and a stranger to the covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." (Eph. ii. 11, 12; tyjnfied Gen. xvii. 14.) And surely it is better to put the seal of this obligation upon the individuiJ so early in life that he will never know a moment when he was free to disregard it, and then *' train him up " to a sense of this obligation as soon as his infant ndnd is susceptible of moral impressions. Not to do this is wrong, but the fact that it is not always done is no disparagement of the wisdom and propriety of such an arrangement. Beaifles, the inheritance promised, one would suppose, nmst be worth all that is required of us in the conditi■<... 1. 'J'he apostlcH hapti;^d whole households. (See Acts xvi, 16, •IS, 8.". ; xyiii. 8 ; 1 Cor. i. 1(J.) And the proLability is that some, at least, of these households contained children under the years of a<'countability. At all events, it is a well-established fact that when proselytes, who were parents, joined the. Jewish common- wealth, under the old dispensation, the whole family, youno; and old, were baptized, and it is hardly likely that less than 'this would be recjuired when the father and mother of a family joined the new spiritual commonwealth- -the Church of Christ. This probaliility is greatly enhanced by the consideration tliat Christian baptism was the l)adge of distinction to the spiiitual Israel as ciroumcisiou had been to the literal seed ; and inasmuch as Christ recognized in- fants as belonging to the spiritual commonwealth, so it seems exceedingly proper that they should wear the badge of that com- monwealth. I am entirely aware of the fact that the word " household " does not specifically prove that there were infants in any of these families, and I am also aware that very strenuous efforts are made by some to prove that no children were in those families, but I am none the less thoroughly convinced that the mention of household baptism very strongly favors my contention that infants were baptized. The New Testament was written 1>v Jews, and we have to consider not so much whether there were infautM in these particular households, as whether this word was calculat-ed to convey that impression to a Jew. Let any one who desirs^s to test this matter take his concordance and run ovor the instances recorded in the Old Testament where this word is used, and 1 am sure he will rise from the inquiry strongly impressed with the odii- viction that no Jew could take any other meaning out of it, for it was the common practice among th(! Old Testament writers to use. this term to describe a household where there wore childreji of all grades, and so, doubtless, it was understood among them. Besides, the Greek word here rendered house, and household, expresses the same idea; hence I claim that the doctrine calculated to be taught by this term, regardless of the facts in the particular households mentioned, was that all in the house were to be baptized, whether old or young. The objection generally urged against the presumption that there were children in these households, is the fact that in ^luj6st every case something is said to have been done of which children were incapable, as believing, hearing, or some other action that only adults could have performed. But to any one conversant with the usual modes of expression there can be no difficulty. Take an example or two on this line. We read in Matt. iii. 5,, 6, "There went out to him (John) Jerusalem, and all Jfudea, all the region round about Jordan, and VjCrQ baptized 9! him in Jordan, confessing their sins." Now, apply the principJe, that i 100 what is affirmed in a general statement must apply to each individorl involved, and you find no children in all the region de?cribcd, iMasnmch as they could not have gone out to John, nor could they have confessed their sins. The same remarks would apply to tlic passage of the Red Sea by the Israelites. (Ex. xiv.) If the ;j:Gneral statement of the case must necessarily apply to each individual, thoro could have been no infimts in the Israelitish nr.tion afc thrt time. Bat ccrtainl}' it may be accepted as a safe and unvarying canon of interpretation that general statements must not bo held Us necessarily doscrilnng or specifying eacli particular involved. (See Acts xvii. IG ; 2 Thcss. iii. 10 ; John i. 11 ; Luke vi. 30 ; xvi. 16.) And this rule r.i tacitly accepted by every man in all the ordinary afiairs of life. But v.dicn a point is sought to be made against some teaching tliat is dist-.