^, '> IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /.<^ 1.0 I.I ■alM 125 1^ li. 12.0 ill Hil ..i '•25 jlljU |i.6 ^ 6" » ^ ^>' '/ Photographic Sciences Corporation ^\ 'iP V ^ •''. <^ ^ 23 WiST MAIN STMET WIBSTIt.N.Y. MSM (716) 872-4S03 4 ^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Tachnical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notaa tachniqua* at bibliographiquaa Tha Instituta haa anamptad to obtain tha baat original copy availabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua. which may alter any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction. or which may significantly changa tha usual mathod of filming, ara ehackad baiow. □ Colourad covars/ Couvartura da coulaur □ Covars damagad/ Couvartura andommagia □ Covars rastorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura rastauria at/ou palliculia □ Covar titia missing/ La titra da couvartura manqua I — I Colourad maps/ Cartas giographiquaa an coulaur □ Colourad ink (i.a. othar than blua or black)/ Encra da coulaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noiral □ Colourad platas and/or illuatrations/ Planchas at/ou illuatrationa 9n coulaur D D D Bound with othar matarial/ RalM avac d'autraa documants Tight binding may causa r^^adovis or distortion along intarior margin/ L& re liura sarria paut causar da I'ombro ou da la distorsion \9 long da la marga intiriaura Blank laavas addad during rastoration may appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar possibia. thasa hava baan omittad from filming/ II sa paut qua eartainas pagas blanchaa ajoutias lors d'une raatauration apparaiasant dans la taxta. maia, lorsqua cala ^tait possibia, cas pagas n'ont pas «t« film^s. L'Institut a microfilm* la maiilaur axampiaira qu'il lui a At* possibia da sa procurer. Las details da cat axampiaira qui sont paut-Atra uniquas du point da vua oibliographiqua, qui pauvant modifier una image raproduite. ou qui pauvant exiger une modification dans la mAthoda normaia da filmaga sont indiquis ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pagaa da coulaur □ Pages damaged,- Pages endommagAas □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pagas reataurias at/ou peiliculAes Pagas discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d*coior*es, tacheties ou piquies pn Pagas detached/ D Pages ditachies Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prin Qualiti inigaia da I'impression Includes supplementary matarii Comprend du materiel suppl^mantaire Only edition available/ Saule Mition disponible r~^ Showthrough/ nn Quality of print varies/ nn Includes supplementary material/ r~*l Only edition available/ Pages wholly or pertiaily obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Lea pfiges totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une peiure, etc.. cnt *t* filmias * nouveau de fa^on i obtanir la meilieure image possible. C2 Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppiimantairas; VarkMis paginfli. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-daaaoua. 10X 14X 18X 22X 2SX 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X Th* eopy filmed h«r« ha« b««n r«produo«d thanks to th« g«n«rosity of: Harold CamplMll Vmh^mo MMnorial Library Aeadia Univtnity L'oxomplairo fllm4 fut roprodult grioo A la OAnAroaltA da: Harold Campball Vaiighan Mamorial Library Aaadia Univanity Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha bast quality possibia considaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract spacif icatlons. Laa imagaa aulvantaa ont 4t* raproduitas avac la plua grand soin, compta tanu da la condition at ii» la nattat* da i'axamplaira film*, at an conformity avac laa eonditlona du contrat da fiimaga. Original copias in printad papar covers ara filmad beginning with tha front covar and ending on tha last page with a printed or illuatrated imprea- sion, or tha back covar when eppropriate. All other originel copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, arul ending on the last pagr< with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplalres orlglnaux dont la couvartura an papier eat imprlmte aont fllmte an commen^ant par la premier plat at en terminant aolt par la darnlAre page qui comporte une emprelnte d'Impression ou d'illustration, soit par la second plat, salon ie cas. Toua les autrea exemplairas orlglnaux sont filmis en commenQant par la pramlAre page qui comporte une emprelnte d'Impression ou d'illustration at an terminant par la darnlAre page qui comporte une telle emprelnte. The lest recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain tha symbol — »> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suhrants apparattra aur 'a dernMre image de cheque microfiche, aeion Ie caa: la symbols -*> signifie "A SUIVRE", Ie symbols Y signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartas, planches, tableeux, etc., peuvent Atre fiimia i dea taux da reduction diffiranta. Loraque hi document eat trop grand pour Atra reproduit en un seul cllchA, 11 est fllmA A partir de Tangle aupAriaur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de heut en bes, en prenent Ie nombre d'imagas nAcesselre. Les diagrammea auivants iilustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 12 3 4 5 6 '.""■"■.■;. liii i«m^^i«in^PiiiiW|i^|iiHpiiiipipill«Hpiai^ BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS ON BAPTISM. ■pi ^IW M i I 11 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS \ ON BAPTISM. f' THE EARLY CHURCH HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM, WITH AN BZP0BT7BB OF TBE STBTEMATIO POLICY OF BAPTIST CHURCH PUBLICATIONS OF MISQUOTATION FBOM INFANT BAPTIST WRITERS, AND OF MISREPRESENTATION IN OENBRAL, PROVEN FROM BAPTIST AND OTHER SOURCES. BY THE REV. JOHN BETHUNE, ^Mlyyttrian 'ilinUUr, Ohe$ley, Ont. TORONTO: PBESBTTEBIAN PBINTINa HOUSE, 102 BAT STBEET. 1876.^ i T NOTE. In the beginning of March and after several very distorted and unworthy anonymous accounts of our then recent and brief controversy in Ghesley had appeared in some public papers from interested parties, with zealous private efforts of a like nature among neighbours unacquainted with the facts, I intimated in a local newspaper and elsewhere that I intended to pubhsh soon the account now presented in the following pages ; in consequence of which many have looked forward to its appearance with interest, and expected it long ago. I must therefore make an explanation of its delay. To secure its early issue, and having other duties to attend to, I constantly sat up burning the nightly oil long after all others around were ' hushed in nature's sweet repose,' and foi'warded the manuscript to the printer in the first week of April. From previous correspondence I anticipated its readiness for publication early in May. But from incidental circumstances in his department affecting other works in his hands equally with mine, it was not commenced for some time after receipt, and its progress afterwards was protracted by intermittent cessations from press of special business. But while regretting (and fret- ting somewhat at) the delay, I have taken advantage of it to add some more useful matter, and among other things, in the Appendices at the end ; where the reader will find specimens of the style and policy adopted in high and lower quarters of misrepresentations in connection with ourselves, and will not fail to see in them an identity in nature and aim with those on the question in general brought out to view throughout this treatise. . Augusty. 1876. ' J. B. A ,-- * ■ ^ r'- it .A'' I PEEFACE. t The first part of the following treatise is a lecture I de- livered to a very large meeting in our Presbyterian Church here on the 27th of January last, on the sys- tematic policy of misquotation from Infant Baptists of • eminence in books issued by Baptist Publication Soci- eties, circulated widely among the people, and made use of largely by Baptist ministers in their discourses ; with a review of the early church History of Infant Baptism a,nd the Baptist policy of misrepresentation on that sub- ject; established from their own writings. The following explanation of local matters will enable the reader to understand the immediate bearing and occasion of that lecture. In June last (1875) the Baptist congi-egation here (which is close communionist) opened their new church, and in September following, engaged the ser- vices for some time of the Rev. Mr. Carnes to minister to them, who remained till the end of February. He at once entered on his labours with marked vigour of speech, and some striking peculiarities of doctrine and manners. His characteristic style was throughout de- nunciatory of other denominations. Among other things he constantly took exception to the commonly believed duty and value of prayer in relation to " for- giveness " and " salvation," to use hie own expressions. To pray for these he described as useless and contrary to the New Testament. Our sins were buried more than 1800 years ago in the grave with Christ; God offers forgiveness as a gift, which we are to take, but al ^*D\<^^ itms :;t;:"t;''"ttz::: VI. PREFACE. not to ask. None ever got salvation in answer to prayer. In old times it used to be, Seek and ye shall find, but is different now; it is Jesus who seeks us. Also, to exhort unbelievers to pray to God, which he spoke of as commonly practised, he denounced (though none of the usual denominations, so far as I know >• exhort any to pi-av in unbelief, but the reverse. We got the name of it, however). He spoke strongly • against the practice of teaching children to pray the- Lord's Prayer. In short, ])rayer according to him,, ought to begin onh'^ after forgiveness has been received,, which is not to be asked for itself at all, nor whatever else he meant by * salvation.' The first day of the week he affirmed, was iy)t the Sabbath day. The Word of God is the only rule of faith, and in it the Sabbath was never changed from the seventh day to the first, etc^ Those acquainted with Plymouth Brethrenism will re- cognise the above as identical with it on those subjects ;, and, withal, he was a very zealous Baptist. For In- fant Baptism and sprinkling, or " baby sprinkling " as,, (like Baptists generally) he preferred to call it, he had all abhorrence. As he described himself from time to time, he spoke " fearlessly," without " mincing " his words. Caricature and ridicule, (for which he had a particular taste) he used without reserve. ^ ■_■, It so happened also, as the Methodist minister and. myself have congregations at a distance to attend to in the after part of each Sabbath, that there was no other evening meeting in the village, except in the Baptist church; to which from that circumstance, with the^ striking novelties of Mr. C.'s doctrines, laughable allu-^ sions, and his assaults on Infant Baptists in general, and Infant Baptism, a considerable number of the village PREFACE. Vll. people went in the evenings to iee and hear the un- usual minister. About two months fully after he came here, and when his peculiar doctrines and manners were the universal conversation, I (December 5th) preached (from John iv. 10, 13, 14), on prayer in faith on the Lord Jesus in relation to " forgiveness " and " salvation ;" explained that these did not lose their character as a " gift " of unmerited grace by being given in answer to prayer ; showed the exercise of prayer in that connection to be the divine will, as indicated in the text, in the petition of the Lord's prayer, — " and forgive us our trespasses," and several other passages I specified from the New Testament, as in the Lord's ansjver to the prayer of the thief on the cross, the publican in the temple, etc., etc. Also that it was most proper and dutiful to exhort all, unbelievers included, to be and do right, to believe, and pray with all the heart in that spirit. I made no allusion to Baptism. This discourse was immediately taken much amiss by Mr. Carries, and re- ferred to as opposition to and jealousy of him and the beginning of persecution. He reiterated his views with increased vehemence : " I say, thougli it were with my last breath, that no mar ever got salvation by praying for it. I don't say it is a sin to ipmy for it, but it is of no use," etc. He also bore hard on the infirm- ities of Infant Baptists (not of Baptists) and the great evil, " baby sprinkling." Towards the end of the preceding winter, I had thought of the desirability, if possible, of giving a course of lectures, monthly or so, during the next, on several useful subjects (not controversial) more suitably dealt with in that way than on Sabbath, as a regular minis- t PREFACE. 4 / i f try having been only recently settled here for the first f time, many necessarily had grown up without the ad- i vantage of such information. When last winter came I / round I accordingly thought of this again. At that time the subject of Confessions of Faith was being discussed by the press for some time, in connection with the case of the Rev. Mr. Macdonnell of Toronto. One of the most, or the most virulent attack on ours and our Presbjrterian church, appeared on the 28th October, in the Canadian Baptist of Toronto, the Close Communionists' leading denominational weekly paper of this Province, to which my attention was drawn. Mr. Macdonnell, in a sermon to his congregation last September, gave lengthened expression to his doubts of the Scripturality of the doctrine of everlasting punnahment, and stated that he considered that the Westminster Confession should have left it an open question. At the opening of Knox Col- lege, in his remarks on that occasion, he alluded to our Confession as in some things " a fetter," and hoped for its revisal and modification. Among others, the Rev. Mr. Robb of Toronto, one of the most esteemed and able ministers of our church, remarked his regret that Mr. McD. should have introduced that question on such an occasion, also that such a declaration was inconsistent with his hffflng but a few months before accepted and declared the Westminster Confession to be the Confes- sion of his faith, in terms of the Basis of Union. I make this explanation for the better understanding of the bearing of what follows. That attack in the Canadi' an Baptist was placed in the section of its first page per- manently headed " The Baptist Pulpit." I will now give you some specimens from it. Alluding to what I have explained of Mr. Robb, it says, "It is no PREFACE. IX. wonder that the Rev Mr. Robb, the champion of the Confession stood up with holy wrath haloing his natural dignity." Again, "Is not the Presby- terian Church of Canada hmlt on the same Con- fession of faith ?" " if it can be proven after all that this great wealthy and influential church be not built upon the foundation of Christ and his apostles." etc. " The Confession is now looked upon, not only as the guide of the church in faith and practice, but even as an INFALLIBLE CODE of ethics and religion." What gross calumny, and ho^ir the Baptist people are preju- diced against us by unliruth 1 It concludes thus : " So long as the church and her standards were elevated above the Bible, Infant Baptism had the promise of a long reign. But if the sharp, gleaming, two-edged sword of the Spirit is what is to try the doctrines and practices of the church, then it is doomed to perish. The axe which is before long to lie at the root of this ancient but rotten tree, is already sharpening on the grindstone of public opinion and soon it shall fall a huge mass of hollow rottenness." Such was the character of that unchristian emanation of antagonism The Canadian Baptist has a number of subscribers here. I may remark, by the way, that the spirit and style of the above is just such as continually characterized Mr. Carnes in his animadversions. Although I thoroughly disliked the idea of engaging in the war of words and water connected with the Baptist controversy, with which, too, experience shows they are usually sure to add any amount of virulence the more clearly that the weakness of their cause* is made apparent, and there was every reason to expect such an accompaniment here, it was now evident, how- X. ■,\\ PREFACE. n ever, that in the faithful discharge of the sacred re- sponsibilities of the ministerial office, and the interests of truth and true religion, ?uch personal feelings must be refused, and direct dealing with the questions at issue would have to be engaged in, the way things were being driven by Mr. C, and on vital doctrines as well, v/ho, as yet, had it all his own way. I may say also that my brother minister of the Methodist denomination (who has had considerable experience of Baptists in this line of things, and is of a mild dispo- sition), when we met from time to time, expressed to me as his view that this course was necessary ; but Presbyterians being the more numerous, and I being longer here, it was considered proper chat I should un- dertake it. In the circumstances, and as few, if any, of my congregation and others here had ever heard the 'subject of Confessions formally explained, I decided on choosing it for my first monthly lecture, and on the same Sabbath that I preached the foremen tioned dis- course on prayer, I intimated to my congregation my intention to give it on the 16th of December ; also that I intended to criticise in connection with it, for a short time, the statements oHhe Canadian Baptist£ivt\cle referred to, which I described ; and that, as such state- ments are a specimen of what is often unjustly said by Baptists and others, I intended to intimate my lecture and that intended criticism to the Baptist minister, and that he or any other Baptist minister would have an opportunity of reply in defence if they desired it. (Some B. ministers were expected to be in the village at that time at a special meeting.) I stated further that in a month or so after I thought of giving a lecture on the Early Church History of Infant Baptism, to PREFACE. XI. r* show that Infant Baptism was not by any means an invention of the Church of Rome, as had been alleged; and, perhaps, I would give a second on that subject, as it furnished much useful instruction. This departnjrent of the subject, I may mention, I chose not only for the positive information it contains on the subject, like that of the observance of the Sabbath from the Apostles times, but also as veiy much bringing out to vie v7 (from Baptist books themselves) their evil spirit of misrepresentation of clearly established facts. I accordingly sent a courteous invitation to the Baptist minister, and at the time appointed delivered my lecture on Confessions of Faith, — their Nature, Use, and Necessity, — my observations being applicable to all Confessions of any denomination. For about twenty minutes before entering on it, I read and criticised the Canadian Baptist article on the points just shown you from it and others. Mr. Carnes was present, and replied shortly, affirming, among other things, that the Baptists " all along, and always, had contended against .Confessions of Faith." In my reply to this, I presented three Baptist Confessions of Faith. One drawn up by " upwards of one hundred Baptist min- isters in London (England) in 1689," as itself declares, and now re-issued by Mr. Spurgeon, with a highly commendatory preface of his. That Confession being word for word literally, with scarcely a variation, ex- cept on Baptism, and a very few omissi(»ns, a trans- cript of our Westminster Confession of 1643-7. The second was " Spurgeon's Catechism," which is word for word the same as our Shorter Catechism, except on Baptism, with the omission of a few questions at the end. (These books, and t^nother Confession, of the Regular Xll. PBEFACE. Baptist Church ofCanada.which. I showed next evening, I had recently purchased from the Baptist Book Boom, Toronto.) And the third was a copy I read to the meeting of the Church Property Title Deeds of the congregations of the Regular Canada Baptist Church, including that of Chesley, by which each congregation hinds itself to a considerable list of doctrines specified therein, and to be governed "according to the rules, regulations, and discipline of the said churches." After I had finished these, Mr. Cames intimated to my meeting, which was very large and a model of order throughout, that next evening in the Baptist Church my lecture of this evening and the Canadian Bap- tist article, would bfe reviewed. He complained that I had only read portions of the latter and not the whole (one and a quarter columns), and had dishonestly suppressed portions ; but next evening, it would be^ wholly read and my dishonesty exposed. During this^ meeting I made no allusion to the subject of Baptism whatever, but to Confessions alone. The next evening^ Mr. Carnes was chairman of his meeting, and another Baptist minister, the Rev. Peter M<;Donald, (who had been present at mine the evening before), was th& speaker, and occupied about two and a half ho^irs. After the meeting was opened Mr. Carnes said, without a word of explanation of the reason^ then or since, that ' the Canadian Baptist article would be dispensed with, and the Rev. Mr. McDonald would address the meeting;' who began by discussing certain Greek words of the Baptistic contro ersy, and continued till I rose and reminded him that we were invitpd there not to a lecture on Baptism, but to hear a review of my lecture on Confessions of Faith and my alleged dishonest sup- PREFACE. • •• ZUL preission of parts of the article in the CanaMom Ba/p' tist exposed, and requested him to keep faith with the meeting and come to the subjects promised. Hq then occupied not more than twenty minutes in pointing out some statements in our Westminster Confession as in his view unscripturaJ, (viz.: that "fSaath is a saving grace," that "the first day of the week is the Sabbath," and its doctrine of election,) — a line of remark not bearing at all on the subjects of my lecture, (viz.: What does the expression "Confession of Faith" as applied to such documents, etc., mean; the different advantages of their use; and their Tiecessity to the right working of any denomination of the church amid the conflicting views on the most funda- mental and other important doctrines and practices that do and may exist;) he then, again, turned to Baptism on which alone he continued the rest of the evening. There was another feature of this meeting which will never be forgotten by the hundreds who were present. When Mr. McD. (a man of middle age) began at first his manner was quiet, and I anticipated from it at least respectfulness and courtesy. But soon the disappointment was great. All through the evening his rudeness and abusiveness to myself was extreme. He did * not .care for one of my coat,' etc., etc. He shook his hand often to my face and his little book over my head, challenged me and any one of my coat to discuss with him, continually demanded an:?wers to his many questions there and then. I said once, 1 will reply at the end ; at which his passion only increased, and he stood putting his questions to me, demanding "Yes" or "No" with uncontrollable fierceness. Mr. Cames, XIV, PREFACE. chairman though he was, never interposed a word. Wliile he was still speaking, without indication of the end, at a quarter past nine o'clock, I rose to ask if it was intended to allow me any reply, for that the people could not be expected to wait much longer. Then when my reply came soon after, nearly every sentence I uttered was answered in retorts by Mr. McD. and Mr. Carnes, the former chiefly and sometimes both at once, Mr. McD. swaying back and fore on his chair and fre- quently springing to his feet as he interjected. In short it was a scene I had never seen anything ap- proaching before, nor I presume any of the people there. I am also thankful to my God and Lord who girded me with strength that all through the provoca- tions and trying ordeal, as all have bornfe witness since, Baptists also admitting the same, I was enabled not to violate in a single instance the most careful courtesy in both meetings. Let my reader give the following its due weight. All these things I have yet narrated and will yet, are matters of public notoriety well known to hundreds here who will read these pages, which of itself is a guarantee apart from my own regard for the sacred obligation of truthfulness, of the correctness of my statements ; as it would be simply suicidal to misre- present the facts under the eyes of many — of my own congregation and others — well acquainted with them. / have dwelt on this and the other matters the more 'particularly on account of the marvellous eflforts made by the other side to relieve uhe situation by communi- cations to papers at a distance full of misrepresenta- tions to outsiders, who don't know the facts. The things brought out at these meetings, and PREFACE. XV. especially the unworthy conduct described (far short of the reality) brought the Baptist side of thir^. into much disrepute. Mr. Games, however, whatever he may have felt, did not lose courage to persevere. In- fant and sprinkling baptism, and prayer as not to be made for salvation, received continued and much atten- tion. Some pamphlets on the former subject began to be issued in private. I had not accepted their chal- lenges, of course, because I dare not.' He had said in regard to ray intimation mentioned, of my intended lecture on the Early Church History of Infant Baptism, that I would not give it while he was here. The time came round. Things on the other side were not im- proving. Baptists and others might justly think that a catlse might be good although its advocates were deficient; the Baptists are also very zealous here in their views, and without doubt sincere. Under the teaching they have been subject to they are kept in ignorance of the true facts, and over zeal in matters of this kind is particularly blinding, like Pharisaism. Something positive on the subject seemed needful. The Methodist minister, like myself, was of this mind. On the 16th of January I intimated my lecture on Infant Baptism for the 27th instant. Immediately Mr. C. anticipated it by intimating discourses of his own on Baptism for the Sabbath preceding its delivery, morning and evening. I was present at the latter. It was occupied largely by his reading of many professed quotations from Infant Baptist writers in favour of immersion. After he had closed the meeting by the benediction, I requested him to oblige rae with the name of the Baptist book he read those quotations from, to verify them. He said he would not give it. I f^m XVh PREFACE. n Otherwise ascertained it in a way my readers will learn afterwards, and in my lecture on the following Thurs- day evening exposed in it a number of thorough m/is- qtiotationa by comparison with their originals. The following pages exhibit these. The first part of this treatise contains that lecture then delivered, only that my time then being very limited for the work in hand the quotations in several instances were not made so full as they otherwise would, and the reasoning on many points was necessarily brief. The same are now more extended here. This lecture was sufficient. The meeting was very large and orderly^ Mr. Games being present and offered an opportunity of reply, did not accept it, but gave one the week following in his own church. Like the former, in the same place cti the 17th December, it was distinguished by much rudeness on his part. In matter, his recourse was chiefly to pas^t and present persecution of Baptists by Presbyterians, but said nothing of the historical records of Ana-Baptist im- proprieties. I have never alluded to things of this Kind. I was refused reply) howevet short. He also had recourse to a most extraordinary expedient of get- ting Special Constables stationed in his meeting, under the pretence that he believed there was danger of serious disturbance ; of which there was not the least likelihood or intention. Having thus arranged, he spoke throughout in manner much fitted to provoke the peoples' feelings, but they bore it with admirable patience. One part of the design in this remarkable procedure seems to have been to lead Baptists and others, outside of this immediate neighbourhood, to suppose U3 very fierce, and to have been consciously and PREFACE. XVIL plainly unable- to maintain our position in the contro- versy. In point of fact, this 'face' was put on it in a communication in a paper of Kincardine, around which Baptists are somewhat numerous ; and in the Ca/rwdian Baptist to its readers all over the Province. The system adopted in this cause as pushed by Close Communionists in particular, is notably much the same all over the country, and is very bad in principle, as the reader will see in these pages, and very injurious to themselves and others. As in all such cases, the great majority of them are misled and know it not. We wish them well. For the interests of truth and ;/rue religion, we have felt it our duty to make this small contribution in unfolding what would be well to be much better known. It is hoped that, by the divine blessing, this may be of some service to' preserve some from the evils, and perhaps to aid a few, already involved, to a more excellent way. I will close these prefatory remarks by some extracts from a treatise on this subject by John Bunyan, which I find in his works now before me, entitled, "Differ- ences in Judgment about Water Baptism, No Bar to Communion." It occupies fully twenty closely printed folio pages. He thus describes its contents: "To communicate with saints, as saints, proved lawful. In answer to a book written by the Baptists," etc. He next quotes the following, with reference to those he replies to : " Should not the multitude of words be answered ? And, should a man full of talk be justi- fied ? Should thy lies make men hold their peace ? And when thou mockest shall ho man make thee an answer? — Job xi. 2, 3. I am for peace; but when I speak they are for war. — Ps. cxx. 7." He then has a XVlll. PREFACE. short prefatory letter " to the reader," from which I make the following extract : " All I say is that the Church of Christ hath not warrant to keep out of their communion the Christian that is discovered to be a visible saint by the word, the Christian that walketh according to his light with Qod. I will not make reflections upon those unhandsome brands that my brethren have laid upon me for this, as, that I am a Machiavelian, a man devilish, proud, insolent, pre- sumptuous, and the like. Neither will I say as they, * the Lord rebuke thee ;' words fitter to be spoken to the devil than a brother. But, reader, read and com- pare, lay aside prejudice and judge. What Mr. Kiffih « hath done in the niatter^ I forgive, and love him never the worse ; but must stand by my principles." I will now give you a few extracts from his treatise to show the rude way in which they, the Close Oomrrcunion Baptists of his day, assailed that prince in Israel. He begins it: "Sir, your seemingly serious reflections upon that part of my plain-hearted confession of faith, which rendereth a reason of my freedom to communicate with those of the saints and faithful who difler from me about water baptism, I have read and considered. . . . But, flnding yours (if I mistake not) far short of a candid replication, I thought con- venient, not only to tell you of those impertinencies everywhere scattered up and down in your book, but, also that, in my simple opinion, your rigid and church disquieting principles are not fit for any age and state of the church." He next replies to the objections of his leading opponent, and says: "The first is that you closely disdain my person, because of my low descent among PREFACE. ZIX. men, stigmatizing me for a person of that rank that need not be heeded or attended to." " What need you before you have shewed one syllable of a reasonable argument in opposition to what I assert, thus trample my person, my gifts, my grace, (have I any ?) so dis- dainfully under your feet," etc. Again, further on, " And even now, before I go any furtner, I will give you a touch c:'' the reason of my publishing that part of my book which you so hotly oppose. It was because of those continual, assaults that the rigid brethren of your way made, not only upon this con- gregation to rent it, but also upon many others about us, if peradventure they might break us in pieces, and draw from us disciples after them. Assaults, I say, upon this Congregation by times for no less than six- teen years." " Neither did they altogether fail of their purpose ; for some they did rent and dismember from us." ..." But to pass these, the wild and unsound positions they have urged to maintain their practice, would be too large here to insert." " Do but grant me without mocking of me, the liberty you desire to take, and God helping me, I desire no more to shift for my- self among you." He adds, "As to your saying that I proudly and imperiously insult, because I say they are babes and carnal, that attempt to break the peace and communion of -churches, though upon no better pre- tence than water ; you must know I am still of that mind, and shall be, so long as I see the effects tha^ follow, viz. : the breach of love, taking off Christians from the more weighty things of God, and to make them quarrel and have heartburnings one against another. Where you are pleased to charge me with raging, for laying those eighteen particular crimes to PREFACE. . the charge of such who exclude Christians from Church Communion/' etc. " Nay, you make want of light therein (on baptism) a ground to exclude the most godly from your communion, when every novice in religion shall be received unto your bosom, and be of esteem with you, because he hath (and from what grounds God knows) submitted to water baptism." These extracts are taken all from the first two pages, and are specimens of the matter of the treatise throughout. They show the spirit and modes of action of the Close Communionists in Bunyan's day, (he died in A.D. 1688), and how that eminently pious and useful minister, with others were assailed and their congregations harrassed by them. Those acquainted . with that body of our day> in Canada, etc., cannot fail to recogkiize in Bunyan's record an exact description of their spirit and manner of carrying out their great aim at present, all over, of which, also, we have just had such a lively representation among ourselves. J. BETHUNE. Chbslet, Ont., April, 1876, BAPTIST MISEEPRESENTATI0N8 ON BAPTISM. " Bnt unto them that do Him fear, Ood's meroy never ends ; And to their children's children still flis righteousness extends." — Psalm ciii. 17. The subject of Baptism is an interesting one to all Christians, as one of the two 83rmbolioa! ordinances in- stituted by the Lord Jesus to be observed by his church under the New Testament dispensation. Similar in nature to the erroneous doctrine of Transubstantiation and its ac- companiments, held by the church of Bome in relation to the Lord s Supper, many also regard the r^encration of the soul as e£feoted by the baptism of water. I need not explain that we, by no means, agree with those doctrines. Baptism and the £iord,'s Supper have a place and value, but not in the sense nor to tibe extent that these imagine. In regard to Baptism, there is also a keen contention by some about the proper mode of its admiristri. . ^n, and the proper persons to be baptized. I refer to those who are called, on this account. Baptists, their name indicating the prominence they gi\e to these aspects of the question. Formerly the name given them was Anabaptists, the meaning of which is Bebaptizers, and which, from us, is more appropriate, considering the suitableness of meaning. For, to call them Baptists, to distinguish them from our- selves and other denominations on this subject, implies, if the signifidation of the word be looked to, that they are, and we are not, Baptizers ; that our baptism is not worthy of the name of Baptism. Yet, assuredly, we believe the ordinance, as we administer it, to be the ordinance accord- ing to the Lord's appointment. Hence, although that de- nomination says that our baptism is no baptism, and bap- tizes in their own way any who may join their congrega- BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. tions, who previously had been baptized in our way, wx can only regard saqh as baptized over again, and those who practice it as Ribaptiters. Although, perhapt^ it is not worth our while contending about the name, since it is employed apart from its own meaning, like proper names of persons, merely to designate the denomination referred to, still it implies in its meaning what that denomination contends for as true of themselves alone, and what we refuse to admit as correct in reality. And, as in the case of Romanists, in regard to the name " Oatholic," it may be better to form the habit of giving them the proper ap* pellation. It would be too much, certainly, for them to expect or require from us that we call them Baptists and ourselves not, when;we do regard them as Bebaptizers, and ourselves as Baptists. I will not, however, myself alter the name to-night. In our opinion, tl^e Baptists go far to excess on this question. Experience shows us it is quite possible to go to improper extremes in this as in other things, and m many ways, as the Scribes and Pharisees did oh the Scrip- ture ordinance of the Sabbath, etc.; and many do, as before stated as to Transubstantiation and Baptismal Begenera- tion. While we don't wish to under-appreciate any Scrip- ture truth or ordinance, it is still true to say that all things equally. Scriptural are by no means of equal value. Hence a real error in regard to some may not be so serious as an error in others. For instance, error on baptism, say as to its administration of water, such as would nullify or abolish it (as with the Quakers for example), though it would be an important error undoubtedly, yet would not be so serious in nature and consequences as the abolition of the Sabbath day, the removal from it of the obligations of the fourth commandment, or the vitiation or removal of the doctrine of salvation by faith in Christ, or of the baptism and work of the Holy Spirit. But our JBaptist brethren say they don't attach so much value to baptism as is said of them, but rather to the duty of obedience to the commandment of the Lord. This reason, they feel, is a sufficient justification of all their zeal. As to this, however, I may remark, even with such a reason, many err in many things. The Jews pleaded the fourth commandment and the other precepts of Moses ^ INFANT BAPTISM. 8 against the Sayioor and his disoiples as to the Sabbath, whom they regarded as loose ana disobedient, and were moved against Him for this, even to frenzy ; and looking at the Scripture, it would not be difficult for them to make out a seemingly plausible case to the body of the people. Yet, I may asK, why this amount of zeal /or the command as to baptism, more than many other commandments, if baptism itself be admitted of subordinate value ? Their form of church government — Independency — they main- tain is the Scripture required form, and the Presbyterian, and all others, quite wrong. Now, church government U an important matter, and has corresponding results. Whv, then, do the Baptists not as mucn i&sist in their books, and sermons, and conversations on the Lord's will on this ? But you don't hear them do so. Again, they constantly affirm in their contentions on Baptism that we ought not to teach or practise in the church anything we don't find express precept or example for in the New Tes- tament. WeU, do tiiey carefully carry out this principle in other matters ? There is the practice of instrumental music in God's house and worship. Last summer, when their church was opened here, they not only used it with the singing in each of their three Sabbath services, but even while the collections were taken up. Yes, and even 'played the people out' on their leaving church, the same as is done in theatres ; a new thmg as yet to other denominations in this part of the world! Long may it be sol But that is to be called the wobship OF ooD ! — the " worship of the new testament, taught and practised by the Apostles ! Yet is it certainly much easier to find passages in the New Testament teach- ing and exemplifying our views of baptism than for them to point out there any in doctrine, precept or example, authorizing the use of instrumental music in God's House. Nor do they profess to find any there. Nor is it an unim- portant matter. How, then, can they quietly adopt and use it, and not, rather, place themselves in opposition to it, since there is no trace of it in the New Testament church under the Apostles ? It can be no justification for them to say that other denominations practise it as well ; as they don't accept that reason for baptizing as the others do. We are afraid, though contrary to the .J 4 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. principle they contend for in the matter of baptism, that it is favomred because a useful means in the cause of proselytism. The BajitiRt doctrine that they attach only a subordinate value to the ordinance as compared with more vital things is agreeable to the ear, but how do they — especially the * Close Communionists' — work this theory in practice ? It seems plain, from their constant, eager, and in the case of a very large proportion of them, even their fana- tical zeal in pushing this question always and everywhere, IN PRIVATE and in pubhc, in conversation, books, re- ligious papers, and church discourses, that practically s^ they make it a chief thing — one of the most important. Instead of exerting their efforts in private principally towards the conversion of souls, it is baptism, baptism^ eagerly with everyone they can find Access to,— or 'fasten upon,' to express it more procisely ; while in pubHc they show a similar feverish zeal, though this is modified in manner of expression where other ministries prevail, but sometimes not. If they don't succeed in making prose- lytes, they appear to feel as though they have done no- thing, and when they do succeed in this, in any case their joy, and their expression of it, is great. In order to bring out how much value they really attach to baptism above other decidedly more important things, I will specify a striking exemplification among ourselves at this presesent time. There is the Baptist minister,, who has been ministering to the congregation in Chesley for the past five months or so. He has been often and designedly preaching against 'prayer for salvation' — tot use his own mode of expression, — which is a very impor- tant matter indeed, much more so than baptism. He has frequently said that no one ever got salvation by praying for it ; that he would not give that, viz. : the crack of his finger and thumb, for prayer offered for salvation ; and such like sayings. He has also maintained that the first day of the week is not the Sabbath day, and it follows, of course, that the fourth commandment could not then apply to it to keep it ir^Q from secular occupations ; and he has other seriously erroneous Plymouth doctrines. Moreover, he has been in the constant habit of cracking jokes to his audiences jn church on sabbath, INFANT BAPTISM. disposing them to laughter, and- sometimes to laugh right out ; with other expedients for gathering meetings. Just fancy me, brethren, cracking jokes in my pulpit on Sabbaths — what would you who belong to my congregation think of it and say ? I think I see before me your displeasure and indignation. And all honour to you for that, — you would be very right. You would not be willing to tolerate it. Or, suppose a man, after gather- ing his household together for family worship on any day, as well as the Sabbath, were, during the time of that wor- ship, to mix it up with laughable stories, and similar slang remarks, would that not be grossly improper ? And is not the worship of God, in God's House, on the Sabbath day, in a large meeting, and presided over by a minister, to be as solemnly and reverently conducted throughout as at home in the family? I ask, is it so, or is it not ? Does it cease to be profaned if, in a church, on the Sabbath, a minister, in conducting it, indulges in what is laughable, by the way ? Joking, and habitually so in the worship of God I Such conduct, brethren has deeply pained my heart, as most dishonouring to God and injurious to those who are under its influence. I must speak out. I cannot refrain, — in God's name, for His honour, and for the sake of the people of this place, I protest against it ! Mr. Carnes, I believe, has done more to demoralise this village in reli- gious things, during his short time, than has been done since it was a village ! '* God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about Him" (Ps. Ixxxix. 7). " Ye are the salt of the earth : but if the salt have lost His savour wherewith shall it be salted ?" Now, here is the point I wish to draw your attention to. Notwithstanding that unseemly manner in divine things and those seriously erroneous doctrines, quite different from what that congregation were hitherto understood to ac-rnowledge, still they have put up with all quietly, with- out a murmur. And why ? Because Mr. Carnes is withal after their heart in regard to baptism, and very zealous in that connection ; while the other things being singular and amusing bring out a number on whom that zeal may operate. I say, because of that. For, were he even with no objectionableness in the other matters mentioned — were he V '6 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. t \ 1 toliiiye changed his views on that subject — ^to suppose the case — and to haye preached on one of those days against immersion, and in favour of infant baptism, or only one of these, who, that knows their feelings on that subject, would not be certain they would not have allowed him the op- portunity of doing so a second time ? We may be sure an outcry, strong and decisive, would at once be raised. Now, it is the like of these things that test and bring out to discerning eyes the real comparative value people attach to things, and not the theoretical profession apari from the practice. The Boman Catholics tell us tibey don't worship their images, but regard them only as mem- orials of the Saviour and the other persons they represent^ and use them only to assist in recalling to mind the per- sons represented ; and that when they bow before them they mean only to honour those persons whose images they are. Such is th6^ theory in defence, and looks plaus- ible, at least to Bomanists. But how do they work the thing ? They do, in fact, make idols of those images, and are eager idolaters. Just the same defence the more learned among the heathen gave when the early Chris- tians charged them with worshipping their images. ^* No, " said they, ' *^«-'»' <'* mersion. Among them is the following as from *' Bichabd Baxter, Preshyterian" : — "In our baptism we are y^ dipped under the water, as signifying our covenant profession, that as he was buried for sin, so we are dead and buried to sin." These are given as the words of the same Baxter. The contradictoriness of these two quota- tions is very plain, and it is to be observed that Cramp gives NO indication of the volume or place in all the many works of Baxter in which this last quotation may be seen. EecoUect, too, that these are not merely two differ- ent Baptist books I have quoted from, which would look bad enough, but both are by the same Dr. Cramp, Baptist College Professor. It may be added that the Catechism which makes Baxter such a favourer of immersion is a small cheap book, paper covers, for wide circulation among the common people; while the other is large and less likely to be purchased by them. In the latter quotation, Baxter is represented as saying, *• In our bap- tism WE are dipped,' &e., which would lead the believing reader to suppose that he and his fellow Presbyterians gen- 14 BAPTISM MISREPRESENTATIONS. '»*sia» erally were baptized themselves as well as baptizers in that mode. Certainly if a Baptist should say, "in our baptism we are dipped," he would be understood to mean himself and his denomination. And yet who that knows the facts but knows that that was not true of Presbyterians, Oramp himself being witness to Baxter and them as shown in the former quotation. The unlearned Baptists and others, however — and they are of course very numer- ous all over — may be, and no doubt are, led by such state- ments as this to oelieve the opposite, while Presbyterians may be expected to attach great weight to such a statement as from Baxter. And all the more of course will they do so when they read the high commendations of him who misleads them, as distinguished for " soberness, imparti- ality, and truthfulness." We will see further into this presently. Here then there is an evident misquotation. 2. The next inst^pce I draw your attention to is con- nected with the great John Wesley. I will read you a professed quotation from him in " Pengilly's Scripture Guide to Baptism," which is the Baptist book, out of which the Baptist minister here read the many professed quota- tions from Paedobaptist writers last Sabbath, and the name of which he three different times refused to tell me. In page 47 is the following in favour of immersion, from— •' Mr. John Wesley, * Buried with liiniy alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion.' Note on Bom. vi. 4." These are given as John Wesley's words. No more is added, but just as now quoted. The impression produced, and no doubt intended to be produced, on the unsuspecting reader is that these represent the view on immersion of Wesley, the great Methodist preacher and leader, as the only mode of baptism in the aposties' days. Yet the facts are not so. His many works are long before the Christian world, in one of which he expressed his views at length on this subject, which leaves misrepre- sentation of them the more inexcusable. I wiU now give you from it what he says on Bom. vi. 4, and the question generally from this ** Catechism of Baptism," in my hand, of the Eev. Dr. Currie, enlarged edition, 1874, Methpdist Book Boom, Toronto." Dr. Currie says, p. 57, " Mr.Wedey pubhshed a treatise on Baptism in Nov. 1756 (Works, vol. vi., p. 12). He says (in that treatise), ' Concerning baptism, INFANT BAPTISM. 15 I shall inquire what it is. . . . It was instituted in the room of oiroumdsion. It cannot be certunly {>roved from Scripture that even John's baptism was per- brmed by dipping, . . . nor the Saviour's, nor that by the disciples. Ko; nor that of the eunuch by Philip. And as nothing can be determined from Scripture precept or example, so neither from the force or meaning of tiie word. For the words baptize and baptism do not necessarily imply dipping, but abe used in otheb senses in several places. Thus we read that the Jews ' were all baptized in the cloud and in the sea ' (1 Cor. x. 2), but they were not plunged^ in either. They could there- fore be only sprinkled by drops of the sea water and re- freshing dews from the clouds.' [Wesley next specifies Christ's and his two disciples' baptism of blood (Mark x. 88), as a washing or sprinkling with it, not a dipping ; and sixmlarly of the Pharisees' washing of pots, cups, and tables or beds, of which, he remarks, " the outsides of them only were washed " — ^the cup and the platter (Matt, xxiii. 