.0^ \% %> IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 ;«4f. !||||M iSO " II 2.-5 132 " " II 2.2 1.4 1.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 877.-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical iVIicroreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographicaily unique, which may alter any of the images in the reprocuction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. Coloured covers/ Couverture dn couleur r~71 Covers damaged/ D D y D D Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul6e I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bounce with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans !e texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires: L'Institut a microfilmd-le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m4thode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. D D D D □ D D Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou peliicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^color^es, tachet6es ou piqu^es Pages detached/ Pages detach^es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Quality in^gale de I'impression I I includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film^es cl nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film^ au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. IPX 14X 18X 22X I I m \ \ I \ 26X SOX 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Library Dalhousie University L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Library Dalhousie University The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping wiih the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformit4 avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page wiih a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed o; illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont film^s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soi: par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commengant par la ptemidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^> (meaning "CON- TINUED '), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon ie cas: le symbole -^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method; Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film^s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop gr. nd pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en baa, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 l&Z.'O n ■H \ BAPTISM: AN M.< ARGUMENT AND A XTl JUi X"^ X-j I • B-sr REV. C. GOODSPEED, A. M YARMOUTH, N. g. -I SAINT JOHN. N. B. CAN PRINTED AT THE DAILY TKLEORAPH JOB ROOMS' BM iai)2. C. A. FLINT & CO. Importer! of and Wholeiale andBetail Dealers in I -AND- FANCY GOODS, MAIN STREET, - YARMOUTH, N. S. 1882. FALL ANNOUNCEMENT. 1882. Our importations for this year vv^ill be unusually fine, and as the stock Avill be personally selected in the- best American and English Markets, we can safely defy competition. XMAS AND NEW YEAR GOODS! Our selection lias in, jgast years been universally aeknowl%?aged to be the finest in the city, and we can assure our patrons that this year v^e ^vill surpass all former Exhibitions. K^HO OLD STOCK IN THESE OOODS.^ E. A.. JPLIIVT & OO. Opp. Hotel Lorne. ). I im m Y , N. S. 1882. stock ebest s> we mi been >e the Lssure will !0. Lome. §i'- f •\ 'r^ OjO^ii^^lMM^^ ^ ^^>r ^..'j) t3all)ini$ic CoUcac Hilmtrii JOHN JAMES STEWART COLLECTION For Library Use Only. -I ^^m ■P *mmii BAPTISM AN kRGUMENT AND A REPLY. ,V STZ" REV. C. GOODSPEED, A. M. YARMOUTH, N. S. ■.#% SAINT JOHN, N. B. FRIKTEI> AT THE DAILY TELEORArH JOB ROOMS. 1882, „«■ ■^^^^■iW» ^/7G - ■JU4.JU Ij-t/di \ "'.t> ' i -J, ■ .', r . PREFACE. h 1 ; 'T^WO year.s bince, 1 was induced to reply to a pamphlet by l\ev. W. A. McKay. This gontlcinan has since issued a revised and enlarged edition of his work, to wliich he suhjoins an answer tc my review. This is being scattered broadcast. It contains all the points which are made to do popular service in the interest of affusion and infant baptism. It contains also many statements which require correction. Sf^ I have felt con- strained, much against my present inclination, I confess, to prepare this leply. Attention has also been given to "Baptisma" by Rev. J. Lathern, where its positions have not been fully met by the course of the general argument. As I seek both to reply to these gentlemen, and carry forward an argument for the Baptist view of the mode and subjects of baptism, the treatment cannot be so compact as could be wished. Special attention is called to the foot notes and addenda. Where it is possible, the reader of this pamphlet should also read those to which I reply, so that he may consider both sides fairly. I can only add a hope that these pages may' not be mad? the occasion for bitter- ness of feeling by any, but may be of service to the truth, and express a wish for the time to come, when candid discussion of disputed points may cause no abatement of the warmth of that christian fellowship which should exist between all who arc fol- lowers of the same Lord. -$- o ^ ^ 19 U> <^ --it: ■li f V Chap. I.- Chap. II.- Chap. IIL- ClIAP. IV.- Chap. V.- Chap. VI.- CllAP. VII.- CiiAP. L- ClIAP. II.- Chap. III.- TAI5LE OF (CONTENTS. I'aut I.— MoDii OF Baptism. -Introductory, 7 — 11 -Argument from Classical usage, 12 — 23 - ■ '« " Scripture, Objections, 23—39 - " " " Proof for Immersion 39—50 - •' " " " •• •• .... 50—50 - " " Church History, 56—70 -General Summary, 70 — 73 Part II. — Slujects ok Baptism. -Infants excluded from Baptism of N. Test 74 — 84 -Evidence from the 0. Test 84—92 " Church History, 92—99 >".T y II ■ i ¥■ BAPTISM: > AN ARGUMENT AND A REPLY. ♦♦» CHAPTER I.— GENERAL INTRODUCTION. The revised edition of Mr. McKay's pamphlet differs much from the one which T reviewed some two years since. Many of the most offensive expressions have been eliminated. He has also retreated from several of the positions which my review attacked. He has not, however, confesried in a single instance, that his previous statements were so indefensible as to make it necessary to abandon them. Where he has adhered to his first position, he has, in numerous instances, so changed the wording as to make my former criticisms unintelligible. But while there are these changes which require a new answer, I regret that the same bitter spirit still manifests itself, which is always so inconsistent with the sacred worth of defending what is esteemed the truth, and which is peculiarly unseemly in one who, while taxing millions of his fellow christians with want of charity, should himself be an example of kindliness and gen- tleness. It would have been well, also, had Mr. McKay remem- bered that a resort to what is fitted to excite unreasoning prejudice against probably the largest Denomination on this Continent, must arouse the suspicion, in intelligent minds, that there is fear lest the principles of Baptists cannot be opposed by the noble weapons of truth alone. In this review there will be no retaliation in kind, neither will resort be had to the petty arts of small controvereialists. I shall, indeed, be worthy of blame, if, in dealing with the truth of God, I should forget that I profess to be a christian and a gentleman, or that brethren of all Denominations should be very dear to me as well as to '^W>r%^ 'W li m 'tu i k \ 11 1 ! la ' ijlftj n" wBrnm 1 8 lUPTISM: AN ARGUMENT AND A REPLY. my own people, because there is but one Lord and one supreme love for us all. But while this is true, it affords no reason why we should be any less strenuous in upholding the truth — nay, it is a reason why we should be more lovingly earnest to advance it. In common with some others, Mr. McKay, in his introductory remarks, declares that Baptists, in holding immersion alone to be baptism, violate christian liberty. This is very puerile. Is the question of what constitutes baptism one of christian liberty, or of interpretation of Scripture 1 To ask is to answer. Besides, Mr. McKay forgets the title of his pamphlet: "Immersion proved to be not a Scriptural Mode of Baptism." The only difference then between him and us is this. We admit no bap- tism valid unless scriptural. Tie and many others admit unscriptural baptism to be valid. r - The age is ijettiiig too enlightened, however, to be much longer i)rejudiced against us l>y ungenerous references to our Strict Conmiunion, such as Mr. McKay makes. Thoughtful men of every faith see, and candid men of every faith admit, that the principle of Pedobaptist practice at the Lord'i:; Table is fully as strict as ours. They do not receive those whom they esteem unbaptized to the Lord's Table any more than we. If they thought us unbaptized because immersed, as we them because sprinkled, they would not admit us to the Supper in their Churches any more than we them in ours. To remove all doubt here, I quote some representative utterances. Robert Hall: "They (Baptists) act precisely on the same principle with all other Christians, who assume it for granted that baptism is an essential preliminary to the reception of the Sacrament. * * * The recollection of this may suffice to rebut the ridicule and silence the clamor of those who condemn Baptists for a proceed- ing which, were they but to change their opinion on the subject of baptism, their own principles would compel them to adopt."* 3ne supreme ve should be ; is a reason lit. introductory ion alone to puerile. Is itian liberty, er. Besides, "Immersion " The only :lmit no bap- thers admit to be much ences to our Thoughtful faith admit, rd'i:; Table is whom they tian we. If IS we them e Supper in o remove all inciple with baptism is ,ment. * * * idicule and r a proceed- the subject to adopt."* baptism: an argument and a reply. 9 Dr. Hibbard, the great Methodist authority on baptism, puts it very tersely: ,.■ "It is but just to remark, that in one principle the Baptist and Pedobaptist Churches agree. They both agree in rfyect- ing from communion at the Table of the Lord, and in denying the rights of church fellowship to all who have not been bap- tized. Valid baptism they (Baptists) consider as essential to constitute visible church membership. This we (Pedobaptists) also hold. The only question, then, that here divides us is: *What is essential to valid baptism 1'"* ; . ■ The (Methodist) Western Christian Advoeate, June 11th, 1871, says: > .. . a "Nor do we doubt that the legitimate ord..i' of the sacra- ments is as our contemporay contends. Baptism very properly comes before the Lords' Supper." Dr. Dick, (Presbyterian): ,, "An uncircumcised man was not permitted to eat the ])assover, and an unbaptized man should not be permitted to partake of the Eucharist."! . The American Presbyterian: "Open communion is an absurdity when it means com- munion with the unbaptized." "Let us have unity, indeed, but not at the expense of principle; and let us not ask the Baptist to ignore, or be incon- sistent with his own doctrine. Let us not either make an outcry at his close communion, which is but faithfulness to principle, until we are prepared to be open comm unionists our- selves, from wliich stupidity, may we be forever preserved." IVie Interior, another Presbyterian paper : " We agree with them (Baptists) in saying that unbaptized persons should not partake of the Lord's Supper." The Independent, when the mouthpiece of Congregationalism : "We do not see how their (strict Baptist) principle differs from that commonly admitted and established in Presbyterian and Congregational Churches." 'Baptism, Pt. 2, p. 174. tTheol. Lect. 92. 91 10 baptism: an argument and a reply. I could give almost any number of declarations from Pedo- baptivSt authorities to the same eflect. But they are not neces- sary. Every denomination believes that baptism is prerequisite to membership in the visible Church, and that the Lord's Supper is a Church ordinance. Consistency Svith these two tenets which are embodied in the Creeds of all bodies of Christians, binds all to the strict practice. It is to be feared, however, that cor.sist- ency with their inconsistent outcry against close communion in the Baptist body, is impelling some of our Methodist brethren, especially, to disregard the teaching of their leaders in the past, and their standards in the present, and to admit the unbaptized who are out of the visible Church, to the Lord's Supper, which is within it. I have thus been at considerable pains to make it clear that there is no difference in principle between us and Pedobaptist bodies, on the question of close cou^munion. All the bitter things, therefore, which some Pedobaptists say about 'his prac- tice, apply in full force to their own denominations. Under- standing this, Mr. McKay's pointed arrows pierce his own breast. I The attempt to make the reader judge of a great denomination by the hardest expressions he can find, culled here and there from two or three of its writers, will be resented by those who have a regard for justice. The association of Baptists with Campbellites, who are their most biftter opponents, and with Christodelphians and Mormons, merely because these immerse, does not call for reply. I could as well class orthodox Pedo- baptists with Catholics and Unitarians because they happen to sprinkle. I need say nothing further about Mr. Brookman's case, tiian that, as soon as he declared his doubts as to the depravity of man, and the obligation of the Sabbath and moral law, »tc., to be beliefs, he had to leave our Denomination. Tliia pamphlet assumes that one cannot be a Christian, unless a" Church member, p. 9, and that the unbaptized are committed baptism: an argument and a reply. 11 re committed to the " unco venanted mercies of God," p. 15. Baptists do not believe tliat a man has a right to either Church laembership •or baptism, until a real Christian through faith in Christ, and we reject, with abhorence the idea that God's covenant mercy is limited by any outward form or relation. But what shall we say to the statement in the preface of this pamphlet, that Baptists put the river in place of the cross? Can any be so ignora«it of the prime principle of Baptist belief as not to know we hold that no one has a right to baptism until he has been to the cross for salvation? Do not all know that our protest has been ages long, and often written in blood, against the Pedopaptist idea that baptism comes before the cross, and possesses saving efficacy? It is our peculiar glory that we have never attached any saving efficacy to mechanical rites, bnt have viewed them as but signs of a work of grace already done in the heart.'!* It will also be news to Baptists tiiat they do not consider baptism a symbol of the Spirit's work in the soul. All men should know that we think it represents regeneration, by which we die to sin and rise to newness of life. — Rom. 6 : 3-5. The charges of "garbling" quotations, tkc. are most easily made. An opponent can always thus do something to close the minds of his unlearned readers against the force of scholarly authorities which he cannot meet, but must evade. Mr. McKay's charges are all dealt with in their place. 