^r^teful to us, it is very convenient sometimes to ignore it. Lot any )nan try however, for a single day, to express himself on the opposite principle, and he will probably have somcidsa of the utility of the rule. Let the rule, however, be applied in the case of these households, and there will not be much trouble in determining that there v/cre, in all probability, infant cluldren at least in some of them. It would be very strange, indeed, to find so r.iany families mentioned, especially Jewish families, in which therii were no little folk. 2. Another argument in favor of infant baptism may be found in 1 Cor. vii. 14 : " For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believ- ing husband ; else were your children unclean ; but now are they holy." Doubtless, in penning these words, Paul cast his languag'e in a Jewish mould, and wrote from the standpoint of ceremonial dis- tinctions. Under the ceremonial law the distinction between clean and unclean, holy and unholy, was constantly recognized. But this distinction, as far as it was purely ceremonial, was merely objective, or legal. It did not necessarily involve any subjective condition at all, although it pointed to and illustrated such condition. A case apparently arose in the Corinthian Church as to whether the infant children of mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers were to be reckoned among the objectively holy or unholy, clean or unclean class. If the former, then the Church, the objectively clean, or holy people, must count them in among their members ; if the latter, they must count them out, not because of any actual unclea' ^jss, but because the Church could not extend its jurisdic- tion to them, and superintend their religious training as if either or both the parents were believers. If both were unbelievers the apostte would have them counted out, until one or both of the parents were brought to Christ ; then he wo\dd have them counted in, and treated accordingly. If this be the correct interpretation of this passage, then it teaches that the infant children of believers, even wbore but one of the parents is such, are to be counted as belonging to the family of believers, and if so, then it follows that they should receive the badge of discipleship, Christian baptism. ■ to each he region John, nor ks would (Ex. xiv.) ly to each r.sraeliMsh as a safe ents must particular ; Luke vi. (lan in all ) bo made onvenieut ingle day, probably wever, be be much ty, infant ^e, indeed, families, be found ed by the he believ- are they Tuag-e in a Dnial dis- een clean But this objective, condition . A case he infant believers , clean or ely clean, s; if the Y actual jurisdic- if either ivers the !i of the counted tation of relievers, nnted as 3WS that baptism. ■ i i.i; >A'f 'n''.l <>J 'd » : ! 103 3. The historic arguvnoit wo have no space to examine. It has been clone so often and .so \s-cll, however, hy others, that it is scarcely necessary to repeat it here. Suhice it to say that thcro is complete agreer-ient amonj,' the eni-ly fathers that infant children shonld be baptized; that baptism had como In the room of circunicifdon. and should he applied on the eighth day after birth, and that the (>rder to baptij^o them had eouie dov/n from the apostles. 1 cite Origen, Cjprian, Pelagius, Anoustine, both the Councils of Cartha^jo, and a host of other witnesses, all of Avhose testimony points to and con- lirms the belief that infant chilo'rrji have alwr.ys been Imptized by the Church t.ince the days of the apostle-:. T fm aware of the doubtless repi'osenting- jiearly, if not quite, the AvhoJe Church at that tiuxC, it was unanimously decided that in cases of necessity (proba- bly where there was a prospect of death), they uuo•h^ he baptized before the eighth day ; find in the secoiid Council of Carthage, lield in 418 A.D., or about tliree centuries after the apostolic age, and composed of two hundred and fourteen Ijishops, an anathema was pronounced upon anj' one who should say thnt infants might not be baptized as soon as they came from their mother's womb ; and Pelagius said he "ne>'er heard of an* impious heretic, even, who would deny baptism to infants." Now, though the authority of these early fathers is sadly faulty in many respects, so far as f'.eir doctrinal views arc concerned, ^-et in matters involving the historic data of those early centuries during which they lived, they are certainlj' more comi:)etcnt authorities than any man of modern times can claim to be, especially a.s they had documents in their pos.session which have long since perished, and their proximity to the events in point of time, greatlj' facilitated the acquisition by them of a correct knowledge of those events. We prefer, therefore, to rely on their disinterested testimony in a matter of this kind, rather than the quibbles of interested parties living from fifteen to eighteen hundred years later, who have set about the removal of this ancient landmark, because it stands in thevray of their beloved dip theory. To perceive at a glance the relative proximity of those early fathers, and councils to the apostolic era, the reader is referred to the accompanying " Chronological Chart," No. 7. Many minor considerations I must pass by, having already con- siderably exceeded the contempla.ted limits of this work, and pro- ceed, as briefly as possible, to answer a few of the If Principai- Objections Urged against the Foregoing Views. 