26), &c., and then continues. And mabk this that follows, as it is on Bom. vi. 4, and Goloss. ii. 12, the texts on which Pengilly &c., represent him as an • immersionist. He says:] 'It is true we read of being buried with Christ in baptism, but nothino can be inferred from such a figiu'ative expression. Nay, if it held exactly it would make as much for sprinlding as for plunging ; since in burying, the body is not plunged through the sub- stance of the earth, but rather earth is poured or sprinkled upon it. And as there is no clear proof of dipping in Scripture, so there is very probable proof of the contrary. It is highly probable the apostles themselves baptized great numbers, not by dipping, but by washing, sprinkling, or pouring water. This clearly represented the cleansing from sin, which is figured by baptism. And the quantity of water used, was not material ; no more than the quantity of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper.' " He then refers to the baptisms of the Jailer, and Cornelius, and their households, and that of the 3,000 on the day of Pentecost, &c., as against the immersion theory. Such, brethren, were the published views and practice of Wesley, before Pengilly, Cramp, &c., were born, and yet with all that evidence before their eyes, they are as ■MHMM i.l 16 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. L r silent on it to their readers as ^he grave ; but one and an- other, and yet again others, represent him as teaching that the baptisms of Soriptnre were by immersion I Let me add anrther instance about him: "Dr. Cramp says," ( correspondence ChrUtian Metsmger^ Feb. 22nd, 1860), " He," f Stewart) ' asks for one instance of dipping. Let him reaa the New Testament. Every record of baptism in that book is an instance of dipping, as John Wesley and ministers of all Ghristian denominations have again and AOAw eonfe%»ed.' " (CSurrie's Oat. p. 65.) Here Cramp affirms Wesley to have taught that every baptism recorded in the Ifew Testament voaa administered by that mode t But when we look into his own work on the subject, as in the extracts I have just given you, and remember too, that he (and the MethocUst (murch^ habituallv administered it by sprinkling, what can we thmk of such a style of bap- tist advocacy and treajiment of opponents ! 4. The next misrepresentation I will show you is of Dr. A. Clarke, another eminent Methodist. In Cramp's Catechism on Baptism (p. 48) is the follow- ing as from him : " Dr. Adam Clarke, Wesley an. ' It is probable that the apostle here (in Bom. vi. 4) alludes to the mode of administering baptism by immersion, the whole body being put under the water.' " This is all Cramp's quotation, from which it is hoped, of course, that his readers will conclude that Clarke beUeved in immersion as the Scriptural and Apostolic mode. But — but the question remains for us to ask and to answer, for Cramp gives no hint of any deficiency — is this a fair quotation ? In answer I will now read you from ' Currie's Catechism of Baptism," (p. 64). He remarks : " Dr. Cramp quotes (Cate- ohibm p .40) from Dr. A. Clarke's Notes on Bom. vi. 4 : [Currie repeats the words verbatim as I have read them to you from Cramp, and then proceeds] Dr. Clarke adds an important qualification to the above passage which Dr. Cramp carefully omits, (namely,) * I say it is probable that the apostle alludes to this mode of immer- sion ; but it is not absolutely certain that he does so, as some do imagine ; for in the next verse our being in- corporated into Christ by baptism is also denoted by our being planted, or iSktheT grafted together in the likeness of his death ; and Noah's ark floating upon the water, and INF/LNT BAPTISM. 17 sprinkled by the rain from heaven, I8 a figure oobbkS' poNDiNo TO baptiem.'*' [Since quoting this from Our- rie, I got Clarke's own works from a friend and find it verbatim as here given.] Now here, brethren, is the true representation of what Dr. Olarkedid say on that passage. And why did not Dr. Cramp complete the quotation thus far ? He could not but see it, of course. Why, but be- cause he did not wish Dr. Clarke's real sentiments to be seen, while he professes to represent them correctly. It seems Dr. Broaddus (Baptist) adopted the same plan of quotation from Dr. Clairke (and many other Baptists do so we may presume), to which Slicer, in his Work on Bap- tism, fifth edition, replies, page 108, " Mr. Broaddus in his Strictures, page 15, after quoting part of a sentence from Dr. Clarke's Commentary on Bom. vi. 4, says : ' I do think I have proved, beyond all question, that baptizo means to immerse, and nothing else. It has but one mean- ing — these learned men knew it (Dr. Clarke, &c.), and their candour forced them to acknowledge it ' " — that is, that it means "to immerse and nothing elae." Now let any one consider what Dr. Clarke did say, as I have quoted in full, and not Drs. Broaddus' and Cramp's garbled misrepre- sentations of.it, and what will he think of such stJa.tement& and tactics. 6. On the Greek Church's mode of baptism, I will read first from " Pengilly's Guide to Scripture Bap- tism," p. 72, a quotation by him from a Baptist writer, viz., " Mr. B. Bobinson. * The native Greeks must under- stand their own language better than foreigners, and. they have ALWAYS understood the word baptism to signify dipping; and therefore from their first embracing of Christianity, to this day, they have always baptized, and do yet baptize, by immersion. This is an auwority for the meaning of the word infinitely preferable to that of Euro- pean lexicographers. In this case the Greeks are unexcep- tionable guides.' Hist, of Bapt., pp. 6,6." Mr. Bobinson has no hesitation, no want of decidedness, in the above affir- mations, and PengiUy repeats them in his book as trust- worthy. The point remains, are these things really so ? But let us also hear Dr. Cramp. In his Catechism, page 48, he asks : " Has the Greek Church ever sustuned sprinkling or pouring ?" And he answers, " No. I was 2 V a^s-A—^ • »- * /• 18 ,r BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. . about to say that this is remarkable. But it is not remark- able. The New Testament was written in Greek. In speaking of baptism the apostles used the Greek word baptizo. Christians now-a-days differ about the meaning of that word. What can be fairer than to submit the question to the Greeks themselves ? They must surely understand their own language. Now, the Greeks have ALWAYS held baptism to be immersion, and they have practised accorcQngl}. They do so to this /day, even during the severity of a Russian winter. The Russians, you are aware, belong to the Greek Church." These affirmations, brethren, you observe are decided and without any hesitation. Their readers will of course consider they must know what they say to be as they say, and that none dispute it. Now, however, let me place before you real evidence. The first I will read ftom is an eminent baptist, even the same Dr. Broaddus Mr. Slicer mentions in his Work on Baptism, only he was Mr. not Dr. then. In his small work now before me, entitled " Immersion Essential to Christian Baptism, Philadelphia: Bible and Publication Society," he gives on pages 18-19 an account in his (Broaddus's) own words, of some statements an eminent modern writer made on this subject, namely Dr. DoUinger, now famous as the leader of the Old Catholic Party in Ger- many, who refused to accept the Vatican Dogma of Papal InfallibiHty in 1870. Dr. Broaddus explains him as say- ing of the Greek patriarchs of the 14th century, as fol- lows^ that *♦ a Council of them agreed, not that they would practise pouring or sprinkling, but that they would recog- nize it in the Westerns as valid baptism. They were almost ruined, in danger of being utterly swallowed up by the conquering Turks, and wanted to make friends with the Latin Christians. But at a later period, the Greek patriarchs retracted this. It is still observed in Russia, but those to whom Greek was the native language could not stand it," &c. Now you observe these words I have put in capitals. You rtemember what I just quoted you from Cramp, who affirmed without any hesitation : " They do so (baptize by immersion) to this day, even during the severity of a Russian winter. The Russians belojg to the Greek church." Yet here is Broacldua INFANT BAPTISM. 19 stating the contrary, on the authority of DoUinger, that the same Bussians administer it by " pouring or sprink- ling ! " That portion he gives of DoUinger's testimony we may be sure the latter did say, as certainly Broaddus would not put it in his lips otherwise ; as to the other statements, seeing he does not give us DoUinger's own words, and learning by experience, we had better not accept his account of things. I will show you now that his last sentence is untrue, by the way. Next let me read you from Curriers jCateohism (page 94- 96) ; he asks, " What does Dr. Cramp assert concerning the Greek church ; " (Here Gurrie gives iu answer the same words I quoted you myself from Cramp's Catechism, and then asks), *' Are Dr. Cramp's assertions true? Dr. Cramp gives part of the truth, and suppresses part, when he says the Greek church immerses and ' does not sastain sprinkling or pouring.' Booth (a leading Baptist writer), whose \^ Drk Dr. Cramp recommends, in his PaedohaptUm Examined, quotes Deylingius as follows : * So long as the apostles lived, as many believe, immersion only was used, to which afterwards, perhaps, they added a kind of affunon (tLat is, sprinkling or pouring) such as the Gbeeks practise at this day, after having performed the trine immersion.' " Currie next shows instances of the practice, as follows : /^..4,jc<^ " HuBER says ; ♦ I resided upwards of three years in the Capital of the Grand Seignior's dominions, in a . ' Greek faroily of the first respectability. During that time I was present at four baptisms — two in the family and two in the Immediate neighbourhood. It is the custom among the Greeks either to have their children baptized publicly in their churches, or else in their houses, in which latter case the parents invite their nearest rela- tions and neighbours; and after the ceremony, while refreshments pass round, the father gives to each person present a token of witness- ship, consisting of a small piece of Turkish money, through which a hole is pierced and a piece of new ribbon inserted. I was thus invited to attend the four above-mentioned baptisms, and I still have in my possession two tokens ; the other two may be seen in Mrs. McDowall's museum in Danville. The company were all seated on the sofas around the room. A table stood in the mmK iffi^P 20 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. middle, with a basin of water on it. The priest was then Bent for ; who, upon: entering the room, was received by the father of the infant and led to the baptismal water, which he consecrated by a short prayer and the sign of a cross. Then the mother presented to him her babe, which he laid on his left arm, and in the name of the Father, Bon, and Holy Ghost, he thrice dipped his hand in the water and dropped some of it on the child's fore- head, giving it a name. . . . Most generally the in- fants are baptized, in the churches. Before the altar stands a tripod holding a basin of consecrated water for baptism.' This was the baptism proper. The prepara- tory immersions which the Greeks — at least in some places — practise would be performed in another apartment (_^ and without the presence of the priest." How very dififerent an account, brethren, of the practice of the Greek church oh this subject are these statements of Deylingius and Huber (with Broaddus) from those of Cramp, and Bobinson, and Fengilly. The latter affirms without a sign of wincing that that church does not, and never did, baptiM by sprinkling or pouring. Yet see what Huber, an eye-witness, has narrated of each of the four baptisms he was present at. It was by sprinkling in EACH case. He tells us also of the churches having be- fore the altar a basin of consecrated water for baptism ; and a basin is evidently not intended for immersing per- sons in, but to sprinkle from. Deylingius asserts distinctly that affusion or sprinkling is the mode " such as the Greeks practice at this day," and indicates that this mode was practised all through the ages. Of immersion he says : — " Many believe " (that is, many of the Greek church) that it alone was used while the apostles lived ; which implies that they (the same persons) believed otherwise of the times from immediately after the apostles ; and also that many others believe immersion was not the only mode, or the mode at all, in the apostles' time. But these opinions are not the question. Many of the Greek church no doubt believe that their worship of the Virgin Mary and images was also practised in the apostles' days. We see from Huber and Deylingius that the Greek church instead of not practising sprinkling now or ever, really do and have throughout the past been doing this very thing. And INFANT BAPTISM. 21 observe that the above quotation of Deylingius is taken from Booth's Paedobaptist Examined, a Baptist write? of high standing among them, and a book stored with ma- terials to use by other Baptist writers as they see fit — with which Dr. Cramp is well acquainted, and from which he quotes. Pengilly also in his " Scripture Guide to Bap- tism " — the same I have been reading from to-night — of S6 pages, makes about 40 from it of professed quotations from Paedobaptist writers. [And here I will pause a mo- ment to show you by the way the value others who have examined it have come to ascribe to this work of Booth. And preliminarily let me notify what Pengilly states in a note at the bottom of page 71 of his •• Guide to Baptism," viz., " See this author (Calvin) and those th^t foUow cited' At greater length and their work referred to in Booth's * Paedobaptist Examined,' Vol. 1. pp. 44 to 65, EIGHTY- TWO such authoritics are there adduced." Slicer on Baptism says, page 114 : " Now, candid reader, I leave you to judge how much reliance is to be placed on the mutilated testimonies from Paedobaptist writers ad- -^ w. dueed by Mr. Broaddus. You can judge of the balance from those I have examined. I will close this part of the subject with a quotation from that clear and conclusive writer, Peter Edwards, who was himself for a number of years a Baptist preacher, and who discovered the weakness of the arguments of the Baptists while reading Mr. Booth's book in favour of their views. He says (speak- ia7, of Mr. Booth's eighty witnesses, to which Mr. Broaddus rsfjrs), * He (Booth) quotes a number of authors, who, as he lys, understood the term baptize to mean immer- sion, pouBiNG, AND SPRINKLING ; and thcsc quotations he caUs concessions. Concessions of what? That the word meant immersion only ? If so, he made them concede what they never did concede, and what they had no thought of conceding. It is a shame to abuse the living or the dead, and it is a bad cause that requires it ; I doubt whether one of the eighty abused critics was on his side.' Edwards, pp. 159 and 160." Thus far from the Baptist minister, Edwards, who lost faith in tlie Baptist cause from reading this Booth's Paedobaptist Em;- • amined. Again, Slicer says, p. 829, •' In every case which I have examined of the Paedobaptist authorities, quoted 22 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. by Mr. Broaddus, I have found the remark of Peter Ed- wards (in regard to Booth) to hold good, that is, 'thai those are iiiade to coiUfede virhsit they never nieant to concede.' " Let me add another statement from Gurrie's " Cate- chism of Baptism," pp. 58 and 54. " Do immersionists quote other divines in support of the immersionist creed ? Immersionist writers sometimes give extracts from othera who are prominent affusionists " (that is, who are advo- cates of, and administer baptism by, sprinkling) ** which appear to favour the immersionist idea; and these ex- tracts, being disconnected from the context, have fre- quently misrepresented the views of their authors. Dr, Cramp selects from some divines a sentence or more that appears to favour his theory. He conceals what th& writer says in immediate connection with the part quoted, and which explains or qualifies it, and thus misrepresents his author. He thus n^isrepresents John Wesley, Isaac Watts, Adam Clarke, George Whitefield, Thomas Chal- mers, Martin Luther, and others." Let us now return to Booth's quotation Of Deylingius.] Now how could Cramp and Pengilly, in the face of that statement of DeyUngius not to say more, which was there in Booth before their eyes, honestly make such affirma- tions about the Greek church never baptizing by affusion or sprinkling. They evidently wish their readers to be- lieve that that church ever baptized by immersion only,, which is not the fact, and hence they adduce no testimony at their hand to the contrary. That would defeat their ob- ject; that is, the truth would; so the tkuth is withheld,, and something else, not true, is substituted. And there is Huber. Why not quote him as Currie does ? Need I ask why ? Their manner of treating Baxter, Clarke, Wesley, and now the Greek church, which I have exhibited to you, will sufficiently show their ruUng motive. 6. But yet let us proceed to some more instances, and again we will return to the illustrious Richabd Baxter. Pengilly's Scripture Guide to Baptism, p. 25, says : " Mr. Baxter has a very forcible passage on the same place, as follows, viz. : * Go, disciple me all nations, baptizing them. As for those who say they are discipled by baptizing, and not before baptizing, they speak not the sense of the text ; nor that which is true or rational ; else why should one be INFANT BAPTISM. 28 baptized more than another ? This is not like some ocoa- sional histohoal mention of baptism ; but it is the very commission of Christ to His apostles for preaching and baptizing ; and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and order. Their first task is by teaching to make disciples, which are, by Mark, called be- lievers. The second work is to baptize them, whereto is annexed the promise of their salvation. The third work is to teach them all other things which are afterwards to be learned in the school of Christ. To contemn this order is to renounce all rules of order ; for where can we expect to find it if not here ? I profess my conscience is fully satisfied, from the text, that it is one sort of faith, even saving, that must go before baptism ; and the profession whereof the minister must expect.' — In Faedobaptist Ex- amined, vol. ii, p. 270." Note here that this is a professed quotation from Baxter, taken by Pengilly, not from Baxter's works direct, but from Booth's Faedobaptist Examined, second-hand, ^t this rate (and it is a very prevalent rate), if Booth err, and be unjust, or untruthful, in any case, Pengilly and many others contentedly repeat the same as all right. But why should Pengilly, who sets himself to write a book for the Baptist Publication Society, to be cir- culated cheaply many years among myriads, if possible — why should he not consult Baxter, &c., for himself, with- out taking the quotation from another. Baxter is easily accessible to such writers. The object of Pengilly in this quotation is to establish that infants, as unbelievers, ought not to be baptized ; and he cites Baxter, as quoted, to show that he also was of the same mind. Again, on page 44, he introduces him for the same object, namely, as against infant baptism, thus : " Mr. Baxter. (' The appeal he makes to Mr. Blake in this place,' remarks Pengilly here, ' might be made with all confidence to every Pa6dobaptist.') "I conclude (Baxter says) that all examples of baptism in Scripture do mention only the administration of it to the professors of saving faith ; and the precepts give us no other direction. And I provoke Mr. Blake, as far as is seemly for me to do, to name one precept or example for baptizing any other, and make ijl; good if he can." Disput. of Right to Sacram., p. 156. In Faedobaptist Examined, vol. ii. p. 29." This is also from Booth. V 24 BAPTIST . MISREPRESENTATIONS. Now, to begin with, is it not strange to find Baxter, a genuine leading Presbyterian and infant Baptist, repre- sented as quite opposed to the baptism of infants ? What kind of a man in moral principle could he be ? Honest, godly ? A Baptist who quotes the like will, say, as the Baptist minister here does, * You may think this strange inconsistency in them, and so do I, but I have to state the facts. I cannot help their inconsistency.' Yes, the cele- brated author of " The Saints' Best," &c., &c., with many other godly men, are represented as strenuously denounc- ing others for teaching and doing what they habitually ad- vocated and administered themselves without pause ! But supposing these two quotations quite correct so far as they are given, may it not be that Baxter is speaking of adult baptism, apart from the subject of infants altogether, and is opposing those who advocated indiscriminate baptism of adults as the first mean^ of making disciples ; for in Eng- land, &c., there were and are such advocates. But Pen- gilly or Booth does not breathe a word of the connection in which the words occur. Baptists, like others, often say, that faith in Christ is necessary to salvation without specifying that they mean adults. Would they think it or would it be fair, to quote this from them to prove that they hold that no infants — since they are incapable of faith — can be saved ? For they generally teach that all infants dying in infancy are saved — that' is, without faith. They would reply, they were not speaking of infants, but meant those by age capable of faith ; which would be a right reply. But they don't do that justice to others in the matter of baptism. Let me now quote you Baxter's doctrine on the point in question from another source here in my hand, namely, •' The Select Works of Eev. Matthew Henry " (the great commentator), whom I am sure, brethren, you will regard as a reliable authority for fair quotation. He was also a cotemporary of Baxter. In his "Treatise on Baptism" here, chap, iii, ques. 2, he says, " The Church of Eng- land concludes, concerning every baptized child, that it is regenerated and born again. In opposition to which Mr. Baxtbr pleads (the following are Baxter's own words), " That baptism was not instituted to be a seal of the abso- lute promise of the first special grace, ' / will give them a I INFANT BAPTISM. ZO netv heart,* bat to be a seal of the covenant, properly so called, wherein God engageth himself, conditionally, to be our God ; and therefore it (baptism) seals, to the infants OF BELIEVERS, thc promise of salvation, so as to be a means of conferring the benefit of salvation upon them, not as a physical, or hyperphysical instrument, but only as a moral instrument ; oy sealing and so conveying a legal right, which is AFTERWARDS improvable, as a means of working a real change upon the souls of those who have faith and the use of reason." Observe here. Baxter says, " Baptism seals to the in- fants of believers," &c., &c., "which is afterivards im- provable as a means," &c. Surely, then, he was not an advocate against infant baptism; and yet Pengilly, in those two quotations of his, so represents him out of Booth's work. We have therefore between him and Cramp a remarkable spectacle ! Cramp, as I have shown you, in his •* Baptist History," (page 276), quotes Baxter to show how strong he was against immersion, in which he affirms immersion to be *' no ordinance of God, but a most heinous sin." Then, in his other book, his "■ Cate- chism " (page 43), when he has an opposite object— to strengthen his argument in favour of immersion by the in- fluence of great Paedobaptist names — he quotes Baxter (without stating anything of the place he quotes from) as saying, " In our baptism we are dipped under the water," and never breathes a word to the readers of that book that he had written very strongly against dipping. Then Pen- gilly and Booth complete the positionby making out, from his lips, that he was opposed also to the baptism of in- fants, and wrote strongly against it. And yet the facts remain matter of history — of which his many excellent volumes, still accesjible, are abundant evidence — that he was a Presbjrterian, and, like other Presbyterians, was NOT '* dipped under the water," nor re-baptized ; adminis- tered the ordinance by sprinkling, not immersion ; did so to infants, and advocated it as an ordinance of God, and no sin, but a duty and a privilege ; was an eminently godly minister of Christ, and died as he lived, a Presbyterian Paedobaptist Christian. Do not the Baptists greatly mis- lead their readers and hearers ? What kind of tree is it that produces such fruit ? Is it of God ? Can he ap- prove ? To what kind of religion does it lead ? 26 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. 7. Matthew Henry is the next great Paedobaptist name enlisted by the Baptist leaders in their cause that I will consider, — the same I have been reading from to you in vindication of his cotemporary, the great Baxter. The greater the men the better, and Henry's is indeed a name of renown. Pengilly, in his " Scripture Guide to Baptism " (page 28), cites Acts ii, 88, 89, where Peter, on the day of Pen- tecost, said to those who were pricked in their hearts, " Bepent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of • sins, and ye shall re- ceive the gift of the Holy Ghost : For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." In commenting on this for the Baptists' object, Pengilly says, " The promise to which the apostle alludes (in verse 39) has no relation to infant children." He gives some reasons for this assertion, and then cites, next page, some professed quotations from Paedobaptist writers, as being of the same mind with him in that assertion. In this way he adduces M. Henry thus : '* Matthew Heney (who is then quoted as saying), ' To this general the following limitations must refer, even as many of them, as many particular persons in each nation, as the Lord our God shall call effectually into the fellowship of Jesus Christ.' — Exposition of the place." This is the whole quoted from Henry on the versesin ques- tion. If Henry says anything more bearing on baptism of infants, which is the subject in question, or says anything in that way, on verge 88 — "For the promise is to you and to your children," it does not appear in Pengilly. He professes to give Henry's real mind ou the matter as to what these passages refer, as agreeing with his own. That is, of course, his profession to his readers, and those who trust him will accept his testimony as reliable ; and does he not even name the place in Henry's Commentary where the quotation is from ? Does not that look like a man who is fair ? It is true, the few who have Henry's Commen- tary can look it up and see, only even they may think it needless; trusting that, no doubt, the quotation is all right; whilst the great majority who have it not will have to trust Pengilly in this, as in other cases. Alas, how he betrays them! Let us see. I have Henry's Commentary here J ■ INFANT BAPTISM. 27 before me on the place referred to ; the words quoted are literally correct, so far as they ffo, yet, as I will show, still he is GROSSLY misquoted, misrepresented. Here we have a specimen of making a Paedobaptist writer appear, from his own lips, to support a doctrine he even, in the very PLACE, specifically disowns, and condemns one he distinctly and repeatedly advocates. [Let me also remind you that Mr. Games, the Baptist minister, this same evening, after I had read you from Henry what I will now again place before yoUj stated on this in his reply, that what I read you from him only made Pengilly's statement and position stronger ! He also repeated the same thing the following Wednesday, in the Baptist church, and would not allow me a reply at my re- quest. Well, keep in mind this statement now, as Henry is set before you by me.] Pengilly affirms that the promise alluded to in those verses "has no relation to infant children," and quotes Henry, on the place, in proof, as I have given you. Listen now to this from Henry in that same place, and see if Pengilly's assertion is made stronger by it : (Acts ii. 88, 89), '* All that receive the remission of sins, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost ; all that are justified and sanctified. Your children shall still have, as they have had, an interest in the covenant, and a title to the external seal of it. Gome over to Ghrist to receive those inestimable benefits ; for the promise of the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost is to you and to your children. It was very express (Isa. xliv. 8), *I will pour my spirit upon thy seed;' and (Isa. lix. 21), *My spirit and my word shall not depart from thy seed, and thy seed's seed.' When God took Abraham into covenant, He said, * I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed ' (Genesis xvii. 7) ; and, accordingly, every Israelite had his son circumcised at eight days old. Now it is proper for an Israehte, when he is by baptism to come into a new dispensation of this covenant, to ask, * What must be done with my children ? Must they be thrown out, or taken in with me ? ' • Taken in,' says Peter, ' by all means ; for the promise, that great promise of God's being to you a God, is as much to you and to your children now as ever it was. Though the pro- mise is still extended to your children as it has been, yet it 28 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. is not, as it has been, confined to you and them; but the benefit of it is designed for all that are afar of; ' we may add, AND THEIR CHILDREN, foT the blessing of Abraham comes upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ (Gal. iii. 14). The promise had long pertained to the Israelites (Bom. ix. 4), but now it is sent to those that are afar of, the remotest nations of the Gentiles, and every one of them, too, ' all that are afar o£f.' (Here follow now the words quoted by Pengilly.) To this general the following limita> tion must refer : Even as many of them, as many particular persons in each nation, as the Lord our God shall call effectually into the fellowship of Jesus Christ.'* In having what Henry did say correctly before you, brethren, you can see Pengilly's (and other Btbptist writers') mode of manipulation. To make the reader be- lieve (what you now see is very untrue) that the great Henry agrees with him (and all Baptists) that the promise spoken of in those verses " has no relation to infant children," nor to their being *• deemed proper subjects of infant baptism," he quotes Henry on another connected pointy and leaves out all that he does say on the point in ques- tion, without breathing a whisper that Henry does so at all. And how many Baptists and others that read Pen- gilly, or hear him quoted from by Baptist ministers in their proselytising efforts, as we heard Mr. Carnes do last Sab- bath at much length — how many such will be told or come to know the genuine truth about Henry, &c., &c. Other Baptists are just as silent on it ; and no doubt very many believe such misrepresentations without suspicion or desire or ability (not having the means within reach) to in- vestigate. [And what now will you think of the Baptist minister, Mr. Cames's repeated affirmations that those additional quotations from Henry only strengthened Pengilly's repre- sentation of ^Henry's views. You may perceive a reason in these assertions for his persistent refusal to allow me the liberty of reply. He knew I had several such sayings of his that I could clear up at once, which he could not stand before.] 8. Matthew Henry once more and others in a group. Pengilly (same book as before) says, page 54 : " If the New Testament does not afford an authority for infant INFANT BAPTISM. 29 e s baptism, upon what grounds dcT Paedobaptist divines practice and defend it ? "' '*' Many learned writers, as well as churches, have expressed their views upon this in- quiry. Mr. Wall, Mr. Hammond, and many others, hold wat the practice of ' Judish proselyte baptism ' is the foundation of the Christian rite, and as infants received the ^ former, so they should the latter; but Mr. Owen, Mr. ^ Jennings, and others, have proved that no such practice existed among the Jews to afford such a pattern till gen- erations after Christ. Sir N. Enatchbull assumes circum- cision as the proper foundation. Beza, and, after him, Mr. Doddridge and others, considered the holiness of the children of believers as making them proper subjects. Mr. Matthew Henry and Mr. Dwight contended that ' the pro- fession of faith made by the parents,' to be their children's right. Mr. H. F. Burder affirms, ' The identical principle which pervades and unites the whole of the argument is, that infants are to be baptised solely on the ground of con- nection with their parents,' " &c. In a note at bottom, Pen- gilly refers for proof to Henry's Treatise on Baptism, Dwight's Theology, &c. Now, what is to be noted* here is, that Pengilly represents those eminent Paedobaptists as differing from each other on these various grounds. That - while Enatchbull, for example, assumes circumcision, he differs in this from Doddridge, who. on his part, says : No, circumcision is not the ground of infant baptism ; it is the holiness of the children of behevers. While, again, Henry and Dwight differ from both the preceding, and, refusing to acknowledge circumcision or holiness, say it is " the profession of faith made by their parents." And so on of all. This is what he wishes to impress upon his readers, and he introduces his quotations here with the statement, ^ ** Their grounds are various and contradictory." Now, of these writers I have only Doddridge, Henry and Dwight at hand, and I find each of them compUtely misre- presented. Doddridge, in the 5th vol. of his works before me (lectures cciii., cciv., ccv.), instead of confining himself to " the holiness " as tlie ground for infant baptism (in the sense of federal holiness as in 1 Cor. vii. 14), not only gives that, but also circumcision, the connection of children with their beheving parents, and the profession of faith made by their parents, &c., &c., all as arguments and reasons for ■ 30 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS.' / 1 it in Scripture. Henry, in his *' Treatise on Baptism/' now before me, ohap. ii., proves the title of infants to bap- tism, not merely or only from the profession of faith made by their parents, but also from their federal holiness, from the Abrahamio covenant and circumcision, and several other reasons. In like manner, Dwight, in his Theology (which is before me), sermons clvii. olviii., does the tame thiny, proving all those various grounds, and others also, at length. And had I the other writers referred to— Wall, Hammond, &c., I have no doubt at all but they would be found in harmony with these. And yet Pengilly picks one argument for ii^iant baptism from one writer, another argument from a second, another from a third, and so on, and says to his readers. Bee how these infant Baptists DIFFER from each other on the subject ; there are different arguments ; how hard it is to prove infant baptism when they have such opposing views. While after all, the fact is, each of them holds the argument attributed to him and those attributed to the others as well ; there being several reasons or proofs of the same thing, which they all use in common. Besides the quotations, &c., which I have now proven to be gross misrepresentations of the "pious fraud" and Jesuitical class, there are still quite a number in Pengilly, Cramp, and other Baptist books in common circulation, which I can prove similarly. Of a considerable number, again, I have not the Paedobaptist books referred to (which will be the case still more with most readers and hearers), by which, if I had, I could see a similar abuse of them, it may be most reasonably presumed. I will now close the list on this division of my Lecture by another somewhat different in kind, viz. : — Feiuiilh/s argument to prove that John's baptism was by immersion, in (page 14 of) his *' Scripture Guide to Bap- tism." He says : " We should notice the place where John administered this ordinance. It was * the river Jordan.' If, in reference to the people of Jerusalem, a situation where water might easUy be obtained for sprinkling or pouring, was what John required, we read of our Lord at this place directing the man that was born bUnd to go and * wash in the pool of Siloam ; ' so we read of the ' pool INFANT BAPTISM. 31 called Bethesda/ and 'the brook Gedron/ all tn or near Jerusalem (and we read of others in the Old Testament) ; and without doubt at some of them the penitent Jews of ti^at city and neighborhood might have received the ordi- nance, if such were the mode by which John administered it ; and it cannot reasonably be imaoined he would have REQUIRED those pcrsous to go the distance of several miles for the convenience of the river Jordan ; more reasonable to suppose he would have baptized in every town and village where his ministry had its intended effect; and, especially, at or near the metropolis. This strongly favours the opinion that immersion was the mode. Thus : (and here follows, in his usual plan, a number of professed quotations from Paedobaptists to confirm this reasoning from their writings.) In short, the argument here is, that if ' ' especially at or near the metropolis," Jerusalem, John had had con- veniences for baptizing his penitents by immersion^ it cannot be reasonably imagined he would not have done so there. But instead of that, and because he could not obtain that convenience there, he therefore required those persons to go the distance of several miles to Jordan, that he might thus be able to immerse them. Observe the force of the argument is, he obliged them to go to the Jordan, because he could not find a suitable place at or near Jerusalem for immersion, while it is admitted, or contended, that he could have had at or near Jerusalem conveniences sufficient for sprinkling or pouring. I may remark preliminarily that John might have had (and we have no doubt had) other reasons, apart from the water required for baptism, for preaching and abiding " in the wilderness," rather than in Jerusalem and other towns, as Jesus had wise reasons for spending his time chiefly in Galilee rather than in Judea and Jerusalem. But, apart from this, let us allow to Pengilly, meanwhile, the full force of his reasoning, and suppose John's only reason for going to the Jordan was for the means of immersion. His Baptist readers will likely accept his argument as conclu- sive, meanwhile, and it will be hoped that Paedobaptist readers and hearers will accept it also as just and con- vincing. Be it so. The argtiment is proposed, of course, as sound in the facts and reasoning, Pengilly being the 32 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. 4.f witness. That being gi'anted, can Baptists or others object if I transfer it as it is, without disturbance or alteration, from John's baptism to the baptisms in the same Jerusa- lem, on the du>y of Pentecost, when (Acts ii : 41) 8,000 were baptized by the apostles ? Then how will it operate ? If John could not find conveniences for immersion in or near Jerusalem, neither could they ; and they had a great multitude to baptize in that one day. If John went to Jordsn, as is here said, because nearer than that to Jeru- salem there was no place suitable for his alleged purpose, then it follows that, since the apostles baptized the 8,000 in Jerusalem — *' at or near it " — therefore they did not baptize by immersion, but by sprinkling, or pouring. Now that is just ont' of our arguments as to their inability to immerse the 3,000 there. It is known there was not eon- yenience for that. But wiU the Baptists be willing to ad- mit, now, Fengilly's assertions and reasoning on the in- sufficiency of water in Jerusalem, when we maintain the same thing of the day of Pentecost, there, as one of our proofs that the 8,000 could not have been immersed? 0, NO. In this connection they feel bound to see plenty of water for immersion at or near Jerusalem, as the 8,000 were baptized there, and all the while the Baptist Publica- tion Society still publishes and circulates in its> books, as in Pengilly's, that John brought the people to the Jordan, '' because at or near Jerusalem edpeciall;y," while there was water enough available for sprinkling, there was not sufficient for immersion there. But in addition to the question of the insufficiency of water, there were other nbstades enough to prevent the immersion of the 8,000. One of them was this : The places of water were a>* of them in the possesssion of the numer- ous and bitter enemies of Christ (whom they had very recently crucified) and of his disciples and their doctrine and baptism. The feast of Pentecost was one of the three annual feasts on which the Lord had required in the law all the males of the Jewish race to appe;^ before him at his house in Jerusalem (Exod. xxii. 14-17 ; Deut. xvi. 16). Consequently, on this occasion, there were present in that city not only the usual large population of hundreds of thousands, with their priests, scribes, pharisees and rulers, but a vast number besides from Judea, Galilee, and " every INFANT BAPTISM. 33 nation under heaven," (Acts ii. 6-11), all animated on Buoh an occasion with anti-christian religious fervour and zeal. Now, would they — filled, too, as they were with ani- mosity against the disciples of the Messiah — would they allow the water they needed for food, and drink, and re- ligious purposes, to be polluted in the ordinary and (as they would deem) in the reUgious sense, by the immersion in it, at one time, too, of thirty hundred of the hated sect of the Nazarenes ? But there is no mention in the Acts, or elsewhere, of the shadow of a commotion or objection from the Jews on that subject, the absence of which is itself a proof of our position that there was no immersion on the occasion. Other reasons might be added. Let this suffice. I now bring this part of my subject to a close. I have given you evidence to show that Baptist writers, under the auspices of the Baptist Publication Societies, etc., deal freely and systematically in misquotations and misrepresentations of the views of infant-Baptist writers ; which also Baptist ministers and people most diUgently repeat and circulate. It is for you to judge, brethren, whether I have done so sufficiently. And these given you are only a few specimens. I do not wonder that those who are brought up from youth imder such influences, and others related to other com- munions, but who are not acquainted with the true merits of the question, should be led to regard the Anabaptist doctrines as right, when they read and hear their special pleading, without, at the same time, the opportunity of hearing the other side from those who know and fairly ex- hibit it. It is not too much to say that the great body of that denomination of Christians, — ministers and people — form their views and belief from a few leading books, such as Pengilly and Cramp, or, what is the same, from the statements of such books repeated orally by those who take all as genuine fact, without inquiring for themselves into the original works referred to, and other indepen-lent sources of information. Mai^ — as the common people — cannot do so from the want of the necessary learning, and the many different books, the time, and expense. But where misrepresentation is used as a means of securing the object in view, such trouble, expense, and abiUty are necessary to find it out, and those who don't do this, or 8 \ T 84 BAPTIST MIS^IEPRESENTATIONS. J^ learn the faots from those who do, are very liable to be de- ceived, and in this matter are deceived. Such a result will follow in any connection. Let an able lawyer, or seve- ral snob, on one side of a oanse, exert their abUities as special pleaders, to bring forward, withhold, and manage the evidence as they please before a jury, and the evidence on the other side not be heard or known, except as given by those who strain every nerve to get judgment against it ; would not justice usually miscarry if thai were the way, and the jury or audience be often led to be- lieve the worse to be the better cause ? Nor would truth and right be safe even in the hands of men, on the whole, honestly inclined. For they also are liable to be misled and mistaken. Such is human fraility, even in good men, and in proportion as the bias is strong in favour of one side of things, there is a proportionate tendency to receive, believe, and use, without being as particular as truth re- quired, statements on the authority of others, and argu- ments that appear fitted in their nature to serve the object in view. Looking at the way the Baptist people and com- mon ministers get their great question set before them, by special pleading leaders, and remembering the influence of bias in the too ready acceptance by frail humanity of what we favour, I don't wonder at their belief, nor at their common and great zeal, so much out of proportion to the real value of the question, — they are so constantly impress- ed and stirred up on it to such extent, by those who are over them, and by each other, to do all they can to get their opinions propagated, that considering frail and er- roneously inclined, plastic human nature, and the amount of real ignorance, and power of the ambition of success, and other mutual excitements, few are able to resist the constant pressure of such influences, but are carried by their convictions and feelings along an impetuous current. To some onlookers and themselves, such zeal may appear an evidence of rectitude of belief, and certainly it is proof of their attaching immense importance to their theory of the baptism of water. But need I say that zeal may be great and wide-spread and yet ' not according to knowledge ' of truth or true religion. Even Rome can succeed in bring- ing over to Iier creerl those who don't know better. And those brought up under her management from youth, as INFANT BAPTISM. 85 also and especially, those she may have brought over, are very zealous even to fanaticism in her cause as being that of truth and God. My last remark before leaving this subject is : Baptists are in the habit of saying they make their appeals to the Word of God alone, and not to the views and doctrines oi the fathers, or uninspired men. Yet, while this is con- stantly repeated, I find in their books on Baptism they very much forget and abuse this wholesome rule ; for they have very great fondness for quotations from uninspired men to support their ideas. Now, in this, what is the dif- ference between the ancient and modern fathers ? If the one class is not to be appealed to, why the others ? Sup- pose that out of the thousands of infant-baptist writers of eminent name, who are opposed completely to Anabaptism as unscriptural, a numl^er of infant-baptists, so-called, were to be found agreeing wiih the Baptists against the baptism of infants as unscriptural, and they, mark, infant baptizers, at the same time, all the while till their death, or against sprinkling as unscriptural, and they all the while baptizing still by sprinkling, would their statements of that nature deserve to be regarded of special value in deciding the truth of the Scripture in the case ? But I have shown you that even in making professed quotations from such, the Baptist denomination is not so scrupulous and truthful as she ought to be, but certainly violates greatly the ninth Commandment in bearing false witness against her Paedobaptist brethren, by misrepresenting them ; which is repeated, to her great guilt, over and over again, in her name and by her authority, by thousands of lips, and year after year continually. [In the foregoing narration of lecture, the various topics and incidents are given as in the meeting, with this differ- ence here, that the reasoning on several is stated more fully, and some of the counter-quotations from Paedobap- tist works are more extended, no new matter being intro- duced. The oral delivery being in fewer words, did not take so long as the foregoing wotdd. At this stage of the lecture the lecturer paused, and said that although Mr. Games — the Baptist minister present — had stated at the beginning of the meeting, in reply to his inquiry, as was understood, that he meant not to reply to this lecture to- 86 BAPTIST MISREFBESENTATIONS. night, yet, he may have changed his mind since ; and if so, he would give him opportunity now if he wished it. But if he did not wish this, and if the meeting were not too tired, but would like him to go on to the next division of his lecture — the Early Church History of Infant Bap- tism — he would do so. Upon this many voices cried, '* Go ' on ! Go on ! ** and so did Mr. Games ; the lecturer there- upon entered on the next division.] THE Part II. EABLY CHURCH HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM. As before stated it has been constantly asserted that In- fant Baptism is a relic pf the Church of Rome. Into this we will now inquire. In doing so we will, of course, have to trace the history of the question as nearto the apostolic age of the first century as we can find authentic evidence. It is admitted on all sides that the Apostle John died about A.D. 100, or at the very close of the first century. It is to be re- membered that in those early periods there were no books printed by types as now, — all was done with the pen, which was a very laborious and expensive process, and greatly limited the number and circulation of the writings. Also, education among the people was very Hmited in extent and degree. And for some time after the apostles' day the occa- sions for writing books and the number of writers were not so many as in subsequent centuries, when the Church's borders became more enlarged, the number able and willing to serve as instructors proportionately increased, the restraints of hostile civil powers removed, and when contentions for the faith against heresies had become numerous and wide- spread. In the second and third centuries, the powers of civil government being in the hands of the heathen, Chris- tians were subject to many persecutions, and their writings, not nearly so numerous as in after centuries, were many of them lost. In fact not many such writings remain to us. And only a few of these touch on baptism. In our present investigation the Baptist books I will use of Dr. Cramp's, you will understand to be the same " Bap- INFANT BAPTISM. 37 tist History " and " Catechism on Baptism " of his I have been using before; and that of Pengilly — will be his " Scripture Guide to Baptism." I mention this now to save time by not having to repeat their titles in full when I refer to tibem, but simply Cramp's Baptist History, or History, and his Catechism, and simply, Pengilly. The Baptist bias from their side of the question at issue, is to darken and explain away the evidence that may be adduced in favour of our views ; also to suppress and mis- represent the facts in evidence. This temptation, I have to say is freely pelded to in proportion to the difficulties they meet with in maintaining the Baptist position. We will see how it leads them to adopt a similar poUcy to that we have abeady seen, in the first part of the lecture. A cause whose advocacy feels pressed to resort, and that sys- tematically from beginning to end, to such policy is not of God and His Word. If ^e Baptist cause did not require this method of defence and propagation, they would not, of course, resort to it. ^ As the early Christian writers did not write in EngUsh, you understand, but in the Latin and Greek languages, etc., the right translation of words bearing on the matters of controversy, is often a question of dispute. Hence, in our inquiry, if I use the translations the Baptist them- selves acknoMedge and give as correct, there will be no room for objection to them from their side. ' ois plan I will foUow. Of the earUest historical evidence after the apostles, on this subject, Cramp says in his History, p. 10 : — ** The ' ApostoUc Fathers ' first claim attention. They are : Barnabas, Hermas, Clement of Bome, Ignatius, and Poly- carp. They contain no reference to the subject now before us." These are called 'ApostoUc Fathers,' I may explain, because they, at least the first four, lived in the apostles' time, the first two having been fellow-labourers of Paul's (Acts xiii ; Bom. xvi. 14). The next Christian writer is Justin Mabtyb.' Pengilly says (p. 74), he wrote the " Apology for Christians, ad- dressed to the Emperor, the Senate, and people of Bome " (from which I *am about to give you extracts), *' about A.B. 140," that is, only about forty years after the apostle John. Of him says Cramp in his History, p. 12, " Justin ■ i>WiWwfcJWirtl»*»i. ^■■■■Pii m BAPTIST MISREPRESEirrATIONS. Martyr was a phUosophio Christian. He was put to death at Borne A.I>. 