1 can only say here, that I have been at great pains to verify the quotations in these pages, and will challenge any one to show that I misrepresent a single author I quote. A large part of them are in my own library, which is always open to such as may wish to consult or verify authorities. But it is time to proceed to the real question in hand— the Mode of Baptism. •See my Baptist Principles. t- w 12 baptism: an argument and a reply. CHAPTER II.— CLASSICAL USAGE, Tlie words "baptize" and "baptism" are transferred from the original Greek in which the New Testament was written. If we can, therefore, find the sense in wMch these words were used by those who spoke the Greek language, we shall most assuredly know the meaning which they convey in the New Testament ; for the Scripture writers would, undoubtedly, use them in their common acceptation. For them to have used them in a differ- ent sense from that accepted })y their readers, would have been to court misunderstanding. The only case where there could be an exception to this rule, is that in which there was no word in the language to express the exact meaning to be conveyed. In this case, a word was chosen which was most nearly akin in sense to the desired meaning, and something added to its com- mon acceptation. But, as we shall show further on, there is no instance of such a case in baptism. What then was the MEANING OF THE GREEK WORD BAPTIZO. . It will save much confusion if we remember that it is only with literal baptism in water, or in a material element, that concerns us. With the figurative use of this word we have nothing to do.* What then are the facts in reference to the meaning of literal baptism in water? We have the word baptizo frequently in Greek writers, from the earliest times up to the Christian era. In all the instances of its use, there has not been found a single case where, when used of water, it was not an immersion — a burial in water, f ^Had Rev. Mr. Lathern, "Baptisma," p. 133, remembered this, he would not have taken the trouble to refer to such instances as he quotes from Dr. Dale, as, "baptized with (in) calamity"— "in sleep"— "by taxes"— "by the affairs of life"— "by grief," &c. But even in these figurative uses of the word baptize, we can see the meaning "immerse" very plainly. "Immersed in calamity," &c., conveys tho exact sense, while " sprinkled" would reduce the sense to nonsense. fBaptisma, p. 129, reference is made to Strabo, Lib. 14 ch. 3, 9. "The troops weref in the waters a whole day, baptized up to the middle," and the comment is made- " wading up to the waist a whole day^ the soldiers were baptized but not immersed."! Can Mr. Latheni not see that Strabo is careful to declare that they were baptized only| so far as they were immersed, viz., up to the middle, thus proving that immersion only| ia baptism. LY. baptism: an argument and a I;EPLY. 13 ferred from the written. If we Is were used by most assuredly 'ew Testament ; ,e them in their hem in a difFer- ould have been lere there could jre was no word to be conveyed. : nearly akin in Ided to its com- r on, there is no was the •izo. . that it is only 1 element, that word we have -eference to the lave the word arliest times up s use, there ha« )f water, it was he would not have •. Dale, as, "baptized ife"— "by ^ef,"&c. meaning' "immerse" ic, while "sprinkled" "The troops were| s comment is made— | but not immersed."! y were baptized onlyf that immersion only I The fact that there is no baptism in a material element, which is not an immersion, is so evident, that all the Standard Lexi- cographers give immerse as the literal and primary meaning of bapiizo. I hr.ve myself consulted Parkhurst, Stephanus, Maltby, Dunbar and Baker, Jones, Donnegan, Scapula, Skarlatos, Sophocles, Damm, Dunbar, Morell, Hedericus, Schevelius, Liddell and Scott, Robinson, Passow, Schneider, Post, and they all give immerse as the literal meaning of baptizo. I have also before me the definitions of Wright, Leigh, Greenfield, Suidas, Schoettgen, Laing, Bass, T. S. Green, Grove, Stokins, Schwart- zius, Mintert, Alstedius, and in no case is the primary and literal meaning of baptizo given by any other word than immerse or its equivalent. When moisten, wet, &c., are mentioned as meanings, it is always as figurative meanings. Yet our Pedo- baptist friends quote these meanings, and do not seem to remem- ber that they have no bearing on the question of the form of baptism, and if they had, that they are against sprinkling. To make this clear, I give a parallel case. Worcester defines the English word "dip," to immerse, to put into any fluid, to vjet, to engage hi. But who would say that the figurative meanings, to ivet, and to engage in, had anything to do in determining the act of dipping. And yet this is just what some Pedobaptists do in the case of baptizo. They refer to its figurative meanings to determine the act of baptism, which is altogether wide of the mark. This is indeed all they ever do in discussing the bearing of the classical use of baptizo on the question of the form of baptism. The history of the definition of baptizo in Liddell and Scott's Lexicon speaks volumes. This i^* the latest Lexicon, embodying the results of all past research. In the first edition of this great work "pour upon" was given as a meaning of baptizo. Scholars remonstrated. On the most thorough examination the learned authors found there was no authority for any such meaning, and in the later editions have left it out. ■ 14 baptism: an argument and a reply. agreed in this." Dr. Charles Anthon, whose classical scholarship was unequalled on this continent, says: "The primary meaning of the word (baptizo) is to dip oi' immerse, and its secondary meanings, if it has any, all refer in some way or other to the leading idea. Sprinkling, d-c, are entirely out of the question" Let Dr. Moses Stuart, the celebrated Congregationalist pro- fessor, testify as to the Lexicographers generally: "JSapto and Baptizo mean to dip, plunge, or immerse into anything liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are And again — "But enough, 'It is', says Augusti, (Denkw, YIL p. 216,) *a thing made out,' viz., the ancient practice of immersion. So, indeed, all the writers who have thoroughly investigated this subject conclude. I know of no one usage of ancient times which seems to be more clearly made out. I cannot see how it is possible for any candid man who examines this subject to deny this."* John Calvin : "It is not the least consequence whether the person baptized is totally immersed, and that once or thrice, or whether he is merely sprinkled by an affusion of water. This should be a matter of choice to the Churches in different regions, though the word baptize means to immerse, and it is certain that immer- sion ivas the practice of the ancient Church."^ But how does Mr. McKay, and how do others like him, seek to keep this fact that baptism in all Greek literature meant "'Mr. McKay seeks to make it appear, \x 94, that Baptist writers misrepresent Dr. Stuart's view, and charges npon them, in liis own characteristic fashion, the unscrupu- lousneas of the Jesuits. I know of no Bajitist writer who uses Dr. S's concession of anj'tliing else tlian the classical meaning of bapto and baptizo. Let him mention a case if he can. tins. IV., Ch. 15, Sec. 19, Mr. McKay takes us to task for quoting the sentence in italics, without the context. I am most hapi)y to quote the whole passage, as it show* how the Preshyterian denomination came to sprinkle rather than immerse in baptism. John Calvin took the liberty to substitute for what he declares the original baptism by immersion, the sprinkling which has prevailed in his denomination ever since. It is thus put by the Edinbiirrj Encyclopedia, "These Scottish exiles (who had returned from Geneva after the persecution by Mary) who had renounced the authority of the Pope, implicitly acknowledged the authority of Calvin ; and retuining to their own country, with John Knox at their head, in 15.59 established sprinkling in Scotland. From Scotland, this practice made its waj' into England in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized by the established Church." Art. Bap, See also Ency. Brittannica, Art. Bap. Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. pt. 2, Ch. IX. ps. 4C1 & 475, &c. I. baptism: an argument and a reply. 16 immerse, — a fact which is indisputable by all who have a repu- ition for classical scholarship worth sustaining, — from the [uowledge of his readers 1 Dr. Carson is appealed to as though he was forced to admit hat all the lexicographers were against the Baptist view, because le said he had "all the lexicographers against him in the opinion hat haptizo always signifies to dip, never expressing anything ut mode."* The facts are these, Dr. Carson in the immediate connection in which these words stand, expressly says "There is the most complete harmony among them (lexicogra])hers) in representing dip as the primary meaning of hapto and haptizo" and adds Accordingly Baptist writers have always appealed with the greatest confidence to the Lexicons even of Pedobaptist writers. On the contrary, their oponents often take refuge in a supposed sacred or spiritual use, that they may be screened from the fire of the Lexicons." The exact point at issue between Carson and the lexicographers he illustrates thus : We can say, dip the bread in wine, or moisten the bread in wine. The lexicographers say that because the bread is moistened by dipj)ing, dij) means to moisten. Dr. Carson contends that "each of the words has its own peculiar meaning which the other does not possess." So of baptism. Lexicographers, because an object is washed by immersing it in water, give wash as a meaning of haptizo. Dr. Carson contends that wash is no* a meaning of baptizo, but only the result of its action under certain circumstances. About the act of baptism there is no controversy between them and Carson : for though they give wash as a meaning of haptizo, it is always a washing by immersion in water. Now as the act of baptism is all that concerns us in the ordinance of baptism, we see how much truth there is in the statement that the lexi- cographers are against the Baptist position, according to the admission of Careon. His attempt to shew that the lexicogra- ♦Baptiam, p. 55. 16 baptism: an argument and a reply. phers are against us by direct reference to them is equally fitted to mislead. He states that certain of them give haptizo three meanings, immerse, wash, and cleanse, which is true of some of them l)ut not of all. He then declares, since washing or cleans- ing can be done in other ways than by immersing jin ol>ject in. the cleansing (ilemtmt, haptizo does not always mean to immerse. The false impression which the concealed sophistry of this state- ment is liable to make cannot be better corrected than by quoting the definitions of some of those to whom he refers. Schleusner : Bapitizo. Properly to immerse, and (I ; p in, to immerse in water. * •* * Also, because not luifrequenthj, something is wont to he immersed and dipped into icater that it might he washed, hence it denotes to perform ablution, to ivask off, to cleanse in water,* Scapula : Bnptizo. To dip, plunge into, plunge under, to overwhelm in water, wash off, cleanse, as lohen we immerse any- thing in uiater for the sake of coloring or icashing it. Parkhurst : Baptizo. 1. Dip, immerse, or plunge in water. 2. Mid. and Pass. To wash one's self, be washed, washed, I. e. the hands by immersing or dipping in ivater. The 70 use bapi- zomai. Mid. ybr wishing one!s self by immersion. - * Mr. McKay seeks to make capital out of the fact that I omitted a part from Sclileiis- ner s definition. I omitted what had no bearing on the point under consideration, as is always done. I am ylad, however, that reference has been made to this matter, as it gives an opportunity to correct a false imjjression, viz. : that Schleusner declares baptizo never means inuwerse in New Testament usage. His full definition is : "Baptizo. Properly to immerse and dip in, to immerse in water, from hapto, ami corresponds to the Hebrew taoal 2 Kin. 5: 14, in the Alex. Version, and t(i taoa in Sammachus, Ps. 6S : 5, and in an unknown writer in Ps. 9 : G. In this signification it is never used in the New Testament, but frequently in Greek writers, for exanijile, V. c. Diod. Sic. 1. c. 36, concerning the overflow of the Nile. Many land aniniivls, overtaken by the river, perished by tlie submersion." "In this signification" refers to the signification of tava, immediately preceding, viz. : to destroy by immersing. In such a signification as this, it is not found in the New Testament, but often in Greek writers, of which the case given is an instance. That this must be Schleurner's meaning, and not that baptism in the New Testament is never an immersion of any kind, is plain from his definition of Baptisma. Here it is: " Baptixma is a verbal noun from the perfect passive of the verb baptizo. 1. Properly, immersion, a dipping into water, a bathing. Hence it is transferred. 2. To the sacred rite which, pre-eminently, is called bajitism, and in which formerly they were immersed in water, that they might be obligated to the true divine religion." Here he declares that New Testament baptism was an immersion. He was too great a. scholar to deny this on the same page in his definition of baptizo. So much for this ■exposure. ^ iuptism: an argument and a reply. 17 [ually fitted (ptizo three of some of •^ or cleans- Lii object in o iinmei*se. ' this state- d than by- refers. (lip in, to frequently^ iter that it n, to loash under, to merse any- in water. ished, i. ft. use bapi- froni Selileus- leration, as is matter, as it L'lares baptizo n hapto, ami il to tava ill ifieation it is )vanii)le, V. c. Is, overtaken eoilingr, viz. : ill tlie New ee. kv Testamenfi Here it is: Properly, o the sacred re iiiuuersed as too gpreat ucli for this Alstedius : "To immerse, a?i<i tiot to icash except by conse- 4]uence." .. ■ r Schwarzius : "To baptize, to immei^se, tfec, to wash by immer- sion." Luke 11:38. Mar. 7:4. Mintert: "To baptize: properly, indeed, it signifies to plunge, to imiiierse, etc. ; but because it is common to plwnr/e or dip a thing that it ynay be wasIeJ, hence it sitjnijies to wash." The lexicographers then say — such as explain the meaning wash — that baptir:o means to wash, only as the washing is by immersion. Mr. McKay, and other controversialists like him, quietly assume, because baptism is sometimes a washing, that a washing is always a baptism however done. So they talk of a floor being washed by water poured upon it, etc., and say here is a baptism which is not an immersion. The reasoning put into a syllogism is : to baptize is to wash, to pour is to wash, therefore to baptize is to pour. The transparent fallacy of this cin be seen by a parallel case. To burn is to destroy, to drown is to destroy, therefore to burn is to drown. What cannot be proved, if such is to go for argument. There is an attempt made on p. 18, to make it appear that baj> tize cannot always mean to immerse, because the Baptist, Dr. Conant, in his ^^ Jjaptizein" takes seven words to express its meaning in the various cases of its use. Has Mr. McKay nev^er heard of synonymous v/ords? Had he given the words used by Dr. C, viz., dip, immerse, immerge, merge, submerge, plunge, in whelm, overwhelm, and stated that the two last are meanings of the figurative use of baptizo, any reader would have seen that they all convey the one meaning of covering in an element, which is all that the Baptist position demands. Mr. McK. accepts the statement of Mr. Gallaher, that "ex- cellent classical scholar," that "in every instance" quoted by Dr. Conant before the time of Christ, "the baptizing element or instrumentality is moved and put upon the person or thing baptized, never is the person put inco the element." The I i H 18 baptism: an argument and a reply. "classical scholarship" displayecl in this statement can be juclgecT of by reference to the two following cases, two of many referred to. Ex. 6. "And even if the sjK^ar falls into the sea; it is not lost : for it is compacted of both oak und pine, so that when the oaken part is immersed (baptized) by the weight, etc. Ex. 61. "The water solidifies so readily around everything that is im- mersed (baptized) into it, that they draw up salt crowns, when they let down a circle of rushes."