1. It is affirmed that there is no comm^>i a in the New Testa- ment to baptize children. I >r 'J 104 Answer. — If our argument from the covenant and the seal is sound, the command to baptize at all is a command to baptize infants. It is, therefore, no answer to the arguments employed to say that there is no command. This is a case of petitio principii, or a begging of the question. The command is, " Go, make dis- ciples of all nations, baptizing them." Now, it devolves upon the objector to show that my argiiments are unsound or fallacious, before he can affirm that tliis command does not include children. It matters not that they are not mentioned specilically. This proves nothing. It is declared to bo the will of God that " all men shall be saved." There is no specific mention here of either women or children, but we prove by other texts that they are included. So in the texts, " As by one man's offence judgment came upon all men to condemnation, so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." And Jesus Christ, " by the grace of God tasted death for every man," and many more similar ones, there is no mention of women and children, yet no one disputes that they are included. Then, iii regard to positive insti- tutions, there is no express command transferring the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, yet few Christians doubt that this was intended. There is no mention of women as having received, and no .specific intimation that thoy were designed to receive, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, but it is agreed by common consent, tliough with far losn of Scripture proof than infant baptism, that they shou^d receive it. It is not sufficient, therefore, to say that there is no command. Inductive reasoning, if the various steps in t^^ process are correctly taken, is one of the most cogent kinds of reasoning. It must be proved, therefore, that our premises are untrue, or that the conclusion does not logically flow from them, else our position nuist be accepted as proven. Moreover, it cannot be proved , except by inferences no pUiner, if as plain as those claimed in support of infant baptism, that any infant will ever be raised from the dead, or go to heaven. Let no one, therefore, feel concerned about the legitimacy of infant bap- tism for want of an express command to baptize them. 2. It is denied that baptism takes the place of circumcision, under the new dispensation, or that it is connected with the same covenant. This has been so fully dwelt upon in a former part of the work that it need not be amplified very extensively here. The force of this argument consists in the claim that God made two covenants with Abraham; one spiritual and heavenly, the other earthly, embracing chiefly the land of Canaan, for " an everlasting pos.session." This latter, it is claimed, was sealed with circumcision, the former having no seal. That is, the covenant of an earthly Canaan was dignified and secured by a seal, that of the heavenly, and consequently the more important, was left without any such distinction. Nothing can more effectually shatter this objection -than to show that the promise of the land is coupled with the CO 6 z h- < o o M H cc Eh O > o o w ffl H O M CC M O o o fa o H !> o o W H fa O o M H <5 O M fa H |Z5 i 03 P3 Eh ?! !2; >o M o T c ,d +3 Cm -P § (O ■d •i , »■ ^ -p 0) ,i4 • c8 a w-^ CO •^ fH 5 M -d -Nl I 2' 1^ o o M •d I I I p. s 5 .^^ 106 covenant vi every case prior to tbe appointment of drcuracisiou, and must Mierefoio vitiate the claim of every such covenant to the dignity of a spiril ual or heavenly character. (See the accompany- ing diagram, No. 8.) EXPLANATION OP CHi\RT No. 8. The covuimnt (vod niado with Al)raham ia mentioned in the twelfth, thirteenth, l!iL.L'outh, seventeenth ai>d twonty-nccond eliaptora of Gonesia. Ita repetition to iu)d rouowal with laaao is recorded in chapter twonfcy-aix. Now, in this diu'^rani perpendicular cohnuiia are rulad for eoch of theae chapters, wilh lUo nundjer of tho chapter printed at the top. Then, below is printed sep.-.iitely in JiorizonhO lines, c^ich clai'se of tho covenant na fonnd in theie soTona i liapte)'^. Underneath each of theoo will l)0 found the verse in which such clause it found, printed in the chapter colmuri where it belongs. In tho right liaud ct'uinn of pU will be found, opposite each cUiuho, the New Testnment references to tho eame. By thia means tho reader can take in the wlmlu Bitiiatii) 1 in a x.iomcnt (vithout the troi.))le and confusion invohod in >eai'cliing out tho sovoial roforencog for himsclt. By a reievence to tlio ijlauae "UntD thy 3oed will I j^ive tliis land," it will i>e jieen that it occurs in ad the chapter., fro.n the twelfth to the 8c\ontconth, inclueivo, thout;h the twelfth elinpter is (VPii.iidered, lu'o-eniiiinitly, tiio coveuimt of spii'tual blosnings, j'et it contain.