166 " (or twenty- six years after his ^Apology'). 'treat from God the remiscion of their past sins, we fasting and praying together with them. They are then conducted by us to a place wh'vee there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner m which we ourselves were regenerated. For they abb THEN WASHED in the name of God the Fath'^r, and Lord of the Universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Ghrist, and of the Holy Spirit.' " Justin wrote in Greek, aad the above, Oramp gives as a connect translation. Pengilly, in p. 74, gives a translation of the same passage, mth a sentence more at the beginning, which is (Justin being the speaker), — " I will now declare to you also after what manner wb, being made anew by Ghrist, have dedicated oubselvbs to God," etc. The subject of this passage, it thus appears, is SELF-dedication to God by baptism, in those days of constant and numerous conversions of adult heathens to Ghrist. And is a disfebent subject from that of the dedi- oation by Ghristian parents of their offspring. Justin had been himself a heathen. In Pengilly, further, there is a noteworthy difference of words from Gramp's in the last two sentences, to which I wish particular attention. Cramp's is, •' They are then conducted by us to a place where there is water, and are BEOENEBATED in the SAME MANNEB in which WE WBBE OUB- SELVES BEOENEBATED. For they are then washed in the name of God the Father," etc. In Pengilly it is, *' Then we bring them to some place where there is water, and they are baptized by the same way of baptism by which we were baptized ; for they are^washed (en to udati) in the water in the name of God the Father," etc. Here the words '* {en to udati) in the water," are not in Gramp's, nor in it in his " Catechism," p. 16. But what I wish attended to in particular is, that where the one gives the rendering « regenerated " the other, in each case instead, uses the word '< baptized." And in the extract from Cramp it is INFANT BAPTISM. 39 plain that Justin affirms regeneration to have been effected by baptism, by being *' washed in the name of the" Trin- ity. In Mnrdock and Seaton Beid's Mosheim's Eoclesias- tioal History, (edition 1862» p. 75, note) for example, will be found a translation of a larger portion of this passage, where also the two terms, " regenerated " and " baptized " are givon as used synonymously, referring to the mme act. And Cramp and Pengilly, two leading Baptist autho- rities, taken together, agree therewith. "On this I will read a sentence from Sohaff's History of the Christian Church, vol. i, p. 896. "The idea of Baptism. This ordinance was regarded in the ancient church as the sacra- ment of conversion and regeneration. Tertullian (of A.D. 200) describes its effects thus : — ' The soul becomes transformed through regeneration by water and power from above,' " etc. On this point, however, both sides are agreed. And Cramp's quotation from Justin Martyr, of itself, makes that plain. With these observations I leave this point at present. After giving the quotation from Justin, Cramp then aids, "Observe the manner in wLl^^h he speaks of bap- tism. The candidates are those who are ' pr^rsuaded ' and 'believe;' and the ordinance is adminis ared, not by sprinkling, but by the water of immersion.' Now, I ask you, brethren, to observe that Justin does not speak, as Oramp alleges, of immersion. There is nj such word in the passage. It is " They are then washed in the name of Ood the Father," etc. Cramp is at no difficulty in proving his point. He leaves it as so proved, with those words. The word " washed " with him necessarily means immer- sion. The mode of baptism is not my subject to-night, but I will pause a moment on it here. On the same principle, were some Baptist, or Cramp himself, to read in our Pres- byterian Shorter Catechism, " Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost doth signify,'' etc., he would say, Here is sufficient proof that the Pre^ >yte- rian Church of Britain, Canada, etc., etc., baptize by im- mersion 1 These words, you observe, too,^happen to be the same as Justin's. In Justin the sign, "baptism," is called by the name of the thing signified " regen- eration," after the manner of the AposUes, and of the ^^mm mm H. II wmpin 40 BAPTIST BIISRBPRESENTATIONS. a ' ': p Scriptures in general ^Titus iii. 6 ; Bom. vi. 8-6 ; A.ots xxii. 16 ; Math. xxVi. 26, etc.). It is to be understood, of course, that the washing of baptism is not a literal washing to remove the " filth of the flesh," but symbolical. In Bev. i. 5, believers are said to be ' washed from their sins in the blood of Christ,' and Paul calls the symbolical sign of that " the blood of sprinkling," (Heb. xii. 24). David, in Psalm li., says, " Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean ; yea, tvaah Thou me," etc. Does he mean immer- sion there as the symbolical act ? We know the hyssop was used for sprinkling. Pengilly has "(en to udati) in the water," The italics are his own. He wish<^s by these Greek words, and his rend^ ring of them, to make out the idep of immersion. Even " in the water," added to what precedes, does not prove that. But Jie translates the Greek en, as if it unquestionably means " in," and nothing else. In Mosheim, p. 75, note, ^before mentioned, it is rendered by " with," in this same passage. But hear the leading Bap- tist writer. Dr. Carson, "I do not deny that en may be translated with.'' (On Baptism, p. 121.) In the recent Baptist translation of the Ne- Testament now before me, it is often rendered " with,' ause they could not make sense by in, in the places, as Iu.4«tt. vii. 6., " nor cast your pearls before the swine, lest they trample them with (en) their feet." So also, ch. vii. 1 ; xx. 15 ; xxv. 16 ; xxvi. 52, " all they that take the sword shall perish with (en) the sword," and a host of others. But Justin says, " They are conducted by us to a place where there is water." Well, so far as those words go, immersion is not indicated. When I baptize children in our church they are brought to a place where there is water, viz.: to the baptismal font, as it is called, from which I sprinkle water upon them. In the description I read you from Huber (page 19) of the four Greek church baptisms he witnessed, he tells that *' a table stood in the middle (of the room) with a basin on it. The priest was then sent for, who, upon entering the room, was received by the father of the infant and led to the BAPTISMAL WATER, whlch hc cousccratcd by a short prayer," etc. The child was afterwards sprinkled by dropping some water out of the basin on its forehead. As well, then, to make' out immersion from the words |v INFANT BAPTISM. 41 (in capitals here) from Hnber, as to say Justin's expres- sion, " led by us to a place where ihere is water,*' is proof of immersion. Small eyidenoe goes far on their own side, but you will see soon, and much, a difTerent disposition with really strong evidence on what they are opposed to. » As to those Justin here speaks of as first "believing" and being " persuaded" of the truth of what they are taught, observe, he is describing to the heathen emperor, senate, and people, outside of the Ohristian church how converts dedicated themselves to God. (Justin him- self, and Christians in general, of that period, were at first avowed heathens or Jews). The sentence of Justin indi- cating that he was describing their " self -dedication " Cramp has left out ; Fengiliy has it in. In addressing heathens it was natural he would refer to the way such were admitted into the Christian church. But we will see infants soon. In his History Cramp next refers to Ibbn^vs, (p. 18,) of whom he says ^s follows : — " Ireneeus became Bishop of Lyons in France A.D. 177 (or about forty years after Justin Martyr's Apology)' and died A.D. 202. He mentions baptism several times, and seemingly connects it with re- generation as Justin had done before him, in the pasRage just cited." In regard to Justin we have seen that th3re is no "seemingly" about his language; for he expressly connects the two together — 'regenerated by baptism.' IrensBUB spoke similarly, " connecting baptism with regene- ration as Justin had done before him," Cramp himself being witness. Next, (in p. 14,) Ci«.mp says : — ^* Two passages used to be quoted by Faedobaptist writers as testi- monies in favour of Infant baptism." C'^serve the sleight of hand he practises here in the introt' action of these passages :— •* Two passages used to be quoted," etc., plainly making an insinuation equal to an assertion, that Faedo- baptist writers dont quote these now, — have given them up, — which is very untrue. They are regarded still, as they have always been, as weighty passages, and so will they be by you, brethren, I think, when they are before you. He goes on to say, " One of these is from Justin Martyr. He writes thus : — ' Many men and many women, sixty and seventy years old, who /row children have been- DISCIPLES of Christ,preserve their continence.' The other 42 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. is from Irensras. These are his words : — ' He oame to save sinners by himself ; all I say who abe rbobnbratbd by him unto God— >-infant8 and children, and boys, and young men, and old men.' " On these, Cramp remarks, '* But baptism is not mentioned in either of these passages, and modem oritios have confessed that they afford no sup- port to the Paedobaptist view." Then as the usual resort he gives a quotation from a German writer to confirm his remarks. His expression — " And modem critics have con- fessed," &o., is also misleading. It insinuates to the com- mon reader that such is the confession of most or all modern critics, which is very untrue. But we are not to decide these cases by quotations from others, of which it would be easy to give abundance in support of the Paedobaptist view. We are not going to give up our own private judgment to a German writer, or Oramp, or any other. We have the materials for judgment before x)ur- selves, which being set before you, brethren, from Baptist authorities are therefore indisputable, ^e have seen, and Baptists admit that Justin and IrensBus werie accustomed to speak of baptism as the means of beoenbration and as the same thing. In the former passage of Justin, he says those brought to the water " are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For they are then washed in the name of the Father," &c. Pengilly uses the word *' baptized " in his translation as a proper rendering of that term rendered " regenerated " by Oramp. And Irenteus is admitted by Cramp to " connect baptism with regeneration the same as Justin did before him." These things being so, will it do to say there is no evidence at all in that passage from IrensBus about baptism, because the word baptism does not occur ? Cramp and Pengilly, etc., have no difficulty at all in seeing and saying that in the first passage from Justin the baptism was by immer- sion, although the word immersion does not occur in it ; and, besides, no other expression in it means that. But here they cannot see any evidence in favour of baptism, just as if there was none at all in the connection always made between it and regeneration. Well, we had better in that case judge for ourselves. Irenseus, among the others — the " children, boys, young men and old men " — he specifies there, says, that '• Infants are regenerated unto God." INFANT BAPTISM. 4(8 He and Jnstin before him, and his ootemporary TertulliAn and the snbseqnent writers always taoght that it was by baptism regeneration was effected. It may be reasonably coneludedt therefore, that in IrensBUs' day — less than eighln^ years from the apostoUo age — the praotioe of the Ohuroh was to baptiae infants. Moreover, sinee on the known faot that baptism was held a^ the means of regeneration and equivalent to it, Pengilly uses the word " baptized " as the proper rendering in the former passage of Justin, of the word Oramp renders "regenerated," why not on the same principle render "regenerated" by "baptized" in this passage of Irenieas. It would then read " infants, etc., etc., are baptized unto God " — with the idea involved in that that thus " infants are regenerated unto God," so that in ef- fect the one statement is the precise equivalent of the other. I may remark here that our subject is not affected in the slightest by any evidence that those early or later writers had erroneom views of the nature of baptism, as really regenerating the baptized. The point is, they held and taught that baptism and regeneration went together as cause and effect, — ^to baptize was to regenerate, and to be regenerated was to be baptized. The other passage of Justin's is differently given in Cramp's History from bis Catechism, (p 18;) where it is : — '* There are persons among us, both males and females, sixty, seventy years old, who, from children were discipled to Christ, and have remained pure." But in his History (p. 14) — " Many men and many women, sixty and seventy years old, who, from children have been disciples of Christ, preserve their continence." Between these two forms of the same passage there are, lu some respects, distinct differences in meaning ; and more correctness ought to be in passages, the exact meaning of which is the subject of investigation. We have of course a choice between the two. His History is the latest work, and I take the pas- sage given there, as presenting it most correctly. In his Catechism Cramp reasons thus : — " Baptism is not men- tioned here, the word employed ('discipled ') implies the act of a conscious, intelligent being, capable of being taught and of reducing principles to practice, in which sense Justin himself uses the words in other parts of his writings." The idea of the passage is, not that the many men and 44 BAPTIST MIBBEPRESENTATIONS. women were under the process of being '* difloipled to Christ/' from children, but that "they had been disciples o/Ohrist" since then ;— had become disciples in their childhood. And the question is, whether Justin regarded any onregenerated person, young or old, as becoming a disciple by being re- generated. Did he consider all regenerated or bom again by the spirit of Christ, to become, by that fact, disciples of Christ, as distinguished from the rest of the unregene- rated portion of mankind ? There is very reason to ^ believe he did, as regeneration is that by which the dispo- sitions and position of true discipleship is secured. Then as he held that baptism both regenerates and formally admits the baptized to the name of disciples or of the sheep of Christ's pasture, — to have become in childhood a disciple of Christ implies that they were baptized then to begin with, as baptism was held to be the means of re- generation. Cramp Bays further in his Catechism, "The expression < from chil^en ' must therefore be understood to be equivalent to the modern phrase 'in early life,' " — that is, according to his view of the term " discipled." I admit that those words are a correct rendering of the original Greek, ek, paidon, and that the term for children there, like our own word children, is often used for an age* above infancy, but i'. must be admitted equally that it applies also like our word children, to infants as well. Thus in the New Testament, Matt. ii. 16 : " Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, /rom two years old and under." The Greek word for " children," here, is the same as in Justin. Also Baptists use the term PAEDo-baptist to indicate those, who baptize infants, which is the same Greek word prefixed to "baptist." Justin's expression therefore does not exclude the age of earliest infancy. Note, moreover, that he in the passage under review evidently lays emphasis on those words — that those aged people were disciples /row their childhood. Keep in mind too, that his cotemporary, Irenseus declares that among others of all ages, " infants " (infantes) were also regenerated unto God through Christ, and that they both, etc., taught strongly that regeneration was effected by baptism. These things being so it cannot f#ihMMIlM INFANT BAPTISM. 45 be truly said thai this passage and that from IrensBus, I explained before, " afford no support to the Paedobaptist view," but the very reverse oan be said. And they were yerv near the apostolic age. The next witness on the subject is Tbrtullun. In con- nection with his evidence on our subject there is particular interest, as he writes on it positively and at length. Oon- sequently his utterances have been, and are regarded by |both sides of nyach importance as to the history of the question, and been attended to correspondingly. In the way of preparing his readers for the value he •wishes them to attach to tiie evidence on the practice of infant-baptism, or " child "-baptism, as he calls it, which here appears, and to lead them to suppose it one of the de- partures from truth that began in that age, Oramp, in his History, first describes the times and Tertullian. Of him he says (p. 17), ''Tertullian, for example, a Christian writer who flourished at the close of the second and com- mencement of the third century, declares the following spiritual blessings to be consequent upon baptism : — Be- mission from sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and participation in the Holy Spirit. He csJls it 'the sacrament of washing,' 'the blessed sacrament of water,' ' the laver of regeneration.' " In the next pages Cramp re- fers to other signs of the times, as indicating the progress and spread of human additions in religious worship, some of the corruptions of doctrine and worship that afterwards prevailed. I may add, what is admitted by all sides, that Tertullian ultimately became a disciple and advocate of one MontanuSf a remarkable heretic, who gave himself out to be the Paraclete or Comforter whom the Saviour pro- mised to send to His disciples after His ascension (John xiv. 16-17 ; xvi. 7-14)»*^" Mosheim (Eccles. Hist. Century n., chap, v., sec. 28, 24) concludes his account of Tertul- Uan thus : — " Of all Montanus's followers, the most learned and distinguished was Tertullian, a man of genius, but austere and gloomy by nature ; who defended the cause of his preceptor by many energetic and severe pub- Ucations." Montanus's heresy, besides its blasphemy, was very austere in nature. Much is made by Baptists of the fact that Tertullian opposed the baptism of infants ; on account of which he seems to be forgiven his other great 46 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. 1 failings, and much admired. For example, in my copy of Tengilly's ♦* Scripture Guide to Baptism," (paper covers), on ihe inside page of each cover are printed (and issued along with the book, by the Baptist Publication Society, Philadelphia) " Historical Gonclusione on Infant Baptism, by J. Torrey Smith ;" from which I quote : — ** In the be- ginning of the third century we ^nd such controversy (on infvut-baptism). And one clear note of remonstrance has sounded through all the intervening ages to our day, namely, that of stout-hearted old Tertullian (A.D. 200)." That is to say, though all historians affirm alike of him, (and six volumes of his writings are still extant) that he was very imsound in the faith, ultimately a great and pro- nounced heretic, and a rude, though able and zealous man after his own ideas ; and J. Torrey Smith must have Imown all that (but the vast majority of his readers, of course, would not), yet, because he in some sort (to be seen yet) opposed infant- baptism, he is represented as one of the greatest and best of his day. Probably the motive in this is, by giving him (by misrepresentation) such a char- acter, to impress the unlearned reader with the idea that infant-baptism must be unscriptural, and an innovation then, or such a good and noble man would not have op- posed it. We will see Pengilly, while entirely silent as to his demerits, drawing what he intends as a strong argu- ment from his faithfulness to Scripture, and that contrary to the evidence before him in the place quoted, which he does not give his readers, and we will see others simi- larly. I will now set before you, from different sources, what Tertullian wrote on the question. And I have to state preliminarily that Baptist writers cannot, and do not, deny the accuracy of the facts to be stated, but adopt the poUcy I have shown you in the first part of this lecture of giving only a part, suppressing the connected parts, and then giving meanings to what they quote quite difilerent from the original writer's, which would be seen were the words of the writer in the immediate connection not withheld. Tertullian wrote a treatise on Baptism somewhat at length. His statements in it are now the > ubject of consideration. The first account I will give you is from an excellent and able treatise on " Infant Baptism Scriptuial and Beason- INFANT BAPTISM. 47 able : and Baptism by Sprinkling or AfiEusion, the most Suitable and Edifying Mode: by Samuel Miller, D.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Church Govern- ment in the Theological Seminary at Princeton. New Jersey Piesbyterian Board of Publication: Philadelphia." The price of this work (paper or other covers) is small, and it is well worth procuring. I will have occasion to refer to it frequently and will call it just " Miller." In this work of Miller, p. 22, he says: — "Tertullian, about two hundred years after tiie birth of Christ [tOO after the last of the apostles,] is the first man of whom we read in Ecclesiastical History, as speaking a word against infant-baptism ; and he, while he recognises the existence and prevalence of the practice, and expressly recommends that infants be baptized, if they are not likely to survive the period of infancy ; yet advises that, where there is a prospect of their living, baptism be delayed until a late period in life. But what was thq reason of this ad- vice? The moment tve look cr< the reason, we see that it avails nothing to the cause in support of which it is some- times produced. Tertullian adopted the superstitious idea, that baptism was accompanied with the remission of all past sins ; and that sins committed after baptism were PECULIARLY DANGEROUS. He therefore, advised, that not merely infants, [what follows Baptist writers omit mention- ing, as^f there were no such statements,] but young men and young women ; and even young widows and widowers should postpone their baptism until the period of youthful appetite and passion should have passed. In short, he ad- vised that, in all cases in wiikh death was not hkely to Intervene, baptism be postponed, until the subjects of it should be arrived at a period of hie, when they would no longer be in danger of being le^l astray by youthful lusts. And thus, for more than a century after tiie age of Tertul- lian, we find some of the most conspicuous converts to the Christian faith, postponing baptism till the close of life. Constantino the Great, we are told, though a professing Christian for many years before, was not baptized till after the commencement of his last illness. The same fact is recorded of a number of other distinguished converts to Christianity, about and after that time. But, surely, advice and facts of this kind make nothing in favour of the sys- 48 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. tern of our Baptist brethren. Indeed, taken altogether, theur historical bearing is strongly in favour of our system." In confirmation of the portion which Baptist writers omit to set before their readers, I will quote from one or two historians. They each give the above account as to infants, but, as I will give that from Baptist authorities, I will not repeat it just now. The first I give is from the ''.History of the Apostolic Church, by Philip Sohaflf, Pro- fessor in the Theological Seminary at Mercersburg. T. & T. Clark, publishers, Edinburgh, 1854; Vol.11." He says, p. 270, ** TertuUian holds an early baptism to be dangerous, because, according to his Montanistic notions, a mortal sin committed after baptism excludes for ever from the communion of the Church, and probably incurs eternal damnation. On this ground he advises not only children, but even adults also, who are yet unmarried and under no vow of chastity, to put off baptism until they are secure against temptation to gross carnal indulgence." Here he adds, in a note, an extract from TertuUian, which I will give, and then translate, "Non minore causa," 'tiys Ter- tuUian, •' innupti quoque procrastinandi,,in quibus tentatio praeparata est tam virginibus per maturitatem, quam viduis per vacationera, donee aut nubant aut continentiae corroborentur,'' — That is, "Nor is it from less (weighty) reason that those not in the marriage relation should also defer (baptism), in whom temptation is ready at hand as much to virgins through their maturity as to widows by their isolation, tiU they marry or are strongly confirmed in continence." Next, " Hagenbach's History of Doctrmes," (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1846), vol. I., p. 194. " From the op- position which TertulUan raised to infant-baptism {de bap- tismoy 18), it may be inferred that it was a customary practice in his times. He aUeges the following reasons against it : — [I pass over these (as they wiU appear again) except this last, namely] 6. The great responsibility which the subject of baptism takes upon him. From the last mentioned reason he recommends to even grown-up per- «ions, single persons, widows, etc., to delay baptism tiU. they are either married or formed the firm resolution to live a single hfe." Lastly on this. Three years ago I read over TertuUian 's INFANT BAPTISM. 49 Treatise on Baptism myself, both in the original Latin and in the Enghsh translation of the Fathers by Clark, Edin- burgh, and can bear personal testimony to the complete accuracy to the account of it I have quoted from MUler, Schaff, and Hagenbach. The bearing of these points will appear again. Lot us now return to the Baptist writer, Cramp. In his History, p. 19. he says : — '•The extension of the ad- ministration of baptism, in an unwarrantable manner, is referred to by Tertui.ian in his tract, *De Baptismo,' in terms of strong disapproval. Some persons had intro- duced children (not infants) to baptism, or advocated the ^-dministration of the ordinance to them. Tertullian in- dignantly reproves the practice. * Let them come,' he says, ' when they are taught to whom they may come ; let them become Christians when th^y are able to know Christ. Why should this innocent age hasten to the remission of sins ?' " He continues : •' Now, is it not obvious that Tertullian was entirely unacquainted with infant baptism, and that this children's baptism which then began first to /be talked of, was regarded by him as an unauthorized inno- vation ? . . . The case is quite cleae, children, (not infants J but probably children /row^ six to ten years old) are first mentioned in connection with the ordinance at the beginning of the third century, and then with disapproval." Note here : the forementio r\ three sentences of Ter- tuUian's are all Cramp quotes i- ^m his treatise ; and im- mediately asks, " Now, is it not obvious," etc., and adds again : — *' The case is quite clear." The *' obvious " aim of all this will appear presently. Note further, how he has afl&rmed and repeated over and again that Tertul- Uan did not refer to mfants in what he wrote, but against the baptism of children, probably from six to ten years old. And a word more. In what is quoted here, there seems a little light to show Cramp is misleading. Tertul- Han says of the children he speaks of, " "^Tiy should this innocent age hasten to the remission of sins ?" Does not that look like an earlier age, as contemplated, than six or ten years ? Would six or ten years be regarded as not re- quiring forgiveness — innocent ? Again, why advise delay of their baptism, on the ground tibat such an age waB incapable of leacousg about and knowing Christ ? 4 50 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. Let US next take the Baptist writer, Pengilly. He gives a larger extract from Tertullian — first in the Latin, and then a translation of it (in pp. 66, 66). I will quote you his translation. " The delay of baptism may be more ad- vantageous, either onaccount of the condition, disposition, or age of any person, especially in reference to little children. For what necessity is there that the sponsors should be brought into dinger ? because either they them- selves may fail of the promises by death, or be deceived by the growth of evil dispositions. The Lord, indeed, says. Do not forbid them to come to me. Let them, therefore, come when they are grown up; when they are taught whither they are to come. Let them become Christians when they can know Christ. Why should this innocent age hasten to the remission of sins ? Men act more cautiously in worldly things ; so that Divine things are here intrusted with whom earthly things are not. Let them know how to seek salvation, that you may appear to give to one that asketh. If persons understand the im- portance of baptism, they will rather fear the consequent obligation than the delay : true faith alone is secure of salvation." Observe in the foregoing. Pengilly's translation indicates the age of the children in question. He calls them, not •* children," as Cramp in his History, but " little chil- dren;" which does not correspond with **not infants, but children, probably from six to ten years of age." Again, the Latin word which he so translates " little children" is seen in his Latin extract (p. 65, first sentence), and is "parvulos." Now, anyone acquainted with Latin knows th.a.t parvus signifies "little," and that " parvulos" is the diminutive of parvus, and signifies ** very little." On this let me cite you Pengilly in page 71, note at bottom, on an- other Latin passage. He gives it thus : — " Quicunque negat parvulos per baptismumChristia perditione liberari," etc., which he translates himself thus : — '• Whoever denies that INFANTS are, by Christian baptism, delivered from per4ition," etc. Here he correctly renders "parvulos " by "infants," and "parvulos" is the word in TertuUian. What will we think of Cramp now and of his assertions, "Is it not obvious ?" *' It is quite clear, not infants, but children from six to ten years." Again, Tertullian there INFANT BAPTISM. 51 quotes from the New Testament to indicate the age of the children he referred to, viz., where our Lord says, " Do not forbid them to come unto me." Mark and Luke relate, and both describe, the same incident. In Mark (x. 18-16), Jesus is said to have " taken them up in His arms and blessed them," and they are called " little chil- dren." He did not surely take up in His arms children of six or ten years. Of Luke (xviii. 15-17) I read in the Baptist version, " And they brought to Him also infants that He might touch them," etc. It is '' infants " there as in our version, TertuUian, therefore, by his quoting that passage plainly indicates it was to such he was referring. Further, Pen^y says, page 66, " Infant baptism is first MENTIONED iu the Christian Father (TertuUian) above quoted." '* TertuUian opposes and reasons against infant baptism." J. Torrey Smith, on inside of PengUly's book cover, admits the same. Yet, once more from Cramp in his Catechism, now, on this point (p. 21), he asks, '< Did TertulUan not refer to the baptism of little chUdren?" He answers, •* He did, but not with approval." So he aUows now it was ♦• little chUdren, which he denies in his "History." He then gives TertuUian's words the same as in PengiUy, except the last two sentences there he omits. Yet, after aU, at the bottom of the same page he remarks, ♦* It was not a question of infant-baptism." "TertuUian referred to children" [he here drops out the term "little" admitted before] — to children — " probably from six to ten years of age." Yes, brethren, and this is the leading standard historian of the Baptist Church, of whom Dr. Angus, Professor of Baptist CoUege, Eegent's Park, London, Eng., says in the preface of Dr. Cramp's Baptist History, " Dr. Cramp's candour and inteUigenoe * * * have won the esteem and affection of aU who know him. The reader will find a fuUer o*><1 more satisfactory account in these pages than anywhere besides," etc. Well, I have no pleasure in the opposite of commendation. It is unpleasant to me ; but I must say, after twice perusing the same history, I find it Uterally fuU of misrepresentation and special pleading such as we see here in TertuUian's case, and frequently contradictory in matters of fact, induced by the exigencies of the aim in view. 62 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. b As I stated before, he states (p. 19 of his History), as the occasion of Tertullian's opposition to children's baptism, viz., *< Some yersons h&d. introduced children (not infants} to baptism, ob adpocated the administration of the ordi- nance to them." Now, neither he nor Pengilly, nor any others have pointed to one statement of Tertullian's to that effect, or the shadow of one, nor could they. He through- out speaks distinctly on the practice as the prevailing practice, and says not one word of it as an innovation, which you would expect he surely would, were it so. But on this here are their arguments. Weigh them : — Pengilly,. p. 66, says, — " TertuUian opposes and reasons against in- fant-baptism as something unknown in the age of Christ and the apostles, and destitute of their authority, for with mM their authority would not have been questioned fob a MOMENT." After tl^is, surely, now, the confiding reader will understand him to have been sound and most zeal- ously obedient to the true faith, and a bulwark like another Paul, in the church, to all that was good and true. Yes, and yet Pengilly knew he became a very remarkable here- siarch, a follower and advocate of the man in his day, viz., Montanus,who gave himself out as the Holy Ghost incarnate. And Cramp, to magnify the force of his opposition to infant baptism, says^ Catechism, p. 22, " If infant-baptism had been regarded as the law of Christ, Tertullian would not have DAKED to advise its omission." Quite so. Now, it is the people also, who, at that time, were so very faithful to Scripture and Christ that no one would venture to teach or advise anything contrary thereto. Yet, besides Cramp's knowledge of Tertullian's Montanism, I have already quoted to you his description of his great unscripturalness on this same question of baptism in other more important aspects, to which let me add more from pp. 16-17 of his History, He gives there a description of "the development (in Ter- tullian's time) of those corrupting influences which had been at work," he says, '• from the apostohc age, silently sapping the foundations of personal piety." ** Instead of directing inquirers to the Atonement, and encouraging them to seek by prayer for the teaching and aid of the Holy Spirit, the religious instnictions of that age expatiated on the vast powers of baptism. Tertullian, for example,, declares," etc., (as quoted before in page 45.). He then INFANT BAPTISM. 53 continued — "When such opinions as these were en- tertained is it not evident that the door ivas open to mani- fold abuses," etc. Then, p. 19 — *' We have mentioned these particulars for the purpose of showing that at the beginning of the thu-d century, reUgious declension had considerably advanced." And he adds, ** No one icill notv be surprised at hearing that an attempt was made to extend the administration of baptism in an unwarrantable man- ner." The last sentence shows why Cramp exhibited the prevalence of corruption among the people and their teach- ings, Tertullian included. But, in a little, when the aim is to make out that Tertullian's opposition to infant-bap- tism was Scriptural, it is then maintained that the same people were so incorrupted and faithful to Scripture that he " would not have dared" to advise them not to baptize their Uttle ones, were it Christ's will that they should be baptized. Consequently, since he did dare to advise them so, he was Scriptural, with an approving and truly pious people, very sound in the faith at his back. But there is one other aspect of Tertullian's treatise. In Pengilly's trans; lation of his Latin extract, this is the first sentence, " The delay of baptism may be more advantageous, either on ac- count of the condition, disposition or age of any persons, espe- cially in reference to little children." Now, here is a refer- ence to the propriety oidel&y mothers besides little children. So little, however, of what Tertullian eays on that subject is given by Baptist writers that readers don't perceive its force and bearing. I have shown you from MUler's Trea- tise, from Schaff and Hagenbach, (see pages 47 and 48) what all liistorians concur in testifying, and what I have read in Tertullian's treatise myself, that he advocated the delay of baptism by grown-up people, such as were un- married — single men and women, widows and widowers — and as advisable, on the whole, to all till about to die. This being so — and Cramp, Pengilly, etc., knew it was — I now ask, Was this the law of Christ and His apostles, namely, that men and women converted from Judaism and heathenism should not be baptized as soon - as they became believers, especially if they were single or widowed ; but should defer it for years, or till death ? Or does the Baptist Church act on this principle ? What is the answer to each of these questions ? No ; no. But 64 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. Tertullian did so advise and teach. Yet, Fengilly says, ** With him the authority of Christ and his apostles would not be questioned for a moment," I am sure he did not learn that doctrine from their word or example, and his opposition to infant-baptism was of the same nature and based on reasons of precisely the same kind as his opposi- tion to that of those grown-up in years. Although able and influential, in the human sense, his mind was dark, weak, and superstitious, religiously (Cramp's Hist., pp. 16- 19), and, very unscripturally believmg that sins after bap- tism probably incurred eternal condemnation, and excluded forever from the communion of the Church, he taught that all ages should consult their safety by deferring it till the deathbed, and some of all ages, more especially, as more Uable to such danger. We have now seen distinctly from his testimony, apart from his own opinions and conduct, that infant-baptism — with that of people of all ages when they embraced Chris- tianity — was the prevailing practice of his day. Before proceeding further let us now take a summary view of the ground we have traversed. , It is admitted by all that John the Apostle received his Eevelations in Patmos in A.D. 96, and died A.D. 100. Justin Martyr wrote his " Apology to the Emperor," etc., in A.D. 140 (Pengilly, p. 74.) He was then, and for some time previous, a leader of the Christians. When converted from heathenism (which was in A.D. 182) he had been a public teacher of philosophy, and was, therefore, we may presume, not less then than thirty years of age, and about forty when he wrote his Apology. Hence he must have been himself born about the time of the apostle John's death. Again, he was put to death A.D. 166, and Irenaeus became a bishop A.D, 177 (Cramp' Hist., p. 18), that is, eleven ^ears after Justin's martyrdom. But to become a bishop miplied that he was then not much less than thirty years of age, whatever more. He would, therefore, have been Justin's cotemporary in life for about twenty years before Justin's death. Again, Irenaeus- died (Cramp's Hist., p. 18) in A.D. 202, and Tertullian wrote his treatise on Baptism (Cramp's Hist,, p. 17) in A.D. 200 ; that is, Irenaeus was alive then, and for two years after. Also, it is admitted by all that TertuUian was born about A.D. 160; he was. INFANT BAPTISM/i U therefore, six years of age at Justin Martyr's death, and living at the same time as Irenseus for forty- two years, and outlived the latter, (Cramp's Hist., p. 17) from A.D. 202 to 220. TertuUian was, therefore, long a ootemporary of Ireneeus, who, again, was of Justin, and Justin almost, if not Uterally, one of John the Apostle. Again, Justin wrote in A.D. 140, in his " Apology," as we have seen — " Many men and many women, sixty and SEVENTY years old, who, from children, have been disciples of Christ, preserve their continence." It may, of course, be added, legitimately, that many others who did not pre- serve their continence, but entered the marriage state, were also disciples from childhood. That is to say, there were multitudes sixty and seventy years old when Justin wrote, who had been disciples from childhood. But sixty or seventy years from A.D. 140, would place the date of their childhood at A.D. 80 and 70, that is, twenty or thirty years before the end of the apostolic age, d^nd but a few years after A.D. 64, 65, 66, when (as you will see in your Beference Bibles) the Epistles of Paul to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon and the Hebrews, and Peter's second epistle were written ; and twenty years before the Eevelation of John. And discipleship we showed was acknowledged then, as now, only of the baptized ; with this difference — which makes the case the stronger — that they maintained that baptism effects regeneration, without which there is no real discipleship and by which there is. Here then is one com- plete and strong link of the chain of historical evidence on the observance of infant-baptism, reaching far into the apostolic age itself to a period long before the last surviving apostle had ceased his heaven inspired superintendence, and from thence to the time Justin wrote. Next, Irenseus, who became a bishop only eleven years after Justin's death — we have seen him distinctly affirm that people of all ages, and among these, " infants were regenerated unto God," and as distinctly affirm " that regeneration was effected by baptism, as Justin Martyr did before him." This sec- ond Imk clearly reaches within and embraces the first, and is of equally strong material to stand any candid and truth loving test. Then lastly, meanwhile, is the clear evidence in Tertullian, so long a ootemporary of the same time as 56 BAPTlSf MISREPRESENTATIONS. IrenflBUs with some years after. We have here then, a chain of three unhroken links, from full twenty years be- fore the end of the apostoUo age, till A.D. 200. And the evidence contained in them which I have set before you, remember, brethren, I have taken out of Baptist books, point by poifit, which of course settles the accuracy of the facts reasoned from, as beyond question from Baptists. I might have added more details, from other sources (as reliable of course as Baptist admissions) did my present object require it. The next witness in the order of time is Obioen, — one of the most prolific and celebrated writers and teachers of the whole early Christian Church. Hagenbach, in his "Hist, of Doctrines," ^vol. I. p. 194,) now open before me, remarks — " But it is worthy of notice that Origen in his commentary on the Epistle to thr Bomans chap. v. calls infant- baptism a rite derived from tlie apostles." Schaff (Hist, of the Christian Chuioh vol. J p. 408, now before me) says : — " Origen distinctly derives infant-baptism from the apostles ; and he himself, being descended from Chris- tian parents and grand-parents, icaa baptized soon after his birth in A.D. 185, and, through his journeys in the east and the west, was well acquainted with the practice of the Church in his time." Let us now hear Dr. Cramp's History, ♦• Some writers," he says, p. 20, " have laboured hard to prove that Origen referred to infant-baptism as a then existing fact, and that he assigned to it an apostolic origin. Origen was the most learned man of that age. He flourished [that is, he wrote and taught] from A.D. 203 to A.D. 254, and attained high repute, both as a teacher in the catechetical school of Alexandria and as an author. But his references [mark this] are to child bap- tism, NOT to ^V^/an^baptism ; and the diflerence between him and Tertulhan is, that the latter decidedly objected to the practice, while Origen spoke of it with approbation.*' He next gives one quotation from Origen's reply to Celsus, a heathen writer, which does not bear directly on the ques- tion, and then dismisses Origen from his History, without presenting to his readers that they might judge for themselves the clear and telUng passages Origen did write, which I will new show you, yes, and in the first place from Cramp's own Catechism. Of course thousands who have \ INFANT BAPTISM. 57 read and will read his History will not read bis Catechism, a separate book. In it (p. 28) he asks,— " Is it not affirmed that Origen argued ii favour of infant-baptism ?" He first answers by a disingenuous attempt to get rid of the passages he is about to quote by insinuating that thei/ may have been altered by translators in an unwarrantable manner, when no Baptist or any other has undertaken to show that such has been the case of them ; but which are admitted by all honourable writers to be as genuine and authentic as any we have. He then remarks : — " In the passages which refer to baptism . . . Origen says that * infanti are baptized for the remission of sins,' and that ' by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of Hrth is taken away.' In one place he observes that baptism is administered ' even to little children, according to the usage of the Church,' and in another, that ' the Church has received from the apostles a tradition to give baptism even to little children.' " I note here, for after use, that Cramp does not specify the places in or names of Origen's works where these passages occur. Now, remember that Cramp says in his History, as I quoted to you, that " Origen's references were to child bap- tism, NOT to infant-h9,v^9,v[i" and does not give his readers one of the passages, but leaves them to take his word for it. And why not ? Are they not told by the Baptist Pro- fessor, Dr. Aligns, in the Introductory Notice at the begin- ning of the History, that Dr. Cramp's candour, intelli- gence, etc., have won him the esteem of all who know him. These qualities will be found to distinguish the volume," etc. Alas ! What do you think, brethren ? Look again at those passages where he actually, in his Catechism, states it was ^n/an^baptism Origen spoke of, " with approbation," and as a then existing fact, practised, too, from the apostles' time, and as taking away the pollu- tion of BmiH. However, we must hear Cramp out. After giving those passages, he remarks: "Now, this is not the style of a man who knew that he could adduce, ' Thus saith the Lord' in confirmation of his statements. He would not have appealed to • the usage of the Church,' or spoken so vaguely of ' a tradition,' if he could have said as was the practice of early Christian authors, ' It is written.' Why 68 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. did he not eay tvhere the tradition was to be found ? He knew that it was only a tradition, and that neither precept nor precedent had been discovered in the New Testiunent.'* This ^s special pleading in earnest — that will satisfy an already biased Baptist reader and mislead others no doubt, as thistle seeds wiU take root, and subtle sophistries will de- ceive. Now observe, each of these passages of Origen occur in his expositions of Scripture, which Gramp Imew, but kept silent on it. How then could his readers know that ? He was bringing out the meaning and truth of what was ' written ' and what ' saith the Lord ' and enforc- ing that by reference to baptism. But, even the passages Oramp gives, he gives in a mangled form, as meagre, by sup< pressing portions as would leave room to oarp and distort the meaning. Let me now give them to you from Miller's Treatise, p. 28 : — " To say nothing* of earlier intimations, wholly irre- concilable with any other practice than that of infant-bap- tism, Origen, a Greek Father of the third century, and decidedly the most learned man of his day, speaks in the most unequivocal terms of the baptism of infants, as the general practice of the Church in his time, and as having been received from the apostles. His testimony is as fol- lows : — ' According to the usage of the Ghurch, baptism is given even to infants ; when, if there were nothing in infants which needed forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would seem to be superfluous.' (Homil. viii. in Levit., ch. 12). Again, ' Lifants are baptized for the for- giveness of sins. Of what sins ? Or, when have they sinned? Or, can there be any reason for the laver in their ' case, unless it be according to the sense which we have mentioned above, viz.: that no one is free from pollution, though he has lived but one day upon earth. And, be- cause, by baptism native pbllution is taken away, there- fore infants are baptized.' (Homil. in Luc. 14). Again, ' For this cause it was that the church received an order from the apostles to give baptism even to infants.' (Com- ment, in Epist. ad Eomanos Lib. 6)." Note in the last '. sentence here the words " received an order for." Cramp, as before shown, says instead " received a tradition." You will now be able, brethren, I doubt not, to see that Origen's testimony is as clear as to the fact of infant-bap- INFikNT BAPTISM. 