* > Mr. ]\[cK., p 19, refers to a few instances, quoted from Dr. Dale, to shew that baptism does not mean '*to dip," in the sense of putting in a liquid and taking out again. He and others, assume that Carson used dip in this sense, and so they give passages where brtptizo means only to put under, and then speak triumi)liantly as though they had demolished the Baptist position. Dip, in the sense of both putting into, and taking out again, is- unusual. Worcester in his smaller lexicon gives no such sense. He defines it to immerge, to i)ut into any fluid." It is in this sense that Dr. Carson uses it as a definition of haptizo. Dr. Conantf gives the meaning of the word thus, "The word im- merse, as well as its synonyms immerge, kc, express the full import of the Greek word baptizein. The idea of emersion is not [included in the meaning of the Greek word. It means simply to put into or under water (or other substance) without determining whether the object immersed sinks to the bottom, or floats in the liquid, or is immediately taken out. This is determined, not by the word itself, but by the nature of the case, and by the design of the act in each particular case. A living being, put under water without intending to drown him, is of course to be immediately withdrawn from it ; and this is to be understood wherever the word is used with reference to such a case." From this quotation it can be seen how correct •i am sorry that I did not notice the clause "before the time of Christ" in the ahove, in my reply to Mr. McKay's pamphlet, and so gave two examples after our Lord's time. The above examples are before our Lords time, and answer as well. Because of tl^is* inadvertance. Mi*. I^IcK. takes occasion to charge me with wilful falsification, ps. 104, 105. tBaptizcin, p. S8, 89. ^an be juclgetl ijiiiy referred sea; it is not hat wlieii tho etc. Ex. 61. g that is ini- rowns, when ;ed from Dr. ' in the sense ) and others, so they give :l then s})eak »tist position, out again, is 3 sucli sense. It is in this aptizo. Dr. le word im- ess the full emersion is It means ice) without the bottom, ut. This is ture of the ar case. A drown him, and this is L'oference to how correct t" in the above, jur Lord's time. Because of this ioii,ps. 101,105. BAPTISM: A\ AKOUMKXT AND A REPLY. 1^ is ]\[r. McK's statement, p. 99, that my d<;finition of Ijnptism as "a covering of a person in water," is "original," and p. 100, that to give "the ground idea" of the various uses of baptizo is "what Dr. Couant does not undertake to do." It is a little amusing, however, to be told that Dr. Conant has been com- pelled to acknowledge that the Greek word hnptizo does not mean "the taking out of the water," through Dr. Dale's Classic Baptism, when Dr. Conant's work was published first, ant.!. Dr. Dale uses Dr. Conant's original researches at second hand in the composition of his Classic Baptism. 8ee p. C2. Thus we have followed Mr. MgKay, as he has made these ttemps to overturn all the Greek Lexicons, and show that, what :he scholarship of the age admits without question, that the literal meaning of baptizo is to immerse, is a mistake. It is not eveiy man who would venture upon such an attempt, but it is not always that the less instructed are the most prudent. Until at least one case of literal baptism can be found in classical usage which is other than an immersion, we can well afford to smile at such attempts as the above. The only purpose which can be served by them is to confuse those who have no independant means of knowing the truth. But what if it might be shown that in one or two cases out of hundreds bajJtizo did mean something else than immerse, would tho Scripture writers, as they wrote the word for the people, have used it in this extraordinary sense which must have )een unknown to the people generally, or in the sense in which hey were accustomed to use if? Happily, there is not even his possibility of confusion, since no one instance can be found .vhere it does not convey the meaning of immerse. We have ts use by men who lived in our Lord's time, and in the time mmediately preceding and succeeding, — by Strabo, Plutarch, iodorus Siculus, Epictetus, Demetrius, and in all their refer- nces it is an immersion and nothing else. We have its use ery frequently by Josephus, a fellcw-countryman and contem- .' ! \\ ' 20 baptism: an argument and a reply. porary of the apostles, and writing in the Hellenistic Greek used by them. The following cases will show how he used it, and how the people of Palestine would understand it : "Continually pressing down and immersing (baptizing) him while swimming, as if in sport, they did not desist till they had entirely suffocated him."* "And there, according to command, being immersed (baptized) by the Gauls in a swimming bath, he dies."t "As I also account a pilot most coAvardly who, through dread of a storm, before the blast came voluntarily submerged (bap- tized) the vessel."! Now if sprinkling or pouring were the apostolic form of bap- tism, we have to suppose the Scripture writers chose baptizo to express an act which the people knew it had never meant, while they pass by the words rantizo and cheo which always expressed these very acts. It is not enough for those who hold that sprinkling was the Scriptural baptism to attempt to show that baptizo does not always mean to immerse. They must prove that its usual meaning, at least, was to sprinkle. But this as a meaning of baptizo as Dr. Anthorn in the quotation on ]). 14, well says, is ^'out of the question." There is no way, therefore, to believe that the apostles used baptizo to enjoin the rite of sprinkling, unless we suppose they used a word which they knew the people understood to mean immerse, to enjoin sprinkling, while they ignored the word rantizo which they knew the people under- stood as expressing this very sprinkling. Those who can believe the Scripture writers guilty of such folly can hold to sprinkling if they will. I cannot believe this of them, and so I cannot believe that sprinkling, or anything but immersion, which the word invariably meant, was the baptism of the apostolic day. But some, as Mr. McKay, hide behind a supposed sacred use *'to screen themselves from the fire of the lexicons." But this is vain. 'Jewish Antiquities, Bl\. XV. Ch. 3, 3. J Jewish War, Bk. Ill, S, 5. tJewish War, Bk. I. Ch. 22, 2. LY. (llenistic Greek liow lie used it, 11(1 it : [baptizing) him ist till they had ersed (baptized) , through dread Libnierged (bap- lic form of bap- chose haptizo to er meant, while Iways expressed inkling was the mpiizo does not that its usual s a meaning of 14, well says, is , to believe that rinkling, unless Lew the people ing, while they people under- who can believe 1 to sprinkling ,nd so I cannot ion, which the postolic day. osed sacred use IIS." 2272! baptism: an argument and a reply, 21 Baptism in water is a definite act. The word to describe this act for a common purpose would serve equally well to describe it for a sacred one. Thus it was in die Old Testament, sprinklings and bathings of the law. The v/ords used to describe the sacred sprinklings .and bathings, were the words in common use to describe these acts for ordinary purposes. No word takes on a new meaning in the Bible to express a religious idea, unless there be no word already in use with that meaning. This is so in accord with fact and common sense that it needs no proof. Why make one word mean two things in order to have two words to mean the same thing? There were no lack of words in the Greek to express every meaning which baptism has been supposed to signify. If it was a sprinkling, tli«re was rantizo, if a pouring, cheo, if a purification, irrespective of mode, katharizo. Why then give a word which never meant anything but immerse either of these meanings in its sacred use, and ignore the words the people all knew conveyed these very meanings. This would be to court confusion and misappre- hension. The figment of a sacred use, in such a case as this, is the desperate resort of a lost cause. , • Addenda. — In his first pamphlet, Mr. McKay gave a list purporting ta be cases of the use of baptizo. In my review I showed that the most of these were instances of the use of hapto, a word never used of the Chris- tian ordinance. This list has been omitted in the present editjon. I find that Mr. Lathern, Baptisma, p. 1.37, sq., gives a list of defini- tions, &c., purporting to be meanings of baptize. He indeed remarks that the author from whom he quotes does not sufficiently discriminate between thp verbs hapto and baptizo. But the ordinary reader would not imagine that every meaning there given which is inconsistent with immerse, is of bapto and not of baptizo. The quotations on p. 140, 141, are ".11, with two, perhaps three exceptions, of the use of bapto, and have no bearing on the question of the form of Christian baptism. The ofi'er by Mr. McKay to give )|100 to any Baptist who will pro- duce any lexicon of first class authority, that gives "dip," "plunge," or immerse as the meaning of baptiw in the New Testament, is very harmless bravado. He knows that the lexicons generally give baptize as the meaning of baptizo in the New Testament, transferring the Greek word, i-s does our Bible, and not defining it. I can refer him, however, to Cremer, Biblico Theol. Lex. N. Test. Greek, "who says, "The peculiar J I ; ? ■: 1 I •99 baptism: an argument and a reply. X. T. and Christian use of the word (haptizo) to denote immersion, sub- mersion for a religious }turi»ose— to baptize, may be pretty clearly tracedl back to the Levitical washings" — to Sophocles, who, after defining the! classical usage as to dip, immerse, sink, declares "Tliere is no evitlencel that Ijuke and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament put] HDon tills verb meanings not recognized by the Greeks — to Wahl's Clavisj of X. Tebt. (1820) which says baj'tizo is used "properly and truly con- cerning sacred immersion." I can also refer him to definitions of the noun baplsma, baptism. Liddell & Scott, 1. "That which is dipped. II.— foregoing, N. Test.'| Schleusner. See p. 11. Stokiiis, "Generally and by force of the original, it denotes immer- sion or dipping. 2. Specially, a Properly, it denotes the immersion orj dipping of a thing in water that it may be cleansed or washed. Hence itj is transferred to designate the first sacrament of the N. Test. . . inl M'hich those to be baptized were formerly immersed into water : thoughj at this time the water is only sprinkled upon them," &c. Will this do as answer to this bravado ? His t|uestion, p. 24, why, if haptlzo means immerse, the early Latin! Versions do not translate it by imraenjo, and not transfer it, does noti require a "Baptist scholar" to answer. Why should these Versions! translate rather than transfer the woi'd baptizo, if it meant immerse, an^ff more than if it meant sprinkle, or anything else ? His statement that "all translations of the Scriptures in all languages! • ever since, with the exception of the recent Baptist sectarian version, [ which was still-born, have followed the example of the early Latin trans- lation, and transferred, without translating bajdizo,^' is a statemeutl which must have been made purely at a venture. Dr. Conant in baptizeinl mentions the Syriac (2nd cent. ) Coptic (3rd), Ethiopia (4th), Gothic (4th), [ Lower Saxon (1470-80), Augsburg (1473-75), Luther's (1522), Dutch) (1526), Swedish (152G), Danish (1G05), which not only translate baptizo,\ but translate it immerse. To this list might be added many others. Mr. McKay refers to my explanation of the baptism epi Icoite (Clem.S Alex. Stro. B. 4, Ch. 22, Sec. 144), and impugns my scholarship, because! I do not accept his translation. "This is a custom of the Jews, in like ' manner also to be often baptized upon the couch," p. 109. Now the! learned translators of the Ante Nicene Library whose scholarship, I sup-j pose, it will scarcely be safe for Mr. McKay to question, translate this I passage, "It was a custom of t^ie Jews to wash (baptize) frequently cj/'fej-j btliKj ill bed." I am sorry that I inadvertently attributed to Dr. Dale the declaration, I "An object baptized is completely invested by the baptizing element,"! which 1 had transcribed from another Pedobaptist author. Dr. Dale,! however, gives this in other words in Clas. Bap. p. 31, as the primary! meaning of baptizo. His definition is, ** JJaptizo in primary use, expressesj condition characterized by complete interposition (being placed within)! without expressing, and with absolute indifierence to the form of the act! by v/hich such interposition may be affected, as also without other limi-j tation — TO ."\ierse."' It is only by using the supposed secondary meaning! of baptizo, which expresses result and not act, to describe Christian bap- LY. baptism: an argument and a reply. 23 3 immersion, sub- itty clearly traceJl after defining thel ire is no eviclencel iw Testament put! -to Wahl'a Clavis| [•ly and truly cou- na, baptism, egoiug, N. Test."! b denotes immer-1 the immersion or| ashed. Hence itl r. Test. . . inl to water : thoughj c. !, fjhe early Latin! [isfer it, does noti d these Versions! jant iunnerse, an^i s in all languages! sectarian version,! learly Latin trans- is a statement! onant in haptizeinl th), Gothic (4th),[ 8 (1522), Dutch! translate baptizo,\ many others. epi koite (Clem.i olarship, because* the Jews, in like 109. Now the! holarship, I sup- n, translate this I frequently aftQr\ the declaration, | itizing element," thor. Dr. Dale,! as the primary! ry use, expressesi placed within)! form of the act| Ihout other limi- jndary meaning} Christian bap- -tism which is an act, that Dr. Dale denies this rite should always be a iiierslon, according to his own definition. Mr. Lathern quotes Dr. Dwight, "The body of learned critics and lexicographers declare that the original meaning of both these words (baptizo anA bapto) is to niKje, stain, dip, color, and that when it means immersion, it is only in a secondary and occasional sense," &c. I cannot believe that Mr. L. accepts this statement ; for he must kwjw tliat there is no lexicographer wlio gives these as primary meanings of baptizo. They are all secondarn meanings of bapto, I refer to the list of lexico- graphers I have named, who giv^e no sucli meaning. I challenge a single case. CHAPTER 111.