^ tho promise of the h.nd. But as hiii been shown, and may bo seen by a reference to Heb. xi., thia was a jjromiso of a heavenly inhoritance under the lif:;ura of art oartlily ono. It i^ denied, tliereioro, thai there Avove two eovenanta m.-ule with Abraham. Tho ouG covenant, howc ve-', is referred to in diiferont places, and chax'actcrized by Home dii'ors'tj'in the ttateinemt, bu; evidently the aarne covenant is intended in every case. In fact, out of iibout forty-live distiaet ;;nd unmistakable references to tliia cohiprci; wii:h Abraham iiader the tit,le of "covenant," the word is only u.':ed three times in tho pi.ira^ nu.abor. and tlieho alnMyp in a way evidertiv de.?igno,d to include tha eovsnanc made with the laraelitish nation at Sinai, (tsee Horn. ix. 4 ; Gal. iv. 24 ; ami Ej)h. ii. 12.) And out of about forty-thvee distinct references to thia con pact undor the title of "promise," the word is only used in. the plural form aevon times, and in about half of thcao oaica in a \.'ay eviikntly intended to include all the promisea maritanee, that is " iticorruptiljle, uiideliled, and that fadeth not away," is left without a seal '! Lot those believe it who can, but I must ask to be excused from such credulity. Moreover, it is a fact that heaven is, accordin-^" to the New Testament Scriptures, to be the eterm-l abode of all saints, including- "Abraham and Isaac and Jacob," (See John xiv. 2, 3; xvii. 24)" 2 Cor. V. 1; Hob. x. .'34; J Pet. i. 3, 4; and Comp. Matt. viii. 11; Luke xvi. 22; Heb. xi. IG); therefore no eartidy inhoritanco was ever desin;ned by the Almighty to he the eternal abode of His people. Besides, this earth itself, including tho land of Canaan, is to be utterly destroyed (see 2 Cor. iv. 18, and 2 Pet. iii. 10, 11), hence the objection we are examining is as foundatiouless as "the baseless fabric of a vision.' 3. It is objected that faith is an essential prerequisite co bap- tism ; that infants cannot believe, therefore they should not be baptized. This is an old objection, and witii some people it appears to possess all the force of a divine oracle, therefore it will doubtless shock some people's sensilnlities when it is flatly denied that faith is an essential condition of ritui.l l-aptLsm. We a.sk, aiul Vv'ill ask in vain, for one solitary toxt of Scripture that teaches such a doe- trine. Whore is it, wo ask? Ani echo answers, "Where?" It will not do for people who repudiate iaferential evidence in iavor of infant baptism, to use it theuiseives in opposing it, though I deny that there is a solitary text of Scripture that tcache-5 the doctrine in question, even inl'ereiitial'y. It is not suilicient to prove that faith is an essential condition of ritual baptism in the the case of adults, for this would require tlic as.suinptiou — not inference — that the same lule prevails in case oi' children, for the fact is, tlio law is made for adults and not for children, hence we can never infer that any la%v' >vriLten for adults is appli- cable to children. Let us try a ease or two. "If any will not work, neither shall he eat. ' Does this apply to children? " ILo that believeth not shall be damned." Does this apply to children ? "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ let him be anathema." Does this apply to children ? ' Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." Does this apply to children' "Pray without ceasing, and in every thing give thanks.' Does this apply to chihlren ? But I need not multiply instances, suffice it to say that " what the law saith, it saith to tliem who are under the law," and children are not under the law, because they are incapable of either understanding or obeying it. But we will take the case of Abraham and Isaac, which are precisely similar, for illustration. As Abraham was the "father " of the Jewish nation, doubtless his was a representative case. And of him it is written that he ,1; 108 " ltcOiove«l (^od.ancl it wns countoil to liiiii for riirhteoufiness," Then "lie rfc»'ivt'(l the sii^ii of eirciiinclsion, u srul of tlit! rio;liteousncs.s of tho faith which ho hail, y«'t Imin;^ uncircuiMeiH«Hl." (Kotii. iv. 11.) Now, ic is manifoMt hei'o (Imt Ahraluiiu's faith proceilcd, and lo<:;i- ctlly.slioiiM linvi> j)roc(idod his circwmcision. lb is no answer to thia to say that thl.s was not always the ease auioni.; the .lews, for ftH a matter of fict, tliu rule was, after Abraham's day, to circum- ci.so in infancy. I .liniply cite Ahraiiam's as a lepresentativo case, or a else in wliieh llie iiile for adults iinds illustration. Can any one deny this ? If not, we ]trocee