59 bSt p. at P- tism hayiug been observed from the apoBtles' time, as clear can be. He was himself bom only eighty- five years after the death of the apostle John, so that the peo&ding time was short to which he bore witness, and m the case of such a writer and teacher, who stated those thirgs to the people living then, who themselves knew something of the JactSf his testimony alone would be enough. But we have given you more than his. But what says Fengilly on this subject ? He profe^es, of course, to be honest and candid, though we have found him erring very seriously notwithstanding, and inexcus- ably so. Well, in pp. 66-67 of his " Scripture Guide to Baptism," he professes to be giving the evidence of its early church history as to infants, ne passes over Justin Martyr and Ireneaus as if they had never written a word about infants being regenerated to God, and that effected by baptism ; nor about multitudes being disciples from child- hood. His first name is Tertullian, and his next Cyprian, and so on after. But Origen, who was between Tertullian and Cyprian, isjiot as much as mentioned there at all. And his was no obscure name, but greater far than Tertul- lian's, nor were his utterances on baptism obscure or of no value in the controversy, as you have just seen. I sup- pose the secret is, the less said about him the better for the Baptist cause. At any rate, Pengilly, in his list in those pages, does not so much as mention his name. But in one other part of his bo6k he does. Let us see what he says. In page 70 he asks, "Who is the Jirst Christian writer that defended the baptism of infants ? Answer — The first that mentioned the practice at all was Tertullian, A.D. 204. It was named next by Origen, A.D. 280. But the first writer that defended the practice was Cyprian, A.D. 268." This is literally all that Pengilly says about Origen throughout in the matter : — •• It was named next by Origen." Now, brethren, you have seen even from Cramp's Catechism (not his History ; it would not do to be there either), the direct and clear testimony that Origen gave, and you have seen it from Hagenbach, Schaff, and Miller, and can judge whether he only just named 'it, and might not well be said to have defended it, too, as well as Cyprian, who followed ; and to have spoken of the church and apostles as more than naming* it, too. 1 60 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. I but ordering, practising it. That, however, is all Pen- gilly oan be got to say, though he knew otherwise, but WOULD NOT DIVULGE THE PABTiouLABS. In these ways, with their candour (!) and commendations of each other they mislead, deceive, the ignorant and confiding. I will conclude this section with one or two remarkable quotations from Baptist writers that may surprise you, brethren, though probably not now. The book of Dr. Geq^ B. Taylor, published by the, Philadelphia Baptist Pubhcation Society, which I quoted from once before, en- titled " The Baptists : Who they are, and, What they have Done," says, p. 81, " During the first two and a half centuries, we claim that no traces of the existence of INFANT baptism are to be found." Cramp's Catechism, p. 48, " Cyprian was the first Christian writer on behalf of infant-baptism." Now the date of his writing, as we shall see presently, was A.D. 258, or two and a half centuries after the birth of Christ, and twenty-three years after Origen wrote on it. Again, p. 24, '• Observe, more than two hundred years passed away after the establishment of the Christian church, before infant-baptism made its appear- ance.' But the Christian church was not begun to be established till after Jesus ascended to heaven, A.D. thirty- four. So, more than 200 years after that brings us to A.D. 258. Cramp's History, p. 29, " Paedobaptism, meaning thereby the baptism of new-born infants, with the vicari- ous promises of parents and other sponsors, was utterly UNKNOWN to the early church, not only down to the end of the second, but, indeed, to the middle of the third cen- tury." The middle of the third century was A.D. 250. As to " sponsors," Pengilly, p. 66, translates TertuUian on infant-baptism, as saying, "For what necessity is there that the sponsors should be brought into danger, etc.? Cramp also, in his Catechism, p. 21, (but nothing in his History of this), gives the same translation as correct. Now, in these quoted assertions, by a stroke of the pen, (and a stout heart) all evidence of the contrary is obliter- ated to and from their readers, and this is published by the Baptist Church of America, Canada, etc., in many thousands of copies, and repeated from these books,' under such authority, by many more thousands of lips continu- ally. So it seems in Origen, who wrote his naming of INFANT BAPTISM. 61 infant-baptism in A.D. 280, accordin£' to Pengilly, p. 70 ; in Tertulliau, A.D. 200, and in Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr, A.D. 177, 140, there is not even •♦ a trace" of in- fant-baptism. It was " utterly unknown" in their days ! Buch, brethren, is the " truthfulness, soberness, and im- partiality" of Oramp, and of that Dr. Taylor who was so much impressed with the evidence of these qualities in Cramp. And sucih is the way the Baptist Church makes out the evidence of history to establish (!) its tenets. ** By their fruits ye shall know them." But, however much they may by such policy, try to blind the people as to the facts and truth, and succeed too, alas ; we have the evidence before us to judge from it for ourselves ; which you observe I have set before you and substantiated even from Baptist admissions, however reluctaiitly made. Origen, therefore, is another complete link in the unbroken chain of evidence, and a very strong one with a clear ring, embracing those liuks preceding and embraced in turn by the next now to be glanced at, namely : — Cyprian. — On th*^ evidence from him, and the others in council with him on the occasion, I will first read you from Miller, p. 28 : — " In the year 268 after Christ there was a Council of sixty-six bishops or pastors, held at Carthage, in which Cyprian preside^.. To this Council, Fidm, a country pastor, presented the following question, which he wished them, by their united wisdom, to solve, viz., "Whether it was necessary, in the administration of bap- tism, as of circumcision, to wait until the eiythth day ; or whether a child might be bapttzed at an earlier period after its birth ? The question, it will be observed, was not whether infants ought to be baptized ? That was taken for granted. ' But simply, whether it was necessary to wait until the eiffhth day after their birth ? The Council came unanimously to the following decision, and transmit- ted it in a letter to the inquirer (as follows) : — ' Cyprian, and the rest of the bishops who were present in the Coun- cil, sixty-six in number, to Fidus, our brother, greeting, As to the case of infants — whereas you judge that they must not be baptized within two or three days after they are born, and that the rule of circumcision is to be ob- served, that no one should be baptized and sanctified be- ^s BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. fore the eighth day after he is born ; we were, all in the Council, of a very diflFerent opinion. As for what you thought proper to be done, no one was of your mind ; but we all rather judged that the meroy and grace of G od is to be denied to no human being that is born. This, there- fore, dear brother, was our opinion in the Council : that we ought not to hinder any person from baptism, and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind to us all. And this rule, as it holds for all, we think more especially to be observed in reference to infants, even to those newly-born.' (Cyprian, Epist. 66). Surely no testimony (continues MUler) can be more unexceptionable and decisive than this. Lord Chancellor King, in his account of the Primi- tive church, after quoting what is given above, subjoins the following remark ; — ♦ Here, then, is a synodical decree for the baptism of infants, as formal as can possibly be expected; which being the judgment of a synod, is more authentic and cogent than that of a private father ; it be- ing supposable that a private father might write his own particular judgment and opinion only ; but the determina- tion of a synod (and he might have added, the unanimous determination of a synod of sixty- six members) denotes the common practice and usage of the whole church.' " Cramp, feeling disposed now to acknowledge infant-bap- tism, explains this case in his Catechism, p. 24, in accordance with what I have given you from Miller, and then makes a remarkable addition. He says, "Besides, Cyprian added, as the mercy of God should be withheld from none who sought it, there was a special reason for bestowing it on new-born infants, inasmiich as they, as soon as they enter into the world, manifest, by their loud cries and tears, their earnest desire for the blessing." It is noteworthy of this, however, that giving it without quotation commas, and in indirect narration, he professes merely to give an account in his own words, not Cyprian's, of what Cyprian said. Of course it is expected at the same time that his account IS a correct one. It implies clearly that Cyprian, and the sixty-six bishops, in whose name he wrote, believed and taught that new born infants (or men) are not, by nature, depraved and at enmity with God and the things of His Spirit, but as soon as born they show a very different and good spirit in that they ' manifest an earnest desire for the INFANT BAPTISM. 68 blessing of God's grace and salvation' — which is a doc- trine most vitally at variance with the truth and plain teachings of Scripture. Cramp in his History, however, gives a large extract (pp. 28, 24) from the letter in ques- tion of Cyprian, but neither there nor anywhere else in his history does any mention of this nature appear. But what, in his Catechism, he evidently refers to, I find in Pengilly in page 67, as follows :—•* Cyprian, A.D. 258. ' As far as Ues in us, no soul, if possible, is to be lost. It is not for us to hinder any person from baptism and the grace of God ; which rule, as it holds to all, so we think it more especially to be observed in reference to infants, to whom our help and the Divine mercy is rather to be granted ; because, by their weeping and wailing at their first entrance into the world, they do intimate nothing so much as that they implore compassion.'' Now that these are Cyprian's own words is attested by the Baptist writer, Pengilly, who ends his quotation of them as here. And, looking at their meaning, Dr. Cramp's account is very different, indeed ; and did he, or would anyone, not perceive that ? To say that * new-born infants by their weeping, etc., intimate that they implore compassion,' is surely not the same as to say that * by it they manifest their earnest desire for the blessing ' of God. When an infant weeps (which does ihdeed successfully appeal to our pity) do we understand it from that to be earnestly desir- ing the blessings of salvation. Yet such is the interpreta- tion of Cramp in regard to these words of Cyprian, while he withholds from his readers Cyprian's words, who are led, therefore, to believe that he and the Council actually taught that doctrine. Yet, in his History, p. 24, 1 find the following statement given as Cyprian's in the very letter in question — " the child just born has brought with it, by its descent from Adam, the infection of the old death." How dififerently this sounds, and how Scriptural ? But, because he and the Council were manifestly Paedobaptists, Cramp endeavours to weaken the historic evidence by making them ridiculous^ with evidence before him to the contrary, and by garbled representation of his own manipulation. As the evidence of this Council of Carthage, as thor- oughly indicating the doctrine and practice of infant-bap- tism, cannot be gainsaid, the Baptist policy is to belittle it. 64 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIOl^S. They try to make believe that infaut-baptiBm was then practised in that part of the world only, and that the practice did not extend elsewhere till long after. In this they completely ignore, as if a word of it had never been written or seen, all the testimony I have shown you, even out of Baptist books when discussing the places, and from other sources, of Origen and TertuUian, of Irenseus, and Justin Martyr, and the others to be added. It is true, some of them, as Pengilly and J. Torrey Smith, admit the existence of iw/ant-baptism in TertuUian's time, who wrote on it fifty-three years prior to that Council of Carthage. Yet others, as I have before shown you (p. 60) don't scruple to " claim that no traces of the existence of in- fant-baptism are to be found during the first two and a half centuries ;" that it ** was introduced at the middle of the third century," and was " utterly unknown " till then. The books that contain such strong unscrupulous language, as Cramp's History, and Taylor's, before speci- fied, etc., are careful not to supply their readers wim the evidence that does exist to the contrary. In his Catechism, however, p. 26, Cramp, besides its other admissions concedes a little more, namely, *' The utmost that can be affirmed is, that infant-baptism had grown up into a practice in Northern Africa [where Carthage was] about the middle of the third century." Well, as it evidently was in universal practice at the time of the Council, it would have taken a considerable time be- fore it grew up to its dimensions then. So here is evi- dence itself that long before A.D. 253 it had existence. But he adds, *' There is no evidence respecting its existence at that time in any other part of the world/' This sentence he puts in italics to show the importance he wishes to attach to it. Of the Christian writers we have examined besides Cyprian, Origen's testimony cannot be said to refer to Carthage in particular, as he did not reside near it ; but for most part in Alexandria (Cramp's Hist., p. 20), and had travelled much, residing for a time, and writing dih- gcntly, at Palestine, Eome, and other places. It was iv Rome where, among other things, he prepared his famoa^ " Hexapla " of the Bible in six different languagep. Also what he says so fully and repeatedly on infant-biiptism, -I'' INFANT BAPTISM. 66 he speaks of it not in relation to any particular district, but of the Church at large. (See his words again, p. 58) *' Tertullian," as Cramp informs us (Hist., p. 16), ** was a native of Carthage, in Africa, and spent most of his life in that city." Irenaeus was a native of Greece, and a bishop in Lyons, France. Anl Justin Martyr was a native of Palestine, travelled much, but spent the laest part of his life at Rome, where he wrote his * Apology,' and suffe .ed martyrdom. So, brethren, if^t have furnished you with evidence of the existence of infant- baptism in their days, its existence will then be seen to have been all over the Christian world. Besides, the fact that it was universally practised by the church when Origen wrote (not to men- tion just now that he testified to its derivation from the apostles), implies necessarily its existence long before then, as such prevalence could not take place all at once among many thousands and millions of people. The same reasoning applies to TertuUian's testimony and to IrenaBUs's and Justin's. Also Origen, a native of Alex- andria, in A.D, 185, it appears, was himself baptized in infancy (p. 56). But suppose, as Cramp affirms, no evidence were now available of its existence in any other part of the world than at Carthage and vicinity, would that be proof that it did not exist elsewhere ? They affirm, emphatically, Yes ; for they affirm everything with emphasis, even the grossest misrepresentations. Well, let us see. And in the first place, I affirm this, and what is often affirmed, and no Baptist can prove untrue, what while many writers of those early ages have testified of the prevalence over the Church of infant-bapusm, and written of and administered it as the ordinance of Christ, of Scripture, and apostohc practice, there is but one writer during the first eleven hundred years A.D. who can be shown to have opposed it, namely, Tertullian ; and he opposed it in adults for the same reasons as in in- fants, and these reasons admittedly very unscriptural. Next, it is held by us in regard to the Sabbath Day, for example, that it was kept sacred by the people of God, ac- cording to the divine command, from our first parents' time on to that of Moses. Yet, in all the book of Genesis, con- taining the history of men for more than 2,000 years, its observance in practice is not once mentioned. Is silence 5 \ 66 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. ou the subject, then, a proof of its violation all that tim& and by the great and good men of that period, and not- withstanding its being set apart and hallowed for obser- vance by God at the creation ? (Genesis, chap, ii, 2, 3). Again, we know for certain of the universal prevalence of infant- baptism in Northern Africa at the time in question. The Baptists admit this fully. But how do we know this LARGE AND INDISPUTABLE FACT ? Noticc this, brethren. The only reason why we have the knowledge of it from the J^xX-ft^^ Council of Carthage in Cyprian's letter, was a mere inci- dent that easily might not have occurred, viz., Fidus, a country bishop or pastor, had a difficulty in his mind as to " whether (to take Pengilly's statement of it, p. 70, note} an infant, before it was eight days old, might be baptized,, if need required." He had doubts for certain reasons, and ** thought it best, therefore (Cramp's Hist., p. 23), to. wait till the eighth d^-y, and to baptize the infant at the same ^ time, at which, under the law, it would have been circum- cised. But he asked advice of Cyprian (by letter), who laid ^ the case before a council, which had assembled at Carthage in the year 252 [Pengilly, Miller, etc., say A.D. 253] for the settlement of vtirious ecclesiastical matters. Sixty-six bishops met oii that occasion. The answer is given in a letter written by Cyprian." This, then, was the sole occasion of the matter being before the Council at all. It was assembled for other matters. And the fact that all the bishops or pastors, without exception, were of the mind, different from the scruples of Fidus, that it was not necessary to wait till the eighth day, shows that the great majority of the pastors of the Church would not have Fidus's c'^'^cultj'. liiow, but for this simple occurrence we would have no historical evidence from that Council about in- fant-baptism at all. Had he then not had those doubts, he- would not have asked advice on them, the Council would not have had occasion to consider them, nor Cyprian to write him on the subject. And consequently there would be no evidence from it or Cyprian on the subject of infant- baptism at all. And what then would our Baptist friends say according to their mode of argument ? They wouW affirm that the Church in North Africa did not administer baptism to infants at all. Yet, it is plain, the Council did not institute the baptism of infants, but that that practice- INFANT BAPTISM. 67 we was prevalent in all the congregations long before it assembled, Fidus himself administering it as well as the rest. This was the widespread fact, and would have been the same independently of the Council and Fidus, suppose the one and the other had never been heard of. Conse- quently the absence of historical evidence as to other places, especially at so remote and unfavourable a period, would not prove its non-existence there. Of its prevalence elsewhere, throughout the church at large, I have, how- ever, given you ample proof from other sources ; to which I will add quite a galaxy, and then close. I have now unaided to your view, brethren, another well-established link in the historical chain, and of good material, that hnks well into the four preceding, the first of which embraces firmly many years of the apostolic age. Origen, the last of the preceding four witnesses, died (Cramp's Hist., p. 20), in AD. 254 ; and Cyprian, with his sixty-six brethren, unanimously testified A.D. 253 ; or, according to Cramp, A.D. 252 — that is, one or two years before Origen was called to rest from his manifold labours ; their evidence comprehending necessarily a long period prior to the date of the Council. I have not much more now to do, but what I have to present is of much value on the subject of inquiry. From the different reasons mentioned at the beginning, the writ- ings on this, as on other questions, are fewer the further the period is away from us, and during the times that the Imperial Governments were heathen and actively hostile to Christianity ; still the Lord in His providence has pre- served and handed down to us sufficiently full and clear testimony on this Une of inquiry. You will remember, remarkable as it is, that Cramp af- firms that the first instance of the existence of infant- baptism does not appear till the Council of Carthage, A.D. 253. Well, in his Catechism, p. 26, he puts the question, *' How soon after the first instance of infant-baptism recorded in history did it come into general observance ? " He answers : — '* Not for several centuries." I will now briefly show you that this, like so many other of his sayings, is as gross a misstatement of fact as, in the circumstances, could be penned. The expression, " several centuries " will always be understood by his readers to mean more 68 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. y- than two — at the very least three, and more likely four or five centuries. Suppose, then, we add only three centuries to A.D. 268, they would bring us so A.D. 658, as the time before which the baptism of infants was not generally ob- served, that is, the middle of the sixth century. On this part of the subject I will read you at length from Dr. Miller's Treatise (p. 24-28). He there says : — ♦' The famous Chrysostom, a Greek father, who flourished toward the close of the fourth century, having had occasion to speak of circumcision, and of the ipconvonience and pain which attended its dispensation, proceeds to say : * But our circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, gives cure without pain, and procures to us a thousand benefits, and fills us with the grace of the Spirit ; and it has no de- terminate time as that had ; but ope that is in the very he- (jinninff of his aije, or one that is in the middle of it, or one that is in bis old age. may receive this circumcision made without hands ; in which there is no trouble to be under- gone but to throw off the load of sins, and to receive pardon for all past oflfences' (Homil. 40, in Genesin). " Passing by the testimony of several other conspicuous writers of the third and fourth centuries, in support of the fact, that infant-baptism was generally practised when they wrote, I shall detain you with only one testi- mony more in relation to the history of this ordinance. It is that of Augustine, one of the most pious, learned and venerable fathers of the Christian Church, who lived a little more than three hundred years after the apostles — taken in connection with that of- Pelarjins, the learned heretic, who lived at the same time. Augustine had been pleading against Pelagius, in favour of the doctrine of original sin. In the course of this plea he asks, '• Why are infants bap- tized for the remission of sins, if they have no sins ?' At the &ame time intimating to Pelagius, that if he would be <;onsistent with himself, his denial of original sin must draw after it the denial of infant-baptism. The reply of Pelagius is striking and unequivocal. * Baptism,' says he, * ought to be administered to infants with the same sacramental words which are used in the case of adult persons.' ' Men slander me as if I denied the sacrament of baptism to in- fants.' ' I NEVER heard OF ANY, not even the most impious heretic, who denied baptism to^ infants ; for who can be so INFANT BAPTISM. 69 impious as to hinder infants from being baptized, and bom ' again in Christ, and so make them miss of the kingdom of God.' Again, Augustine remarks in- reference to the Pela- gians : — < Since they grant that infants must be baptized, as not being able \o resist the authority of the whole Churchy which was doubtless delivered by our Lord and His apostles^ they must consequently grant that they stand in need of the benefit of the Mediator ; that being offered by the sacrament, and by the charity flove] of the faithful, and • so being incorporated into Christ's body, they may be re- conciled to God/ etc. Again, speaking of certain heretics at Carthage, who, thongli they acknowledged infant-bap- tism, took wrong view.s of its meaning, Augustine remarks : — * They, iulndlin/ llw Srtlptures, iind t/ii> iiuthnrity of the whole Uhurvh, and the form of the sacrament itspjf, see well that baptism in infants jh for the remission of 8in.s. Fur- ther, in his work against ihn Ponatists, the same writer, speaking of baptised infants obtaining salvation without the personal exercise of faith, he says : — ' Which the nhnle, body of the Church holds, as delivered to them in the case of little infants baptized, who certainly cannot believe with the heart unto righteousness, or confess with the mouth unto salvation, nay, by their crying and noise while the fx^M^-^xg^ sacrament is administering, they disturb the holy mys- - teries ; and yet no Christian man will say that ihey are baptized to no purpose.' Again, he says : — ' Th6 custom of our mother the church in baptizing infants must not be disregarded, nor be accounted needless, nor believed to be anything else than an ordinance delivered to us from the Apostles.' In short, those who will be at the trouble to consult the large extracts from the writings of Augustine, among other Christian fathers, in the learned WaWs His- tory of Infant-baptism, will find that venerable father de- claring again and again that he never met with any Chris- tian, either of the general church, or of any of the sects, nor with any writer, who owned the authority of Scripture, who iSkught any other doctrine than that infants were to be baptized for^the remission of sin. Here, then, were two men, undoubtedly among the most learned men in the world — Augustine and Pelagius ; the former as familiar, probably, with the writings of all the distinguished fathers who had gone before him, as any man of his time ; the . I 70 >v BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. latter, also a man of great learning and talent, who had travelled over a great part of the Christian world : who both declare, about three hundred years after the apostoUo age, that they never saw or heard of any one who called himself a Christian, not even the most impious heretic; no, nor any writer who claimed to beUeve in the Scriptures, who denied the baptism of infants. (See Wall's History, parti., ch. 16-19). Can the most incredulous reader, who is not fast bound in the fetters of invincible prejudice, hesitate to admit, first, that these men verily believe that infant-baptism had been the universal practice of the Church from the days of the apostles ;, and, secondly, that, situated and informed as they were, it was impos- sible that thev should be mistaken. " The same Augustine, in his Epistle to Boniface, while he expresses an opinion that the parents are the proper persons to offer up their children to God in baptism, if they be good, faithful Christians ; yet thinks proper to mention that others may with propriety, in special cases, perform the same kind office of Christian charity. ' You see,' says he, * th.it a great many are offered, not by their parents, but by any other persons, as infant slaves are sometimes offered by their masters. And sometimes when* the parents are dead, the infants are baptized, being of- fered by any that can afford to show this compassion on them. And sometimes infants, whom their parents have cruelly exposed, may be taken up and offered in baptism by those who have no children of their own, nor design to have any.' Again, in his book against the Donatists, speaking directly of infant-baptism, he says : — * If any one Ask for divine authority in this mattery although that which the whole Church practises, which was not instituted by councils, but was ever in use, is very reasonably believed to be no other than a thing delivered by the authority of the apostles ; yet we may, besides, take a true estimate, how much the sacrament of baptism does avail infants by the circumcisioil which God's ancient people received.* For Abraham was justified before he received, circumcision, as Cornelius was endued with the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. And yet the apostles say of Abraham, that he received the sign of circumcision, ' a seal of the righteous- ness of faith,' by which he hnd in heart believed, and it INF /INT BAf'TISM. 71 it had been ' counted to him for righteousness.' Why, then, was he commanded to circumcise all his male infants on the eighth day, when they could not yet believe with the heart, that it might be counted to them for righteousness ; but for this reason, because the sacrament is, in itself, of great importance ? Therefore, as in Abraham, ' the righteousness of faith ' went before, and circuraci ion, the seal of the righteousness of faith, came after; so ir 'Cornelius, the spiritual sanctification by the gift of the Holy Spirit went before, and the sacrament of regenera- tion, by the layer of baptism, came after. And as in Isaac, who was circumcised the eighth day, the seal of the righte- ousness of faith went before, and (as he was a follower of his father's faith) the righteousness itself, the seal whereof had gone before in his infancy, came after ; so in infants baptized, the sacrament of regeneration goes before, and (if they put in practice the Christian religion) conversion of the heart, the mystery whereof went before in their body, comes after. By all which it appears, that the sa- crament of baptism is one thing, and conversion of the heart another.' " So much for the testimony of the Fathers. To me, I acknowledge, this testimony carries with it hresistible con- viction. It is no doubt, conceivable, considered in itself, that in three centuries from the days of the apostles a very material change might have taken place in regard to the subjects of baptism. But that a change so serious and radical as that of which our Baptist friends speak, should liave been introduced without the knowledge of such men as have been just quoted, is not conceivable. That the church should have passed from the practice of none but adult baptism, to that of the constant and universal bap- tism of infants, while such a change was utterly unknown, And never heard of, by the most active, pious, and learned men that lived during that period, cannot, I must believe, l)e imagined by any impartial mind. Now when Origen, •Cyprian, and-Chrysostom, declare, not only that the bap- tism of infants was the universal and unopposed practice of the church in their respective times and places of residence ; and when men of so much acquaintance with all preceding writers, and so much knowledge of all Christ- endom, as Augustine and Pelagius, declared that they never (CA-0 vai ^. .^^18^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 ^K^ 1^ 1.1 m lU lit u ■ 2.2 ■ 4.0 20 11.25 HI 1.4 1^ ^ A^ '-^ ^'^c?^ 'W Hiotographic Sciences Ckirporalioii 23 WfSf MAIN STillT WnSTM,N.Y. 14580 (716) •72-4503 ^ o < ^ 4^ m ^% ^ ^ I 72 BAPTIST MISBEPRBSENTATIONS. I heard of any one who claimed to be a Christian^ either orthodox- or heretic, who did. not maintain and practice infant baptism r . I say, to suppose, in the face of such testimony, that the practice of infant baptism crept in, as an unwarranted innovation, between their time and that of the apostles, without the smallest ilotice of the change having ever reached their ears is, I must be allowed to say, of all incre- dible suppositions, one of the most incredible. He who can believe this, must it appears to me, be prepared to make a sacrifice of all historical evidence at the shrine of blind and deaf prejudice," etc., etc. * After such complete and weighty testimony, brethren, you will be convinced, I presume that no further evidence on the subject of inquiry is required. While even Tertul- lian bore ample testimony to the prevalence of infant baptism in his early day, he was not himself an absolute opponent of it, as he admitted its propriety, and therefore its Scriptural autbidrity, where there appeared the proba- bility of death in infancy, and the same in regard to others of adult years. But in other cases preferred its delay aS' long as possible from his unscriptural ideas of the characl'er and consequences of sins that might be committed after ii s administration as distinguished fiom the same if com- mitted by the same persons if uubaptized. In regard to the voluminous testimony I have just placed before you on the historical evidence of our subject, Bap-^ tist writers don't deny its authenticity or genuineness, its validity being beyond question ; but the plan adopted with their readers is, to withhold it in silence as if no such tes- timony existed ; and in some cases to give one or two short quotations of their own selection, not the strongest, you may be sure, and, presenting these as if that were all^ to distort the author's meaning in that same, which could be perceived by their readers if more were given of what is unnoticed. In his History, which professes to deal fully with the subject, Cramp does not give a sinole word of the foregoing testimony* He merely remarks that Augus- tine was a powerful advocate of infant-baptism, affirming^ by the way, that " his sheet anchor in the argument was the supposed efficacy of baptism in removing the defilement of original sin, (p. 81.) Of Ghrysostom he gives no statement at a!ll. But of Pelagius, the great heretic j he INFANT BAPTISM. 7» iaced ap- its Iwith tes- two :est, all, •uld rhat fuUy of he ^ent no h& states something— that " he did not deny the propriety d baptizing infants, who obtained, he said, the "kingdom of heayen by ttieir baptism, which * kingdom of heaven/ he distingni^ed from eternal life, and represented as a kind of intermediate state." And continues, "we need not dwell on such follies." He thus seeks to make the ques- tion ridiculous by identifying it with such an advocate, but he fails to hint in the smallest degree that as Felagius had taught that infants had no original or other sin, Augustine accused his doctrine of drawing after it the rejection of infant-baptism by implication, and that his admiission of the propriety of infant baptism was not spontaneous but because he did not wish to oppose what was everywhere acknowledged as scriptural and apostoUc. Had Cramp, instead of giving Felagius' opinions, or in addition, given a statement or two of his on the historical matter of /act, such as when he replied to Augustine, " I never heard of any, not even the most impious heretic, who denied bap- tism to infants," eto., and had further added, what all his- torians agree in testifying, that he was a very learned and widely travelled man, he would have done a httle justice in the matter. But this he has refrained from. In his Catechism all he chooses to give from them, or any others of the fourth century, is two short passages from Augus- tine, (p. 28,) both contained in six lines, in one of which the expression ** an ordinance delivered to us from the apostles," he makes into " a tradition of the apostles ; " and exercises his ingenuity on the unsatisfactory nature of custom and tradition — of which ingenuity we have seen specimens before, in his treatment of Origen and Tertullian in regard .to '* not infant but child baptism," etc., etc. Y6u will recollect his assertion that "infant baptism did not come into general observance for several centuries " after the middle of the third century, (Catech. p. 24, 26,) that is, at the^earliest, till the middle of the sixth. The testimony of the celebrated writers of the close of the FOURTH century on its general observance then, as well a& from apostolic times, you have now seen ; and are able therefore to see in another instance how opposed his state- ments are to the facts of history. When the evidence of the history of our subject becomes overwhelming in its fulness, while the policy of the Bap- 74 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. tist is, on the one hand, as we have said, to withhold that evidence, on the other hand they seek to weaken the force of what they cannot deny, by different expe'dients. One of these is sh>ongiy to represent the unsoundness of doc- trine that prevailed on the effect of baptism. Well, grant- ing that such was prevalent, and was so of other things as well ; still the fact remains, independent of that, that the baptism of infants has beon shewn to have been observed by the Ohuroh at large all along from the dayb of the apostles, and no complaint against it as an innovation contrary to Scripture and apostolic practice, but weighty testimony to the reverse of ^ese. But the views held on the other sacrament, for elample, the Lord's Supper, were certainly as far divergent from Scripture, as those on bap- tism ; yet these are no proof against its Scriptural authority and apostolic obs^pance. Of that there is no question. But our Baptist friends will say, Yes, but it is ^stinctly appointed in the Bible ; and we say so too. Still the ar- gument remains, therefore, indisputable that unsoundness of doctrine about an ordinance is no proof that the ordin- ance itself is not a scriptural one. The Jewish teachers in the tixhe of our Saviour, and no doubt for ages before, spoke very extravagantly and unscripturally, among other things of the Sabbath day, yet that was no proof against its divine appointment. The fact that it can be proven from the 20th chap, of Exodus, etc., only decides the cor- rectness of my argument. The abuse of things does not prove that those things themselves have no divine author- ity, and no proper place and use {Jl along. But, though my line of investigation at present, is into the early history of the Church, from and after the apos- tolic ag€u in demonstrating that infant-baptism is not a relic of the Popish church of Rome, yet we do not rest our case on the testimony of such evidence, serviceable as it is, in its sphere. The authority of our faith and practice in this, as in other ubings, is tiie Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; from which we can prove infant, as well as adult baptism. I don't mean, however, that we can convince every one of this, any more than we can con- vince every one of the divinity of Jesus, or of the person- ality of the Holy Ghost, or of the immortality of the soul, the everlasting punishment of ^e wicked, the inheritance INFANT BAPTISM. 75 r 1)7 our race of original sin, the total depravity of our na- ture, the substitutionary obedience and endurance of God's wrath and curse for sinners of mankind by Jesus Ohrist, justification by faith in Him alone ; or, in order to the indispensable requisites of " repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ," that there is an absolute necessity that the Holy Spirit supematnrally produce or create those conditions of mind in us ; or that the Lord's Supper is not the literal body and blood of Christ ; or that tiie administration of baptism by water does not regenerate the soul of young or olu, etc., etc., each of which, and more also, is refused as untrue by very many, who say -they can't see them taught in Scripture. But to return. While we afi&rm that all that Baptist writers aver on unsoundness of doctrine, does not affect ihe historical evidence of fact, there is reason to reply that they make those Christian writers often appear more un- sound than they were ; just as Bomish advocates extract from their writings, disconnectedly and unfairly, to make -out their tenets Bomish, where wey were not. For in- stance. Cramp in his Catechism (p. 29), remarking on the participation by infants of the Lord's Supper, and after saying that " Augustine enforced it on the ground of its necessity to salvation, appealing to John vL 68 ; " (but he neither gives Augustme's own words, nor states the place where they are to be seen, so that I cannot look them up to see if correctly given); he tilit|^ontinues : — " Gelasius, bishop of Bome, decreed (A.D. 4%), that * no one should venture to exclude any child from this sacrament (the Lord's Supper), without which no one can attain eternal life.' (Hagenback's History of Doctfines^ vol. I., p. 867)." Now I have this volume of Hagenbach's before me — ^pre- •cisely the same edition that Cramp had. In his History he quotes from the same volume twice (p. 7, 15), on anotiber matter, and I have verified them in the same page and words as he there gives. But in the page, 867, re- ferred to for Gelasius's decree, I find no mention of it or him. In the next page (868), which begins the section on the Lord's Suppwy there is no such statement of him (or of any other) nor in the> whole section, which I have min- ntely examined. But Hagenbach does state of him in that page, " Gelasius, bishop of Bome, spohe very dtcidedly on 76 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. against the idea of a real change " in the elements of bread an,d wine. Again be is refened to, to show tbis, in p. 872, by an exto'act from bis writings, but tbere is notbing said ^ere whatever of infant communion. Next I look into tbe index of this and the second volume, and find Gela- sius' name with reference only to that place above ex- plained ; and lastly, I have carefully gone over vol., I. and also Vol. II., and seen no further trace of him, and am sure he is not even referred to more. So that that quota- tion of Cramp from Hagenbach is not to be found in Ha- genbach in the place specified or elsewhere. Another expedient is to draw atttention to some Chris- tians of eminence in the church of the fourth century who though of Christian, (some of them of pious) parentage were not baptized till their manhood. In his Catechism (p. 27) Cramp specifies four cases of this kind, Ephrem of Edesse, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil of Caesarea and Chry- sostom. And at once makes the sweeping conclusion that "this could not have occurred, if the administration of baptism to infants had been regarded as a divine institu- tion." In his History he mentions the same persons similarly (p. 82, 88), to which he might have added the name of the great Augustine, who it seems also was not baptized till he grew up, and his mother was pious. Still such a conclusion is quite wrong, though the number of such cases had been more numerous than they were. Christian and pious paMpts in their circumstances might and did neglect their cmty in relation to the baptism of their chil^en, not from the belief that it was not a divine institution for infants, but from other controlling influences. I will illustrate this by a parallel case in connection with the other sacrament of the Lord's Supper, with which, brethren, some of you and probably many of you are your- selves well acquainted. Among the Highlanders of Scot- land, for example, (and I believe of their representatives in many parts of Canada), it has been for many generations the practice of a considerable proportion of the truly pious among them to refrain from becoming communicants of the Lord's Table. On this, I can bear personal testimony. Yet their ministers have been in the habit of constantly calling on them, and on all that love Jesus to come forward in appropriate spirit, and obey his dying and binding com- INFANT BAPTISM. 77 xnand, " Do tbis in remembrance of me." Still 'many, of whose true goilliness there is no doubt, hold back and do it not. Should we conclude of them, therefore, that this could not occur if they regarded the administration of the Lord's Supper as a divine institution ? If we did we would greatly err. The same persons would themselves seriously and sincerely inform you that on that they have not the slightest doubt, and believe it their duty to observe it, too ; but that that duty implies a certain worthiness of spirit, which in their judgment they fear they don't sufficiently possess, for which, however, they take the blame to them- pelves. They have acquired as a rule deeply solemn views and awe of the sacredness of that ordinance, and of its value also as a precious means of grace when appropriately approached and followed by a suitable godly walk and conversation ; but at the same time dread the sin of par- taking unworthily, and the consequences in eating and drinking judgment to. themselves ; and this keeps many back from it all their Uves. While we^annot but respect such motives, yet we consider that those we speak of,- who keep back, mistake the nature of the worthiness required for the Lord's table, as also the probable consequences of their approach, while they under- estimate the duty of actual obedience. However, the fact is as we have described, and widely prevalent in that sec- tion of the Christian church in Fatherland, and no doubt is true of many other believers throughout the Christian world. But, suppose it were the sacrament of baptism that was so regarded, similar consequences would, of course, follow. In that case they would be as much afraid of taking on themselves and their children its conceived re- sponsibilities and probable consquences. Now, what I have just explained of many of my kindred and fellow- Christians, in relation to the Lord's Supper, explains pre- cisely the position of many throughout the whole Church in early ages, in relation to both adult and infant-baptism. The idea of great sacredness and mysterioub effects, as the instrument of regeneration was attached to it, and along with that the great heinousness and danger of sias com- mitted after. In short, the leaven we have seen working in TertuUian's mind and treatise on the subject had not died out. Erroneous views of its mysterious sacredness 78 BAPTIST MISBEPRESENTATIOKS. and effects, suoh as disposed him to connsel people of all ages, and some more particularly than others, to defer it as long as possible, similarly disposed other minds more or less. And it is to be remembered that the circmnstancds of those days were not so highly favonred as onrs are in religious advantages. They had not our widespread edu- cation, nor printed Bibles in every Christian home, easily purchased, easily read, etc., etc. For some years at the- beginning of the fourth century itself, the civil govern- ments were still all heathen, and the Diocletian persecution raged against the Christians, burning up their pen-printed books or scrolls, and putting many to death. And after the Emperor Constantine appeared and embraced Chris- tianity, as well as before, the Church was chiefly and constantly increased for centuries by conversions from the heathen, many qf them not real conversions, who carried with them much of their previous great degradation in ignorance and superstition, which even, in the case of many, truly converted, would not be removed for several generations under favourable circumstances,^ and many errors in a church of such vast extent, and different lan- guages, etc., might be expected to prevail in such circum- stances, and did. Even in our own day, with all our advantages of every kind, and access directly to the Scriptures, every one for ourselves, much error prevails on very important things. Corresponding with this ex- planation, I find in Cramp's History (p. dlj, in a quotation he makes from Neander, that that historian explains th& reasons, briefly expressed, why many of that period did not baptize their children, and it may be added why many^ like Constantine, deferred their own baptism till on their deathbed. He gives them as follows : — " Partly, the same mistaken notions which arose from confounding the thing^ represented by baptism with the outward rite, and which afterwards led to the over-valuation of infant-baptism, and partly the frivolous tone of thinking, the indifference to all higher concerns, which characterized so many who had only exchanged the Pagan for a Christian outside." Ho further adds that, "in theory it (infant-baptism) was ag- KNowLEDOED TO BE NECEssABT " —-by thoso samc partics, who, for the one or the other reason, had neglected to observe it. In other words, it was regarded by them aa of divine institution. INFANT BAPTISM. 79 their same NeverthelesSy with those exceptions from snoh reasons, so deeply and dearly impressed was the dnty of infant- baptism on the mind of the Ohuroh at large, as the doctrine of Scripture and practice of the apostles, iliat, as we have seen, it continned from the beginning to be everywhere observed, was explained and enforced from the Scripturee and apostles by the great leaders, and other teachers of the Church without a dissentient voice — not even Tertullian's in that connection, and not " any, even the most impioua heretics," were heard to deny its divine appointment and validity. As to those four eminent men, of pious parents, which Cramp specifies as not baptized till manhood, to which I have added the name of Augustine, the weight of their names should really go on the side of infant-baptism if, when they came to thmk for themselves, and became emi- nent, they were advocates of it. And that was the fact. Their not being baptized in infancy, and thai under the action of "pious" parents, would naturally bias their minds as th'e^Tgrew up to that side of the question, if in- fant-baptism were regarded by their parents as not divinely appointed, or even as only doubtful. Consequently their becoming strong and powerful advocates of it when they had examined the question for themselves, is all the strorr^er ^roof that their advocacy was founded on evidence ve^y thoroughly convincing to them. If, hov ever, their parents' reason for not having had them baptized in infancy was, as no doubt it was, their fear (from an unscriptural super- stitious view of the awfulness and peculiar danger of sins after baptism), lest they or their children, through teiiipta- tion and frailty, should bring on them the divine displeasure and judgment, not for the baptism, but for unfaithfulness to its obligations — that was quite another thing ; though their children brought up by them in such ideas would at first be biased accordingly, and would require also all the clearer .evidence afterwards to make them infant-baptists,, in opposition to such fears. Now as. to the position of those great Christian teacb^rs,. I have already placed before you quotations from Chrysos- tom and Augustine (p. 68-72), two of those referred to, — than which no testimony comd be stronger in support of infant baptism. But of Gregory, of Nazianzen, Cramp so BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. remarks (Hist. p. 82), " He expressly intimated his disap- proval of infant baptism, in one of his pablio discourses, and advised that children should not be baptized till they were thbee years old or more, at which time they might be able to answer the questions proposed to candidates." In reference to this he refers his readers to " Ullmann's Gregory of Nazianzen" p. 27 ; but does not himself quote any from Ullmann that his readers might judge for them- < selves what he did teach ; which is an important considera- tion in Cramp's case, as we have had occasion to see before. But looking af the statement he gives in his own words, not Ullmann's, it surely is opposed to Baptist doctrine. It would seem from it that Gregory favoured baptism at *Hhree years of age." Well, for certain that does not accord either with Baptist doctrine or practice. When do we ever see or ]^ear or read of Baptists baptizing at such an early age ? But Oramp has here adopted the policy I have had to complain so often before of him and others, Tiz., of concealing by withholding the evidence, and dis- Ay< torting what he gives. I will now add a little also about Gregory from Cramp's own authority ^ Ullmann, to see for ourselves what he really says. It is as follows : — " Gregory of Nazianzen (Oratio LX.), Opposed the delay of baptism, which (delay) was founded partly on deference paid to the sacrament, partly on incorrect views and immoral ten- dencies, partly on absurd prejudices. (Compare Ullmann, p. 466, ss.). Concerning the baptism of infants, Gregory declared ' that it was better that they should be sanctified without their own consciousness ^ than that they should depart being neither -sealed nor consecrated (Ullmann. p. 718). In support of his view he appealed to the rite of circum- cision which was performed on the eighth day, etc. Gregory nevertheless thought that healthy children might wait till the third year, or somewhere thereabout, because they would be able then to hear and to utter something of the words used at the performance of the rite, though they might not perfectly understand them, but get rather a general • impression of them." (Hagenbach's Hist, of Doct. Vol. I. p. 364). Where now is there room for Cramp's assertion that ** Gregory expressly intimated his disapproval of infant Baptism! — in support of which he appealed to circumcision on the eighth day, and opposed its delay. And INFANT BAPTISM. 