— THE SCRIPTURE ARGUMENT. ,., ;, general ohiticism. Mr. McKay says, "Presbyterians or any others do not hold that baptize means to sprinkle any more than it means to dip or immerse. They believe that it always expresses a condition or result irrespective of the mode or act by which it is brought abotct, and that in Scripture it denotes a thorough change of spiritual condition effected by the Holy Ghost applying the blood of spi'inkling to the soul. And this spiritual baptism of the soul is made manifest or signified by an external rite in which pure water is sprinkled or poured upon the person. But in all this, the word baptize has no reference to mode." As he, in common with a certain class of Pedobaptist controversialists, has adopted Dr. Dale's strange notion, let us examine this statement which embodies the view for which he contends. 1. According to all the lexicographers, so far as they express themselves, the literal meaning of baptizo is an act, and a result only as a consequence. Dr. Dale then takes issue with all these. Because, however, baptism, like all other acts, must have an effect in changing the condition of its object, he defines baptize as a change of condition. Remembering that a definition is to distinguish the meaning of one word from that of all others, the absurdity of this as a definition of baptize is evident to a child. For do not all active verbs change the condition of their objects, or produce results'? and do not all verbs in 1 1 ; i i \ 24 baptism: an argument and a reply. the passive, and some in the neuter express condition? To- burn, to freeze, to devour, to destroy, to drov/n, to build, to strike, <fec., and a host of others must then mean to baptize : for they all express a condition or result. Dr. Dale is to be com- mended for his patient industry. ^ But to give to a word a meaning so general as to apply equally well to hundreds of others in order to define or distinguish it from all others, is transparent folly. 2. This quotation leaves no place for water baptism. It i» "a change of spiritual condition effected by the Holy Ghost," which alone is Scriptural baptism. The outward rite in water effects no change of condition — it does not even symbolize the change which constitutes the baptism. The spiritual baptism has a mode, and the outward rite in water is to conform to this mode, but this rite cannot hence be baptism ; for baptism " has nothing to do with mode" and is "condition or result and not act." What darkening of counsel with words without meaning, in order to be able to attack immersion and evade attack upon sprinkling by hiding behind a mist ! One question is sufficient to sweep away all this confusion of ideas. It is this. If the word bajjtizo has nothing to do with mode or a^' , but always signifies condition or result, why was it used by inspired men and by our Lord to describe water baptism, which is an act, and not result or condition 1 3. But Mr. Kay explains, p. 25, "But although the word haptizo does not indicate modoj and therefore cannot indicate the specific act of sprinkling any more than it indicates the specific act of dipping, yet as the water baptism is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual cleansing, that mode will be most scriptural and appropriate which corresj)onds most fully with the mode in which that inward cleansing is repre- sented as taking place." Now we have it. Baptism is outward, after all, and it has a mode, and that mode is sprinkling or pouring, because the baptism: an argument and a reply. 25 asmg IS repre- Spirit's w(»rk is represented as a sprinkling or a pouring. But the word baptizo, which was used by our Lord to enjoin this outward act of sprinkling or pouring, does not mean either the one or the other. It means condition or result and not act. Indeed! Then why, we repeat, did our Lord use this word which never means act, but always condition or result, to describe this baptism in water which is always act and never condition or result? Much more, why did he do this when he Lad the Greek words rantizo and eheo to express these specific acts of sprinkling and pouring? It is in vain to seek to rule out immerse as a meaning of baptize, on the ground that the word baptizo means condition and lesult and not act, and, at the same time, hold that it was used by our Lord to designate as definite an act — to sprinkle. Yea, it is worse than vain. 4. How simple the whole mattel« is when we accept the facts. Baptism in water is to represent "a thorough change of spiritual condition effected by the Holy Ghost." In this we heartily agree with our opponent. It is to symbolize regeneration, Jn. ;?: 5; the complete cleansing effected by regeneration. Acts 22: IG; Tit. 3:5; change of nature in regeneration by which we die to sin and arise to newness of life, Rom. 6 : 3-6 ; Col. 2 : 12. This death to sin and resurrection to newness of life — this complete cleansing, is adequately symbolized by burial in water which represents both death and complete purification at once, and so is fitted to its purpose of declaring that complete change by which old things pass away and all things become new. This specific act, so symbolical of this inner change, is signi .ed by the word used by our Lord to describe and enjoin it, as we Und by reference to its use by writers and lexicographei's. Thus all is consistent — no obscurity, no difficulty, while on Mr. McKay's assumption, everything is misty, inexplicable, contra- dictory. 5. But in Heb. 10: 22, we have an authoritative declaration of Scripture which should give an everlasting quietus to the 8 26 baptism: ax argument and a reply. specious idea that the water baptism must conform to the rej)re sentatiou of the mode in wliich the work of tlie Spirit is said to be performed, and not rather to the effect of this inner work on the soul. "Having the iii^art sprinkled from an evil CONSCIENCE, and THE BODY WASHED IN PURE WATER" SayS the Scripture. The outward symbol is to represent the effect of the Spirit's work on the heart, and not conform to the representation of its mode. The latter is sometimes a sprinkliwj, the former is a loashing.'* Do we need to sav more? * '• Let us proceed to notice the INSTANCES OP BAPTISM IN THE BIBLE WHICH ARE SUPPOSED TOi FAVOR SPRINKLING. And first, let us examine the alleged argument for sprinkling from the Divers washings (baptisms) of Heb. 9 : 10. In these Mr. McKay sees nothing but sprinkling. Ht assumes that the apostle identifies the sj)rinklings mentioned in vs. 13, 19, 21. with these "divers baptisms" of v. 10. TIu apostle does no such thing, as any reader can see for himself, Had he intended to refer to these sprinklings of vs. 13, 19, 21 in V. 10, he would have said, "divers sprinklings" and not bap tisms, for baptism never in all litei-ature ever meant to sprinkle, He next (quotes Lev. 19 : 13-20, and Heb. 9 : 13, to show that 'This one almost self-evident fact that hai)tisni is the symbol of the Spirit's work ii lis — not of the mode of the Spirit's work iijion us — that in baptism we profess an <leclai'e what the Spirit has eflfected on our liearts, not the way in which the elfcLt hiu been produced, is a sulHcient answer to the greater jiart of "Bajitisma," by Rev. J Lathern. His chief reliance is upon the statement, repeated aa^in and again, that ii-s ii the Old Testament it is said, "So shall he 8|)rinkle many nations, &c.," and that as in tin New the Spirit is said to be "poured out," therefore baptism is a sprinkling or i)0iuinj.r He seems also never to ha\c noticed that the prophets of the Old Testament speak o the Savior's work as a washing. Is. 4 : 4, Ps. 26 : G, 51 : 2-7, Jer. 4 : 14, as a fountain ( cleansing, Zach. 13 : 1, and rei)re8ents it by other figures. If then baptism must be Bprinkling to conform to the figurative representation of the Savior's and Spirit's worl as a sprinkling, it must be a washing or bathing to conform to the representation o tliat work as a washing or bathing, and so of all the other figurative representations Besides, baiJtism, in the New Testament is called a burial, to represent the death tosiii and it is called a washing, to represent the complete purification of the regenerate life Rom. 6 : 3-5, Acts 22 : 16. It is iwver eallpd a spi-lnkling. Why then should we ignor these representations of the results of the spirit's work on the heart, which baptism declared to symbolize, and insist that baptism must represent the mode of that oj)eraj tion, which the Scripture never says is to be symbolized in baptism V We wonder thai men even urge such an arj>ument. f( SI U] ir ca LY. rm to tho re])re- e Spirit is said this inner work I FROM AN EVIL 'ATEr" says tli« the effect of the le representation liwj, the former RE SUPPOSED TO [it for spriuklinj 9 : 10. sprinkling. Ht igs mentionctl ii^ 1 of V. 10. The see for himselfJ vs. 13, 19, 2lj js" and not bap eant to sprinkleJ 3, to show that] of the Spirit's work ii ptism we profess an n which the effect hii la)itisma," hy Kev. n and again, that as ii kc," and that as in tin sprinkling or i)Oiuhi},' d Testament speak ol : 14, as a fountain ol jn baptism must be ior's and Spirit's worl the representation * ative representation! esent the death to sii of the regenerate lif then should we itpiori jart, which baptism e mode of that o])ei nni We wonder thai baptism: an argument and a ^.eply. 27 the essence of purification was in the sprinkling, and then asserts that *' God's word says that the sprinkling constituted the baptism." The most that these passages proA'e is that, in the cases specified, sprinkling was necessary to the purification. But it does not say that nothing else was essential to even these purifications, much less that there were no purifications except by sprinkling, which is needed to justify Mr. McKay's state- ment. The fact is there are ten purifications by ])athing in tho •Old Testament to one by sprinkling, and purification by un- mixed water in the Old Testament was always by bathing, never liy sprinkling. ]Mr. McKay's bluster, in the sentence "it is worse than quibbling for Baptists to say that in connection with the sprinkling there was a Ijathing, and that this constitutes the baptism,'' will not count for much under these circumstances. To establish his conclusion that the "divers baptisms" of Heb. 9 : 10, were sprinklings, he assumes that nothing but sprinkling was a purification in the Old Testament, and that these baptisms were purifications. The first of these premises is utterly false. But as this passage is much used by a certain class of contro- versialists, and their remarks are fitted to confuse, we propose to give it a thorough examination. Let us first examine Heb. 9 : 10 to find its real meaning. First: the "divers baptisms" are called carnal ordinances; for the word "and" of the clause "divers baptisms and carnal ordinances" is without MS. authority and is omitted in the Revised Version. Thus the "divers baptisms" are restricted to such rites as pei-tain to men: for "carnal" means "of the flesh." Second: the ordinances here referred to were to continue until the '.'time of reformation," viz : until Christ should come. No rite then which did not refer to outward physical cleans- y, and which did not continue to be observed until Christ came, can be referred to by the "divers baptisms." Bearing these two facts in mind, let us turn to the Old Testa- ent and question it as to the forms of personal purification mmm 28 baptism: an argument and a reply. among the Jews. There are five cases of the sprinkling of men's l)odies. At the ratification of the covenant, Ex. 24 : 18 — at the consecration of Aaron and his sons, Ex. 29 : 21, Lev. 8 : 30 — at the consecration of the Levites, Num. 8 : 7 — at the cleans- ing of lepers, Lev. 14 : 7 — at the cleansing of those defiled by- contact with death. Num. 19 : 13-21. Biit- the sprinkling of] blood at the ratification of the covenant, was never repeated. Neither was that of ashes and water at the consecration of the Levites : for it was a consecration of the whole tribe, once for all. Neither, probably, was that of the priestly caste : for it was the whole priestly class, through their heads.* These sprinklings then could not have been referred to in the divers baptisms : for they were not to continue until the times of reformation. Only two sprinklings remain, then, which could] possibly be referred to, and one of these — that of the leper- did not occur, jnobably, once in a generation, if it did so often :| for it was next to a miracle for a leper to be cured, and the rite was not to cure lepers but to celebrate their healing. There] was really, then, but one sprinkling of any frequency of recur- rence to which these baptisms coidd refer. Is it probable that] the apostle applied the term "divers" to the sprinklings of the] old economy, when there were but two cases to which he could refer, and one of these so infrequent as to scarcely deserve I notice. So much for the probability that the "divers baptisms" refer to sprinklings, apart from the inherent improbability that! the apostle would call sprinklings baptisms, when baptism never] meant to sprinkle. But were there any other purifications of men's bodies tol which they might refer? Yes, verily, although those who seek to have the reader see sprinkling in the "divers baptisms" dol not seem to have considered them. There are forty specifiedl cases where the clothes are to be washed. As the cleanness of I the clothes has to do with that of the bodv, these cases cornel *Snnth'B Bib. Die. Art. Priest. baptism: ax argument and a reply. 29 [legitimately under the head of carnal ordinances. But apart fi'om these there are thirty cases where the whole body of individuals is to be bathed or washed. So much care has been tjiken to conceal these facts that we give the most of the pas- I sages tliat the reader may consult them for himself. Washing of clothes, Lev. 11 : 25, 28, 40; 13: 6, 34, 54; 14:8, 9,47; 15:5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 21, 22,27; 16:20,28; 19:16. Num. 8:7; 19:7, 10, 19; 31:24. Washing of the whole body, Lev. 14 : 8, 9 ; 15 : 5, 6, 7, 8, [10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 27; 16:4, 24, 26, 28; 17:15; 122 : 6. Num. 19 : 7, 8, 19. But were these bathings or washings, immersions? When we [consider the scrupulous exactness of the Jews in conforming to [the ritual of the law, and take in. connection with this the fact [that immersion of the body in water is the common eastern [mode of bathing, there need be but little doubt that these ibathings were real immersions. But we have more conclusive evidence. Maimonides, the greatest of Jewish Rabbis, who ought to [know the customs of his own nation, says : "Whenever in the law washings occur, either of the flesh or )f the garments from defilement, nothing else is to be under- [stood than the immersion of the whole body in a bath. And [that which is said *he shall not wash his hands in water,' is to [be understood as if he said he must immerse his whole body in iwater. And after the same order shall other impurities be judged of, so that if one should immerse himselt all over except the extremity of his little finger, he is yet in his uncleanness."