81 in the speoial case of healthy children who , might be al- lowed to wait till three years old, does he say, it was that ** they might be able to anmer the queetioni propoeed to Candidatee" which of course would imply an underetanding of those questions and what answers to make, at thrxb TBABB OF AOE I There is nothing of that ; but " that they might be able then to heab and uttkb something of the words used at the administration though not understanding their import then, but to get, it might be, some generid impression of them on their feeble minds, those words being few, as, " I baptize thee in the name of the Father," etc. But once more. Dr. Sohaff (Hist, of the Chr. Church, Vol. II., p. 488), states as follows: "Many Ghrisikian parents postponed the baptism of their children, sometimes nrom indifference, sometimes from fear that they might by their later life forfeit the grace of baptism and thereby make their condition the worse. Thus Gregory, Nazian- zen and Augustine, though they had eminently pioua mothers, were not baptized till their conversion in their manhood. But they afterward regretted this. Gregory admonishes a mother : ' Let not sin gain the mastery in thy child ; let him be consecrated even in swaddlino bands^ Thou art afraid of the divine seal on account of the weak* ness of nature. What weakness of faith t Hannah dedi- cated her Samuel to the Lord even before his birth ; and immediately after his birth trained him for the priesthoods Instead of fearing human weakness trust in God.' " So it seems that Gregory was an Infant baptist, and Cramp very unreliable. Of the other two, Basil of Csesarea and Ephrem of Edesse, Cramp does not say that they opposed infant baptism, which he would, no doubt, if plausibly possible. I have now, brethren, come to the close of the wodc I had undertaken. In the latter section of it I have en- deavoured to meet the oft repeated assertion consequently believed in by the body of the Baptist people, from hearing it BO affirmed in confident manner by their teachers, — that " Infant Baptism is of papal obioin." I may say that these words are the burden of a communication from a Baptist doctor of divinity, in its issue of the 17th of February last (now before me) of the Canadian Baptist, of Toronto, to 6 ^V*\ 82 BAPTIST mSRSPKBSBNTATIONS. \ whioh the editor staiet Le gitat a phMO with mvdi plea- «iire." And this it the leading religions weekly of ^e Baptist denomination in this Province, ^e expression of '** papal origin," every one will understand to mean, having its origin or beginmng in the popish ohnrch of Borne, whose popes have claims to be supreme bishops and head of all tne ohuroh of Christ. But I have shewn you tbyat Buoh claim was not put forward till after A.D. 697, (when Oregorv, bishop of Borne, declared that "whosoever ^daimed to be universal bishop was the forerunner of anti- christ,) that is till the beginning of the iwenth century. The date universally agreed upon by all Protestant histo- rians, for that position is A.D. 606, under pope Boniface m. Now it waa not till A.D. 811, or the beginning of the fourth century, that the hitherto pagan Boman empire declared first lot favour of Christianity, under Oonstantine the Great. Before then the Christian church throughout all lands was continually subjedt to persecutions. especially at Boms, the seat of the imperial government, which was pagan. There was no Papal Bome then, but pagan Bome, £ut long before that period we have seen the Councils of Carthage, Cyprian and his sixty-two brother bishops, with Fidui bearing testimony, in A.D. 268, to the universal prevalence of infant baptism then, that is to say about sixty Tears before the Imperial government of the civilized world nad declared for Christianity. Again, Origen, taking the Baptist PengiUy's date for his writings on baptism, to be A.D. 280, gave his testimony to its universal prevalence in his day from the apostles' time, and was baptised himself the same year he was born, A.D. 186, — or eighty- five years after the apostolic age. Tertulian again wrote earlier still, A.D. 200, or 111 years before Bome had given up its heathen idols in the Pantheon, and bore decided testunony also to its prevalence then,---400 years before Papal Bome had raised its head. Then before that again in A.D. 177, 140, we have seen ihe testimony of IrensBus and Justin Martyr of their day, extending into the apostolic age. How then can that be said to be of Papal origin which existed, and existed too so long before the papal church of Bome itself ? Then there is the testimony of the dose of the fourth century, Augustine, Chrysostom, Pelagius,etc., etc., also so full and conclusive. Besides most of these various INFANT BAPTISM. Mi witnesMf did not belong to the joriBdiotion of the ohurch in Borne at all. They were biahops and claimed equality with that in Borne. ■ Juntin Martyr was resident in Borne, bnt vtry long before it wae papal. IrennuF was of Lyons, in Franee; Tertollian and Oyprian were of Oarthage, in North Africa. Origen was mast of his public lifetime is^ Alexandria, near Palestine. Ohrysostom was bishop of Constantinople, as was his predecessor Gregory Naziausen. Aogustine was bishop of Hippo, within 200 miles from Carthage. None of these nor of the churches elsewhere, recognised Bome's jurisdiction as over them; nor did Bome claim it in their days. I haye said enong'h, I think, brethren, to show you the gross untruthfulness of the frequently repeated aBserUon that " infant-baptisin is of Papal origin — a relic of Popery — of the Church of Bome. It is of a piece with all the rest I have exhibited to yon of great and deliberate misre- presentation like that of Cramp, Pengilly, etc., in this Anabaptist cause ; and I have material at hand by which I could show you ten times mojre than I have now ex- hibited, only the expense and' the want of time hinder further enlargement. The cause that inspires its advocates, its leading men, its church publication societies, its minis- ters, etc., to adopt such methods of advancement is not good — is not from above, but from beneath, whence such inspiration, such a spirit comes. It recalls to mind the profession on the one hand, and the spirit and plans of ac- tion on the other, of those of old, of whom the Saviour said, they compassed sea and land to make proselytes, bnt who, when made, were worse than before ; yes, and re- minds strongly of the spirit and tactics of Bome herself — her " pious frauds" and unholy tactics. The motto seems in each case alike, ^ The end sanctifies the means.' If numerical success is gained, that seems to be everything with the prime movers, while the many sins committed as the means of obtaining it are not regretted, but accounted serviceable, and zealously persevered in without flinching or deviation. And yet it must be added that the great body of the Baptist people are qnite ignorant of the deceptions prac- tised on them. They are not in circumstances to ascertain the truth for themscdves. Though they had the time, the wmfi I'J 84 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. ^VX V^ education, and willingness to take the trouble, they have not the original works within their reach to inquire into for themselves, and are too willing, alas t to believe with readiness what seems to favour the side they have espoused^ While the representations continually made to them in books and other publications, and by word of mouth from their zealous teachers, are so presented to them — the truth suppressed — the facts distorted — that I don't wonder that even good men and women are misled and rendered zeal- ous even to fanaticism on the side of wrong. And I have no doubt very many even of their ministers are equally deceived ; who form their opinions — for they are but men — from the representations of a few leaders. To ascertain the real facts involves to ministers the expense of getting the various necessary sources of original information, the considerable trouble and time necessary for inquiry into them, which, with other con- stantly pressing duties, is not easily secured, and withal requires a mind devotedly attached to truth, and deeply sensitive to the greatness of the sin of "bearing false wit- ness against our neighbour. ' ' The temptation to take second,, thirds or fourth hand information, and save all this in- convenience, and, at the same time, to make proselytes the more readily thereby, is considerable, and too often prevails. Yes, and prevails, too, even with the leaders, as with Dr. Taylor, for example, in his "Baptists: "Who they are, and what they have done ; " who, at great length, implicitly reproduces Dr. Cramp, with his mis- representations, an^ here and there on important points adds decidedly to the miijrepresentations, by going farther in that way than Dr. Cramp, his professed authority, has done, and even contrary to his admissions; for instance, as specimens, he affirms on Cramp's authority (p. 31) that the Novatians and Donatists were Baptists, though Cramp (Hist., p. 46, 46) reluctantly admits there is no proof of this ; and history shows abundant proof of the opposite. Or, as seen in Cramp and Pengilly's use of Booth's " Paedo- baptist Examined ; " which is also very unfair in its quotations. They give many quotations from that work on Booth's authority, without improving his errors, while they are silent on him where he would contradict the assertions they make ; as, for instance, the case I set INFANT BAPTISM. 85 before you of Deylingius on baptism, by spriakling, in the Greek church. Booth, again, may have quoted much from others, second-hand, and so the ball of misrepresen- tation rolls on, gathering as it progresses, till it reaches the confiding common people, who take what is presented to them ag, no doubt, reliable and fairly exhibited; CONCLUSION OF LECTURE. Part III. EXTENSION OF THE SUBJECT. PROOFS. ADDITIONAL We can anticipate the Baptists reply after all we have shown on Infant Baptism, that uninspired history is not a proof of Scriptural authority. Let your appeal be to the Scriptures alone. This sounds well to the ear and implies what they affirm, that the* Word of God is not in favour of Infant baptism. Our object in the preceding Lecture has been to demonstrate that its origin was not papal, and also how leading Baptist writers deal with that subject in books sanctioned and issued widely by their church's Publication Societies. It is hardly honourable in them to make and repeat the charge a thousand times, that infant baptism is a relic of the Popish church of Borne, and then when we have proven its universal observance aU over Christendom several centuries before the church in Bome became papkl, to say, ''0 though you have established its existence and prevalence long before that period, that does not decide its Scriptural authority." But what about that calumny of its origin '? We cannot be expected to find the history of the second, third, and succeeding cen- turies in the Bible, which was completed at the end of the first century, but we have found abundant proof in even Baptist books with all their disposition to suppress and distort, that that charge is a calumny of much guilt, and one I have no doubt that will contir ae to be perpetuated for long. But it is said, Give an express precept or example of infant baptism in the Scriptures clear and specific, and d6 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. that if that cannot be given then there is no Soriptnr^ warrant for it ; that uninspired history proves nothing in establishing its Scripturality. That is to say, na rehgioiis observance, has Scripture authority on which we have not in Scripture express precept enjoining it, or inspired example. Well, let us examine this argument in regard, for instance, to THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK AS THE SABBATH DAT; under the obligations of the fourth commandment of the Moral Law. This is a very important question, still more 80 considerably than the baptism of water, without under- estimating the latter. For centuries there has been and still is a denomination called the Seventh day Baptists, who hold that day and not the first to be the Scriptural Christian Sabbath. But the other Baptist denominations like ourselves and other Christians regard it as the first day of the week. On this I might quote you from two Baptist Confessions of Paith before me, but it is unne- cessary ; it is well known. They refer to the terms of the fourth commandment, as obligatory on it (Exod. xx. 8), as ours also docs ; namely : — " Bemember the Sabbath day to keep it holy ; . . . in it thou shalt not do any work,'' etc. You know that commandment was first applicable to the seventh day and continued so throughout all the Old Testament. The authority for the change of the day must therefore be sought in the New Testament. I will exhibit to you all it says on the subject. And, first, as seemingly in the words (bvt not really) against that change the seventh day is often called "the sabbath day," after our Lord's death and ascension, while in all the Scriptures the first day of the week is not once called by that name, nor is the fourth commandment expressly ever applied to it. The Jews who were not Christians still observed as before the seventh da as the Sabbath, and the apostles and their brethren joinc i their meetings for worship and to preach to them Jesus as opportunity was afforded. On which, for instance, as follows (Acts xiii. 18, 14): "But when Paul and his company departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Fisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sab- bath day, and sat down." In his address to them Paul said (vei. 27), *' For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their INFANT BAPTISM. ST rulers, beoanse they knew him (Jesus) not, nor yet the yoioes of the prophets which are read every sabbath day^ they have fulnlled them in condemning him.'' ''And (ver. 42, 44) when the Jews were gone out of the syna- gogue, ihe Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath." " And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Now in each of these passages the reference is to the Jewish Sabbath ; yet the inspired his- torian and speaker call it " the sabbath day " without an^ qualification, and through the Acts (chaps, xv. 21 ; xviL 2 ; xviii. 4 ; etc.), we see the same mode of speech. The Apostles and Christians in Judea and all countries where Jews were settled, still honoured the seventh day Sabbath,, and we read of no complaint against them for not doing so, on ^hich the Jews were very jealous. They also honoured the temple in Jerusalem by attending it, (Acts ii. 46 ; iil. 1),. and observed several things of the Mosaic economy. Thus when Paul had lust returned from the heathen, James and the elders said to him (Acts xxi. 20), " Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews were are which believe ; and they are all zealous of the law : and they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, raying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore ? the multitude must needs come together : for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee : Wo have four men which have a vow on them: them take^ and purify thyself with them that they may shave their heads ; and all may know that those thmgs, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing ; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe^ we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing^ save only that they keep themselves from things offered io idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fjrmcation. And Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself with them, entered into the temple, to signify the accom- plishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for everyone of them." It appears thai Paul also had a vow, and had to keep the feast at that time *88 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. i at Jerusalem (xviii. 18, 21). Of this oondiiot of the in- spired guides of the Church, we know the reason. Cir- cumcision was permitted to the children of Jewish Chris- ' tians on account of the deep hold its original divine ap- pointment and long observance had on their mind and •conscience. And so of other things. The seventh day Sabbath was in these respects in tiie same position. It was very specifically and strictly enjoined in the Fourth Commandment, and had been the day observed as such from the time of Moses, and from the creation. It was, of course, quite lawful for Christians to worship and preach the Gospel on that day under the New Testament dispen- sation, or on any day. The apostles refused to perpetuate «r permit the observances peculiar to the Mosaic economy among the Gentij^e Christians, but, by the wise and graci- ous will of Christ, bore with the infirmities of the Jewish believers' mind till they should grow out of them by time, and increase of grace, and knowledge of the truth, as it is in Jesus. Also, the Fourth Commandment on the seventh day was the law of the land of Judea, enforced by govern- ment, so that no one was permitted to work secularly. The apostles, then, still honoured it, as we have seen, and they still called it " the sabbahh day." Let me now, on the other hand, place before you all the Scriptures (they are not many) bearing on the first day of the week, as the day substituted for the seventh. I wiU put them all together, that they may be seen in. one view. 'Of the day our Saviour rose from the dead we read, " Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of "the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and said. Peace be unto you," etc. •' And after eight days, again, His disciples were within, and Thomas wi^^h them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst," etc. (John xx. 19, 26). The next reference is in the Acts (xx. 6, 7), ** And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five davs, where we abode ^even days. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow ; and continued his 49peech till midnight." Then, after he had restored Euty- INFANT BAPTISM. 89 ohns to life, who had fallen down from tL bird loft, on that oooasion, it is continued (ver. 11), " \Vaen he, Paul, therefore, was come up again, and had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed." He was on hie way to Jerusalem. The next is in 1 Cor. xvi. 1,2, " Now, concerning the collec- tion for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath pros- pered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." These are all the passages in which the first day of the week is specified. The last passage on the subject is John's testimony (Eev. i. 10.), "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind uit a great voice, as of a trumpet." Now, let it be borne in mind that what Baptists require in regard to the baptism of infants is that to warrant it there must be a precept enjoining it in regard to them in express terms ; or an inspired example, in which infants are expressly stated to have been baptized. They do not agree to proof by inference or impUoation. Well, in the last passage, or elsewhere, the day of the week John calls " t/t«? Lord's day,' is not specified, nor is this name found in any other place in the New Testament. In the Fourth Commandment in the Old Testament we read, "the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God ; " which also meant the Lord's day. There is, therefore, no proof in Scripture that xhe first day is the Lord's day, if nothing will be taken as proof but an express declaration. Yet (by the way) Baptists, Uke ourselves, call it by this name, and say there is Scriptural authority for it. In this they are right, but it is neither from express precept nor example, but hut by a kind of proof quite different from their requirement for infant-baptism, which I will show you in a little. The passage in 1 Cor. xvi. 2, ** Let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him " — for the assis- tance of the poor saints at Jerusalem, — does not specify whether this was to be done privately, or by publicly giving their contributions on that day to the office-bearers of the Church, to be kept in store by them ; nor where or how the " gatherings" were to be made. There is no mention in the words of meetings for public worship, or abstinence from secular employments. The other passage in the 90 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. Acts does not say the disciples came together on that day to break bread, because it was the Sabbath, or because it was the first day of the week, (though I have no doubt it was,) but simply that on that day they assembled for that purpose. It is not unscriptural, however, to partake of the Lord's supper on otiber days than the Sabbath. Our Lord at first dispensed it on a Thursday, — ** the night in which he was betrayed ; " and while the Sabbath, being usually the most appropriate, is usually chosen for it, it has often been most lawfully partaken of on other days — as in times of persecution and other special circumstances. It might be said, not without reason, that Paul's short visit to Troas and his departure " on the morrow," when the disciples there " would see his face no more " (ch. xx. 25, 88), was a igreat occasion most suitably preceded by their thus together showing forth their Bedeemer's death and love the last day before the Apostle and his accom- panying brethren left. On the other hand, however, the fact thai they *' abode seven days " there, or an exact week, and that this day was chosen for that special ordinance, does seem to direct our attention to the day itself as especially important, and makes it appear probable that Paul had deferred his departure till ^e next day from regard to the first day hd set apart for sacred purposes ; rather than that they met together on that occasion simply because it happened to be the one before Paul had resolved to sail. The reference in 1 Corinthians, drawing special attention to that day, again adds weight to this view. But observe, this is all inference. It is not expressly stated. The ' seventh, day ' Baptists must have direct and express declaration. Moreover, the disciples seem to have met together in the after part of that day, as Paul preached till midnight and spoke till the ** break of the day follow- ing; " and there is no proof that they were not engaged in secular labour in the early part of the day or were not to do so. It io contended that there is no explicit state- ment such as — " ' Bemember the first day of the week to keep it holy, as the Sabbath of the Lord, instead of the seventh ; in it thou shalt not do any work,' etc. — while there is such a command in the Scriptures as to the seventh day.'' Again, while it does not seem singular that the Saviour should come to his disciples on the day he INFANT BAPTISM. 91 aroRe from the dead, there is Bomething striking in the manner of expression, viz. : " The same day at evening, heing thefirtt day of th« week .... came Jesas and stood in their midst." Attention seems thus dra^m to this day as a particular reason of his so coming then. Weight is added to this again, when we read that he reserved his second appearance among them for the eighth day after, or the first day of the week following. Yet there is nothing said of the Babbath and its obligations. Also, he after- wards appeared to and communed .with them (John xxi.) on a different day of the week, so far as appears, when they were fishing on the sea of Tiberias. To sum up. On the one hand, the apostles and the inspired writer of the Acts when referring to the seventh day always called it still "the Sabbath day." This, however, does not decide that it was now really the Sab- bath of the New Dispensation. Christians, for example, have ever been accustomed to call the days of the week by the name originally given them by the heathen in honour ' of their gods — Monday, Tuesday, Wodnesday, Thursday, — after the gods Thor, Weden, the Moon, etc. — without our meaning by this that these days should be kept sacred to those gods, but merely to distinguish the days as generally called and known by these names. In Judea, and where- ever Jews resided, there was a similar reason for calling the seventh day the Sabbath, and all the more that it had been hitherto ever the Sabbath appointed by the living and true God, — of the Christians as well as the Jews. Still the question remains, Was that the reason? The Apostles and Christians generally honoured that day in public worship, and preaching in the synagogue, etc. Further, ' there is no express declaration that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day. These are the facts on the one side. On the other hand, the first day of the week appears to have had a particular prominence of a religious nature and observance. We never find the second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth day pointed out specifically in this way. Moreover, the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was poured out in Ne7» Testament fulness, was the first day of the week, (Lev. xxiii. 15, 16,) as well as that chosen by our Lord for his first and second appearance in the midst of his assembled EBB 92 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. disciples after his resurrection. Yet, withal, as far as Scripture statements of every kind go, we can only infkb the change of the Sabbath to that day. It is not expressly STATED TO BE cHANQED. If wc had uo othcr kind of evidence, with the fourth commandment before us In its explioitness on ihe seventh day, and all the old Testament reaffirming it with such solemn emphasis, and the apostles, etc., calling it the Sabbath day and practically honouring it seemingly as such, we would be at a loss to know for certain (what- ever we might think about the first) that the seventh was no longer intended to be observed as such. Yet, Uke our- selves, Baptists generally maintain that it is so changed, and practise accordingly ; labouring in worldly employ- ments on the Saturday, refraining from them on the first day of the wee]^, and keeping it 'holy' for and in the worship of God. But how may the question be further CLEARED UP OTHERWISE ? It is by this — The Early History of the Church. If wS find satisfactory evidence immediately after the apostles, just as they have left the spheres of their superintendence, that Christians all over the world — in Palestine, Asia, Rome, Africa, etc., all habitually assembled together for worship on the first day of the week, and kept it sacred in terms of the Fourth Commandment, we have irresistible proof that that doctrine and practice were from apostolic author- ity and example. For it cannot reasonably be supposed that so important an institution as the Christian Sabbath could, in so short a time after the apostles left, have come into universal observance instead of the Jewish Sabbath, without the sanction of the apostles, considering, too, the strictness of the divine command on the Sabbath. This our Baptist friends admit equally with ourselves. And on the SUFFICIENCY OF THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ON THIS, let me quote you from the Baptist writer, J. Torrey Smith, on the inside, cover of Pengilly's '' Scripture Guide to Bap- tism." He says, " Those Christian writings of the first century after the apostles (though few in number) clearly show that the Lord's day, or Christian Sabbath, was from the first observed." INFANT BAPTISM. »3 Let me give you Bome specimens of this evidence, which is outside of Scripture, but undoubted. Pliny, a heathen goyernor of Bithynia, (a province of Asia^ and a pereeou- tor, having been directed oy the emperor Trajan judicially to investigate the conduct of the Christians, did so. His epistle in reply we have, of date AtD. 107, or only seven 'years after the decease of the apor^le John. Where he describes the Christians' worship, He says, " they were accustoxu d to meet together on a stated day at sunrise, sang a song to Christ as God," etc. " Afterwards, at evening, they assembled again." This shows they set apart that whole day for divine worship. Again, the great Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, was put to death by Trajan, being thrown to wild beasts. The precise year of his martyrdom is uncertain, but was some time before A.D. 117, when Trajan died. He was himself a disciple and a companion of the apostles. Speaking of the seventh day Sabbath, he said, " The Christians celebrate no longer the Sabbath, but the Lord's day, on which their life arose to , them by him." That is, instead of the Jewish Sabbath they observed the Lord's day, regarding under that name the day He rose from the dead.- We have here, therefore, evidence on the day referred to by John as the Lord's, in Bev. i. 10. ; and this testimony was written only a few years after John wrote that book, and indicates that this was the name commonly applied to it throughout the Church. Justin Martyr, we have seen before, wrote his ** Apology " to the Eoman emperor and people in A.D. 140, or only forty years after the death ol John, while he was bom himself, at most, three or four years after. The Boman names for the first and second days of the week were Sunday, Moonday, from whom we have derived them and the others in our use. On the subject before us, Jus- tin states in his "Apology" as follows: — "On the day which is called Sunday, all, whether dwelling in the towns or in the villages, hold meetings ; and the memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as long as the time permits," etc. " We assemble in com- mon on Sunday, because this is the first day in which God created the world, and the light, and because Jesus Christ our Saviour, on the same day,, rose from the dead and appeared to His disciples." After describing the different 94 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. devntional exercises engaged in, he also says : — " The wealthy and thie willing then give contributions according to their free will, and the collection is deposited with the president, who, therewith, supplies orphans and widowS; poor and needy, prisoners and 8trang<)rs, and takes care of all who are in wani" Let these specimens suffice. The Church at this time was established in many lands, north, south, east and west, when it had just emerged as a mighty ocean stream from under the eyes and inspired personal instruction and guidance of the apostles, who had been over it everywhere for many years, as the Acts and Epistles indicate ; and at the beginning of that period we see all, with one consent, in these terms holding sacred the first day of the week. The Jewish Ohristians we find, indeed, observing in different places the seventh day during the second century, e^c, and letting it go with reluctance, but, like all the others, they kept the first day sacred as well. They had no difficulty about the first day, but were attached to the seventh for ;the reasons I have before explained, which gradually gave way. Now, this broad comprehensive fact being admitted, we can, with it before us, go back to those passages in the New Testament on the first day of the week, and can legi- timately regard them as containing more than they literally express — a common thing in Scripture. The expression, " the Lord's day," by John, we see, as already remarked, was meant of this day, though he does not specify it him- self. The practice of Ohristians, explained by Justin Martyr, to bring their contributions for the assistance of the needy to the Church on this day, and " lay by them in store," — deposit them in the hands of the presiding pastor, fits in with Paul's direction in 1 Cor. xvi. 2, and is a roliabie light-giving commentary on it. In like manner on Acts xx. 7, " Ajid upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them till midnight," etc. When we see the universal observance of the first day as the Sabbath at the end of the same century, we have no difficulty in perceiving its observance as suoU by the disciples indicated there. As to the passages in John xx. and xxi., although the Lord's third appearance to His disciples was not on the first day of the week; the first two were, and were well INFAMT BAPTISM. 96 ftfcted, M they were, no doubt, intended, to prepare the minds of His disoiples and the Ohoroh for the change of day as Sabbath, and to give strength to t)ie proof of it afterwards and otherwise brought out in the manner we desoribe. When wa see it established that the first day of the week is indeed made the Sabbath, we also see a parti- cular meaning pointing in that direction, in our Lord^ after appearing to His assembled disoiples the day he arose, re- serving His next appearance for the next first day of the week. And then, when we consider the nature of the «vent that occurred in His resurrection, we see the suit- ableness of the change. If it was proper that the seventii day should be set apart before and hallowed in memorial of God's finished work of creation, how much more should He appoint a similar sacred memorial for His homage praise and grace in the day He rested from His still greater work of redemption ; by which is secured glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good- will towards men ? In these two works of God there is a parallelism, only that the last excels the first in glory, and hence appropri* ately the memorials are similar in nature, one day in seven set apart for divine worship, and the first day of the week, as commemorating the completion of the more glorious work, henceforward becffme more appropriately the Sab- bath than the seventh day, while it includes the objects of the seventh in regard to God as Gr tor, as well as Re- deemer — or all His glory and goodness. However, while we can see the suitableness of that day from the nature of the case, we must look, elsewhere for the proof of its having been so set apart ; which is found cumulatively, to a cer- tain extent, in the references we find to that day in Scrip- ture, which are made decisive by the universal observance of it as the Sabbath of the New Testament dispensation at the end of the first century, which it is admitted neces- sarily implied the inspired sanction and authority of the apostles for the same. Looking at the Saviour's death, which took place on Friday— the sixth day — ^when He said on the cross, " It is finished," we might also see suitable reason for the appointment of that day as Sabbath in com- memoration, but that would be no proof of its appoint- ment. We would require to have proof otherwise of this being done, which we have not. We might reason simi- 96 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. larly of the day of His birth, which was certainly a very^ great event, as the angel declared to the shepherds, and the other angels sang. But no reference to a commemora- tive Ghristmas appears at all in His Word, while the first reference to Ghristmas does not appear in the Church till the fourth century. We have thus seen, brethren, the value of the evidence we have on the Christian Sabbath at the beginning of the second century — its usefulness in helping us to see th& force of those passages in Scripture on this subject, and how we have not in Scripture an express precept specify- ing that the Fourth Commandment is traiisferred from the seventh to the first dny, neither have we an express in- . spired example, covering that ground beyond question. Now, LET us APPLY 'ALL THIS IN REOABD TO INFANT-BAPTISM. There is no express precept in Scripture, " Baptize the infants of believers ; " and no example where it is expressly specified that an infant was* among those baptized. Our Baptist friends, therefore, conclude that such ought not to be baptized. Well, there is no express precept, " The first day of the week thou shalt keep holy as the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, instead of ^the neventh day hitherto commanded ; in it thou shalt not do auy work," etc. Nor, is there any example where it is expressly specified that the first day was so substituted and observed in those terms. Shall we, therefore, conclude that the first day of the week ought not to be kept as the Sabbath, but that the seventh should ? Our Baptist friends, at least, will surely answer Yes ; as, if this kind of argument be conclusive in the former case, which they strongly and continually affirm it is, it will surely be regarded by them as equally conclusive in regard to any other institution and obser- vance. We should expect, therefore, they will not reject infant-baptism on account of its importance, as without Scripture authority, on the ground that there is no express precept or express example specifying its administration, and at the same time, not teach and act similarly about the sacred Sabbath day, as being a less important religious institution. For in that there would be two great errors, both plain to be seen, namely, first, the Sabbath is not INFANT BAPTISM. 97 only not less, but still more important than baptism, with- out depreciating the latter; /ind, second, the nature of any kmd of argument as a sound or unsound one, as right or wrong, is, of course, never to be estimated accord- ing to the supposed importance or unimportance of the matters reasoned upon. But what do we really find as to the Sabbath ? Our Baptist friends, with but a small ex- ception, reply. No ; not the seventh, but the first day of the week must be kept in terms of the Fourth Oommand- ment, as of inspired authority ; and, in the absence of express statements in Scripture sufficient to establish this, they, like ourselves, appeal to the evidence in THE WBITINOS OF THE SBOOHD AND SUBSEQUENT CENTURIES of its observance on that day by the Ghurch throughout, from immediately after the apostolic age, which they» hke ourselves affirm brings out to view a fulness of mean- ing in connection with what Is stated in Scripture, which is not conveyed by. itself expressly. That is, they object to, as an argument for infant-baptism, what themselves willingly use as a genuine and decisive argument for the Christian Sabbath I Moreover, as a matter of fact, the whole Scripture evidence for infant-baptism is much more ABUNDANT THAN THAT ON THE CHRISTIAN SaBBATH. And aS tO the examples of baptism recorded there, while the terms employed in several instances admit the idea of infants in their natural au'^ usual signification, in no case do we find an exception made of infants, by refusal to baptize them, or one specified as left unbaptized, where its parent and other members of his or her household were baptized to- gether. Into this line of evidence we will now look a little. And first let us take THE CASE OF LYDU AND HER HOUSEHOLD, (Acts xvi. 14, 16), " And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of*the city of Thyatira, which worship- ped God, heard us, whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized and her household, she besought us saying. If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there." Now, it is undoubted that the term ** household " is quite applicable 7 • . w 98 BAPTIST MISREPRESETTATIONS. to a family of the youngest children. Therefore, so far as this term indicates, Lydia may have had infant children, and if she had, they were evidently baptized -with herself. So this passage, if it does not expressly indicate infant- baptism in precise terms, does not discountenance it cer- tainly, but rather favours it, as the term "household" admits freely the idea of children of any age. Again, it is i)articularly specified that she worshipped God, that she heard Paul, that the Lord opened her heart, that she at- tended to the things spoken by Paul ; and then that she was baptized and her household. On the other hand, the only thing affirmed of her household in all this is that they were baptized with her, there being no mention of any faith or other thing but her own. This example, theh, does not disfavour the baptism of children on account of their parents' faith, but seems to ii^cate that Lydia's were baptized with her on account of her having just be- fore become a believer, which would also be consistent with the baptism of such of them as might be very young in age. Now, no other example of Scripture is found to contra- dict the apparent teaching of this one. Even suppose it clearly appeared in others, when the parent and household were baptized together, that they had faith, too, which certainly might be, that would not be a contradiction. Their parent's faith could be a sufHcient reason for their baptism, as in Lydia's case, and their own faith another sufficient reason in addition. But this would be a contradiction, if an example occurred where it is shown that, while some of the household were baptized with their parent, an infant or infants befonging to it were not. But nowhere does this at all appear. But along with the evidence in the case of Lydia and her household, not to mention other examples, there is much from other Scriptural sources. There is, for in- stance, A STRIKING RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN CIBCUMOISION AND BAPTISM in their symbolic nature and uses. Both were to be ad- ministered but once to the same person. The one was the token of admission into the visible church of the Old Testament (which was the church of Jesus the Mesijiah), \ INFANT BAPTISM. 99 Baptism I be ad- rae the le Old Isiiah), 60 that he who was not circumcised could not legitimately be allowed its other privileges of membership (Gen. xvii. lO, 11, 14 ; Bom. iii. 12). Baptism has the same place and force under the New Testament. Again, circum- cision, as an emblem, was divinely appointed to represent man's natural sinfulness of heart ana life, and that God required in his service, and imparted by his grace to them that sought him, a clean heart and right spirit (Bom. ii. 29), in which they put off the body of the sins of the flesh, or abandon a life of impiety (Golos. ii. 11), and devote themselves in the love of God and his righteousness to a new life of holy obedience (Deut x. 16 ; XXX. 6 ; Philip, iii. 8). And baptism is appointed to im- press these same truths on our minds. To state it in the Baptist Pengilly's words (" Scripture Guide to Baptism," p. 80) : " On the spiritual design of baptism. It was to teach the sinfulness of man, and the necessity of purification from sin, in order to eternal life. . . . Baptism was intended to teach and to signify the Christian's entire abandonment of a life of impiety, and his entrance upon a new life of devotion and dedication to^ God." (The words italicised are so in Pengilly). Also m Colos. (ii. 10-14'i they are both spoken of together as of the same spiritual import, as both teaching ?j new life in Christ of holiness, with forgiveness of sins through faith of the operation of God. It also appears that the gospel and church of the Old Testament, dispensation were the same as those of the New, only, in several things, under a different external administration, by which we are still instructed in divine things, the same as they were, out of the same Old Testa- menl; Scriptures. They had the same Messiah to lool( to and trust in, the same kind of worship in what was moral and spiritual. Abraham's faith, as the means of his justi- fication and not his own righteousness, is explained at length by the apostle (Bom. iv; Gal. iii.) as the same that be- lievers in Christ have, and which is counted for righteous- ness to them also. Now, as a matter of fact, Abraham was himself not circumcised till after he became a believer and servant of God; but when he was circumcised, his household were circumcised with him, on account of his faith, not their own, and the command was that it be ad- 100 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. miniBtered to them soon after their birth. In his case it was, among other things, a sign and seal of the righteous- ness of his faith ; in their case, as they had not faith when circumcised, it was, among other things, a sign and seal from God of the righteousness of their parent's faith, which thus commended it to their pursuit in after years for themselves. We have now seen the resemblances in use and spiritual import between circumcision and baptism, and here, in Abraham and his household, there appears as to circum- cision a simihtude of administration to that of baptism in the example of Lydia and her household. And there can be no doubt from the nature of baptism as to what it is meant to signify that it was also a sign and seal (or divine assurance) of the righteousness of Lydia's faith, as of all believers, which is just the sanm as Abraham had. Another thiog circumcision was pointed to signify, was, said the Lord to Abraham, "And I will estabUsh my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God •unto thee and to thy seed after thee." " This is my cove- nant, which ye shalt keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee. Every man chil4 among you shall be cucumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin ; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you." Baptists say that this covenant and its token had reference only to earthly, not to spiritual blessings, although we see the token, circumcision, was. a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, and of the 'new heart and right spirit God requires, and by his grace imparts. But surely if is a poor idea that God would mean only earthly things, without spiritual blessings, by his promise, " I will be A God to thee and to thy seed after thee." And how different from his own exhibitions of it all through the Old Testament, and in the New Testament (for in- stance, in Rom. iv ; xi. 26-29 ; Gal. iii. 29 ; Heb. xi. 8, 16). In conformity with this promise it was that he after- wards gave to Israel his law, and appointed the various institutions of his worship, means of grace unto salvation (Micah vii. 18-20) ; while the rest of the world remained in the darkness and ruin of idolatry. Hence the apostle says (Bom. iii. 1-4), "What advantage, then, hath the INFANT BAPTISM. 101 ,se it JOUfl- ffhen se&I ^aith, ^eaiB ritual :e, in rcum- sm in re can hat it 5al (or Itb, as had. sh my thee in a God y cove- nd thy hall be )f your betwixt B token )8Siug8, and heart parts, n only romise, And ough for in- , xi. 8, e after- various vation imained apostle ath the Jew ? or what profit is there op oirgumcision ? Much every way^ OHiEFLT became that unto thbm weri:. committed the oracles of God." This will show of itself that oircnm- cision had reference chiefly j;o spiritual blessings pertain- ing to eternal salvation. So you see, brethren, that Bap- tists, to support their theory apiinst infant-baptism, etc., say much that will not bear the test of examination of Scripture. To bring out that in that covenant promise to Abraham was meant THE GOSPEL BLESSINGS OF HEAVEN ABOVE, as well as the earth beneath, and to show that under the Gld Testament dispensation God clearly declared that He would bless the offspring of his believing and obedient people, as well as tihemselves, I will place before you a number of passages from the Old Testament, containing that precious'promise. Let the first referred to be that in Genes, xvii., before quoted, to which I add the following : — " And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, to keep the com- mandments of the Lord, and his statutes, which I com- mand thee this day for thy good ? Behold the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the Lord thy God's, the earth also, with all that therein is. Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after theniy even you above all people, as it is this day. Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stififnecked," etc. (Beut. x. 12-16. See also iv. 81, 87). " What man is he that feareth the Lord ? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose. His soul shall dwell at ease ; and his seed shall inherit the earth." ".I have been young, and now am old ; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his^ seed begging bread. He is ever merciful, and lendeth ; and his seed is blessed." " God will save Zion, and will build the cities of Judah ; that they may dwell there and have it in possession. The seed also of His servants shall inherit it (Zion) ; and they that love His name shall dwell therein." ** The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be estabUshed 102 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. before thee." ** But the mercy of the Lord is from ever- lasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him, and His BiOHTEOUSNEss uuto childben's children." ** Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord, that deUghteth greatly in his commandments. His seed shall be mighty upon earth: the generation of the up^^ight shall be blessed." (Psalms XXV. 12, 18 ; xxxvii. 25, 26 ; Ixix. 86, 86 ; cii. 88 ; ciii. 17 ; cxii. 1, 2). *' Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished ; but the seed of the righteous shall be de- livered." " In the fear of the Lord is strong confidence : and his children shall have a place of refuge." '' The just man walketh in his integrity ; and his children are blessed after him." (Proverbs xi. 21 ; xiv. 26 ; xx. 7). " Yet, now, hear, Jacob, my servant ; and Israel, whom I have chosen : Thus saith the Lord that made thee and formed thee from the womb, which wUl help thee ; Fear not, Jacob, my servant ; and thou, Jesnrun, whom I have chosen. For I will pour water on him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground : I will pour my spntir upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring : And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the watercourses. One shall say, I am the Lord's ; and an- other shall call himself by the name of Jacob ; and another shall subscribe.: with his hand unto the Lord, and surname himself by the name of Israel." "And the Eedeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from trans- gression in Jacob, saith the Lord. As for me, xms is my covenant with theiu, saith the Lord ; My spirit that is upon thee, and My words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith tiie Lord, from henceforth and forever." ** And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people : aU that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed." " They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble, for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them." (Isaiah xliv. 1-5 ; lix. 20, 21 ; Ixi ; Ixv. 28). ** And now, therefore, thus saith the Lord God of Israel, concerning this city, whereof ye say, \t shall be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon INFANT BAPTISM. 10$ om. by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence ; Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither X have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath ; and I will bring them again into this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely : and they shall be my people, aud I will be their Ood : And I will give them one heartf and one way, that they may fear me forever, for the good of them, and of their children after them : And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good ; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land assuredly, with my whole heart, and with my whole soul," etc. (Jerem. xxxii. 86-41.) We have in this passage a commentary of God's own, on what He means by the words, " I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee" — to which He alludes here, in ver. 88). These are specimens, brethren, of God's gracious, pre- cious statements on this subject in the Old Testament. Some of them, you observe, as those quoted from Genesis, Deuteronomy, and' Jeremiah, refer directly to the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; the others, from the Psalms, and Proverbd, and Isaiah, speak similarly of the seed of them that fear the Lord now as well as then ; while those in the 69th, 61st, and 65th chapters of Isaiah make particular reference to the continuance of the same divine favours under the New Testament, after Jesus the Messiah would have come ; which will be seen still more fully by reading those chapters. It is after the meaning of &\1 tiiose passages that God intended the promise of His covenant, *' 1 will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee," of which circiimcision was the appointed token ; which also we have seen was, Uke baptism, administered but once ; like it was the external means of admission into the Church of the Messiah. We have seen also its corres- pondence with baptism in its spiritual signification as an emblematical ordinance in representing the purification of the soul from sin by divine grace, and the service of God to be iQ newness or holiness of life. And we have seen it administered by divine appointment to Abraham after he had become a oelievet, but to his posterity in their early 104 BAPTIST MISREPBESElfTATIOXS. infancy, on aooonnt of their relationship to him, and the promise in relation to his seed after him. From all this, if aOD STILL ACTS ON THE SAME PBINCIPLES, if those passages in the Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, etc., etc., are still true — one would reasonably expect — to cheer and encourage the hearts of his people now, who love their children as dearly, in regard to their highest interests, as those of old, as well as to deepen in their minds, and in their children's, the corresponding sense of responsibility, considering their privileged condition — that He would also use the ordinance of baptism for their children to indicate the truth, as precious now as ever it was — ^that '* The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Hith, and His righteousness unto children's children." " The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee." That is, *'I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." It certainly would be as consistent with propriety to repre- sent this precious truth by baptism as it was to do the same thing before by the other corresponding ordinance of cir- cumcision. That it has been so appointed, I have proven to you at length by one very strong line of proof, the estabUshed fact that immediately after the apostles had re- tired, infants were being baptized throughout the length and breadth of the Church, as by apostoUc authority. Our Baptist friends rely on this kind of argument as their PROOF conclusive of the first day of the week being the Lord's day and Sabbath, which is also a more important institution. They cannot, therefore, with propriety reject it on infant-baptism. Their disposition to treat it in that way shows they feel its force as powerful. And the distor- tions, concealments, and gross misrepresentations they practice in connection with the evidence of history, such as I have brought to your view, shows very clearly their consciousness that their cause could not prevail by dealing fairly and honestly with that evidence. In harmony with that practice everywhere at the close of the apostolic age, we have seen, also, under Paul's personal superintendence, the household of Lydia baptized along with herself upon her becoming a beUever, no faith in their case being hinted. INFANT BAPTISM. 105 BAPTISTS MASI^ A STBONO OBJECTION, however, to this last sentence, in what is said of Paul and Silas, after they left the Philippine jail (Acts xvi. 84, 86, 40). Pengilly states it thus (p. 88), " * They entered the house of Lydia,' (for my reader mil remember this was the only other Christian house in the city, and in this family the only other persons baptized) ; and * here un- doubtedly, they would meet with her ' household,' which they had baptized ; having entered, we read, ' when they had seen the brethben, they comforted them, and departed.' If, then, Lydia's household be denominated ' brethren,' and were capable of being • comforted,' by the Word, they must have been believers in Christ." So important and decisive does Pengilly desire this proof to be felt that he has the principal expressions in capital letters. Well, looking at the above,' as he states it, it seems unanswerable to the contrary. For, for all that appears in the whole chapter, or elsewhere, Lydia's seems to have been " the only other Christian house in the city." And by the term, " brethren " there, I have no doubt feVLow -believers are meant. The next fact is, her family were '* the only other persons baptized ; " also, in her house Paul and Silas " would meet with her household " may at once be ad- mitted. The last step in the reasoning is, "If, then, Lydia's household be denominated brethren, and were capable of being comforted by the Word, they must have been believers in Christ." Well, if that if at the beginning of the last sentence is admitted, as proposed, I admit the conclusion is correct. "But, what?" I hear Pengilly saying by implication, " do you doubt it, when it is as clear as day that Lydia's household were denominated brethren 9 You are not honest nor willing to see the plainest truth, if you doubt that, and are determined to hold by infant-baptism at all costs." I have here described what a Baptist will admit, on reading it, to be his own im- pression of the matter, and Pengilly's and other Baptist teachers' reasoning on our unbelief. But I have some reason for my doubt, notwithstanding, which you will never find whispered to Baptists in their books, etc., and it is very accessible; and their leaders, at least, cannot say have not noticed it, as they have seen it pointed 106 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. out to them by our side. But before giving it, allow me to say I have waited so long here to show you, brethren, how, in the Scriptures, as weU as in Early Church History, and quotations from Paedobaptists, Baptist writers make strong, and to their readers, apparently conclusive state- ments, which, when examined by those who take the trouble of looking into the matters for themselves, and have understanding, turn out, as I will show you of thia one, to be the offspring of ignorance, or proselytizing dis- honesty, or both. Now, first, it is said Lydia's household were denomin- ated " brethren." Let us look again at the passage (ver. 40), " And they went out of the prison, and entered into the house of Lydia ; and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them and departed." What is really said is that they had ** been the brethren," not that the house- hold of Lydia were called the brethren. but, says Pen- gilly, etc., it comes to the same thing. Paul and Silas had left the PhiUippine jailer and his family, and came to Lydia' s house. Lydia's house " was the only other Chris- tian house in the city (of PhiUippi), and she and her house- hold " the only other persons baptized;" therefore (they reason and affirm) her household alone were the only brethren Paul and Silas could "see" and " comfort " on the occasion, for there were no other Christians in the city. These statements are positive enough, and the proof should be quite decisive. But let us see for ourselves. In the preceding chapter (Acts xv. 40) we read of Paul and Silaa beginning their journey towards PhiUippi. Then, immedi- ately after, (chap. xvi. 1 and 8) of Timotheus joining them. Again, it is admitted by aU that Luke was the writer of the " Acts " (on which see Luke i. 8 ; Acts LI), and he speaks of himself as also with them. For, in describing their proceedings, before they came to PhiUppi, and witiiin it, he often uses the words " we " and " us " (chap. xvi. ver. 10, 11, 12, 18, 14, 15, 16, 17), which, of course, includes the writer himself. Examine from the first to the four- teenth verse of that chapter, as also onwards, and you wiUl see these two " brethren " accompanied Paul and Silas., Timothy is again specified as with them after they had lefli PhiUppi (xvu. 15). In chapter xvi. 17, after Lydia's bap- tism is mentioned, Luke says of the damsel possessed of ft INFAlfT BAPTISM. 107 on spirit of divination, " The same followed Paul and im," in which Paul is distinguished from the " us," and " us " being plural, denotes more than the writer. Now, as Pen- gilly says, Lydia's was it appears, the only Christian house at this time in the city besides the jailor's. Also, at the time of her baptism, we read (ver. 16), " She besought us, saying. If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, COMB INTO MY HOUSE AND ABIDE THBBE. And shc Constrained vs." That is, they all made their abpde in her house. Again, it is plain that only Paul and Silas were taken to the prison (ver. 19, 26, 29, 40). Therefore, their two brethren, Timotheus and Luke, were not with them there, but abiding with Lydia. Hence, when they again entered Lydia's house they would see these *'bbethben," their companions and fellow-labourers, who would be " com- forted " by seeing them again free, after the abuse of many bloody stripes they had seen them receive, etc., (ver. 28, 88), and by hearing from them of God's grace to the jailer and his family. Now, all this is easily per- ceivable in the narrative within the chapter. What, then, shall we think now, when we see the real facts, of the Baptist affirmation, that ' Lydia's household were the only Christians Paul and Silas could see and comfort out- side of the jail. No others in the city. Therefore, these must have been believers themselves when baptized with her.' Yes, and although the incorrectness of this has been shown by Infant Baptists, and the evident untruthfulness of all this is *' as plain as day ; " yet in their Pubhcation Society books, and by ministers, and others, they still re- peat the same thing, without reference to these plain facts at all. This, brethren, is inherent in the nature of their cause. It is not of God, and, therefore, not truth, but un- truth suits it best. It is not my intention to go into the whole subject as I have not limits or time. But I am showing you that there is Scriptural authority for the doctrine and administration in question. Let me notice another example, namely that ol THE PHILIPPINE JAILER AND mS HOUSEHOLD, (Same chapter, ver. 88, 84), " And he took them the same hour of the night and waished their stripes ; and was h 108 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. bapHzedf he and all ms straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them and rejoioed, believing in God, with all his house." Here you observe it is distinctly said "all his " were baptized with him at once. From the fact, however, that " all his house " are said to have rejoioed with him, and, as mav aeem^ to have also believed with him. Baptists affirm they were capable of faith and were believers, therefore no infant was baptized ; as also from the statement (ver. 82), that Paul spake the word "to all that were in his house." Now supposing they all had faith there would be no proof in that against baptism of infants, as it is not said or hinted that it was refused an infant. It is quite true, of course, a parent when converted may not have infant children. Yet still the children he has may be legitimately baptizable on account of their parent's faith, just as, wliile infants were circumcised, so were those more advanced in years on account of Abraham's faith, (Gen. xvii. 18, 14, 28-27). But we don't agree irom what is said of the family that it follows there was no infant present or baptized. To state that the Apostle spoke the word " to all in the house" would mean in the common style of Scripture, ' all capable of understanding it,' without implying there was no child present too young for that ; and similarly of the expression " all " in verse 84. All those rejoioed who were capable of that emotion and no more. And in verse 88, all capa- ble of being baptized were baptized ; but a babe can be baptized, as that is an act done to the child not necessarily implying its understanding any more than circumcision. "We don't say this in proof of a child being present, but that there might have been one. But let us hear Pengilly. He says (p. 40) on this pas- sage (ver. 34). " Then it follows he had no infant children or those words cannot include them ; for of this faith^they would be incapable." In support of this statement he gives the following quotation from Matthew Henry's Commen- tary on this passage, namely, •' Thfe voice of rejoicing with that of salvation was heard in the jailer's house. He re- joiced, believing in Ood. There was none in his house that refused to be baptized, and so made a jar in the ceremony, but they were unanimous in embracing the gospel, which added much to the joy." Now brethren, »t INFiLNT BAPTISai. 109 )i PENOILLY HERE AGAIN MISQUOTES M. HENRY TWICE, AND TO- TALLY HISREPRERENTS HIM. Observe that word, "ceremony." I have Matthew Henry's Commentary open before me, and the word is NOT " ceremony " there, but harmony, a quite different word. And notice, further, PengiUy stops his quotation as above, but Henry goes on thus, " Or, it may be read, Ue, believing in Ood, rejoiced all the house over; pancdka — he went to every apartment, expressing his joy." Now, why did Pengilly not add that other short sentence ? If he had, it would appear that Henry admitted the Greek mighty in his opinion, be taken fairly to mean the latter translation, and that he would not speak decidedly of either. This Pengilly neither gives nor hints at, but presents the first way as his decided opinion ; which is, of course, a delib- erate misrepresentation, as he could not quote the one portion without seeing the other. Again, the expression of Henry, " there was none in the house that refused to be baptized," does not, after all, imply that the jailer "had no infant-children" baptized. Such an expression could only be used by Henry, or any other of adults who might personally refuse ; but a babe, certainly, would never .^refuse or dissent. So that the quotation from Henry, though he gave no other reading, does not exclude infants, as Pengilly wishes his readers to think. But this IS not all, brethren. Note the following, which was also before Pengilly 's eyes. On the last clause of verse 81 st, Henry says : — " The extension of this to his (the jailer's) family : Thou shalt be saved and thy house ; tnat is, * God will be in Christ a God to thee and to thy seed, as He was to Abraham. . . Those of thy house that are INFANTS shall be admitted into the visible church with thee. and thereby put in a fair way for salvation, those that are grown up shall have the means of salvation brought to them,' "etc. What shall I more say ? Nor is this the only case I have shown you of Pengilly's gross misrepre- sentation of >Henry (see p. 26-29). Lastly on this case. There is in verse 84 decisive proof that this family were baptized ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR PARENTS' FAITH. The question as to whether they literally all had faith or not t!^ i» 110 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. does not affect this point. It stands out by itself, a proof of what we affirm, which ever way the other may be, as in Lydia's case. It lies in the Greek word rendered "beliey- ing." Baptist writers don't deny the correctness of what I am going to show you, but with their own readers and audiences they simply say nothing of this, who therefore don't know of it. They make out the household's faith from their joy, and the form of the sentence about believ- ing in our English version, which is obscure, from the nature of our language in translation of some Greek ex- pressions ; and they next seek to exclude infants by quota- tions from Paedobaptists, as Matthew Henry, to make him, etc., say, what he has said the opposite of. As I have shown you now in a large number of cases they take care that their readers will not learn the real facts. Our English language has several peculiarities different from all other languages : — Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Ger- man, French, Gaelic, etc. Among other things this is so in regard to THB SINGULAR AND PLURAL NUMBERS of certain parts of speech. Our nouns, for instance, have a different form in the singular and plural, as " man, men," ** child, children," " sky, skies." We never use * men' for a 'man,' nor a 'child' for 'children.' But our adjectives and participles never thus change their form. Thus in '* bright sky, bright skiee," 'bright' is the same in both, and not "brights" in the plural; and in "the letter was written, the letters were written,' the word ' written ' is also the same ; but ' letters ' is the plural of 'letter,' and ' were ' that of ' was.' Now in other languages ancient and modern, the words for ' bright ' and ' written ' would be altered to correspond with the others, just as universally as our nouns and pronouns are altered. And so of all other corresponding parts of speech. Thus, Bonus vir (Latin) is, * good man,' but, boni viri, *good men;' likewise (Greek) agathos anthropos, in singular, agathoi anthropoi, in plural ; (German) guter mann, gute manner, mean the same re- spectively, viz., good man, good men. Again, the Latin words, credens Deo, 'believing God,' can be used and un- derstood of only one person; but creden£«« Deo, always means more than one person 'believing God,' while in the 1 1 INFANT BAPTISM. Ill English, the word ' believing,' is not altered a letter whether we speak of one or more persons. The plural of the Latin * oredens ' you see is formed by ohangmg its "s" at tiie end into "tes." Now let us apply this to the case in hand, for in Greek it is precisely the same. The Greek word ** pepUteukoB " is the perfect tense, participle, masculine gen- der, singular number, of the verb ' to believe,' is used of one person alone, and signifies literally " he having be- Ueved." But when more than one person is referred to as believing, the form ^pepisteukotes,* the plural being formed by changing the ' s ' at the end of the singular into < tes,' just as in the Latin, 'oredens, credentes.' This rule, understand, is constant as much for example as in our EngUsh 'he' and 'they.' You would never understand several persons by ' he said ' so and so, nor only one person by, *they rejoiced.' Now I will set before you the Greek words of verse 84, in their precise order in the Greek Tes- tament. They are "anagagon te autous eis ton oikon autou, paretheke trapezan, kai egalliasato panoiki pbpis- TEUKos TO THEO. ' ' The words in small capitals are the terms under present consideration. In the Baptist version of the New Testament it is rendered thus, " And having brought them up into his house, he set food before them, and rejoiced witii all his house, believing in God," A com- mon English reader, unacquainted with the Greek, would be at a loss in a critical examination of this for the precise meaning, whether to connect the, "with all his house," immediately with the " and rejoiced," or with, "beUeving in God;" tibus, "and rejoiced with all his house, he hav- nng believed in God;" or, "and rejoiced, all his house believing in God with himself." This arises from the obscurity of the English word "believing," from its having the same form in our singular and plural. Now suppose the Greek words at the end to have been "pepisteukot«« totheo;" then the rendering would necessarily be, "and he rejoiced with all his house, they having believed in God ; " meaning the jailer and his household, or the house- hold considered by tiiemselves. But in point of fact the Greek participle is singulab, referring so far as its mean- ing and reference extends to but one person, masculine gender. The obscurity becomes removed by translating it literally, " and rejoiced with all his house, he having I I I 112 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. believed in God." Now no one can say that this is not the literal translation. And the Baptist Version gives the words in precisely the same order. The quotation from Matthew Henry by the way (p. 109), in each of the two readings he gives of the passage, translates the faith as tae jailer's not theirs, so far as that word speaks, thus (1) He re* joioed, believing in God, etc., (2) Or it may be read. He helievhuj in God, rejoiced, etc." So far then as faith is af- firmed of .anyj it is only affirmed of one, and that evidently the father of the household. So here is tho baptism of a parent and his household together on his becoming a beUever, which is pointed out distinctly as the occasion by the Holy Spirit. The absence of such a specification of faith of the household if they had faith, seems to mean to teach us that that in them was not necessary to entitle them to baptism, for were it otherwise, it could have been specified by writing the plural participle to include them rather than the singular one which could not include more than the parent in its meaning. Lt:stly, it seems clear that they rejoiced with him, or he with them. But it is said that, that implies faith in them. Well if it did it did so in his case as well, yet the Holy Spirit did not think it sufficient to leave it to be inferred in his case, but besides stating his joy says that he believed. There as of course special reason for that distinction in his case and its absence from theirs. But I have to .add further, it is not difficult to see after all that THEIR GREAT JOY DOES NOT PROVE THEY HAD FAITH in Christ themselves. Faith brings joy, but different causes produce similar effects. They saw their father a very short time befof e wretched, and trembhng for his life and his soul, and the earthquake, etc.^ at that midnight hour would, in addition, have disturbed their own minds. Between the excitement from apprehension of personal im- pending danger and concern at their parent's condition, whom they loved, and in whose life and welfare also their own was so much bound up, it would be no small cause of joy itself to see the sword safely sheathed again, that was on the point of entering his heart by his own hand, and a father in agony under the apprehension of the wrath of God — ^to see all his darkness and fears dispelled by the 1 1 INFANT BAPTISM. 113 light that dawned upon his soul, changing his distress into the sweetest peace and joy unspeakable, and full of glory, making hira, we may suppose from what we read of him, like the man in the third chapter (ver. 1-11), for a less mercy, leaping and praising God. Now, we know that these were the facts. Hence it is not necessary to suppose faith in them. The circumstances would fully account for it without it. But, notice the structure of the expression — "he having believed in God," seems from its position, after stating his and their joy, to be given as the reason of that joy in their case and his. It was nif* faith. It came first, then followed all the other things — his washing the apostles stripes, his being baptized by them with all his straight- way, bringing them into his house, giving them food, and with all and through all, happy, very happy, his family feeling the influence of the joyful change from natural afiection alone, as well as reUef from the fears of the awful night's experiences. Never did they see their parent so wretched before, nor so happy as now. What family would not rejoice in such circumstances as those ? Wv^ have explained, now, two dis-^inct examples, under the personal administration of the inspired apostle, and recorded by the inspired historian, Luke, of households baptized as such on occattion of the parent's faith, and having that as the only revealed reason. And "the things which are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever." (Deut. xxix. 29). Besides these there are other households, but let these suffice at present for my purpose. I next note in the pre- sent connection THE saviour's TESTIMONY ABOUT THE INFANTS! "And they brought to him also infants, that he might touch them ; and, the disciples, seeing it, rebuked them. But, Jesus, calling them to him, said, " Suffer the little children to come to me, and forbid them not ; for to such belongs the kingdom of God." *' And they brought little children to him, that he might touch them ; and the dis- ciples rebuked those who brought them. But Jesus, see- ing it, WAS much displeased, and said to them : Suffer the little children to come to me ; forbid them not ; for to such belongs the Kingdom of God." (Luke xviii. 15, IG ; 8 wnsfetiBBS^sm 114 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. Mark x. 18, 14 — Baptist Version). Many, when tbey hear the words, " kingdom of God," " kingdom of heaven," never think they have any other reference than the king- dom of glory in heaven above. Whereas, in Soripture, and particularly in the Saviour's lips, they are a most fre- quent name of his Church below, which is the kingdom of God — of heaven on earth, of which himself, the God and sovereign of heaven, is the acknowledged king, the laws and blessings heavenly, and, to all, in the po&dession of its gracious privileges who look to Jesus, and serve God in him according to the divine instruction of those privileges, and the means of receiving grace they afford, there is the assured prospect to each one of them of ho'^T ing the call from him who sits between the cherubim, over the mercy-seat, sprinkled with Jesus' blood, to come up higher, and ot being translated to heaven and its eternal blessedness and weight of glory ! The great appropriate- ness of those names of the church of Christ it is easy to perceive, as also to see them often applied to it. (Matt, iii. 2 ; iv. 17 ; v. 19 ; xi. 12 ; xii. 28 ; xiii. 21, 81, 88, 44, 45, 47, 62 ; xx. 1 ; xxii. 2 ; xxv. 1 ; Mark i. 15 ; Luke x. 9, 11 ; xi. 20, etc., etc.) Now, in the passages just quoted about the infants brought by others to Jesus for his bless- ing, unconsciously to the little ones themselves, we see the Saviour's heart in much favour of it ; and how he felt to- wards his disciples for their improper opposition. This last part is also very instructive. The disciples were, no doubt, zealous, but as yet they had not much of the Spirit, and did not understand aright the economy, genius, spirit, and way of his kingdom ; yet, notwithstanding all their lesser privileges, compared with those they had afterwards, and those we now have, " He was sore displeased" at their standing in the way on the occasion, and " rebuked them." It is pleasant to observe tbey never afterwards did the like ; but sad that the record by inspiration of that " sore " dis- pleasure and rebuke for the information of his disciples in all ages, is by some disregarded. There is no reason whatever for limiting the meaning of his words, ** for of such is the kingdom of God," to heaven above only. It is true, there is such in the king- dom above, as we find elsewhere indicated (Psalms viii. 2, etc.) ; and it is just as true such had, and have, a place I INFANT BAPTISM. 115 » like ; dis- ss in igof to ting- • • • vm. )laoe in that on earth ; namely, those of parents ii? whose heart by divine grace, there is the desire to bring them to Jesus for his blessing, even his baptism with the holy Spirit. {John i. 88). He is so much in favoar of such being brought to him, as, among other means, to require it to be represented and done in his ohuroh in baptism, before all, as a perpetual ordinance, that it may be always before parents' eyes for their encouragement, and children's like- wise ; that they may know assuredly he does not overlook them, but is very tenderly interested in them, and wishes them to come to him, and be brought while the very earliest dew of their youth is upon them. How very sug- gestive of this also are the statements of the' Holy Ghost in 1. Corinth, vii. 14, n For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the [believ- ing] wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the [believing] husband: else were your children uncloaji; BUT NOW ARB THEY HOLY." These words in capitals, I need not say to you, brethren, were written by God himself, as much as any other por- tion of his Word. The children of a believing parent, as soon as they become children, that is, as soon as they are born, ARE HOLY. How do I know ? God says it distinctly before our eyes. And also that the children of unbelieving parents are quite the opposite, " unclean," that is, not HOLY. Now, these words represent actual conditions, evi- denljly meant to be understood by us as of great moment. The term holy, and its opposite in God's lips, are no light or indifferent matters, whatever S9nse is legitimately to be attached to them. We are ^ to attach the sense in which He uses them, and the value, the importance as well ; no more, no less. It io admitted that these children when born are not holy in spirit, but conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity, and, as all believers were, have a. heart at en- mity with God in its depravity, and are, "by nature, the children of wrath even as others." They need all to be born again before they will be holy in spirit. That, then, is not the holiness God affirms of them. There is, how- ever, another sense in which he often uses this term. The tabernacle, temple, the sacrifices, the vessels of the sanctu- ary, etc., were said by him to be "holy," and being mate- 116 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. rial altogether, were not spiritually holy ; but they were appointed by him, and consequently set apart by his people, and consecrated by his direction for his religious service. Also the wfwle Jewish people, from the infants to the aged, were " holy " to the Lord in this sense as distin- guished from the other nations of men, though they were not all holy in spirit and life. We know when they were in the wilderness under Moses, they were far from that, yet the Lord said to them, then, " Thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God : the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth." " Thou shalt, there- fore keep the commandments which I command thee tliia day." (Deut. vi. 6, 10). At the same time, he declared that they were holy to him in the first sense in order that they might become so in the other and higher sense ; " And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his pe- culiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments ; and to make thee high above all nations which he hath made in praise, and in name, and in honour ; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the Lord thy God, as he hath spoken." (Deut. xxvi. 19.) In these places and many others we find a divine sense of the term " holy," to denote the favoured condition of the children of Israel as the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and his choice and separa- tion of them among mankind for his ordinances, service,, and blessings that make truly rich — •* Thou art an holy people unto the Lord. ... He hath chosen thee to be a special people to himself, ... in order that thou mayest be a holy people," etc. This, there can be no rea- sonable doubt, is the meaning of the word in 1 Cor. vii. 14. It has reference to the covenant that still contains in its terms, ♦' The seed of the righteous shall be blessed after him. The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to ever- lasting upon them tbat fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children." These and all the others are God's words to us still, of them that fear him. That being so, it is plain the children of such are holy in the very same sense, and for the very same ends as the chosen race were of old. For " the thoughts of his heart endiire to all generations." (Ps. xxxiii. 11). This still further INFANT BAPTISM. 117 to di. in ter- less ire jry to her appears by the contrast God himself intimates in the posi- tion of the children of unbelievers. They are unclean, unholy. The special promises in regard to the seed of the righteous imply that the others are not so favoured. But Ood speaks plainly, and often to that effect. For instance, in the Second Commandment (Exod. 20), "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me" — " upon the children, and upon the children's children." (xxxiv. 7.) « The seed of the wicked shall be cut off." " Their fruit shall thou destroy from the earth, and their seed from among the children of men." (Psalms xxxvii. 28 ; xxi. 10.) " Thou shewest loving-kindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fatHers into the bosom •of their children after them : the Great, the Mighty God, i)he Lord of hosts is his name." (Jerem. xxxii. 18.) The doctrine of the passage we are considering, then, appears to be that where even only one of the parents, «.nd that either the father or the mother, is a believer, God's purpose is that his or her relation to himself by faith in Christ will so sanctify the marriage relation with the other unbelieving parent, with regard to the offspring, that they will occupy the same position in his eyes, and gracious dealings as those whoi^ parents both trust in, love, worship, and serve Him as their God. The evil of the relation of the children to an unbelieving parent will be. graciously overborne by his favour towards the beliey- ing parent, whose heaven-born and very tender yearnings for tiie salvation of his or her offspring he is disposed^ in this way to regard. Hence, such also are to receive the Covenant Promise, as made to them. For this reason, no doubt, he expressed it in the singular number, " I will be a God to t1%ee and to thy seed after thee." "I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing on thine oS.- spring." But before leaving this passage I must place before you THE BAPTIST INTERPRETATION OF 1 COR. VH., 14. They make the term "holy" to signify "lawful or legitimate children," not bom as of "fornication or adultery." And the other term "unclean" to mean 118 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. " illegitimate children " or bastards. Cramp, in his Cate- chism (p. 73-76), says, " this is the common sense inter- pretation of the text, and is now generally acquiesced in by commentators." By this last sentence his readers will be led to suppose, what he no doubt intends, that th& commentators of all the denominations " generally " acquiesce in this view. This is simply and very untrue. Dr. Carson says, " it is usually and sufficiently explained " in this way, that is to say, * by Baptists.' That you may see that I will fairly exhibit their reasoning on it, I wilt first give you what Carson their great leader says (p. 208) in his own words; as follows : — "With respect to the passage- referred 4o, (1 Cor. vii., 14.) it is usually and sufficiently explained, by an allusion to Ezra x., 8, 44 ; Neh. xiii., 28, 24. The sanctification referred to must be legitimacy acco'*'ding to the Ikw of God. Such marriages were not lawful to the Jews, and both the wives and their children were put away. It is the duty of the disciples to marry in the Lord ; but even if they transgress that law, ob abe CONVERTED AFTER MARRIAGE, they arc uot Ukc the Jews, ta put away their wives and children on repentance. The- marriage is to continue, and the relation is sanctified, just^ as their food is sanctified or blessed to their use. Now this is an important — a lyost important thing. As Jesus COMMANDS HIS DISCIPLES to marry in the Lord, had no* PROVISION been made, every marriage contrary to this, must be given up on repentance, just as fornication and adultery ; and the offspring of such marriages could not be considered as the children of marriage, according to God's institution. It is said in reply to this, that even the marriages of unbelievers are lawful, and the offspring legitimate. Certainly — because they are according to the law both of God and man. But as Christ commands his people to marry in the Lord, to marry otherwise is con- trary TO God's law. Neither such marriage, then, nor the offspring of it would be legitimate according to the law of God, except by this provision. The marriage might be legitimate according to the law of man, and the children legitimate according to the law of man, but neither would be legitimate according to the law of God. This provision then is most bountiful and kind. The believer, by remain- ing in his marriage with the unbeliever, does not con- INFANT BAPTISM. 11^ tinue in sin, as he would by continuing in fornication. His marriage is sanctified to him. I can see no difficulty in the passage." This is the usual or rather the universal Baptist exposi- tion of this passage, who all see no difficulty in it. Bui let us see for ourselves. According to it, then, such a marriage, consummated contrary to Christ's command, is contrary to God's law ; therefore it and its issue are as illegitimate as fornication or adultery and its issue,* in the judgment of that law and of Christ, the lawgiver ; who still forbids such marriage, on thc^ same grounds. The next fact alleged is, that the same marriage union as soon as consummated is " lawful " and ^ts ofispring " legitimate " according to the same law of God and Christ, the lawgiver. Here two direct contbadictions seem to be affirmed. There is a reason given for the legitimacy, which we will look at immediately. Meanwhile, apart from it, Jesus is represented first as always commanding his disciples before they marry not tb marry an unbeUever, and on this ground such a marriage and its offspring would be "illegitimate." But that the moment a way- ward disciple disobediently does form such a union, Jesu& then says of the same thing : It is a quite lawful marriage and its o£fspring are as "legitimate" as those of my people who have conformed to my command to marry ** only in the Lord." The reason of this, we are told, is given in this passage, « The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the (believing) wife." " The sanctification referred to " here, says Carson, " must be legitimacy according to the law of God." Well, the reason of that sanctification of the unbelieving partner " by" the other as a believer seems evidently the faith of the believing one, as faith is the question at issue as the deciding quality in the case. And again, the reason of Christ's command to his disciples not to marry an unbe- liever, is evidently the same, the one has not faith, while the other has. It is admitted by Carson that the marriage of two UNBELIEVERS and their offspring are " legitimate'' from the first, there being no prohibition of such. For it is " according to the law both of God and man." Here, then, are two things : the faith of His disciple (by which he becomes a disciple), is the season why Jesus commands 120 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. him not to marry one who has not faith, as his marriage (according to Carson) would, in that case, become to him an unlawful marriage, " contrary to the law of God," and his children " bastards.'* And again, the same faith in the SAME PERSON is THE SEASON of that union, if entered into in disobedience of Christ's prohibition, becoming a lawful marriage, or one in accordance with God's law and Christ's will ; while yet, again, the Lord still continues to declare to his unmarried people that such a marriage for them is ILLEGITIMATE, coutfary to God's law, etc. But .further, the passage refers not merely to a believer who, as such, may have married an unbeliever. That question is really not referred to in particular at all. There were many at that time married before they were converted, whose husbands or wives still remained heathens. This epistle of Paul was written about five years only after Ihe gospel had been preached first at Corinth. The passage specially contemplates those who were heathens when they were married, but now were Ohristians, their husband or wife not being so. How then will the Baptist exposition fit into this ? Carson admits that the passage appUes to such as " are converted after their marriage." Well, he admits the marriage of two unbeUevers, as such, and their offspring to be legitimate. That is, while both unbelievers at the time and afterwards, no sin was chargeable on either of them on that account. But a gracious change takes place in one of them into a believer in Jesus ; the other, however, remains as before. The children were all legitimate before. Do they become illegitimate now ? Has the new-born faith of the wife that effect, transforming what was legitimate into illegitimacy, declaring what was in accordance with God's law not to have been so? It seems rather to have had quite a different kind of effect, — ^for Paul says to the believing parent that the other was sanctified by her ; " else were your children unclean ; but now are they holy." We cannot dwell longer to show other things. In short, the apostle is not speaking of illegitimate children at all. For they were legitimate, as the children of lawful marriage ; but now by the faith of one parent their condition is greatly altered for the better^ as being among those whom God favours, in being made the subjects of that parent's INFANT BAPTISM. 121 prayers, etc., etc., and coming within the range of tha^ covenant promise. This is the exposition that fits into the worcls completely, and harmonizes with much we see all throughout the Scriptures. How Carson could see no difficulty in his way of it, and how Baptists constantly teach it as clear and satisfactory, can only be explained by the reason we have seen opera- ting so much in other connections — special pleading. I may add that this Baptist exposition is just the same in nature with Bome'B doctrine that no heretics are truly married ; that conversion to and marriage by Bome alone is consistent with legitimacy. I have endeavoured to set before you that precious oovenant of mercy God makes not only with his people themselves, but embracing in its gracious purposes the offspring parental affection so much regards, and to show this, among other things, he desires that precious truth impressed on our minds by the ordinance of baptism soon after they are bom into the world, and in the case of a parent converted from heathenism, that then ' he md all his ' will be baptized straightway. I need not tell you, however, that we don't believe that the admission of children by baptism into the number of the visible church of God on earth implies also to them, as Baptists say, A RIGHT TO THE LORD's SUPPER, and all the privileges of membership in full communion. Those who speak so forget that noising of all this is a matter of right, but is all of flrrace. Besides, the second ordinance is quite different in important respects from the former. In the former, the person is acted upon, is baptized by another, not by himself, which can be done with the youngest age, as in circumcision, or as the infants were taken up and blessed by Jesus, when he said, " Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of s|ich is the kingdom of God." In fact the bringing of their little ones, one by one, to the sanctuary for baptism, by pious parents, from pious affection and desire toward God that he would baptize them himself with his Spirit from on high, would wash them in the blood of Jesus and convert them to himself, is' really in its nature, a prayer 122 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. to God that he would do these things for them ; which can all be done any day after birth so far as age is oon- oemed, the same as prayer offered for them. In the Lord's Supper it is altogether different. The Passover to which it corresponds was not partaken of by Jewish children before twelve years of age (Luke ii., 42). In it they acted personally with regard to the objects of the ordinance (Exod. xii., 26, etc.) AH persons were liable to be refused participation in the Passover though circumcised, as for doing " ought presumptuously " (Numb, xv., 80), and not observing their duties (Exod. xii., 16, 19; Lev. vii., 20-27), while their discipline on drunkenness, blas- phemy, adultery, etc., went further than now (Deut. xxi., 20 ; Lev. xx., 10 ; xxiv., 16). In Uke manner two things are necessary for the Lord's Supper — namely, aoe enough for intelligent discernment of the Lord's body and blood in the emblems, and for personal commemoration of him in the showing forth of his death. And second, the posses- sion of faith in Christ that worketh by love, as implied, for instance, in the direction — " But let a man examine him- self, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself." Till, then (for baptism by water does not regenerate) it is the duty as it is the wisdom of the baptized to strive to enter in at the strait gate. When they have received the higher baptism, with its faith and love, and hungering and thirsting after righteous- ness and grace, then, with much joyful welcome can they take and eat the bread and drink the cup of blessing in remembrance of him. Meanwhile they have till then no voice in the management of the church's affairs and res- ponsibilities any more than the sons and daughters of Baptist families who are not members of their church. But they aire the special subjects of its instructions, its prayers, and its cares. As when the Lord said to Peter, "Feed my lambs. Feed my sheep. Feed my sheep" (John xxi„ 15-17), he. gave a place, and a promii^ent place, to the "lambs" of the ' flock,' — " my lambs," that they might be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord " (Ephes. vi., 4). I have got two points to speak on and then close this section of my subject, viz., we extent of the covenant INFANT BAPTISM. 123 promise in relation to the offspring, and the principle on which its fulfilment proceeds. Both are very important, therefore I wish to speak on them. The first of these questions is THE EXTENT OF THE COVENANT PROMISE. Now, suppose the words had heen thus, " I will he a God to thee and to all thy seed after thee." " I will pour my spirit upon all thy seed, and my hlessing upon all thine offspring." " The promise is to you and to all vour children." In that case the meaning would dearly be that all the children of believing parents would receive the Spirit in large measure, and that the Lord would bo their God as he was their parents, none at all being ex- cepted. But the words don't go so far, but are, " I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee." Hence, ii appears that the Covenant Promise does not necessarily extend to all their offspring, according to the words ; while it appearls otherwise, that " all" is not meant. Yet, the Lord's command to Abraham as to the extent of the sion of that covenant was (Exod. xvii. 10, 14), " Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And the uncircumcised man child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people ; he hath broken my covenant." Hence, we read that Ishmael was circum- cised with his father, although he became a wild man ; his hand against every man, and every man's against him (Genes, xvi. 21) ; and the covenant was made good only in Isaac. Then, of his seed, Esau atid Jacob, one wa& taken and the other left (Bom. ix. 6-16.) Absalom was the son of David, the sweet singer of Israel, the man after God's own heart ; yet, at his death, no doubt from the weU-founded belief of his being lost forever, we hear David crying out in anguish, " Would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son ! " This being so, some ma>j think, Where, then, is the value of the covenant as to the offspring ? We may be sure God does not use these and like words to raise great hope in his people's hedrts in re- gard to their children without solid reason. There is muck value in it (Bom. iii. 1, 2.) The children as such of ungodly parents are not, we have seen, in the same favoured condition as those of be- 124 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. lievers ; yet, bleesed be God's name, he does not withhold his salvation altogether from such. We see sons and daughters of godless fathers and mothers brought to the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus. And when, for example, the gospel is brought to the heathen and Roman- ists, by the grace of God many are converted whose parents were without God for the preceding generations. Yet, while this is so, as we are very glad to know, still his rule is to raise up a seed in each generation to serve him, chiefly from the children of his people. Take, of your own acquaintances, or of history, any number of really pious parents, and the same number of ungodly parents, and consider the children as a whole of the one and the other class, and it will be seen that much fewer become pious and God-fearing from among those whose parents had not his fear before their eyes, than of those w^'^se fathers or mothers, or both parents, delight themseb u God, and constantly plead with him for them, and d ^ ^y day, year after year, are found carefully ' training them up in the way they should go,' to which the hopeful pro- mise is made. (Prov. xxii. 6.) While God is sovereign in his grace, bestpwing it as he pleases, and informs us that> all regenerated by him are " born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" ^ John i. 18) ; yet he follows general rules of procedure, and bestows rewards of grace on them that seek him for themselves and others, and in connection with those ap- pointed means they use with him, and towards themselves and others. And as with the godly (only with them) the love of their children* leads them to be most earnest about their salvation, next to their own, so, according to the divine procedure, their children will be more visited with grace from above unto everlasting life than other families without pious parents, not so instructed, prayed for, and brought up, which will usually remain, in consequence, without being favoured from above in the same way. From these unquestionable facts we can see in the very fact of such children being born, by God's act, of godly parents who will so love and act towards and for them, that they from their birth (though sinful and hell-deserv- ing) are the subjects of special privileges pertaining to sal- Tation in a sense and to an extent that others in the nature INFANT BAPTISM. 12& of their position are not. If God deolares, and acts ao- oordingly, which we know from all experience he docs, that the outpouring of his spirit unto salvation upon men in general will be in connection with the means of grace employed towards them by his own believing people, and in answer to their prayers to Himself ; so that those among whom they do not livo at all, or do not bring the word of life to, nor pray for, there irreligion, indifiference to God and salvation will usually continue to abound unbroken, and souls all be perishing ; on the other hand, that where his people bring the gospel, and labour with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, there will God be found of them that sought him not, and they that were hitherto not his people will become the children of the Uving God (Bom. ix. 24-26 ; x. 14-17; ; if God does so among man- kind in general, will he not act on the same principles in regard to the children of believers ? But such children are EVER WITH THEIR PARENTS, are coutinually taught by them the word of life, and are always prayed for every day of their hves, with Christian zeal and earnestness, quickened and increased by all the force of tender parental affection. These things being so, blessed be God's gracious name, it is plain what he means (1 Cor. vii., 14), where he says such as soon as born are holy, and others are the opposite : even as he explains it himself of the children of Israel who were BO situated and favoured, namely, *' Thou art an holy people unto the Lord ... . that thou mayest be an holy people unto the Lord thy God." * Thou art by me made from the womb the subject of a godly parent's prayers and cares, which I hear and regard ; that in my time of merciful visitation, in answer to, and by means of these, I may pour my spirilb and blessing upon theo, and make thee holy imto myself by the circumcision of thine heart and renewal of thy spirit, to know, love, and serve me like my servant thy parent; and this will I do for mine own name's sake in thy salvation, and as a reward (of grace) to thy mother that bare thee, or thy father who Degat thee, or both of "them.' Another thing seems plain also, the reason why a believer's family are to be BAPTIZED ON ACCOUNT OF HIS FAITH ; even to bring out to view and impress the truth precioua 126 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. to such parents that th3sy have special reason for expecting the " blessing." When the parent becomes a believer in Jesus, immediately, through his faith, the position of all his children becomes most favorably altered from what it was in his unbeUef ; for he receives from that moment a new parental heart, which flows out to them and God for them, and brings them under influences in private, in the family, and in the church ^Bom. ill., 1, 2), all of a most precious nature. That being so, theib being baptized on account of his being a believer is seen to harmonize with their divinely favoured condition from the same reason, which condition they occupy simply as children of his of any age. while grace may be expected to be given them to believe albo, in God's own time and way. Yet, as we havoi observed before, the Lord has not PROMISED to make all the children of his people believers,— to save them all. To believe that would be a very dangerous error in its operation. The carnal Jews in our Saviour's time seem to have been under it. (Matt, iii.) Hence I remark next the extent of fulfilment of this Covenant Promise appears to be IN proportion to TilE PARENTIS FAITHFULNESS. " The soul of the sluggard desireth and hath nothing ; but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat." This principle operates in divine things, as in worldly. " The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.'