* Dean Stanley, "The plunge into the bath of purification, llong knowft among the Jewisn nation as a symbol of a change )f life, was still continued (in baptism)."! Cremer, in his masterly Biblico Theological Lexicon of the [ew Testament, Greek, acknowledged by scholars to be without peer in its special sphere, says: ■ Hilch. Mikva 1, 2. tBaptisin. HI 30 baptism: an argument and a reply. "The peculiar and Christian use of tlie ■word (baptizo) to denote inunersio7i, suhmerrrou for a religious purpose = to bap- tize, John 1 : 25, may be ])retty clearly traced back to the Levitical washings. Heb. Rnchats, Lev. 14 : 8, 9; 15 : 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, tfec* So also Dr. Altinfl^, Com. Heb. p. 260 ; Light- foot in Clark's Com. Mark ; Di*. Kitto, &c." Let us sum u^). On the one hand there are at least thirty, perhaps seventy, distinct cases of washing or bathing in the Old Testament, wliicli were to all intents and purposes immer- sions. These immersions were repeated among all the people times without number. We hold that the "divers baptisms'* referred to these "divers immersions," the word baptize being thus used in its ordinary and universal acceptation. On the other hand, there was but one case of sprinkling in general and continual practice. Yet those who wish to make baptism a sprinkling would ha\e us believe that the apostle applied the term "divers" to this one case, and the extraordinary one of the leper, and that he also in this verse passed by the word rantismos which he ever uses elsewhere to denote the sprinklings of the law, and which meant nothing else, and uses haptismos which always means immerse, and never sprinkle. The reader can judge which is the most reasonable view. Not only so, but pure unmixed water was never used in any Old Testament sprinkling. Wherever water alone is used in the Old Testament it is a bathing, — which we have found to be an immersion. If then John's baptism is proved to be a legal purification by John 3 : 25, it is all the worse for sprinkling: for this baptism was of water only, and it must, therefore, have been an immersion. Note. — Mr. McKay seems to regard purifications of the Old Testa- ment as symbols of physical cleansing, rather thj^.n physical cleansings as symbols of inner purification. To state this idea is sufficient to refute it. He also must believe that these washings and bathings were performed by sprinkling. How he can do this when he Icnows that in many instances of personal purifications the Old Testament writers declare that there was first a sprinkling followed by a bathing, I do not *Art. Baptizo VM '. BAPTISM: AN ARGUMENT AND A REPLY. 31 know. If the last, which ia designated a washing in distinction to the lint sprinkling, is nevertheless a sprinkling, why (fid they use a different word, and wny did those learned Jews who translated the original lebrew into Cheek in the Septuagint use different words also '.' Do we eed to say more ? Our author mikes the usual point al)Out the BAPTISM IN THE CLOUD AND IN THE SEA, Hiul waxes merry over the idea of being immersed on dry ground. If there were no element but water in Avliich immer- siiou could occur, his remarks would be in place. The Israelites were surrounded by the sea and cloud so as to be completely 4*n\oloped in them, just as in baptism one is enveloped by water. So (nidently does this reference to baptism favor immersion as its mode ^that Dr. Sclia'ff, the most learned Presbyterian of America, the editor of Lange's Commentary, and one of the American board of revision, in the quotation elsewhere given,"'*" inserts "the comparison of baptism with the passage through the Red Sea" among the proofs tliat Scripture baptism was an immersion. Lange says "The cloud is, in a measure, taken together with the water as the element into which they entered, and Avherein they became as it Avere submerged."! Alford says, commenting on the clause "Received baptism imto Moses," "Entered by the act of such immersion," <tc., jind "They passed under both (cloud and sea) as the baptized passes under the water."! ' Meyer, commenting on the clause " in the cloud and in the sea," says "In" is local, as in Matt. 3:11, denoting the element in which the performance of the baptism took place through immersion and emersion (Ein-und Hervortauchen).^^ Eausset, "There is a resemblance between the symbols also : for the cloud and sea consist of water, and as these took the Israelites out of sight and then restored them again to view, so the water does to the baptized."|| Had we space we could quote Pool, Bengel, Whitley, Olshausen, Bloomfield, Moses Stuart, *Sce p. 61. tCoin. in Loco. JCom. in Loco. §Com. in Loco. i|Com. in Loco. 1 32 HAI'TISM: AN AHC.UMENT AND A KKPLY. and other PedoLaptist scholars to tho same effect. The inter- pretation vvhicli is tlius adopted by the foremost (!xex<'tos of tho past and present cannot he made to appear al)suid hy ^Ir. McKay. Tlnire is more dan.i,'er, under such circumstances, that Mr. McKay be niad(^ to a]»pear absurd. Need we refer to tlie attcnnpt to make this passnge refer to sprinkling; ))y associating with it the expression, "the clouds poured out water," Ps. 77 . 17. Serious argument in this ease is out of tho (luestion. The baptism was "i^i the cloud and m the sea,^' not/by rain from a cloud, according to Paul. TiiK Baptism op the 3000 at Pentkcost. This is supposed to be a case where immersion was impossible. Let us notice the objections, which have been answered so often. 1. Want of time to immerse so many. Probably this would Iiave been omitted, had not Mr. McKay made a mistake in his figures. lie says "But to ha\e immersed them all in rive hours, each of the one hundred and twenty discii)les there assembled must have immersed liiore than tifty persons ew-^r liour." T'ley would have required to innnerse just Jive every liour, not lifty. It would be no great task surely to do this. 2. Wa/iit of ivater in Jerusalem. , ■• Yet Dr. Robinson, who urges the objection,* states that Jerusalem was watered by the following pools with these large dimensions : , Lkngtii. Breadth. Dkitu. Bethesda, 360 130 7-') feet. 8iloam, r)3 18 19 *' Upper Pool, 31G 218 18 " Hezekiah, 240 144 partly filled. Lower Pool, 502 260 40 feet. "But in addition to these," continues Dr. E,., "almost k^wery private house in Jerusalem of any size, is understood to have at least one or more cisterns. The house of Mr. Lannwau, in "See Robinson's Lexicon of N. Test., Greeli, Art. haptizo. ! ■ states tliafc uai'TISm: an aikjimknt ano a reply. 33 vhlch we resided, luid no less tlian four clstonis, and as these re but a specimen of the manner in wliich all the hetter clasH f houses is supplied, I subjoin here the dimensions." LK.NCiTII. •, UllKADTII. UKPTII. I. U. III. IV. • • « • 15 8 10 30 S 4 10 :)0 • • • • • • 12 15 15 20* There was no lack of water then. 3. Tlieaii reairvoirs and pooh mere not availnhlefor hnpthm. Dean Stanley and Dr. Hackett, both men of wide learninjif, nd both travciUers in the East, think ditl'enmtly. Dean Stanley lays, "In the early age the scene of the transaction (baptism) as either, i^'c, or some vast reservoir, as at Jericho or Jerusa- lem, whither, as in the Baths of Caracella at Rome, the whole opulation resorted for swimming or washing."! Dr. Hackett eclares "The habits of the East, as every traveller knows, ould present no obstacle to such a use (baptism) of the public 3servoirs.".| Smith's Bib. Die. also testifies to the same effect.§ besides we know from the New Testament that Bethesda and ^iloam were so used, John 9 : 7 and 5 : 2. Neither were the people so hostile at this time as to prevent; for, Acts 2 : 47, the [ollowers of Jesus were "in favor with all the people." So much for tlie objections that the baptism of the 3000 at 'entecost was irreconcilable with immersicu. Baptism befoue Meals and ox cohng fro?.! Market, Lu. 11:38; Mk. 7:4. Mr. McKay's criticism on the Avashings (baptisms) mentioned [n these passages is a curiosity. He assumes roundly that the )aptism of himself which the Pharisees expected of our Lord, ju. 11 : 37, 38, was a washing of the haiuls. He follows this >y a second assumption. Because he finds two cases, hundreds )f years before, where water was poured upon the hands to ►llobinsyn's Bib. Res. I. ps. 480-515. tArt. on Baptism. JConi. in Loco. §Art. Bath. 34 baptism: an argument and a reply. wash them, he avers that this was the invariable practice. So lie concludes our Lord must have baptized hir,iself, by having a servant pour water on his hands, and "the exclusive immeifion | theory is proved to be nothing better than the baseless fabric of Baptist, tfec, visions." Crushing!! Mk. 7 : 3, 4, calls for further attention. Tlie passage reads, "For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft (diligently, H. V.) eat not, holding the tradition of the elders, and when they come from market, except they wash (baptize) they eat not." Mr. McKay, and some others, would have us believe that the washing (baptisni) of v. 4, was a washing of the liands as in v. 3. They do not tell us, however, if Mark meant this, why he did not say so, instead of using another word altogether. They would also make Mark guilty of folly. As he had said in v. 3 that the Pharisees never ate unless they washed their hands, why did he need to tell his readers in v. 4 that %i:Jien tJiey came from market they did not eat unless they washed their hands ? The Evangelist evidently in v. 4 refers to a case where some- thing moie is done than usual, because the supposed defilement is greater. In ordinary cases, it suffices to wash the hands, but on contact with the unclean in the market, they must baptize. Meyer i)uts it well, "'Except they wftsh' (baptize) is not to be . understood of the washing of the hands, but of immersion (Eintanchen), which the word in the classics and in the New Testament everywhere means, here, according to the context, to take a hath. * * The statement is in the form of a climax. Before eating they ahvays wash the hands. If tiiey would eat on coming from market, however, they take a hath.^''^ Baptism of Vessels and Tables, Mk. 7 : 4. Pedobuptist friends who have been told repeatedly that this, passage is utterly inconsistent with immersion will be surprised to lesirn that there are no grounds for this assertion. On this passage we remark : *Com. In Loco. baptism: an argument and a reply. 35- 1. Mr. McKay does not give us his authority for the asser- tion that these tables (couches) were usually twenty feet long,, four high and four broad. Smith's Bib. Die, the best authority, Ideclares that these couches were often of matting, «fcc., without frames, and that the frames, when used, were ^'•sliffht and wrtahUy 2. " Couches," is left out, as without sufficient MS. authority |in the Revised Version. 3. Maimonides, the great Jewish E-abbi, who knew the cus- |toms of his own people perfectly, says : "Every vessel of wood which is made for the use of man, as la table, ttc, receives defilem^ent," and he adds, further on, "A bed that is wholly defiled, if he dip it part by»part, it is pure," Hilch. Celim. Dr. Halley, a Congregationalist, in his great work on the Sacraments, says : "If any one will taLe the trouble to study the various pollu- tions of beds and couches, as they are described by Maimonides and the Talmudic tracts, he must in candor admit that these articles of furniture were, in some instances, immersed in water."* So we find that it is doubtful whether Mark said that couches were baptized. If he did, the Jewish Avriters declare that it was customary to immerse their couches, to purify them. So this passage takes its rank among those which favor immersion, instead of bearing against it. The Baptism of the Spirit. We have already considered the argument which some Pedo- baptists suppose is to be found in this for affusion. As it is 'In my review, through a typographical error, Dr. Halley is made to say, I cannot deny that the Pharisees as early as the time of our Saviour practised immersion after contact with the conunon people," instead of " I care not to deny, itc." Takinjjf as nuich advan- tage as he can of this slight error, for which the printer is responsible, as I was in Europe when my pamphlet was printed, and had no opportunity to correct the proof, Mr. McKay seeks to make the reader believe that my quotations and references to authori- ties generally are all pretencen. The above quotation, which he does not gi\e, will shew whether Dr. Halley does not admit that furniture was innnersed by the Jews, and how fair is Mr. McKay's attempt to make his readers believe that Dr. H. did not, p. 100 & 109. 36 baptism: an ar(^ument and a reply. becoming the chief dependence of those who hold to sprinkling and pouring, and as it is fitted to impose on the thoughtless, it requires further consideration. Mr. McKay states it very well in the following sentence. "Th(; baptism with the Holy (Jhost is always effected by the Spirit comimj upon the person baptized. Consccpiently as water baptism is an outward sign of this inward spiritual baptism, that mode is most scriptural and ap]iropriate in which the 'dement comfts ujion the person baptized." ; 1. It is assumed that the water baptism is the sign of the baptism of the Spirit. It is not. The baptism of the Spirit }jromised, 3Iatt. o : 11, and effected at Pentecost, Acts 2 : 2, 5, was of the apostles wlio had already received water baptism and the gra^e it signifies. The baptism of the Spirit, in this •case at least, was something superadded to the work on the heart which water baptism was to show forth. This fact, which is undeniable, pierces the heart of this argument at once. 2. It assumes that there was a literal affusion of the Spirit. If the expressions, the Spirit was poured out, cfec, be figurative, referring to the copiousness of the influence, and it is said to descend only because of the representation of the divine abode being above us in heaven, then, as there can be no mode in the manner of the Spirit's reaching men, there can be nothing in it to determine the mode of water baptism. Can there be any doubt *? Can any one, on sober thought, believe there was a literal pouring out of the Spirit 1 The idea is shocking. Be- sides, IS not the Spirit omnipresent and in no need of motion to exert his energy on the souH Finally, if there were no other representations of the manner of the Spirit's work, this material conception might be more plausible. But there are. It is said to be a well of water, Jn. 4:14. It is also compared to dew, and a running river. Is the Spirit literally sp 'Mikled as well as poui-ed ? Is he drunk in as water 1 Is he breathed out as air'i Jn. 20 : 22. Can he be literally applied in all these ways? But enough 1 »LY. 1(1 to Sprinkling thoughtless, it ,tes it very well effected by the uently as water ritual baptism, in which the the sign of the 11 of the Spirit b, Acts 2 : 2, 5, water baptism Spirit, in this 3 work on the his fact, which at once. of the Spirit. be figurative, cl it is said to divine abode mode in the nothing in it there hd any there was n locking. Be- of motion to ere no other [this material It is said |ared to dew, :led as well ithed out as these ways? baptism: an argument and a reply. 