* Which means that the more grace we have, and the more we are truly devoted to the Lord's service in every way, the greater will be >ur influence with him in prayer, and the more will He i'tss our labours to others. *• According to your faith be it unto you," indicates the same. Absalom died in his sins, no doubt, and for his own wickedness ; yet we see that the sins of his father David in the raatter of Uriah the Hittite were also at the bottom of the occasion of it. (2 Sam. xii. 11, 12 ; xvi. 20, 21 ; xviii. 14.) Eli's sons died for their own wickedness; yet Eli's unfaithfulness was God's reason for doing it. (1 Sam. iv. 11, 18 ; ii. 84, 29.) Every one who believes in Christ is an heir of the inheritance of the saints in light, and will be saved him- self and herself. Yet there are great differences in degrees of grace among behevers. Some have much higher attain- \ ■ INFANT BAPTISM. 127 xnents in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness than others. Some are much more devoted, have more faith, love, humility, and obedience. Besides salvation to self, God adds many blessings in.this life to, and by means of his people, in proportion to tiieir devotion to him and his will according to the talents and opportunities they have received. The salvation of their offspring is one of these, for which, besides a careful, faithful, personal walk with Ood, means havj to be diligently employed for them. The prize is great, and to be attained must be propor- tionately sought after. The more a parent is thus devoted in duty, the more full may he or she expect the promise fulfilled, " 1 will pour My spirit on thy seed, and My bless- ing on thine offspring. One shall say, I am the Lord's ; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob ; and ANOTHER shall subscribe with his hand to the Lord, and surname himself by the name of Israel." And so on till it may be, and sometimes is, that all the family, even in the parents' lifetime, are seen with themselvc^s the chUdron of the living God, in the highest sense, and adorning the doc- trine of God our Saviour, their lips also a well of life, and many arising and calling them blessed. (Prov. x. 11;' XXX. 28.) This is the bright and be utifal side. But there is another side as well. We believe that under God more depends on parents for the future weU-being of their chil- dren in connection with salvation than upon any others in the world. We see it is so in temporal things. Ah, the responsibility is very great, even as much as the momen- tous interests are I The "church" of the living God has its great value and its place, yet the parents' is on the whole greater. When they fill it, it will include the vari- ous means and influences of Zion, and the divine manifes- tations there, and the others that belong to the daily home besides. How sad that any parents, with all their tender natural affections, should, yet be found with love so limited as not to heed though their precious charge should spend eternity in hell, and similarly of themselves ! But 0, sadder still, if any believers should be content with the hope of their own salvation, but so weak in love and heedless as not to seek diligently their family's, up to the last hour, as much, and more also, than they are awake and forward to labour 128 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. on and Buffer much throughout the years for their worldly well-heing ! If there be any of you, brethren and sisters^ in a too careless condition, let me beseech you by the mercies and fear of the Lord, by His vows that are upon you, and by the value of the precious souls of your off- spring, to rouse up again, lay hold on God according to His "exceeding great and precious promises," and seek their life with all earnestness and faith. They are in im- inent peril if not yet believers. The promise is not, a& you are aware, '* I will be a God unto thee and to all thy seed after thee." The largeness or smallness of the num- ber will depend, under him, chiefly on you, just as the number converted in any particular place depends — as the rule — on the faith, love, diUgence, and prayerfulness of Christian labourers. If any of your children perish, they will perish, no doubt, for their sins, but God could give grace to awaken, convert, and save. Let them not be left unvisited by him on account of your not wrestling with him to undertake for them — to reveal Christ in them the hope of glory, and your not instructing them suffi- ciently in the knowledge of Him. As to our doctrine that faith can be Soripturally exer- cised IN BEHALF OF OTHERS, as is douc iu the baptism of our children, there ought to be no difficulty by any wha accept the New and Old Testaments as God's Word. It certainly is a Scripture doctrine, and a very precious one ; which shcfuld not be denied, ridiculed, or clouded for sec- tarian objects, but held high up to view, and proclaimed as^ from the housetops. The miracles the Saviour wrought on earth in proof of his Messiahship were exhibitions not only of his Almightiness, and the merciful nature of his mission, but also illustrations of his spiritual blessings, and the principles on which he proceeds in their convey- ance. Now we see, as he teaches in regard to the highest blessings — *' And him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out," that not only did he not reject or send empty away any who came to him for cures to themsdves, but also cured absent (or present) sons and daughters, servants and neighbours, on the petition of parents, masters, and friends, and on account of faith, not of 'the cured, but of THE petitioners : as, for examples, the centurion's servant (Matt. viii. 6, 11, 13) ; the woman of Cana,an's daughter r INFANT BAPTISM. 129 fohap. xv. 22, 28) ; the daughter of the ruler, Jairus (Mark y. 22, 86, 41). The Scripture also draws our atten- tion in very particular terms to the man sick of the palsy, who was let down before Jesus by his four friends through the roof. (Mark ii. 5; Matt. ix. 2.) Of this it is said, ** When Jesus saw theib faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy. Son, thy sins be foboiven thee." Thereafter he also cured him of his bodily ailment. But it is most surely .believed by all Christians that God answers the prayers and labours of " faith that worketh by love " of his people, in behalf of those, who, for the time, and for some time to come, may be altogether prayerless and god- less themselves; and Uiat the exercise of faith towards God in Christ in relation to others than ourselves, believers AND unbelievebs, iu aots of that nature, is a divinely war- ranted, nay, a graciously commanded thing, with broad grounds, and exceedingly great and precious promises. And that is what is done in baptizing, and in praying for And instructing children in the word of God, when we use those ordinances aright. It is that Jesus may cure and save them by his own supernatural power and grace — by baptizing them with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. I have now, brethren, brought my undertakiag on this subject to a close, though I have far from exhausted it. I have only been clearing it round and fencing it from the aims of misguided assailants, in which we have but touched by the way the valuable truths it is based upon, and in a lively though simple manner represents and seals with divine assurance. As when we observe the bow in the olouds we see the heaven appointed seal of the divine promise that he will not again destroy the earth with a flood ; so in the baptism of our children the believer is to see a God appointed sign and seal of his gracious promise, "I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee ; " " I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing on thine offspring." And in faith and joy to sing — Lord my God fcdl many are The wonders thou hast done ; Thy gracious thoughts to usward far Above all thoughts are gone. 9 130 BAPTIST MISBEPRESENTATIOKS. For unto them that do him fear God's mercy never ends ; And to their children's children still His righteousness extends. The children of thy servants shall Continually endure ; And in thy sight, Lord, their seed Shall be established sure. That nation blessed is, whose (3iod Jehovah is, and those A blessed people are, whom fcr His heritage he chose t Although my subject at first on Infant baptism was the early church histoiy of it, I have given you in addition some specimens of what we find on it in Scripture ; and from all that has been set before you, my brethren, you may certainly see it is no relic of popery, but a precious BELic OF THE APOSTLES and the WORD and wOiL OF God. THE mode of administering BAPTISM you will understand, is quite a different question from that we have been considering, viz., the persons to be baptized. On that subject I have not 'space or leisure to enter at length, but will make some remarks. All familiar with the spoken and printed statements of Baptists will be aware that they often affirm that the majority of learned Infant baptist writers admit that the Greek word baptize properly signifies *' to dip or immerse," after their im- mersion theory. But on this let me quote you from their modern leader, Dr. Carson, in his learned work "On Baptism," now before me, — Edition, 1860. A "lexico- grapher," let me explain, is one who writes a dictionary of a language. When not aware or sure of the proper mean- ing of any word we look for it in such a book ; and it is by dictionaries — or lexicons as they are called — of other languages that we are enabled to learn and know them. Keeping this in mind, hear Dr. Carson. He says (p. 56), '* My position is that baptizo always signifies to dip, never expressing anything but mode. Now, as I have all the Lexicographers and Commentators against me in this opinion," etc. Out of many I will give you one or two INFANT BAPTISM. 131 illustrations of how this idea, ' to dip, always to dip, and only to dip,' is appUed. The Apostle states (1 Cor. x. 2) of the Israelites in their Exodus from Egypt that " they were all baptized unto Moses in the oloud and in the sea." Of this great event we have a particular account in Exodus xiv. 15-31 ; from which we learn that " the pillar of the cloud," in which was " Jehovah," went from hefore their face and stood hehind them (ver. 19, 24), and they walked across the sea hottom on dry ground. We all know what dipping a person into the sea is, and see from the narra- tive they WEB^ NOT dipped at all in it — nor in the cloud. Still Paul says they were baptized in them. There was there, therefore, what the Holy Spirit and Paul regard as baptism where there was no dipping. But let us hear Carson on it. He says, " the baptism of the Israelites in. the Bed Sea was a dby baptism ; " " Moses walked on dry ground. Yes, and he got aDSY dip." (Carson on baptism, p. 120, 329, 413). Accor^g to that definition of baptizes as always and only to dip, Baptists contend that it should be so translated in Scripture wherever it occurs. Weil,, let US try it with a few specimens as they wish, — " I indeed dip you in water unto repentance ; but he (Jesus) will dip you in the Holy Ohost and fire J" ** Ye snaU be dipped in the Holy Ghost not many days hence." " Kiiow ye not that as many of us as w 'e dipped into Jesus Christ were dipped into his death." " For by one Spirit are we aU dipped into one body.'' (Mat. iii. 11 ; Acts i. 5 ;. Bom. vi. 8 ; 1 Cor. xii. 13). To serious minds in general I think this will appear no improvement in these passages, but from the nature of the connections, awfully improper ! In the Baptist New Testament, now before me, (Edition 1873), the translation is as above, except that it has the word immerse for dip, which, however, they contend has precisely the same moaning. Well, dip is a clear English Saxon word, while immerse, which is wholly from the Latin, is more obscure, and, unlike the other, does net imply a. taking out again (nor is that the only diffeT.ence). A stone cast into the sea is immersed though it re.nain at the bottom ever after. You would not say it was dipped. It is noteworthy, however, that while in all their books, etc., they contend that dip and immerse have just one and the same meaning, that Version has never once translated. V-s I Ilia. '.' id2 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. ::7i baptize and its derivstives by dip^ bat always by immerae,—' the more obscure term, although it and its cognates baptized, haptizinfff baptism, occur in the New Testament upwards of a hundred times. Strange that they ne^er once rendered it by dip. It is also remarkable that that Version which was prepared especially to carry out the Baptist contention of translating baptizo and its different forms by their one meaning only, has not been found acceptable to the great majority of Baptists On this it is significant that about a year ago, on my sending for a copy of it to the Baptist ]Book Boom, Toronto, I received reply that there was not one in stock, and I had to send for it to Philadelphia, VS. \ Besides, the fact of its existence is kept so quiet that few people know there is such a Version. They don't use it in their churches, and very little anywhere so far can he seen. In the Canadian Baptist of 28th Oct. last, is an|pjrticle on it, which regret- fully admits its general disfavour among them, and says, " It has a handy place in many libraries, and it is much consulted, but very few congregations hear it read." " A good many of us while immersing believers on the profes- 'll^ sion of their faith, will still call the act a baptism, and insist that nothing else is entitled to the name." Yet (by the way) the Baptists of Britain and America would not co-operate with the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the American one because these societies refused to give their funds for the issue of New Testaments, having that word translated always by dip. (Carson, p. 878, Cramp's Catech. p. 51.) Now, when their own version was issued, one would suppose they would all favour, procure, praise, and use it universally in preference to ours, since they maintain as beyond question that baptizo means dipping only, and that much dishonesty and injury has been done by ours not having it so translated. Well, they did favour the idea of its publication at first, and were eager to get a copy, but on perusal felt inclined to keep it in obscurity. And why ? Does it not clearly render baptize everywhere by im- merse — a thing they had longed for and feel so important ? Yes, but strange things appeared also with it. Then appeared such expressions as " dipped in the Holy Spirit," dipped into Christ," " dipped into his death," and a number of others, which, explained as they may be, impress the INFA.NT BAPTISM. X8S inward feeling and oonviotion that something must be seriously wrong that shocks the mind. I don't wonder that they don't find inclination to read that Version in pubUc, and such hke portions, and that they make no efforts to circulate it as they do other books. Also by keeping it out of stock in their Book Booms and sayirg aa little as possible about it, their own people who have not seen it, and others outside, will necessarily not find or see it. The other word bapto (the root word from which haptizo is derived) they also used to contend, always signified " to dip or immerse y" till about forty years ago, when Dr. Oar- son's work was pubUshed. In that work is a number of passages from ancient Greek writers in which hapto ap- ' pears. The following is one (p. 48): — "The lake was BAPTED in the blood of a mouse." Baptists used to render this — " The lake was dipped in the blood of a mouse," and said it was a figure of poetry. On this, however, Dr. Car- son remarks — " What a monstrous paradox in rhetoric is the figuring of the iipping of a lake in the blood of a mouse t Yet Dr. Gale [an eminent Baptist writer] sup- poses the lake dipped by hyj erbole. ' The literal sense/ he says, ' is the lake was dipp civil, charity, bachelor, church, hell, ofitend, carriage, grace, conversation, etc. In these respects all languages have the same history, being mutable like all other human things. Dr. Cramp's and the Bap- tist doctrine that the first or original meaning of every word of a language is in its use always applied — that is, meant to be conveyed, — and is understood by all writers, readers, and hearers in every age, is remarkable, and, I have just shown you, very far from corresponding with the facts, and requires but a small amount of education and observation to see this. Yet although this has often been exhibited, the same thing continues printed and taught year after year, all to make the people they have access to believe that baptism must mean a dipping I You will observe that the range of words of the Greek lanouaoe is not of any one age merely, but comprehends all the known writings of antiquity, from a thousand years before the Christian era, in all the different countries where it was spoken ; during which there were no printed books and very little edncation among the myriads, with interming- lings, alterations and modifications of peoples, languages, ideas, words, dialects of pronunciation, and things in gen- eral, going on even more than during the last thousand years in our own isolated eea girt English-speaking father- land. After all it is th« nmss of the people which moulds the usage of words for themselves and succeeding posterity, and who from lack of education and other general and local causes, are not very particular or philosophic about the exact etymological or learned fitness of the words they use to express their ideas ; and writers, etc., will use the words to express their ideas used for those ideas by those to whom they address themselves. Let me mention an illustration. 142 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. In my native Scotland, its hills are numerous, and some ascend very high, Uterally piercing through the clouds (when there are any lowering), often a considerable distance. To the highest only do they apply the term " mountain." When I came to Canada a few years ago, I was informed that there was a " mountain " at the back of the city of Hamilton. I expected a great elevation ; but when I saw it, alas, it was just a "brae," — ^the word in Scotland for one of the smallest of elevations. Were ^ike people in Scotland to read in a Canadian newspapei' of «* the mountain " at Hamilton, they would certainly f'mcy an elevation with a peak about touching the aky ! The reason for the difference of application of the term here no doubt is local, from the few and small elevations in our Province. Another recent modification is the colonial word "bush." This word was formerly apphed to some- thing very small, as a rose or currant bush, or a small branch of a tree with a decent share of leaves ; but never was thou^t to be at all equal to a tree, which was a giant in comparison. But our Canadian and other colonists have disregarded that old fashioned idea, and, as if a forest of trees a hundred miles square, more or less, were a little thing, have got into the habit of calling that a bush, and newspapers, book writers, and ministers, etc., when they refer to it, feel they must call it a " bush " to be at once understood. A piece of wood for holding a candle gave the name at first to Candlestick ; but though made of brass it is still called by the same name. To Macadamize a road, is used in Scotland, some parts of Canada, etc.,. after the inventor's name, for overlaying it with *• metal," as it is called. By and by, if people take the notion, it may be used faa* the changing of a young woman's namo into "Mrs. Macadam;" and might afterwards, if that happened to please the popular fancy, become the term commonly used for marriages in general. On the same principle we see surnames of persons appUed. The ex- pression, " covering a road with metal," in the connection just mentioned, would be thought by people in the past and by many still, to mean — with iron, or gold and silver if you please ; but the real sense in which it is used would not be imagined, namely, with coarsely broken, smaUish,. hard (whin) stones. INFANT BAPTISM. 14a Snch brethren is the process of genuine fact in this subject ; the real philosophy of the actual meaning of words. And it is with facts we have to do. The word of God was given in the language of the common people of the various periods when its books were written, an entirely new meaning or application being attached to a few words, which it fully explains, as ' life,' • death,' ' spiritual,' in the gospel senses, and ' supper ' as applied to the t>»rticipation of a very small portion of the bread and sip of the wine of the second emblematical ordinance of the Christian church, while the term always signified and signifies a full meal in other connections. There is just one other point I will advert to. Baptists are in the habit of quoting from Infant baptist writers, etc., that haptizOy in the Greek language, signifies to immerse ^ without stating the other meanings also given, and from that as an admission of this as the only proper meaning, accuse those writers of inconsistent practice, and insist that it ought always to be so translated in Scripture. Of this we had a recent instance in the Baptist church here. Eev. Mr. Carnes, in one of a series of discourses on Baptism, related, on the reported authority of Professor Angus, of the Baptist College, London, Eng., that the Committee of theologians of different denominations (of which Dr. A. is one) at present revising the New Testament, unanimously admitted that t.'e word baptizo signified (in the Greek language) ** to im.veese," yet refused so to translate it in their edition of the New Testament. When this latter sentence was concluded by Mr. Carnee (in a tone of indig- nation) the Baptists near him cried out '* Shame ! shame ! " which (aU the more that it was Sabbath evening) indicated strong censure of the Committee. On the following Thurs- day evening, at the beginning of my lecture on Baptism (reproduced at the beginning of this treatise), I repented what Mr. Came? had said, as now related, and asked him (who was present) to correct me in anything I had not stated correctly. He rose to say he had not said that Dr. Angus had informed him, for he had it from another to whom Dr. A. had told it. I requested him if there was any other part not correctly reported to say so. He made nc further correction. I then said, •' Though that account* is given as hearsay we will suppose it correct. That A- r 144 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. i Oommittee then unanimously admitted baptizo to signify immerse. And I add that I freely admit the same. But don't mistake me. In saying that I don't mflan that it ALWAYS signifies to immerse, for I believe it does not, from my own examination of its usage, in the Greek language, and that is just the point. The Committee were rot reported by Mr. Oarnes to have said that. Nor did he state their reason for refusing to translate the word by immerse, wherever it occurs in the New Testament. I have no doubt their reason was that while it often is used of immersion in the Greek language they were well aware that it often did not mean that ; and were therefore to be commended for refusing to translate it by that word on the ground that it always signifies it when it often does not. Suppose, e.g., the English word " craft." You and I will unanimously admit that that word does really signify deceit in our language. But if on the ground of that acknowledgment I am requested to translate it wherever I find it by the word deceit I cannot but refuse. And why ? Bocause while that is its meaning often, it often is not, both in Scripture and out of it. It also means an honest ' manual trade,' such as Paul's, Aquila's, and Priscilla's, of whom we are told in the Acts (xviii. 8), they were " of the same craft, ^ namely, "tent makers; " that is, " by craft they were tent makers." How would it do to translate that expression by '* by deceit they were tent makers ? " There are hundreds of other words in our language that have more than one meaning in their usage. Baptizo is similar in the Greek language. If we had been told the Bevisal Committee's reason for refusing to render it always by immerse, as Baptists wish, there would have been no room to cry Shame I Shame ! against them, as was done on Sabbath evening in the Baptist church, who only acted as reasonable men. On this again let me quote you a statement of PengiUy (Scrip, guide to Bap., p. 13, note at bottom) on the mean- ing of baptizo, as " to dip or plunge," he says, '* We might call to our assistance lexicographers and other learned writers out of number ; but I may with confidence affirm that in citing one, we cite every competent authority on the Isubject ; for in the proper and primary sense of the word baptize, learned men of all classes and countries are agreed, INFANT BAPTISM. 145 «8 1 shall show in the Appendix." Along side of this let me now give you again the statement on this of his cotemporary Dr. Carson, whose work on Baptism was first pubUshed only some two or three years after Pengilly's. He says {p. 65,) " My position is, that baptizo always signifies to dip ; never expressing anything but mode. Now, as I have all the lexicographers and commentators aoainst me in this opinion." etc. Now would any one reading and believing that in Pengilly, expect this from Carson, and is it likely the latter would weaken his cause by it if it were not very true ? There is this also, Pengilly's book is a small one, oirciilated (by the Bapt. Pub. Soc.) among the common people, who know very little of lexicographers and com- mentators (learned writers) themselves ; while Carson's is large, and meant more especially for others. Pengilly, at the close of his statement, promises to show its truth in the Appendix. In p. 71, he begins to give quotations for this purpose. After giving his second he refers the reader to a note at the bottom, as follows, '* See this author {Calvin) and those that follow cited at greater length and their work referred to in Booth's Padobaptist Examined. Vol. I., pp. 44 to 65. Eighty-two such authorities are there adduced." So it seems to take his quotations second hand from Booth. Nor are there many readers of Pen- gilly likely to be able to examine Booth, and after that to verify Booth again by looldng up the books of the original authors, quoted in Booth. I find these remarks necessary of both Pengilly and Booth ; as we have already seen, in numerous instances they were decidedly addicted to genuine deUberate misquotations, which I have shown you at length at the beginning. And besides those I have shown you from Booth, you will recollect of Bcv. Peter Edwards, Baptist Minister, that he was led to leave the Baptist church by reading the same book of Booth's, from seeing the unfair manner in which he represented the writers he professed to quote, and on this Mr. Edwards make special mention in that way of these same "eighty- two " writers Pengilly in his note refers to. (See p. 21.) In these latter observations on the mode of administer- ing the ordinance, as distinguished from the person to be 10 146 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. baptized, I have sought to give you some insight into th&^ process by which Baptists make out from the Greek language (which few of course are acquainted with) that its word for baptism was ever and only used to signify dipping. There are two quite different classes of Baptists (and have always been in their history) which ought to be* distinguished by us the one from the other. The ' Open Gommunionists,' as that name indicates, take a different position in theory and practice on the importance of the subject irom that of the * Close Gommunionists.' They are disposed to hold communion at the Lord's table and otherwise with Christians of other denominations not' baptized according to their views. This, however, the-' Close Gommunionists not only refuse to do, but in addition,, will not even aHow Open Communion Baptists that privi- lege with them, although baptized according to Baptist- principles, because these don't regard the difference on that outward ceremonial ordinance so vital as to forbid, their communing with their other fellow Christians. Mr.. Spurgeon, for instance, for that reason they will not allow to sit at their communion table. They take pleasure in. him as an illustrious Baptist minister, his sermons are constantly printed in their denominational weekly paper,, the Canadian Baptist, etc. He is acknowledged to be Christian enough for the table — to commemorate the Lord's death, but he is not, in their esteem, Baptist enough. This feature of their position alone shows what very great importance they attach to the question of the baptism of water. In their denominational church property Title Deeds, for example (a copy of which I have before me), by which each of their congregations binds itself " to hold and maintain " a considerable number of specified doc- trines, etc., is the following : *' That Communion at the Lord's Table should be holden to those mily who have been so immersed, and uho themselves thus practice " : — that is, — . *' and who themselves practice the holding of that Com- munion to those only who have been so immersed." Thi& excludes all Open Commimionists. They justify their position thus : It is by baptism any is admitted into the visible church of Christ, after which is the Lord's table. But those not baptized according to their views are not baptized at all, and therefore not INFANT BAPTISM. 147 really admitted into, but still outside of the visible ohuroh, and should not in that position partake of the Lord's Supper or obtain the other privileges of members. Accord- ing to this theory it follows that none in the world have been or are within the visible church of Christ, as mem- bers of it, but the Baptists alone. They alone have bee^ and are his kingdom on earth. All oub dispensations of the Lord's supper are therefore sacrileges. The great men of the Beformation, and before it, and since, that we have fondly looked upon as bright luminaries in and of the Lord's Zion, and the many many thousands of our infant baptist brethren throughout the lands and the ages who in genuine adoration of the blessed Saviour, assembled together for his worship, in caves or in churches,, sat under and witnessed for his glorious evangel, and up- held his truth and honour amidst the fiercest persecutions, " bearing in their body the marks of the Lord Jesus," their limbs loaded with fetters, their blood spilled like rivers for his testimony and his name, or their bodies devoured by the burning flame — none, not one of these, according to that doctrme, did the Lord regard as members of his body the church, and entitled by him in "the breaking of bread " to express the faith in him they had and the love ikey felt! None of these would the Close Communion Baptists permit to sit with them at their Lord's table, nor sit down beside them at theirs ! Also, besides those of more recent times, the multitude in the di£ferent denomin- ations of shining lights, and of devoted Christian labourers at home and abroad, around us, in fatherlands and among the heathen, have no standing in the church, — not even as adherents of it, since they worship not in Baptist churches ! Well, there is one luminous fact that must be admitted^ which alone is significant enough to prove the erroneous- ness of this theory of baptism and close communionism, that may well console us and make up for the disacknow- ledgment of these Baptist brethren. It is this. The Lord Jesus himself, the head of the church, has acted and is acting quite otherwise. He has undoubtedly bestowed his salvatiofi as extensively on Infant baptists, has poured out his spirit in as large measure on them, has carried on throughout the ages in every land, and advanced the inter-^ "^ ipliii 148 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. ests of his spiritual kingdom, bt their instbumentalitt, as xnnoh, and more also, by far, tiian he has among and by Close Gommonionists. And look around to-day. Is it only or preeminently among and by these latter he is doing his marvels of grace in Britain, Canada, the United States, Madagascar, the South Sea Islands, Italy, Spain, Mexico, etc., etc. ? They will not, thdy can not, answer in the affirmative. The preeminence is really on our side, though « not to us, not to us, but to his name be the glory." Moreover, any acquainted with the facts will have observed a considerable blight in these respects in that body as com- pared with the Open Gommunionists. They have great zeal for proselytism to their body, but genuine piety, a tender conscience in the matter of truth and the fear of the Lord, practical (fJiat is real) love for the whole household of faith, and the winning of souls largely to Christ, ap- pear much less their attainment. This doctrine of theirs is of the same nature as tiie Bom- ish and Puseyite one of Apostolic Succession. The advo- cates of the latter refuse to acknowledge to be in the church of Christ any of all dissenting ministers, ordinances and members, because not ordained, administered, and admit- ted in (according to them) the proper way — by the proper office-bearers. One satisfactory proof of their serious error is just such as we have been reviewing in the other case ; namely, that the Lord, the King of Zion, has undoubtedly blessed, and used as a means of blessing, those same dis- senting ministers, people, and ordinances, and still does, as much as, nay much more (to say no more) than those of Bome or Puseyism. Now you will observe, brethren, that the regular Baptist Church, or Close Communionists, as- sume a similarly exclusive position, and the ground of that exclusiveness, though different as to the Question, is of the same nature. In the one case it is the external adminis- tration of baptism ; in the other, the external ordination of office-bearers. The upholders of the Apostolic Succession of Bishops, while very erroneous in that doctrine, yet in accordance with it, refuse to acknowledge the standing of dissenting ministers and people in what is held to belong only to those who are in the church. Hence, for example, they will not own that the former are ministers of tiie church, will not invite or allow them to officiate as such to ■^y INFANT BAPTISM. 149 >» iKeir congregations, etc. This is consistent with their doc- trine, but wrong in reality, because their doctrine is wrong in itself. In like manner, Gose Gommnnion Baptists, if eonsUtent, would not acknowledge any Infant-bapUst min- ister as a minister at all. For how can a man be a lawful mmister, (that is to say, a minister at all) of the church of Christ, if he is not even a member of it — not to add, not even an adherent ? The highest office with its very sacred duties, responsibilities, and influences, cannot surely be legitimately acknowledged where the very lowest standing of an ordinaiy member is not yet attained ? If the ordin- ary membership be zealously guarded against the recog- nition of any not duly baptized, much more should the sacred ministry be guarded by the same parties by refusing to recognize, and by practically protesting against any as having that office who have not been so baptized, and who besides, according to the theory of baptism we are consid- ering, teach and administer to others a false baptism and dispense the Lord's Supper to those who ought not to par- take of it — they not having been immersed. But the Close Communionists, whatever their motive be, don't carry out their doctrine to its obvious termination. This they shrink from. They do acknowledge the other denominatrons of the church, and speak of them as such^ and the ministers of them, inviting them from time to time as ministers, officially, of the Christian Church to their tea meetings and to preach to them, etc., etc. Now there must be some strong reason to account for this short-coming ; what can it be ? Do they believe that in Christ's estima- tion none of these are ministers in and of his church ? If they do why are they not declaring it as from the house- top (as decidedly and clearly as they insist that all, only sprinkled, are not members), and as practically refusing to acknowledge them throughout ? It is only a short and is a necessary step in consistency from where they have halted. One advantage of this would be to awaken public attention, and enable people at large to perceive more fully and correctly the real import of their distinctive doctrine by what it necessai-ily leads to. Yet this is not done but the reverse is. The reason of which I presume is, some- thing tells them that to take such a position merely on the question of water application, against ministers and de- 150 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. nominations, who, in the great vital doctrines of Christi- anity, in Scripture piety, and in God in Christ evidently blessing them past and present, are at least as distinguished as themselves, would lead all reasonable people to conclude that their theory must be unscriptural like that of the Apostolical Succession ; and would make the cause to which they have (unfortunately) committed themselves altogether unlikely to succeed. I have in another place (Preface p. xvii.) given you the mind on this subject of the godly John Bunyan, and now will conclude with the sentiments of the illustrious Spur- geon. Open Communionist. Although we differ from him on the question of watf r baptism itself, that becomes a small matter when we e his proper under standiiig and spirit in giving It ik> more than its own subordinate place and value, — so different from that ascribed to it by Close Communionists. In the Christian Guardian (Methodist denominational weekly paper) of the 19th April, now before me, I find the following from ** Spurgeon on Communion ;" in which he says, — *• There is not a Christian beneath the scope of God's heaven from whom I am separated. At the Lord's table I always invite aU Christians to come and sit down and commune with us. If any man #7ere to tell me that I am separate from the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or the Methodist, I would tell him he did not know me, for I love them with a pure heart fervently, and I am not separate from them." Then stating his esteem "for the strict-communion Baptists," he says of them, ** They really do separate themselves from the great body of Christ's people. They say they will not commune with it ; and if any one come to their table who has not been baptized, they turn him away. The pulse of Christ is communion ; and woe to the church that seeks to cure the ills of Christ's Church by stopping its pulse ! " This, brethren, is a worthy utterance of that Baptist minister and of the Church of Christ. It gives the ques- tion at issue its proper subordinate value and place. As to the rightness or wrongness of this or that mode and conditions of the administration of baptism it leaves free- dom for enquiry by th£ proper means, but allows every- one to be fully persuaded in his own mind, with no bar to his communion with those he may differ from in that per- INFANT BAPTISM. 151 flaaaion. For in the sense that " the kingdom ot God is not meat ind drink," CRom. xiv. 16-18) neither is it water; ** but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." It were well if all Baptistu were of Spurgeon's mind. There would then be much less temptation to special pleadings, misrepresentation of persons and things, un- christian arts of proselytism, and (to useBunyan's descrip- tion) less " breach of love and taking off Christians from the more weighty things of God, and to make them qi irrel and have heart-burnings one against another," etc. And consequently so much less sin and more blessing from God. But as matters appear, it seems unlikely for long yet that such a Christian spirit will prevail among and rule over the €lose Communionist section. From before and since Bun- yan'stime it has continued the same, and seems in no de- gree abating. The more also it is borne with, the bolder and more zealous in proselytizing improprieties it becomes. I have taken occasion from our recent short and de- cisive controversy to reproduce my lecture on that subject. . The publication is specially intended for the benefit of my own congregations and others of the neighbourhood inter- ested, and is a contribution to the cause of truth, consid- ered desirable, and it is hoped may be, by the divine bles- sing, of some real service in exhibiting the wrong things said and done in connection with the ordinance of baptism. There having been no regular ministry settled here until recently, many of my own people, with others, from lack of opportunities, etc., will doubtless not have that particular knowledge on this and other things that is desirable. And there are some here whose great ambition is to unsettle minds from what we do most assuredly believe to be the faith once delivered to the saints. Besides in these davs of move- ment to and fro our young people and others are liable to be exposed elsewhere to the same influences, which it is the duty and wisdom of ministers and parents to anticipate and properly provide against. Although I have dealt throughout with all plainness, and with censure when that appeared needful, (in which, brethren, as you have seen, I have always furnished the materials .for your own independent judgment) I harbour no unkindly feelings towards our Mptist brethren. That they generally believe themselves in the right in their 152 BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS. Tiews and zeal there can be no doubt. Though I need hardly say that sincerely and strongly believing ourselvea in the right is no proof at all of riffhtness. Bomanists and many others enthusiastically belieye as much in regard to great errors. Mr. Bunyan's and Mr. Spurgeon's views, which I have quoted you on the practical bearinga of the subject, I oordiallv subscribe to as mine also, as they are of our church and others. If I have said anvthing unpleasant to those we differ from, I have only done it because the truth unfolded in the interests of truth has been of that nature to their feelings. We wish them well. Grace, mercy and peace be upon all — ^Baptists, Episco- palians, Methodists, Gongregationaiists, and all others of any name under heaven who love thelLord Jesus Christ in sincerity. And may he have saving mercy upon the multitudes that love him not. t Pray that Jerusalem may have Peace and felicity : Let tbem that love thee and thy peace Have still prosperity. Therefore I wish that peace may still Within thy walls remain, And ever may thy palaces Prosperity retain. Now, for my Mends' and brethren's sakes. Peace be in thee, I'll say. And for the house of God our Lord, I'll seek thy good alway. And blessed be his glorious name To all eternity : The whole earth let his glory fill, Amen, so let it be. APPENDIX I. I HATE shown my readers speoimens of the polioy of misrepresentation pursued in oooks issued by the Baptist Publication Societies. I will add here some further exhi- bitions of the same in reference to ourselves, as many of you having been eye-witnesses of the facts will be able to judge correctly from your own knowledge. The best of men, from frailty or misled by others, do make mistakes ; hence it would lack not only Christian chaiity and forbear- ance, but common justice to make much of isolated oases of that nature, which might be most unintentional. But the following will be seen to be of a dififereiit type of spirit altogether. With reference to our meetings here in Decem- ber, etc., several communications thereafter appeared in local newspapers at a distance highly charged with gross misrepresentations in the Baptist interest. But not till the 9th March, did anything appear in the Canadian Bap- tist — the leading Baptist paper of the Province. Again a second appeared there on the 28rd, and another a month after. I sent two replies, the first of which was published in it, but preceded by a private course (which I will yet ex- plain) tending to its exclusion ; and the second was refused a place on a transparently unworthy pretext. This letter I sent in consequence to our own denominational paper, which appeared in its issue of 6th May. From all which it will appear that the management of the Close Com- munionist church paper, in its sectarian poUcy, affords all facility for Baptist correspondence, however loaded with odious personal misrepresentations of other denominations^ and then protects them from exposure by refusing a place to replies in correction ; which protection seems to be ex- 154 APPENDIX. > pected (as it may) by its correspondents, from experience, judging from the fearless length to which they have ven- tured in our own case. As the Latin proverb has it, ex uno disce multibus — *' From one example learn many." The following was my communication to our paper, containing my reply, refused publication in the Canadian Baptist. Editor British American Presbyterian: Dear Sir, — I will thank you if you can spare the space for the following communication of mine to the Canadian Baptist, refused a place iu its columns. After waiting till after three issues, without its appearance there, I wrote a friend in Toronto to call on and ask the editor if he intended to publish it, who has informed me that he considered it " useless" to do so, " as there wils now no question oi fact, but merely of opinion." Now, any one who reads it will see the very opposite to be the case, and that the editor of the leading paper of the Baptist de- nomination does not think it beneath him to use a very unworthy pretext to avoid doing an act of common (not to say Christian) justice ; and that to a minister of another denomination against whom himself has issued to his readers all over the Province as gross a misrepresentation^ of facts as ever pen inscribed. For certain, as he, of course, could see, my reply is on questions of fact, and not opinions at all, and I, the accused, have not yet been, and will not be permitted, so far as his power extends, a word on them in my own defence in his readers' hearing. The other communication ol mine referred to at the beginning of this re- fused one, did not refer to the same matters. Nor was its admission unattended with difficulties. On the 9th of March a long communication from an anonymous Baptist correspon- dent appealed in that paper, literally packed with gross misre- presentations of facts (no less than fifteen), to which a reply of miae was sent at once, and tardily inserted, and was preceded by a remarkable private procedure towards myself on the part of the Canadian Baptist management, the direct and immedi- ate result of which, had it it been successful, (which it might have been, unknown to me), would have also th; roughly pre- vented that reply from appearing. The disclosure of that pro- cedure I will request the favour of yom* insertion in a subse- quent issue, your space being too largely drawn upon at this time aheadjr. The genuine reason of the poHcy (of Eomish hue) in refusing publication to the following, will be apparent, on reading it, to any acquainted with the spirit and ways of Close Communionism. And I am, dear sir, yours respectfully, John Bethune. Chesley, 2,9th April, 1876. APPENDIX. 155 ll To the Editor of the Canadian Baptist : Dear Sir, — My reply in your issue of the 80th ultimo, to the communication imder the fictitious signature, " M.," in yoiirs of the 9th preceding, exhibits some of his many gross misrepre- sentations of fact, sufl&cient to show that whoever your corres- pondent may be, he sadly lacks the spirit of truth ; who instinc- tively felt it desirable to screen himself from the view of those who know the facts, by withholding his own name, while he has no such dehcacy in abundantly repeating mine — like the disre- putable many who do under cover of the night what they shrink from in the day time when seen and known. I observe also in yours of the 23rd ultimo, another communication, " Explana- tory," of which I am the subject by name, the writer of which signs himself " P.M.," who appears from it to be, without doubt, the Rev. Peter McDonald, St. Mary's. Like the former, it is also a gross mi^^representation of facts. If these commimica- tions are specimens of other accounts that appear in your columns, your readers must be often grievously misled. Mr. McDonald confines his observations to a lecture I deliv- ered in my own church here, on the evening of the 16th Decem- ber last, on Confessions of Faith, and to a meeting in the Baptist church the following evening, in which himself took a prominent part. To these observations and the facts as they actually occurred, permit me, Sir, to direct the attention of your readers. My lecture on Confessions of Faith was delivered to a large audience, who were most attentive and orderly to the close. At the beginning for fifteen or twenty minutes I read and remarked upon the very unjust strictures in a communica- tion by " Ottawa " in your issue of 28th Oct. last, on oiu* Presby- terian Church and its Confession of Faith, which was placed by you, as worthy of the position, in your first page, under the section permanently headed, " The Baptist Pulpit." I then entered upon my lecture. (1) In regard to it Mr. McDonald says, it " was mainly based on two positions. 1st. The Confes- sion is not ' a fetter,' — an obvious hit at Mr. Macdonnell. 2nd. The Confession of Faith settles doctrinal questions and prevents various opinions on the same theological points." This account is quite incorrect. When I spoke of a *' fetter " was when read- ing " Ottawa's " article in the Canadian Baptist, where that expression occurs, and before entering on my lecture. The " obvious hit " is drawn from his own imagination. And what he calls my second position of lecture is drawn entirely from the same source. I neither said nor believe that Confessions prevent various theological opinions, etc. The expressions are his own and not mine. What he means by '* settling doctiinal questions " I don't quite understand. (2) Mr. McD. says, *' He (Mr. Bethune) succeeded at the close to get Mr. Carnes up 'W'^"'"f"'5^'?''