37 3. But allowing this gross material conception in the realm of the purely spiritual, and our oj)i)onents are not liel])ed ; for the "pouring out," &c., are not called the baptism. Even Dr.- Itobinson, in his Lexicon, in the very article on haptizo in which lie makes a special plea for sprinkling, declares that, IMatt. 3:11, should be "bajitized in the Holy Ghost," and not "baptized with the Holy Ghost," as in our Version. In the Revised Version, the American Committee, composed mostly of Pedo- baptists, recommend "i?i the Holy Ghost," and it is put in the margin as an alternative reading, by the English Committee. Now, If we go to the record of the fulfilment of this promise,. Acts 2 : 1-4, we find it in perfect agreement, even literally, ^vith the meaning of the word baptizo, to immerse, and the terms ot the promise rightly rendered. The sound which was the evidence and token of the Spirit's presence, "filled all the house where they were sitting," and " they were filled with the Holy Ghost." Cyril, one of the Church I'athers, writing about A. D. 350, puts it well in his highly wrought way, "The house became the reservoir of the spiritual v/ater : the disciples were sitting within : and the whole house was filled. They were therefore completely innnersed according to the promise." We could quote Theophylact, Neander, Moses Stuart, Lange, and others to the same effect, but we forbear. 4. Again, still allowing the idea that there was a literal "pouring out" of the Spirit, it must further be established that water baptism is to symbolize the mode of the Spirit's coming upon the soul, before the fact of the Spirit's coming in a certain form will stamp that form on water baptism. But even on this supposition, what imaginable purpose could be served by an ordinance to keep men reminded that the Spirit, in its operation on the soul, comes down upon it, and does not come in another way? To suppose baptism for such a purpose would bo to im- pute folly to the All- Wise. Besides, if the outward sign wf t to conform to the mode in which the Spirit's work is said to be ^8 baptism: ax argument and a keply. •ilone, rather than to symbolize the effects of that work on tht'l nature, Heb. 10: 22 would be "Having our hearts sprinkledl from an evil conscience, and our bodies sprinkled with purel water." But as Heb. 10: 22 reads, "Having our hearts! sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with| pure water," God's word decides against this idea. 5. The true symbolism of baptism destroys this argument — | root and l)ranch. Baptism is, as Mr. McKay assertS; to sym- bolize the Spirit's work of regeneration in the soul. He makes I an assertion which is wide of the mark, however, when he de- <;lares that Baptists do not believe this. They are the only people who hold this view consistently, sir.ce in infant baptism there is no such work to be symboli;«ed by baptism, unless it lirst regenerates. Well then, if baptism sym Idolizes the work of the Spirit in the soul, how can he make it show forth the mode of the Spirit's coming upon the soul? AVliat this symbol of regeneration is we know from Rom. 6 : 3-5, where baptism is said to be a burial to symbolize the death to sin and resurrec- tion to newness of life which regeneration effects. We know also that it is a complete washing. Tit. 3 : 5, to symbolize that purification which makes one a new cre&.jure in Christ Jesus. G. But txic idea that the descent of the Spirit is the baptism makes nonsense, when applied to the passages involved. Jn. 1 : 32, would read "I saw the Spirit baptizing from heaven like a <love." Acts 2 : 17, "I will baptize of my Spirit upon all flesh." Acts 2 : 33, "He has baptized this which ye now see, ifec," which would make it ai)pear that the element is the object baptized, -and prevent the baptism of the people altogether. 7. This boasted argument for sprinkling and pouring, then, is found to be based upon the revolting assumption that the Spirit is poured out literally, and that water baptism is to show forth the mode of the Spirit's descent, thus setting aside its deep and blessed import — thus denying that it is to symbolize a work of grace in the soul, and reducing references to it to an absurdity. baptism: an argument and a reply. 39 For the sake of such an argument v/e are asked to set aside an interpretation which is consistent in all its parts, and which harmonizes with the meaning which baptize ever had, and accept for baptism a signification the word never bore. Can our Pedobaptist friends wonder that we cannot yield to the force of such an argument as this, but are surprised that they should esteem it of any strength.* CHAPTER lY,— THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. Proof for Immersion. The word baptlzo is used once in a literal way in the Sep- tuagint. As the Septuo.gint is the Old Testament translated into Hellenistic Greek, the Greek in which the New Testament is written, this case possessed a peculiar interest. It is naaman's sevenfold baptism, 2 Kin. 5:14. The Seventy here use haptizo to translate the Hebrew word taval. If the word taval, then, means to innnerse, these learned Jews must have regarded immerse as the meaning of baptize. The word taval is used fifteen times in the Old Testament, viz. : Gen. 37: 31; Ex. 12: 22; Lev. 4: 6; 9: 9; 14: 6, 51; Deut. 33: 24; Num. 19: 18; Josh. 3: 15; 1 Sam. 9: 27; 2 Kin. 5: 14; 8: 15; Job 9: 31; Ezek. 23: 15. In all these cases, except the two last, the learned men who translated our Bible *Mr. Lathern regards this as the grand argument for aflfusion. He thinks the bap- tism of fire literal. " The fire sat vpo7i each of them. * That was God's bap- tism," Baptisnia, p. 45. There are few who will suppose that John's declaration, " He will baptize you with the Holy Glwst and with fire," meant "He shall baptise you with the Holy Qhost, and cause fire to sit on each of j-ou." Robinson, in the very art baptizo in his Lexicon, in which he makes a special plea for sprinkling, which Mr. L. quotes, gives one view, "To baptize in the Holy Ghost, and in fire, i. e. to overwhelm, richly rurnish with all spiritual gifts, and to overwhelm witli fire unquenchable." So also Meyer, Bleek, Hanstenburg and many others. These did not accept this interpretation to support a "desperate cause," p. 4}>. The other view is that the baptism was the fulness of zeal enkindling purifj-ing iwwer of the Spirit. Both these views which claim between tliem the assent of almost all Bible critics, refer the baptism to the overpowering plenitude of the zeal or love which can be represented in all its fulness by an immersion, and which cannot possibly be represented by a sprinkling. It is similar to our Lord's baptisDui of suffering, Matt. 20 : 22. Mr. Lathern's view is very peculiar, but not original. 40 baptism: an ARCaMEXT AND A REPLY. I ) .1 n render it to clip. And in those cases it is the equivalent of dij for in Job 9: 31, it is plunge, and in Ezek. 23: 15, it is dye viz. hy dipping. Gesenius in his Hebrew Lexicon delines it, tj dip, to dip in, to immerse. So .do Maurer, Gibbs, Ainswortlj and Simon in their Lexicons, and McCIintock and Strong ij their Encycloj^edia. So also do Stokins and Leigh, and SchiiJ dler, who substantially agree in Stokins' definition, "properlj it is to immerse (intingere) anything so that it touches thj li(pnd in whole or merely in part. So it is said of the priesti dipi^ing the finger or other things in blood, Lev. 4: C, 17; 9| 9, .to."* -But yet Mr. McKay tries to prove that in the case of NaamaiJ it was a sprinkling. How strange, if this were so, that th^ Hebrew word for sprinkle was not used, and that one was sul stituted which never meant to si)rinkle but always to dip? Bull how does he seek to make this appear? He says the propheti "would command him to do what the law of God prescribes this was sprinkling seven times." Now mark I The law, Levj 14, prescribed what lepers who were already cured should do tc declare that they were healed. But Naaman's was no instance of such a case, for he was still diseased, and Elisha enjoined what was miraculously to cure him, 2 Kin. 5: 10-11. The la\ made no provision for such a case. But after having assumed that the Levitical observances would be enjoined upon Naamar by Elisha, and upon my reminding him in my review that iiJ Lev. 14, the sprinkling was but a small part of the ceremonyJ which was consummated in a l)athing, he assumes further, that] the rest of the ceremonies were omitted because he was not Jew. What convenien \ logic ! Elisha is first made, in order to get in sprinkling, to enjoin for the cure of a leper what the ^Mr. Ditzler, in the Graves-Ditzler Debate, p. 87, assumes, because these Lcxicog-I rapliers say that taval refers thus to partial immersion, it does not mean immerse. Bud tiie i)art is always immei-sed, tt» which tanal refers. This is enoush. He also translates! the Latin tinxit, in tlie definitions of Lexicographers who wrote in that language, by moisten, which is not the seuiie in whicli thev used it. Tingo, intin-^o with tliem mcan| <lip, dip hi. JPLY. quivalent of dij 3: 15, it is dyec con dolines it, tj ibbs, Ainswortlj : and Strong ii joigli, and ScliiiJ lition, "properlj ; it touches thj lid of the i>riest «ev. 4: 6, 17; 9| case of Naaniaij ere so, that thf lat one was sul lys to dip? Bu^ ;ays the propliet God prescribes] Tlie law. Lev, red should do t( was no instance Elislia enjoinec -11. Thela^ [laving assuniec upon Naamf review that iiil the ceremony, ;,s further, that |e he was not nade, in order leper what the laiise these Loxicog-I Vcan immerse. Butl He also translates! that language, hA ■so with theui mcaal baptism: an argument and a reply. 41 law prescribed in an altogether different case. Then to keep )ut the batliing or washing which would be most inconvenient, lie assumes that Elisha did not enjoin what the law prescribed, iven in that case. Finally, while the command was to wash, 'rachats), and a part of the Mosaic ritual was a washing, Lev. |14: 8, prescribed by the same word (rachats), Mr. McKay jdeclares that this very v/ashing is what Naaman was allowed to omit when he was commanded to wash, and that Elisha intended him to sprinkle himself and not wash, when he told him to wash. Is it possible for patience and charity to meet the demands which such apparent attempts to wrest the Scriptures from their plain meaning, make upon us? How simple it ia if we take the incident as it reads. Naaman was commanded to wash seven times iu Jordan. He obeyed this command by dipping himself in the Jordan seven times. This Hebrew word for "dip" is translated by the Seventy baptize, thus proving that they thought baptism a dipping.* Note. — Mr. Lathem, Baptisma, p. 145, refers to two cases of the use I of baptizo in the Apocrypha. The first is that of Judith, Judith 12 : 5, sq., where this Jewish maiden received permission from Holof ernes to pass the body guards with her maid, and repair by night to a fountain in the camp and bathe (baptise) herself, and pray. Dr. Wilson, whom Mr. L. quotes with approval, supposes this fountain the source of tho water supply of the army, and that it would not be seemly for a maiden to immerse herself there. But would it have been seemly, under such circumstances, for her to have bathed in any way, at such a place? The fact that she went by night — that she went to pray as well as to bathe — that did she but wish to bathe in any other way than immersion, she might have done so from a basin in her tent — show both that the foun- tain must have been secluded, and that she immersed herself, as the I word used to describe the transaction signifies. The other case is mentioned in Wisdom of Sirach, 34 : 27, "Baptizing I himself from a dead body, and touching it again, what is he profited by his bathing," which Mr. L. explains "The sprinkhng of the unclean, [which according to inspired teaching, sanctified, was understood in the 'Wisdom of Sirach' to oe a baptism. ' *BIr. McKay waxes quite indifcnant over our version of the Bible because it contains I such "blunderin^f translations" as "dipped himself," "bathe in water," "went down [into the water," "came up outof the water," "much water," &c. The Revised Version, I the work of those who were supposed to be the ablest scholars in England and America, [has retained every one of these "blundering translations." What a pity they could not I have sat a little time at the feet of Mr. McKay ! 42 baptism: an argument and a reply. ! i : 1 Not 80 fast. Let us turn to Niim. 19 ; 19, where the ceremony referre to is mentioned, and to which the reader is not referred. It is thei said tliat the d^Hled person shall first be sprinkled upon, and then hatl hlmsel/. Are we to believe that the expression, "what is he profited b his bathing," does not refer to the latning of Num. 19 : 19, but to th sprinkling? When the readers are rSferreu to the facts, I am sure the cannot accept such a statement. The Baptism of John. The facts about John's baptism are these, Matt. 3 : G, MI 1 : 5. "They wei*e baptized in the river Jordan." Mk. 1 (Jesus) " was baptized of John into the Jordan," eis ton Jordanei (see Revised Version, margin). Jn. 3:23, "And John wa baptizing in ^non near to Salem l>ecause there was much wateij there." In all these passages the New Version translation ifj given. So the reader can see what the result of the latest auii best scholarship on the question of the prepositions is. The fact that John resorted to the Jordan, and to ^non, becaus(j of its plentiful waters, in order to baptize, most clearly indicatoa that baptism was an immersion, which requires a larger quan] tity of water, and not sprinkling, which requires but a f(j\v quarts for thousands. The fact also that they were not onlj baptized in the Jordan but into the Jordan, proves conclusi\ elj that John's baptism was an immersion, and not a sprinkling] Here at least, els can have no meaning but "into," whetheij baptism i^ thought to be sprinkling or immersion. Sprinkh or immersed "to," "up to," or "unto," the Jordan cannot lioKlJ But taking the only meaning of which it is here capable] viz. : "into," sprmkling and pouring are out of the question] {Sprinkled or poured into the Jordan makes nonsense. Nothing but immersed into the Joixlan can here make sense. BaptizcA into the Jordan (eis ton Jordanen) can mean nothing else thaiJ that John did put our Lord into the water of the Jordan.! When we consider that the word baptize, in every case of itsi literal use meant to immei'se, and that it never meant sprinkle,} the fact that all the prepositions and circumstances are in exact baptism: an argument and a reply. 