!w^ 156 APPENDIX. beside him," — evidently something very bad on Mr. B.'s part. The fact is as follows : When I closed my lecture, I invited Mr. Games, who was present, to make any reply he might desire. He then oaQie forward to the platform, replied, and sat down of his own choice on a chair there. Such was my " suc- ceeding," and the way of it. (8) Mr. McDonald adds, ** and as the latter (Mr. Games) had said, and repeated it there, that the Baptists have no Confession of Faith, Mr. B. raised a pamphlet to the face of the former, saying, ' There is a Baptist Gonfes- sion of Faith, and patronized by vour own Spurgeon.' " These, in regard to me, are flagrant falsehoods. When Mr. Games had repUed, I lifted a small book from the table, rose, and said to the meeting : " You have heard Mr. Games say, ' the Baptists have always and all along contended against Gonfessions of Faith.' I have a small book in my hand I got by last mail from the Baptist Book Boom, Toronto. I will read its title. It is called 'The Baptist Confession of Faith,'" Immediately on this Mr. Games reached out his hand quickly, saying, " Let me see it please." I handed it to him without a word, and waited its return. Then he said (not I), *' O that's Spurgeon's Confes- sion he made for his own congregation." I replied, " Well, I will read a little more," which, opening it, I did as follows : " We, the ministers and messengers of, and concerned for up- wards of one hundred of Baptized Churches ... . being met together in London, from the 3rd of the 7th month to the 11th of the same, 16H9, to consider," etc. I also read from Mr. Spurgeon's short preface to it in which he speaks of it as " this excellent list of doctrines which was subscribed unto by the Baptist ministers in 1689." And I explained that it was throughout nearly word for word a repetition of our West- minster Confession, excepting on Baptism and the section on the civil magistrate, and one or two other modifications in the way of omission. I also produced two other present day Bap- tist Confessions, and next evening presented another. These, Sir, are the real facts. I did not lift a pamphlet to Mr. C.'a face, nor speak at all, as Mr. McD. alleges. (4) Near the end of his " Explanatory " to you, he says of that Baptist Confes- sion of 1689, that next evening he himself " explained the cir- cumstances under which it originated, viz. : that it was framed in the reign of Charles the II. as a \andication of a Paedo-baptist maUgned people." Just so. He did say so, and other things equally contrary to fact. You are aware, Mr. Editor, that Charles II. died in A.D. 1685, or four years before that Confes- sion was framed in 1689 ; also that it was framed the year after King William HI. bad taken the place of James II. Had Mr. McDonald told your readers (which he omitted) the date of that Confession, a number of them could see his misstatements for themselves. I supply it now. APPENDIX. 157 the Mr. this y the wa& WeBt- At the close of my leotnre and meeting, Mr. Games said that ' I had dishonestly suppressed parts of " Ottawa s " article in the Canadian BaptUt, and invited the people to a meeting next evening in the Baptist church, when he said that that article would be read over from beginning to end (one and a quarter columns), and my dishonesty would be seen, and my lecture on Confessions would be reviewed. Next* evening in the Baptist chnrch, Mr. Games was in the ohau'. After opening the meet- ing, the first thing he said was that the article by " Ottawa " in the Canadian Baptist would be dispensed with, and Bev. Peter McDonald would address the meeting. Mr. McD. began by a criticism of certain Greek words of the baptism controversy — louo, niptOt Jeataduno, bapto, baptizo, buthizo, etc. (5) In his "Explanatory" to you he says, " Having understood during a former visit that Mr. Bethune had declared publicly, when bap- tizo signifies to submerge, that it is in the sense of to sink to the bottom, I named various Greek words," etc. On this I beg to say, first, he did not make any such statement at all at that- meeting ; and next, I never declared publicly or privately any such thing, and don't believe, nor ever did, any such nonsense about baptizo. (6) He further says, " The gentleman (that is, Mr. Bethune) favoured the writer (Rev. P. McDonald) with early and con- tinned interruptions." I answer that the man who could pen that statement in the face of the facts, which he knew, is capa- ble of anything in the shape of slander. He began his observa- tions before seven o'clock and closed after nine. For about twenty minutes at the beginning he went on discussing the Greek words before mentioned of Baptistic controversy. I rosi (being on the platform), stated that we had been invited to hear that article of " Ottawa " in the Canadian Baptist read all through, and my dishonest suppression of parts of it exposed, and a review of my lecture on Confessions of Faith, but the Canadian Baptist's article was dismissed, and instead of a review of my lecture we were getting one on Baptism, a quite different subject. I called on the lecturer to come to the subjects promised us, and sat down. Mr. Games, chairman, said I was interrupting Mr. McDonald, who proceeded ; but now dwelt (not more than fifteen or twenty minutes) on our Westmins- ter Confession, and then came again to the subject of immersion versus sprinkling, on which thereafter he occupied the remaining hour and a-half, and even then had no sign of ceasing, till I rose and asked if it was intended that I should get an opportunity of reply. Once again during his discussion of the latter subject I rose and spoke as before, respectfully calling on him to come to the promised subjects of the evening. This Mr. Games said was interrupting him, and he went on on Baptism to the end. Once on my seat beside him, when he gave "is" as the mean- sec 158 APPENDIX. ing of the Hebrew word •' Haya," on which he placed weight, I answered, " It literally signifies ' has been.' " Another time, o^ni the Greek word Iduo which he dwelt on, I mentioned on my seat that the Baptist New Testament translation renders it '' to wash." At two different times I respectfully requested the name of the small book he read a large number of professed quotations from Faedo-baptist writers from, and each time he Baid fiercely, "0 I can do that I" but did not give it. Such were literally all xny^interruptions, which no honourable man would characterize as he has chosen to do, especially also consider- ing what I have not yet related. (7) The points he dwelt on on our Confession as a "fetter" in his view, he states were its doctrines on " foreordination and baptism." (My lecture was not at all one proving our doctrines Scriptural, which would take many lectures £i.'om theu' number; but the nature, uses, and necessity of Confessions, considered as containing what are believed and acknowledged by those whose they are to be Scrip- tiu-al). He sagaciously, however, omits to inform your readers of his other " fetters," which were, that our doctrines that •' faith is a saving grace " and that "the first day of the week is the Sabbath," are contrary to Scripture and can not be proven therefrom. Mr. Cames took the same position on the latter, publicly in his church some weeks before. These points Mr. McD. referred to, I showed, when my reply came, to be taught in Mr. Spurgeon's Catechism and the Baptist Confession of 1689, etc. (8) But now as to his and Mr. Carnes's conduct. The evening before, in my own chm^ch, when I was replying to Mr. Carnes' reply — showing and reading the Baptist Confessions mentioned -he constantly called to me fi:om his seat, and often rose up to say something, till the meeting could not stand it, and from all parts called him to order. Next evening Mr. McD, all through his observations directed his remarks to myself in brow-beating style, calling on me then and there to answer him to each thing, yes or no, giving out challenges, and saying " he did nut care for one of my coat," etc, etc. When I was reply- ing at the end, he kept constantly leaping up on his feet beside me interposing objections, or caUing out to me from his seat every sentence I uttered ; Mr. Carnes helping him in this. I never witnessed such conduct in my life. (9) In his " Explan- atory," without stating that I spoke in reply at the end, he in- tersperses distorted statements of mine as made throughout his own lecture, no doubt to make them appear as interruptions. One of these is that when he challenged me I declined, saying, " I have enough of it." When such words were used by me was after I had finished my reply, and been cha^' "i/.Tf 3 again, Mr. McD. saying he would be ready to meet tT^.e or uuxy ir Oa- nada next morning at six o'clock. I repUed tix%l fxxj suojeoJ; was Confessions of Faith, that I had lectured on it, ac d th'^y Imd. APPENDIX. 159 a night also in reply, such as their reply was. Still they challeng- ed. I then said, *' Since you force me to speak my feelings, I may tell you I would feel myself degraded in entering on a contro- versy with men who have conducted themselves so disgracefully as you have done. If I wanted to crush the feelings of the Baptists here, I could not do better than accept your challenge, but I have no pleasure in that. Your gross rudeness and un- fairness itself would ruin your cause in your hands. And to do the Baptists justice, I may say, I don't regard you as fair repre- sentatives of their ministers, though I consider their position on baptism wrong. That is my answer to you. I have had enough of it to-night for a while." Want of space prevents me from adding further particulars. Please to insert this, my reply to Mr. Macdonald's, and excuse its length (which I have condensed as much as possible), as you know it necessarily takes more space to correct misstatements than to make them. Allow me also in a sentence, to add that I consider it a very unjust and demoralizing practice to send or to publish personal accusations of others, especially of another denomination, without the personal signature of the accuser. I am, dear sir, yours respectfully, John Bethune. Chealey, Srd April, 1876. The following from me appeared 'in the same paper on the 19th May :— Editor British American Presbyterian : Sir, — The brethi-en who read my communication in your issue of the 5th inst. would see the very gross misrepresenta- tions of myself, etc., by the Rev. P. McDonald, Baptist minister, pubUshed to his readers all over the province by the editor of the Canadian Baptist, in his issue of the 23rd March ; and how groundless his reason for refusing that reply of mine a place in his columns, viz. : that it did not refer to questions of fact, — a reason which any reader who knows what an account of facts is, would at once perceive to be as untrue as his refusal to pub- lish my statement, in my own defence from odious vilification of what actually occurred in the meetings in question, was unjust and a gross violation on his as well as his correspondent's part of the ninth commandment — "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." Meanwhile, his readers having seen no correction of Mr. McDonald's representations will, of course, regard them as unquestioned facts, his being a minister of then' own and I of another denomination, and the matters being of Baptist interest, will, from their natural and strong bias, strengthen that conviction. I stated in my last communication that a former reply of mine to a previous anonymous communication in the Canadian leo APPENDIX. Baptist was admitted, but uader peculiar difficulties, which I will thank you to allow me now to explain. I get several papers of different names weekly, and for vears, without an issue not oomins: duly to hand. Since last fall I happen to be a subscriber to the Canadian Baptitt^ and always received my copy weekly at the usual time till that of March 2nd, which was not forwarded to me tcora the Canadian Baptist office. I was not aware then that the editor had received immediately before this a communi- cation from a Baptist correspondent here, in which myself by name, figured prominently, and so looked on the non-arrival of copy, though unusual, as accidental. The next issue, however, (of March 9) did not come to hand either, although on both occasions I learned the copies for the Baptist subscribers had come as usual. Considering that several communications from the Baptist side had recently been appearing in local papers at some distance from here, highly charged with gross misrepre- sentations to those who did not know the matters, to relieve the unhappiness felt by that side at their ill-success in meetings here in January and December, I suspected there might be something of this nature at the bottom of the non-forwarding of my copies. I consequently sent a card to the editor, requesting him to rectify for the future, and to send me the two back numbers that had not come. A week afterwards I received these, when, lo, in the last one was an article of one and a half columns, full from beginning to end of the most unscrupulous misrepresentations of facts, in which by name perpetually I* was presented in a very odious light. Of these, nine were direct, the things alleged having been neither said nor done by me, literally or virtually. Other six were gross misrepresentations, by concealment of facts well known to every one here, and by distortions in what is stated. The w jole was prepared by no novice in the art, with much care to get in as much into the space as possible. The reception and publication of this, seemed now to have been t7ie reason, in the circumstances, why the issue containing it was not sent to me. If I did not see that issue, I would not see and so would not reply to that com- munication, and the Baptist readers would get the benefit of it, in that case, as an account not called in question. Even when one of another denomination should reply to a Baptist's misstate- ments, they will be incUned to trust to the veracity of their own representative and his more agreeable affirmations. How much more when then there is no contrary account ? In rm-al districts in particular it is very rare if ever that any is a sub- scriber to that paper except Baptists. Of course this is nowhere better known than in the C. B. office. Such is the case here. Baptists would not inform me of it, and if I had not had my attention drawn to other local communications before (of which the Canadian Baptist office away in Toronto would know APPENDIX. 161 nothing), I would easily not have thought of oaring so much for the copies that did not come as to send for the back nimibers. In any case a delay of reply was certain, and might be con- siderable, and in these matters, likely to render it useless, as past date, though the misrepresentations would leave their mapression. Having first seen the article on the 16th, I mailed a reply on the 18th ; I also wrote a friend in Toronto the circumstances mentioned, expressing my apprehension of the Editor's adopt- ing a poUcy of now delaying its publication as long as possibJe^ and requesting him should it not appear in the first issue (on the 23rd), to call on and ask the Editor when he intended to insert it. This he did and informed me that he said it was not received in time for that week's issue, and was afraid it would be crowded out of the next by matter in type, (so much in type ten days before for a weekly paper I) but in the issue after that I was to expect it. He mentioned further that the Editor explained as the reason of my copies not being sent, that my name had accidentally fallen out oiihe printed mailing list of subscribers, but was reinserted when I wrote him. Just fancy a subscriber's name falling out of a printed list, long before his subscription time terminated, accidentally too, and just at the time, and no other, when a vilifying communication in Baptist interests bad appeared against him. Meanwhile on that same 23rd, the fourth day after my reply had come to bis hand, he published a second series of vilifica- tions of myself, etc., this time from the Eev. Mr. McDonald^ winch as it alluded to the communication of the 9th, could only have been a short time in his hands ; while my reply to the first was apparently not to see the light before the 6th April, a month after the first one appeared. At the same tardy rate (diiferent from the measure to the Baptist assailants, who as yet had it all their own way) should I next reply to Mr. McD's, it would not be seen till about May, if at all. Honourable editors make room at once for defences from personal accusations made in their colmnns ; but here the C. B. ofi&ce first directly causes by its own action delay of my reply (no thanks to it if it was not greater), and now that it is forwarded, means to take its time though the accusations were particularly flagrant in number and natm'e. In these circumstances I at once wrote a brief communication to the Editor, expressing my disappoint- ment at the so long proposed postponement, referred to the copies not coming to me as singular, and requested him if he could not publish mine in next issue to publish this short one meanwhile. In the next issue, however, (the 30th) my first now appeared, not the shcfrt one. Three days after that I mailed my reply to the Bev. P. McDonald's, with what result your readers have been already informed ; also the same day n 1Q2 APPENDIX. (about three weeks later) that my friend called to ask if he meant to publish it and was told, No ; he published a third reflecting on me from another Baptist correspondent ; to which of course it was useless to reply after the refiisal of my last. My friend's words in note to me on that refusal are in full as foUows — (The Editor of the 0. B.,) " Mr. Muirsays that as there is now no question of fact, but merely of opinion, it is useless to continue the controversy. He inserted an acknowledgment of having received it, he says, in last issue, and thinks that is enough." Here, besides stating it does not deal with /ac^«, he refers to the length of time "the controversy" had been in his paper, and makes that an exoute for the aupprenlon. Bo the policy of delaying my preparation of my first reply (If not pre- venting it altogether), and then of its publication, is made serviceable in not allowing me to defend myself from new mis- representations. Only two days after I saw the first of 0th March, my reply to it was mailed, and the 3rd day after that was published I sent him my second. So the delaying has been all his, and I have got but one reply to one communica- tion, and none to the others that followed. Such are the Editor and Baptist correspondence of the Cana- dian Baptist; such the matter and manner in which their unsuspecting readers are confirmed in their distinctive Baptist ideas, and prejudiced to dislike and despise infant- baptists and "baby sprinkling;" and such are examples of the way other denominations are vilified and gagged as far as may be. 8ed magna est Veritas et prevalehit. " Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up." Hoping the nature of the matters disclosed will excuse the lengthened occupation of your space, I um, dear sir, yours respectfully, John Bethune. Chesley, 8th May, 1876. The writer of the communication signed "M." in the Cana- dian Baptist of 9th March, referred to just now in mine to the British American Presbyterian, I privately learned to have been Duncan McGillivray, a zealous Baptist here of middle age, and of great religious profession. Meeting him after- wards he acknowledged to my inquiry that he was its author. I will give you some specimens from it of his method «f advancing his cause. — 1. Eeferring to my criticism of the article in the Canadian Baptist of 28th Oct. last, at the meeting of my lecture on Confessions of Faith, he states that I ** strung some quotations from the article together, in such a way, as to make the writer say that the Presbyterian church was a huge mass of hollow rottenness." APPENDIX. 16d That is to say, I greatly misrepresented that writer, who, it is implied by this, said nothing of the kind. Now let my reader turn again to the preface of this treatise (page ix.), where he will see the quotation containing those words " a huge mass of hollow rottenness" and others no better, with their connections, and judge whether I misrepresented. — 2. At that meeting of mine I refrained throughout from any reference whatever to the subject of Baptism, as all the large audience well know, but confined myself solely to ' Confessions of Faith.' (And Eev. Mr. Games while ** fearlessly " and zealously pressing his lews of Baptism and our degeneracy for the past three months, had as yet received on it no word of opposition.) Yet D. McG., irj his aoootwt of my lectyre, after one sentence, to represent wnat 1 8fti/1 on the Westminster Confession, adds, that I " also maintained that the Baptists li&yp not a claim to the name (Baptists) exclusively, as he (Mr, fiethune) claimed that the Presbytoiiftns were Baptists." He tiifm continues, ** On the following evening in the Bftptist church, the Eev. P. McDonald, who was present on the occasion of the lecture, reviewed the Confession," and " dwelt at some length on Baptism." Now besides that he was aware I had not touched on Baptism, as he was present, he also heard me that next evening complain that while we had all been invited to hear only a review of my lecture on Confessions of Faith and the C. B. article, we were getting instead a controversial lecture on Baptism, on which I had not spoken at all. The people also he knew, were dissatis- fied, among the several other scandals of that evening, with this unbecoming breach of faith. He, however, by this invention about my having discussed that question makes Rev. P. McDonald appear justified by my example. Six weeks after that, viz. 27th Jan., at the very beginning of my Lecture on Infant Baptism (see p. 1), I made that claim about the name of Baptist (he being present), and this he coolly transfers away back to the meeting of 16th December. — 8. Of a discourse on Sabbath, 23rd January, in his own church, he relates, '' This sermon touched Mr. Bethune in a very tender place, as he could not refrain from calling aloud for the name of the book from which the quotations (from Paedobaptist writers) were read." By tiiis he obviously intended the readers of the Canadian 164 APPENDIX. • / Baptist to understand that I had so "called aloud " during the delivery of the " sermon," when those quotations were read, and was very irreverent and boisterous. I will give now the matter exactly as it occurred. After Mr. G. had closed his meeting by pronouncing the benediction, and when the people were all on their feet and going out at the door, I went forward to him and respectfully said that I would thank him for the name of that book. Gompara now the facts with his account I — 4. Having been refused the name of the book in question, (and Bev. P. McDonald having refused me on the 17th December that of the one he used similarly,) I resolved now to give an exposure of their misquotations, in connection with my already inti- mated lecture on the early history of infant baptism on the following Thursday evening ; and put up a bill to that effect in the village. After quoting that bill Duncan McG. goes on to relate of my lecture, ** The only part of the above • bill of fare ' that the reverend gentleman fulfilled, after exhausting about) forty-five minutes in personal abuse of Mr. Games, was the first item, viz.; — the early history of infant baptism." That is to say, I neither showed nor attempted to show any misquotations of Paedobaptist writers, but entu-ely occupied the time instead before begin- ning the " history of infant baptism " with abuse of Mr. G.; and this of course (as the Baptist readers were to infer} because no misquotations could be shown. Now that lecture my readers have in the first part of this book. If you will please turn back to it, (p. 12 to 86,) you will see again the large number I brought out in regard to Baxter, Wesley, Clarke, Matthew Henry, Dwight, Doddridge, the Greek Church, etc. All these were shown before entering on the "history;" so that the forty-five minutes were occupied largely with somethings more than Mr. C, 5-7. Immediately after that statement, about my lecture, he next describes Mr. Games' reply to it on the following Wednesday evening in the Baptist Church, of which he relates : '* Mr. Games had shown where all this animus came from, by reading from Dr. Cramp's History the follow- ing." Here he gives a long quotation from Dr. C. about the intolerance, 200 years ago, of the Presbyterian Clergy, Scottish Parliament, and the ' Solemn League and Covenant. ' After which he added, (note this !) "He, Mr. Carnes, read APPENDIX 165 from the Confession of Faith on the same subject (whioh,by the way, Mr. Bethune denied to be the Westminster ConteBBion, to which he subscribed, but when shown to hivu in private afterwards he acknowledged his error)." The cool audacity of the gross falsehood after falsehood in the above is as* tonishing ! The facts were these : Mr. "Barnes, in his difficulties, devoted that evening chiefly to raking up material from Cramp, etc., to shew the persecuting spirit of Presbyterians past and present. After reading that portion referred to from Cramp, he next told the audience he would nowreadthem apart of the Westminster confession, that I had subscribed to, vowed to teach, etc. , in which they would see taught there the intolerance Cramp referred to. After be had read a few lines, I (being present) rose and said : " That is not the Westminster Confession you are reading, but ' The Solemn League and Covenant,' which is a quite different document, and was not subscribed to by me, nor is a document of our church at all." He affirmed in reply that it was the Westminster Confession. I re- quested him to hand it to me and I would show it was not. He at first would not give it to me, but after sorae man- oeuvring on his part I went up beside him, got it, and showed it to the audience to be as I had said. He then maintained that the ' Solemn League and Covenant ' was a part of the Westminster Confession ! While all who know anything of these matters know that it is not ; and that the Eeformed Presbyterians are the only denomination of all Presbyter- ians who subscribe that document, and hence are called " Covenanters " to distinguish them from us and others. Besides, that same evening I showed him, and the audience, the Westminster Confession itself, — another document. Yet, though all this was witnessed by hundreds, and it has never yet been denied that what he read was the * Solemn League and Covenant,' D. McG., a month after- wards relates: That I denied The Westminster Confession to be the Westminster Confession. And to make this be- yond all controversy adds that I "in private afterwards acknowledged I was in error in denying that what he read from was that Confession!" In "private" or public I never thought of, or acknowledged any such thing. But D. McG. does not mention at all that it was the Solemn League and Covenant, Mr. 0. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 1.1 B5.0 mHB^H m JM 12.2 w 12^ Mil — 6" Photographic Sciences Ckirporation 23 WIST MAIN STRUT WnSTIR.N.Y. 14510 (716)t72-4S03 .. y ^ ^. r<\^ <^ 196 APPENDIX. rqad. To specify that document and tell the truth woidd have spoiled his object. Besides these yarious misrepre- sentations of his I have referred to, there are several others in that communication of li!:e nature. For instance, one remarkable feature of the meeting just mentioned wa» the fact that, and the remarkable manner in which Mr. G. intimated at the beginning that I would be allowed no reply J and that when he did so again, towards the close, the whole meeting, excepting a very small proportion, rose up and retired from the church in a body, while he was speaking. Yet D. McG. represents me as making a lengthened reply, and specifies the< topics also, which he transfers from my own meeting of the previous ThurHday, (and not without gross misrepresentations of them also,) then returning, further on, to this subject he repeats of this meeting of Mr. Games', " On the Wednesday even- ing he (Mr. Bethune) concludes a long address with the fol- lowing appeal." He then ascrib<3s to me words I nmther expressed on that, nor on any Wednesday evening, nor at that or any other meeting ! He concludes his account by expressing the hope that some here "may ultimately realize that they are saved by faith and not 'by p'ay- ing.'" The last two words he puts between quotation commas, and are an allusion to Mr. Garnes's v^octrine that salvation is not to be prayed for ; and, conE>idering the connection, insinuate the untruth that I teach that 'they are saved by prayer without faith.' Now. let my readers recollect that hundreds here — of my own congregation, and others — will read these statements of mine, who were eye- witnesses of all the facts referred to, and know what is true of them, and would cease to respect me were I to state falsehood. I don't write with a fictitious signature like " M." under which D. McG. concealed himself. 11. In the Bruce Reporter of Kincardine (a local paper forty miles distant) there appeared two lengtny communications from here, on tiie 8rd and 17th of February, respectively, full of misrepresentations of the same nature as those just explained. A reply from me' appeared in its issue of the APPENDIX. 167 9tfa of March, pointixig out some of the more flagrant. In the end of the same month a short one appeared frorA Dnucan MoGillivray (but not with his personsd signature), in which, after a sophistical reference to a statemenc in mine, he concluded by asking his readers to consider the arrogance of the man (myself) " who signs himself * the Presbyterian Minister of Ghesley,' while there is another Presbyterian minister here, who attends to his own busi- ness, and preaches his own sermons." The other minister referred to, I may say, belongs to the United Presbyterian denomination of the United States, and was not here till some time after this correspondence in that paper began. On the occasion already mentioned, when I met D. McG., and heard from himself, in answer to my inquiry, that he was also the author of the commjonication in the Canadian Baptist, I repeated the above quotation, and said to him, ** When you sent that to the Bruce Reporter you knew well that the other Presbyterian minister came here only two or three weeks before you wrote, and that when I wrote my communication to it previously, there was no Presby- terian minister here but myself, then or before ; also ihat, in those letters to which mine was a reply, I was spoken of under that title, as the Presbyterian minister here. Of this you mentioned nothing, but wrote to produce the impression that another Presbyterian minister was here all along, and that I in arrogance, ignored his presence. Yet you knew perfectly this was not the case. How could you make such a statement I wish to know ? ' To this he replied with a smile and silence. 1 pressed him on the meanness and sin of such conduct and his reUgious profes- sion. Still he said not a word. (Observe also what himself had written a few weeks earlier in the beginning of his communication in the Canadian Baptist. Referring to the " discussion " he was about to relate, he said as follows, — *' It arose between the Presbyterian minister of this place, on the one hand, and the Baptist minister on the other." It happened also that this appeared in the 0. B., and mine in the Bruce Reporter each on the same date, 9th March.) I said to him further, ' You also added that that other minister " attends to his own business and preaches his own sermons," by which you plainly meant your readers to under- itand that I don't do these things. Now I want to know 168 APPENDIX. what gronndB yon have for Baying that I don't preach my own sermons ?' He gave no answer. I pressed him for one, referring to the hasoness of his spirit that could deliberately fabricate and give out to the many readers of a news- paper such a slander in hope by such means to aid his Baptist cause ! He then answered : "I did not say you did not preach your own sermons." This answer I pointed out was a mere evasioi: of the words he used, which he evidently intended to convey that meaning, and would certainly be so understood., A word more, however, on the subject he would not say ; and that simply because he had no grounds for the statement, which was as entire a fabrication as the other about my signature, and his many others a few weeks earlier in the Canadian Baptist. I have now exhibited specimens of Bev. Mr. McDonald's and Mr. McGillivray's methods of aiding their cause when in difficulties, of covering up the deficiencies of their own side of things, misrepresenting those they oppose, and trying to make the worse appear the better by the un- christian genius of bearing unwearied false- witness ; also their Church paper's methods of assisting the same un- hallowed policy by freely circulating such misrepresenta- tions to its readers, at the same time quietly, at the right time for concealment, keeping back our subscription copy containing these, and afterwards refusing to publish our self-defence and true account, on the pretext that our account of the facts was merely our " opinion " of what we and the others did or did not say and do 1 In the interest of true religion and public morality I have also brought out the real names of those who have so acted, as many have so little of the fear of God and regard for truth (with profession of much zeal for it) as willingly to go any length in false-witness under cover of concealment, as fictitious signatures, who would be more careful if their names were given as publicly as the names they give without stint or delicacy of those against whom they say all manner of evil falsely. Many of my readers know the facts in question and can judge the merits for themselves. Nor have I given of those communications more than one half of their misrepresentations, as all would take up too much space. But besides these there were several other letters of like i^PSNDIX. 169 kind, all of which with one exception (of a mingled nature) were of similar character, and all but one in papers which have few or no readiBrs here. Five appeared in the Bruce Reporter, Kincardine, all the way, in tiie neigh- hourhood of which are many Baptists. To the readers of that paper the people here, not Baptists, were described {without personal signature as usual) as " the great un- washed," — an expretaion applied to the scum of cities; though it is but true to say they will compare favorably for respectability of character and behaviour with any township in the Province. Of our meetings in December they were told that tne Baptist ministers " overthrew the Presbyterian minister's Confessions of Faith, the paternity of which he wm dnodoua to ascribe to the Baptist Church ! *' And that in the meeting on the 2nd February the Baptist minister "read out a part of the Westminster Confession of Faith ; " that I then " got up and denied that as the Gonfession of Faith, and explained that it was the Shorter and Longer Catechism," etc. I This is the incident about the " Solemn League and Covenant," about which the wrher (Hke D. McGillivray, three weeks later in the Canadian Baptist) did not give a whisper. Such is the style throughout. Among the rest they were informed of my character that where I was stationed before, |)he people there "wore excited against me on account of an i£o- syncrasy with a female Sunday school class of mine." Satan could not devise a more complete falsehood than this. In the first place, I had no female or other "Sun- day " or week day class ; and next, there never has been, in my hfetime, anywhere, any excitement or complaint against me, in private or public, for any impiropriety with or towards females, less or more. III. In the beginning of February an incident occurred I will now notice.* On the 4th of that month there appeared in the Telescope of Walkerton, a reply from me to a com- munication there the week before from its local corres- pondent here — a Baptist — who referring to our meetings in December, while admittiug that the Baptist ministers' w 1»7i 70 APPENDIX. acted " disgraoefully," felt disposed to ascribe to me, without reason, a share in that blame. I explained the facts, and among other details remarked as follows : — *' Different leading Baptists have distinctly told me that they could find no fault with my spirit or conduct at either meeting, but were ashamed of tiieir own ministers." The end of the week following, a short letter, signed by " Donald McGregor, clerk of Baptist church," and " B. F. Atkinson, chairman of meeting," appeared in three local papers, and afterwards in a fourth, stating that at a meet- mg of their church that statement of mine, quoted above, was brought forward, and it continued : "A committee was appointed to investigate the matter, but the minister of the Presbyterian church would not give the names of any of the parties he says told him so. Now we as a church emphatically deny and repudiate the same en- tirely." ' Well, be it so, but that did not alter the fact. However I will now explain a little on this of details. In the begin- ning of that week two men called on me at my house whom I did not know, but on inquiry learned their names, one of which was Mr. Atkinson, the same, I suppose, whose sig- nature appeared to that letter. And note this. Neither of them stated or hinted in any way that they were a com- mittee or sent by any to me ; which surely in their duty as a deputation, and if they wished to succeed, they should have done ; but they appeared only to have come of their own individual option. Also Mr. Atkinson, who was the speaker, was so very rude that twice I Informed him that unless he were more civil in his behaviour our interview would close. Had the desire been that I would refuse the names that they might publish that, they could not have, in the nature of the case, adopted a course more likely to succeed in this. I told them that what I had stated in the Telescope was absolutely true, but that I did not consider I ought to give those parties' names to any who chose to ask me ; that their motive in asking them, I believed, could only be to show them hostility, not for saying what was untoue ; for their ministers' conduct on the occasion was in everybody's mouth ; but for disclosing their feelings on the subject to me. And I added that it must be very difficult to make them (my visitors) ashamed, if they were not them- r fi APPENDIX. 171 selves ashamed of their ministers' hehayionr. This last sentence I again repeated, and then they each said they were not present at the meeting (17th Deo.). Bo those deputed to call on me were two who did not personally know the facte in qaestion. One of my elders, Mr. J. McL., happening to be with me on a casual visit, was present at this interview, and knows the accuracy of this account. I must add another feature, for which I am sorry, as from my Uttle personal acquaintance and what I had heard of the Baptist brother concerned in it, I had a heart regard for him, and still have, as I believe he acted through fear (yet sinfully), and would not have done it had he been free from that temptation. Of his name I will therefore mean- while just mention the first part. Not long aftsr the December meetings, A. being in the village, I happened to see him and we conversed about them. He then voluntarily expressed to me those words referred to. The week after that letter appeared on this subject, I met him again in the village, and the foUowing conversation occurred between us. I inquired if he was present at the meeting in ^he -Baptist Church last week, that sent that letter to the papers. He answered, yes. I asked him if hs voted for that letter. He said, he did. I then said, " And how could you do so, Archibald, when you knew that yourself for one had made that statement to me, which it denied ? " He inquired when he said so ; and I reminded him of the time and place. He replied, " Mr. Bethune, I told you at the time I was dull of hearing. I did not hear the half of what you said." I said, ' ' Yes, you said so ; but I am not referring to what I said but what you said yourself. Now, Archibald, did you not say these words to me ? " He answered, " Mr. Bethune, I did not hear the half of what you said ; I was cold and I am dull of hearing." I replied again, " I am not asking you about what I said, but what you said yourself. You would surely hear yourself. Tell me, now, did you not say so ? " He replied, " Mr. Bethune, upon my word I did not hear the hall of what you said." To which I answered, " That will do, Archibald ; you know you said so, and you have not the heart to deny it. You are always evading my question. I am not askmg what I said to you, which you might not hear well, but what you said to me. You heard of course 172 APPENDIX. what yoQ said yourself; but you don't want to t>v,'n it now after voting for that letter." So much for one of those I had referred to. The above faithful narrative on the actual merits of that letter in question shows how a man's veracity can be called in question without cause ; aU the more inexcusable in this case as the scandalous conduct it sought to cover from those who had not seen it, and, by implication, to insinuate as a fabrication of ours, was so extraordinary and outrageous as in the whole community who saw it—Baptists as well as others — there was and only could be but one opinion, that it was a very great scandal and disgrace. Many with myself felt ashamed of it for the discredit it was fitted to bring on the Christian religion in general. I don't expect ever to see its like again. At least we sincerely hope so. It is a pleasure to us that both of the meetings in our own church, whidh were very largely attended, were in quietness and order all that could be desired, and that while we spoke plainly we were careful to show all courtesy and fairness. > IV. The last of the letters referred to, which I have seen, appeared in the Canadian Baptist, of 20th April, from the Eev. Mr. McNeill of Paisley, or on the same day that as already explained my reply to the Bev. Mr. McDonald's was refused publication there ; by which any other replies I might be inclined to send in self-defence, were of course equally excluded. Mr. McN's. was in correction of a state- ment of mine about himself in a previous issue. D. McG. in his of the 9th March, among its other things had repre- sented me as saying about Mr. McN. at a meeting here, what was as different in nature and words from what I had said, as night is from day, and in my reply I corrected that point by stating what I did say. At the meeting in ques- tion among other illustrations of unworthy modes of prose- lytism, I mentioned one as recently related to me by a person who was the subject of it, and whom, as she bore a respectable character, I believed. She afterwards again verified to me its correctness. Mr. McN. however in his letter denied it fully, and explained the facts. Besides this, APPENDIX. 173 he said, " I hold Mr. Bethune responsible for it all, not the ▼onng woman;" that is, that I invented the whole myself t To impress his readers that I was very active in seeking to injure him in the matter, he stated that I ** pubhshed it in one of the Walkerton papers," etc., and he "cannot imagine where or when I am going to end it." I published it in no Walkerton or any other paper or place, but only as above mentioned. Now suppose of that misstatement of his, I were to follow his example and say, ' I hold him re- sponsible for it all, not anyone else ?' But I will not be so unjmt, as I presume he has been wrongly informed, and, beUeving it, has repeated it to his readers of me as true. He further describes me to them as one who " sanctimo- niously subscribes himself, ' The Presbyterian Minister of Ghesley;'" and remarks that he "had no apprehension that the charges would to any serious extent damage his reputation, considering especially their source;*' that is, con- sidering especially what kind of a person I am known to be. Such and other like language he has chosen to use of a minister of whom he knows Uttle, and against whose personal character he certainly never knew anything un- principled, though not without its share, doubtless, of the imperfections common to all Christians. To such state- ments I make no reply, but that I have no doubt they .will be regarded as quite inapplicable and improper b^^ all around who know us, with all our shortcomings, x^hat statement of mine, however, I am free to say in the inter- ests of truth and justice, I regard as in the first place an indiscretion on my part. Being on the subject of proselytism, (of unworthy methods of which I knew a good many genuine instances of different places, and who does not?) I related this in a moment of warmth, simply from happening to have been informed of it but two weeks before by one I deemed trustworthy, which was therefore fresh in my mind. I had before in the Baptist church (17th Dec), mentioned another instance of a fla- grant kind in our immediate neighbourhood, the principle actor of it being present, (who smiled as it was referred to,) which has not been denied. It also was known to me only by testimony, (on which we must depend entirely for much of our knowledge,) but was not strictly private. The case in question, however, being of a private conversation, had II 174 APPENDIX. in its nature only one witness. Yet from this circumstance, if denied, it could not.be satisfactorily established however true ; and there was the possibility of its not being correct after all, and of doing injustice. The Scripture rule is dearly the only safe one, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established." But also from Mr. McNiell's explanation of the facts, which looked like the truth and from subsequent corroboration, it seems to me I have been misled, and that he has been really misre* presented in that matter; which I sincerely and much regret. And I now take the first suitable opportunity I have had of acknowledging this and much more widely than the statement complained of, including those, doubt- less, to whom it was first made. All^ough, however, from the action of the Canadian Baptist Editor in then excluding my replies, who of course knew nothing of how far the communications he did publish were true or untrue ; and from the grossly unwarrantable abuse Mr. McN. chose to add over and above his own defence there, I might fairly not have noticed the matter here ; as certainly he unjustly said, and to those who would too readily believe all, much more unworthy things of me than my statement contained of him. I may here repeat its burden, which was, viz., " that after the young woman in answer to his inquiry had said that she did not consider herself converted yet, he then asked her if she was not thinking of joining the church ' (his own church by immersion understood), adding, that she knew if she wished the blessing she must use the means." Besides the specimens from his letter already given, he also remarked that he could " scarcely believe nature so bad that she could invent or make such mis- statements except they were elicited" by " uhe solicitations of her minister." In other words that I " solicited " her to "invent" false statements! What a man, what a minister must his Baptist readers suppose us to be, — capa- ble of such conduct! From the different epithets, etc., used by him, it will be sisen that my chastiser has wielded a heavy club, felling down his unfortunate Infant Baptist brother to the groimd with every stroke ; but whether in the spirit of the divine exhortation, <* Bender to no man evil for evil," and of Him "who when he was reviled re- viled not again," we leave him and others to judge. It ▲PPUNDIX. 175 will be Been from this oBse, howeTer, that to misrepresent a Baptist, however nnintentionally, and fall into his power Vy an indisoretion, is a very serious matter in praotioe. Chi the other hand what shall we think of the nnmberlesi misrepresentationB of every kind of ns, intentionally heaped from that side by those who nnquestionably knew better ? But Mr. McN. perhaps from a habit of speaking strongly where the question of Baptism is oonoerned, (which is 3ie case with many) against Infant Baptists, and strongly sen- sitive where himself is misrepresented, may not have meant all that his words convey, or would not use them in calmer mind. To that we are all too liable. I do not know him personally, but frx>m, what I have heard of him, I yet incline to respect him withal. In this case I believe he has received some provocation, and forgive him, all the more readily on that account; what he has said amiss of me. His, and now my references to the case may do us both good, and others, in making us more careful of what we say and do. My exhibition of the proceeding letters may do some good similarly, as well as otherwise ; though it is to be expected that dishonest unscrupulous spirits will go on purposely misrepresenting where it may best serve tibeir object, especially so long as the practice, of highly immoral tendency, prevails, of Editors' publishing commu- nications with personal accusations without the personal signature of the writers, which allows and therefore attracts such spirits to take advantage of the opportunities thus afforded without fear of being made answerable personally. And this will be all the more indulged in where in addition it is found that replies in correction and defence from the accused do not appear; because quietly kept back by editors more influenced by party sectariaa policy than re- gard for truth and justice between man and man. But apart from this case the practice of unworthy me- thods of proselytism is notorious all over the country ; on which the first half of this book gives some evidence in the argumentative line, and the appendices, etc., in others ; with which the extracts from Bunyan, in the preface, of the practice in his times quite agree. In these appendices local matters have been dwelt on, which while they have their own instruction and value on N. M 176 APPENDIX. the general question, yet do not themselves decide its merits. They show, indeed, what a man may expeot, who eye£ on a small scale and in oircnmstances that call much for it, endeavours, however respectfully in manner, to defend what we helieve the truth in opposition to their ideas. The more successful he may be in this, he may expect to fare the harder, judging nrom our experience, which by the way is not uncommon. But on the general question we have set before you evidence from a wider area, viz., the systematic misreprcbentation in books issued by the central Publication Societies of the Baptist Church in Canada, the United States, etc., from one generation to another, with the his- torical evidence on the subject, etc., we have laid before you of the genuine facts from Baptist and other sources. For my own part, I can conscientiously say, I have not intentionally misrepresented throughout all our proceed- ings any person or thing. And I may add : if any of my- readers, at hand, vho have ncj the books quoted from in this treatise, desire to see them for verification, and call on me, I wUl be happy to afford the facility. May the Lord bless all in every denomination who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity; and add to their number constantly, the happy time, when all his people will see eye to eye, and he will have healed the breaches of Zion ; may it come quickly ! Amen. Meanwhile, let Christians seek more and more grace from above to obey the divine exhortation to all his people: " Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil-speaking, be put 8 way &om among you, with all malice ; and be ye kind one to another, tender- hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven you." blissful heaven, where there is no sin within nor around, but the rest that remaineth for tiie people of God ! Eeader, are you on your way thither ? If not, strive to enter in at the strait gate to it. Jesus is both the door and the way. BeUeve on, take up thy cross, and follow Him. FINIS. »»