43 are in exact harmony with this act, while they are all out of harmony with spiinkle, is enough to settle the question in the minds of all who know the facts, and are open to conviction. But \\\wn what does Mr. McKay and othei*s depend to break the force of this argument? H6w do tl.'ey seek to make it appear that baptize was used to describe an act which in all its previous use, it had never done 1 1. He assumes that John was baptizing by virtue of his priestly office. But John himself, Jn. 1 : 33, declares that he baptized by a special commission from God. 2. He assumes that the baptism of John was in conformity with the Levitical purifications with water, which he avers were invariably sprinklings. We have already seen that the exact opposite of this is the tnith, there being no sprinkling of unmixed water in the Levitical rites. Wherever water is used it is as a bathing, which Maimonides and the Talmudists, the best authorities, declare was an immersion. But if John sprinkled, why then did the evangelists not use rautlzo, as the 8eptuagint and the Epistle to the Hebrews always do, and not haptizOj which is never used in that sense] 3. He declares, since baptized in the wilderness, &c., does not mean under the wilderness, therefore, baptized in Jordan •does not mean under its waters. What suiinising acutenessl 4. But he avers "in the river Jordan" does not mean in the river at all, because, in the Old Testament, there are instances where Jordan is used of the district beside the Jordan. But in neither of these cases is the term "river Jordan" used. This makes all the difference. If we said, some one was bap- tized in St. John it would mean a place, but if Ave said, in the river St. John there could be no doubt. So here. But the attempt to make it appear that river Jordan does not mean the river has overlooked one fact. Mk. 1 : 9, says "Baptized into (eis) the Jordan." Now no sleight-of-hand with the preposition eis, can make sense, if "Jordan" be not the !!l * !1 44 baptism: an argument and a reply. I river but a place. Allow that it means "to" or "up to," or "unto," and the clause reads, "and was baptized of John to, up to, unto, the land of Jordan." On p. 45 Mr. McKay says, "In 1 Kin. 1: 33, 38, 45, we read that Solomon was anointed eis Gihon, (a river, 2 Chron. 32: 30; 33: 14); and in Mk. 1: 9, we read that Jesus was baptized eis ton Jordanen (a river.) No one will say that the anointing was by 'immersion,' 1 Kin. 1 : 39. "Why then contend that the baptism must have been by immersion, when it is precisely the same form of expression that is used." What will the reader think when he is told that there is no expression "anointed eis Gihon," as there is baptizing eis the Jordan. Solomon is brought down eis Gihon (a place, Smith's Bib. Die.) and anointed there. That is all. 5. Mr. McKay, following the example of a certain type of controversialists, seeks to reduce the "much water" at ^non, to "many springs." He says, "There is not a scholar in the world to-day, unless he is in bondage to the dipping theory, who would translate "polla hudata^' "much water." Unfortunately for this confident assertion, the translators of the Revised Ver- sion, in no bondage to "dipping," have retained the "much water" as the translation of *'polla hudata." The other in- stances of its New Testament use are Rev. 4 : 15, 14 : 2, 17:1, 19:6, in each of which the substitution of "many springs" for "many waters" would make nonsense. Dr. Thompson speaking of Beisan, in the neighborhood of which -^non was, says, "All kinds of machinery might be driven with the least possible expense by its abounding brooks," &.c* 6. His attempts to make it appear that the representation of the baptism of the Spirit is inconsistent with immersion, have already been answered, as also his reference to it as a Mosaic purification. 7. He assumes because in the Septuagint it is sometimes said anoint (en) oil when the oil is poured, therefore baptized in (en) *Land and the Book, p. 45a baptism: an argument and a reply. 45 water may mean poured with water. But it is said baptized (en) the river tfordan. Here [en) cannot mean with. Poured with the river Jordan or sprinkled with the river Jordan will not do. Fn here has its usual meaning of "in." And if John baptized in the river Jordan, there can be scarcely a doubt that it was by immersion. For why would they incur the incon- venience of wet clothing for nothing 1 8. The physical impossibility that John should immerse so many is assumed. The most Pedobaptist writers who urge this time-worn objection, do not venture to enlarge the whole popu- lation of Judah and Jerusalem to more than two or three millions. Mr. McKay makes it five. In reply we remark, the disciples of John may have assisted him, the expression "bap- tized by John" being similar to "the ark was built by Noah." Luke 7 : 3; Matt. 20 : 25; Jn. 4 : 1, 1 : 11, 3 : 23 ; prove that Matt. 3 : 5 probably means no more than John 12 : 32. "And I if I be lifted up will draw all men unto me," viz. : that there were many of all classes baptized by John. 9. The wet garments would present little trouble. Dr. Page Smith says ''In Jordan, during the larger part of the year, persons in ordinary health might plunge into the water and sit down in their wet clothes with safety, and often with com- fort and pleasure." Thus we have followed this pamphlet in all its rash and puerile statements — statements which demand notice only be- cause they might be supposed unanswerable by the unlearned, if left unanswered — statements to which resort should not be made in Christian controversy. And we find that the descrip- tions of the baptism of John are absolutely inconsistent with anything but immersion. There is a fallacy in all such attempts which should be borne in mind. If they can in any way, by wresting the prepositions from their usual meaning, <kc., make it possible that the descriptions of baptism might have been ought else than an immersion, certain Pedobaptists assume that 46 BAPTISM: AV AROIMEXT AND A REPT.V. baptism was by sprinkling or pouring. lint tlicy know that the word l)apti/o never meant sprinkle or ]>our, anil always meant immerse. Sucli being the cas<', what right have they to aver that an muisual meaning of tli epositions nmst he assumed in order tliat a meaning it nevt lUid be forced on bap- tize. Under such circumstances we are only permitted to give the strange meaning of sprinkle or pour to baptize, if the descriptions of it absolutely make it impossibh? to gi^■e it its otherwise invariable meaning of immerse. How strange then, ^vlien the wliole description of baptism is just wliat we should expect were it an immersion, according to its universal usage, to force unusual meanings on the prepositions in order to force a meaning it never had on baptize? . Note. — In the revised pamphlet, Mr. McKay has abandoned the posi- tion which was criticised in my reply to h' 'rst, — that our Lord's baptism was his cunsucration to the priesth In this he seeks to make capital out of the fact that in Matt. 3 . , che preposition is ajto and means "from", which Baptists are the most ready to admit, on his own showing. This then is but erecting a man of straw, in order to appear to gain a victory. Thk Baptism of tiik Eunuch, Acts 8 : 38, 39. The account reads in the. Revised Version "And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came uj) out of the water," &c. Can a description be plainer of what happens in an immersion 1 Can the description hold of sprinkling or pouring '] Do they go down into, and come up out of the water to be sprinkled 1 Is there any reason why they should 1 > But Mr. McKay, as usual, takes issue w^ith these learned scholars who have just finished the new version. He declares it should have read, "went down to the water, and came up from the water." Which will the reader hold as the greater authority? A word about the prepositions in this verse. AVhile eis "into" in this passage may possibly mean "unto," in a very few very exceptional cases, the preposition ek, "out of," never means "from the side of." This can be seen by the baptism: ax AlUaMENT AND A UKFLY. 47 uuloarned reader from the fai't tliat there is a sopamte CJrerk j>rei)osition apo to express motion from beside, as distinguished Irom ek "out of the midst of." So Dr. Robinson in his Greek fA'xicon of the New Testament, says of ek "Primary significa- tion <mt off from, of Lat. e, e.'*, spoken of such objects as befoi'o were in or within another, but are now S(;parated from it." Of fi]>*) he says "It marks in strictness the separation of sucli objects only as were before on, at, bjj, near, vnth another, exter- nally , not in or within another, for in ?-espect of such ek is used." And yet, tliis writer has the hardihood to assert tliat ek is here used to mean "from beside," which it never meant, while there was aj^o at hand which never liad any other meaning. But after having by svch ways, made it appear that Phili[> and the eunuch (id not enter the water, he proceeds to prove that the baptism is a sprinkling on dry ground, thus " Immersionists, istead of ignorantly dwelling u})on un- usual I ! and false! I ! translations, (what dunces the translators of the new vei*sion must be), to prove their theory, would do well to follow a better way. If they will examine their Bibles thev will see that the eunuch was on this occasion reading a passage of Isaiah (there was no division into chaptei's and verses then) in which it is i)redicted of Christ, among other things, that 'He shall sprinkle many nations,' itc. As Philip was explaining this Scripture to him they came to a certain water: and the eunuch said 'See! water (the woids indicate that the quantity was small, and that Philip was likely to pass it by unnoticed) Avhat doth hinder me to be bai)tized (i. e. s[)rinkled), since this great Savior has come who was to sprinkle many nations, and I am one of those He was to s})rinkle." Baptists do examine their Bibles, all the worse for such a statement. Acts 8: 32 says that the eunucli was reading "He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, tfcc," Is. 53: 7, not "He shall sprinkle many nations" which is in Is. 52: 15, Even though he had been reading this, and allowing this to be the correct translation, how would the work of Christ on the hearts 48 BAPTISM : AN ARGUMENT AND A REPLY. of men which this expression refers to, suggest an outward rite of sprinkling. The outward rite which corresponds can be seen, in Heb. 10: 22, "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed "joiihyure water"''' The Prepositions in General. The ordinary reader can be easily confused aboi^^t the meaning of these. Mr. McKay and a certain class of controversialists, adopt this method. They gather together two or three, or jier- '■aps half a dozen instances of a most unusual meaning of a preposition. They, however, do not say that this is a most extraordinary use of the word. Thus their readers are left to infer that this is the ordinary, and not the extiaordinaiy signi- fication, and conclude that the prepositions are against us. Let me give the reader a few facts about the prepositions involved in this questicn. The Greek preposition eis, both in the old and new version is invariably translated "into," when it has to do with baptism. Therefore, according to the judgment of these translators who represent the best scholarship of the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, this preposition has the meaning which favors or proves immersion, and which is irreconcilable with any other mode. In the Gospels and Acts, where the administration of baptism alone is mentioned, and which we need alone consider, eis is translated "in" or "into" five hundred and thirty-six times. In addition to this, there are one hundred and seventy cases where it :3 translated "to" or "unto" where jieople are spoken of as going "to" or "unto" a place or house, and meaning of course "into," for the people or person entered the house or *Mr. Lathurji, Baptisma, p. 63, declares that the way over which the cunuih was yias»- ing to Gaza was thnniy^h n desert where "no man has ever found foaming flood or water deei» enough for submersion " Mr. Thompson who spent about a score of years in Palestine as a Congrugntionalist missionary tells us, "Land and the Book" p. 536, "He (Philip) would have met the chariot somewhere South East of Latron. There is a fine stream of water called Maiiibbah, deep enough even in June, to satisfy the '..moBt wishes of our liuptist friends." baptism: an argument and a beply. 49 town in every case, thus swelling the number to about seven hundred. And how often does the reader suppose eis is used in the sense of "to" or "unto" when there can be any doubt*? Not more than a score of times. In its use in reference to water, the case involved in this question, there is but one instance of this kind — that mentioned by Mr. M'lKay, Matt. 17: 27, "Go thou eis the sea." But even in this case, it may mean that Peter was to go out into the sea, as we sometimes say, even in English, in his boat. What strange procedure, then, to give these instances of the use of eis which occur only once in fifty or one hundred cases, leave it to be inferred that this is the ordinary use, and then assume an air of triumph, as though the Baptist position had been overthrown. How strange, •especially when we know that this is an attempt to force a meaning upon baptize which it never had : force an almost unexampled meaning upon eis in order that it may agree with a still more unexampled signification of baptize, while the almost invariable meaning of both would leave them in perfect harmony. Need we say more. The preposition en. The meaning of this preposition which favors immersion, and is inconsistent with sprinkling or pour- ing, is "in," The meaning which will permit affusion, but which does not exclude immei-sion, is "with." In the Gospels and Acts it is translated "in" nine hundred and twenty times, and "with" only twenty-nine times. Of these twenty-nine times, it refers to baptism nine times. In these nine cases, the American revisors, supposed to be the finest scholars on this continent, advised that it sshould be translated "in" water, Holy Ghost, and fire, in every instance, and the English revisors accept this as an alternative reading. The other twenty passages where "with" is found, are all cases of figurative usage, and have no bearing on the question at issue. So again we find that, in the attempts to make en inconsistent with immcmon, and favorable to sprinkling, a meaning is assumed to be its > j 50 baptism: an argumen?' and a reply. general one, which is almost unexampled in the relatioa in question, and this most unusual meaning thus forced upon en is used to reconcile it with a signification which baptize never l»ore, although the almost invariable meaning of both en and hapttzo are in perfect accord as related in the passages in ques- tion.* We have already discussed ek. We may add that it is most usually translated from, when spoken of motion away from- a place, but in every such case the person or thing goes from M'ithin, and not from beside. This latter idea is exactly ex- pressed by apo. Even in its tropical use, the idea of "out of" is invariably seen. This is true of the caaes whicli Mr. McKay has chosen as most inconsistent with this meaning, viz., liom. 1:17, Matt. 12:23, Jn. 10:22. Thus the testimony of the prepositions is clear and unwa^■or- ing. Instead of tlie translations of them in the old version being too favorable to immersion, and blunders, the new is still more favorable, and all the childish criticism goes for naught. CHAPTER v.— THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE CONCLUDED, Buried by Baptism, Rom 6: 3, 5; Col. 2: 12. 1. Almost all commentators and critics of all ages, and of eVery name, regard these i)assages as conclusi\'e for immersion as baptism. The few who think they refer to the work of the Spirit on the heart, believe, for the most part, that this inner work is described in language drawn from the outward act, and, therefore, that the proof for immersion in the fact that baptism is called a burial, is the same. It is difficult to see how this ■^Mr. I^ther^, Baptisma, ]\ 24-30, discussej the use of the prei^sitiou en and states as the first of his conclusions "That the preposition en, jfovprii'.ntf tlie dative of locality, denoting * rest in a place," means what we express by the \v.>rd at." This is to make baptized in the Jordan at the Jordan. The criticism he makes nptm the first example cited to sustain this statement, will be enonjfh to show its character, " e)\, to eremo," " at iho degert" encampment, not uHrfo* the desert sand." " \t the desert" as prefer- able to "in the desert," because "in the desert" Uiust mean under it ! I shall not add one word. baptism: an argument and a reply. 61 can be doubted. Wliy should this spiritual and invisible work on the heart be called a burial by baptism? There can be no actual burial in what is spiritual. It could be for no other reason than that the water baptism is a burial, and that, there- fore, the spiritual change is, in a figurative way, descril)ed through the act which represents it. If baptism were a sprink- ling, Paul says here "Buried by sprinkling" which cannot be reconciled with common sense, whether spoken of what is material or spiritual, outward or inward. Well may Bp. Hoadley say: "If baptism had been then performed as it is now among us, (by sprinkling) we should never so much as heard of such a form of expression, of dying and rising again in this rite."* Mr. McKay, therefore, in supposing that he has destroyed the force of these passages for immersion, l>y making them refer to so called spiritual baptism, makes a mistake. He leaves the case just where it was before. 2. But we believe that the outer water baptism, as well as the spiritual, at least, is here spoken of. Of course we must remember that, by a Avell known figure very frequent in Scrip- ture, baptism is said to afiect what it only symbolizes. (If Messrs. McKay, Witherow, tfcc, had borne this in mind, they would have spared their stricture on Baptist logic which is, in this case, the logic of almost the universal Church.) Paul argues that the believers of Rome are not obvious to the taunt that unconditional justification licenses sin, because believers are dead to sin. To prove that they are thus dead, he declares that in their baptism into Christ, they were baptized into his death (the symbol being said to effect what it represents.) Then Lo make it plain that in their baptism into Christ they were baptized into his death, he refers tliem to the form of their )>aptism — a burial — which was to show forth this very fact, and says, "therefore — for this very purpose — we are buried with him by baptism into death." •Works 111. p. 890. 52 baptism: an argument and a reply. Besides, in v. 5, it reads, "For if we have been planted together (lit. "grown together." Rev. Ver. "united") in the like- ness of his death" &c. Here baptism is called a likeness of the Savior's death, referring to its representation as a burial in v. 4. Now spiritual baptism cannot be a likeness of anything. This likeness must be actual and visible, and not spiritual and invis- ible. What then must be the form of that outward baptism which is the likeness of the Savior's death 1 Can it be anything else than the burial by baptism — the immersion — of v. 4] Can sprinkling or pouring be such a likeness 1 Conybeare and Howson express the idea of this verse thus: "Literally Aave become partakers of a vital union of the representation of his death (in baptism). The meaning appears to be, if we have shared the reality of his death, whereof we have undergone the likeness." Well may they say, then, "This passage cannot be understood unless we bear in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion."* 3. The history of the interpretation of this passage throws much light upon its meaning. The early Fathers beginning with Tertullian who was bom about 150 A. D. and including Basil, Cyril, Chrysostom, Gregory Nazip izen, Ambrose, John of Damascus, Theophylact, ifec, all interpret this passage as referring to water baptism by immer- sion. And so, do all modern scholars, so far as I can learn, until Moses Stuart, including such names as Luther, Zuingle, Wesley, Whitfield, Baxter, Adam Clark, Chalmers, Bloomfield, Conybeare, Meyer, and a host of others. Since M. Stuart's attempt to explain Rom. 6 : 4, 5, so as not necessarily to include a reference to [immersion, but few have had the hardihood to follow him. Until there was need then of a diflferent interpre- tation to serve a controversial purpose in ev^ading the force of the Baptist argument, no one thought of explaining this passage -except as a reference to baptism as immersion, and few have ^Life and Epist. of St. Paul, p. 587. baptism: an argument and a reply. 5^' done so even since. "Who can fail to see the force of these facts ? 4. Finally the true symbolism helps to the true interpretation of this passage, and to the tnith about the mode of baptism. Even Mr. McKay admits that baptism is to symbolize the work of regeneration in the soul, and Kom. 6 : 4, 5, and Col. 2:12 l^rove it. But how can we best represent that change by which old things pass away and all things become new — by which the old man is crucified, and the person becomes a new creature 1 By what stretch of the imagination can we see this shown forth in sprinkling or pouring? How can we fail to see it vividly and impressively portrayed in the burial in the water — death to the old — and rising out of the water — resun-ection to the new ? Baptism is represented again in Eph. 5:26, and Tit. 3 : 5 as a bath or bathing — the word used in tho original referring to a bathing of the whole body. But how the whole body could be said to be bathed by baptism, if baptism were a sprinkling or a pouring I find not, but in immersion I see such a bathing. But on what does Mr McKay and others dei)erid, beyond what has already been answered, to evade the force of these passages? 1. Mr. McKay holds that in Rom. 6 : 3, "Buried with him by baptism," the burial is the result of the baptism, and is not the baptism itself, and as the spade which buries is not the burial,, therefore here the baptism is not the burial. He has forgotten, however, that on p. 27 he declares that Dr. Dale has proved beyond a question that the baptism is not act but an effect, now he says, in order to serve his present purpose, that baptism is not effect but means. He aboumis in points against us. First, -we are demolished because a thing is so, and then again ))ecause that very thing is not so. But whichever way he chooses to make his point, it is useless here ; for if the burial is the result of the baptism, it is a burial which is the result,. -54 baptism: an argument and a reply. and tliat is wliat is always affected l>y immersion, and wliat is never secured either by sprinkling or pouring. Besides, in Col. 2 : 12 it is "buried with him in {en) baptism, not by baptism. Therefore here it is plainly stated that tlie burial is the Ijaptism. 2. It is said that the ancient burial was not a covering but a cremation, and so the burial in water need not be a covering in water. But the Jews placed the dead in sepulchres, and of Christian burial, with which we have alone to do, let Smith's Die. Christ. Ant. speak. After an exhaustive examination, it is concluded, "As a rule, accordingly, it may be held, that interment, with or without embalming, * * * obtained from the first in the Christian Churches."* 3. His attempt to cast odium upon what he terms the "burial theory," by declaring it Romish, will be considered in the next chapter. The declaration is what no one ever made before who had any reputation to lose. But what shall we say of his state- ment that "the best scholars during and since the Reformation have i-epudiated the Romish and Baptist interpretation of Rom. G: 3-5 and Col. 2: 121 I will give a few quotations from the leading reformers and divines during and since the Reformation. Luther: "That the minister dippeth a child into water sig- nifieth death ; that he again bringeth him out of it, signifieth life. So Paul explains Rom. 6." In Du Veil on Acts 8: 38. Zuingle: "The immersion of your hotly into water was a sign that ye ought to be ingrafted into Christ and his death, that as Christ died and was buried ye also may be dead to the flesh and the old man." Annot, Rom. 6 : 3. Presbyterian Assembly of Divines. — "'Buried with him by baptism.' In this phrase the apostle seenieth to allude to the ancient manner of baptism which was to dip the parties bap- tized, and, as it were, to bury them under the water, for a while, then to di'aw them out of it, and lift them up, to represent the burial of the old man, and our resurrection to newness of life." Annot, Rom. 6: 4. *Art. "Burial." baptism: an argument and a reply. 5o Cmnmer: "Baptism and dipping into water doth betoken that the old Adam, with all his sins and evil lusts ought to bo <lrowned and killed by daily contrition and repentance, and that by the renevdng of the Holy Crhost we ought to rise witli Christ."* John Wesley: Buried with him — alluding to the ancient manner of baptising by immei'sion."t Thus I have quoted the words of the leaders in the German, Swiss, Scotch, Anglican, and Methodist reformations, and they all adopt the "Baptist and Romish" interpretation. Had I space I could quote from one hundred and lifty or more of the most prominent Protestants of all denominations to the same •effect. I do not believe a half dozen Protestant scholars of any note can be found who will deny a reference in Rom. 6 ; 3-0, Col. 2 : 12, to immersion. And yet Mr. McKay can declare that the best scholars durihg and since the Reformation have repudiated this interpretation, and that it is Romish. It is j)itiable for any man to be so carried away by a desire to preju- dice the minds of his readers against the view he combats a.s to be guilty of such statements. But what a somersault this new ground re^iuires our Pedo- baptist friends to make 1 To bring in affusion, their great argu- ment is that the Spirit is said to be affused, and that the water baptism is to be affused also, because it must conform to the representation of the Spirit's baptism. Whereas, now, to get rid of burial by baptism they declare tliat this refers to the Spirit's baptism, but the water baptism need }iot conform to the representation of the spiritual. How convenient ! If they woidd only notice that the effects of the Spirit on the soul, and not the mode ! of the Spiiit's coming is called a baptism, then there would not be this apparent conflict between the repre- sentations of the spiritual baptism, which requires them to c-ontradict themselves point })lank. *Aii Instruction of Baptism. tCoin. in Loco. 56 baptism: an argument and a reply. A word or two about other references to baptism. Saul is thought to have been baptized standing, because he "arose and was baptized." There are but few besides Mr. McKay who do not know that "arise" in Scripture use means to "prepare/* "get ready," see Josh. 1:2; Judg. 6: 12, &c., «kc. It is thought that when Peter asks, Acts 10: 47, "Can any forbid water, tkc," it means, can any forbid its being brought into the house. Wonderful ! The baptism of the jailer is not said to be "in the jail," Acts 16: 32-34, and if it was, it would not dis- prove immersion. Thus we have followed our author through his remarks on the references to baptism in Scripture. We have been com- pelled to notice much which demands attention only because some thoughtless people might think it unanswerable, if un- answered, and because it is a compend of what is usually advanced by those who venture to deny that immersion is bap- tism. The reader must form his own conclusions. The most convincing argument, however, if anything can be more plain than the language of Scripture, still remains. CHAPTER YI.— THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. As Mr. McKay tells us, he began his pamphlet with the determination "to carry the war into Africa." Men more learned and hence more discreet have not ventured to do more than attempt to prove that sprinkling is valid baptism as well as immersion. Mr. McKay, however, to fulfil his valorous threat, seeks to show that immersion is not baptism. After having treated the argument from the meaning of the word baptizo, and from the references to baptism in the Bible, as we have seen, he proceeds to the testimony of history, and makes the astounding assertion that immersion is A Romish Invention ! ! This is the latest discovery. Common sense people will won- der how this village pastor, in his retired study, with his modest baptism: an arqumedi and a reply. 6T shelf of books beside him, has been able to find out what Church Historians and Encyclopedists with their life long research among musty manuscripts, and the records of the past, never dreamed of. The most, we have no doubt, will be unkind enough to think that the Historians are as trustworthy as Mr. McKay, although he taxes such men as Schaff and Stanley with blundering, p. 108. It is hard to deal with such a statement as this seriously. I may state that I have examined the works of all the Church Historians of England, America, France, and Germany, I have been able to find in the great libraries, and I have yet to find one who refers to the primitive baptism, who does not declare that it was by immersion. So also of the works on Archseology. We propose to question history and the Church Historians as to the original mode of baptism, and whether immersion or sprinkling is allied with Rome. In the Epistle of Barnabas, esteemed canonical by some in the earliest times, we find these references to baptism. "Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water." "We descend into the water full of sins, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart." Hennas, writing. about the close of John's life, describes the apostles as having gone "down into the water," with those they baptized, and "come up again." Justin Marty;, writing about A. D. 140, speaks of the bap- tized as "washed," and as obtaining forgiveness of sins "in the water." He exclaims again, "For what is the benefit of that baptism which makes bright the flesh and the body only."* TertuUian, A. D. 204 : "Of .baptism itself there is a bodily act, that we are immersed (mergimur) in water." 'We are three times immersed (mergitamur)." 'Entering into the water, we profess the Christian faith," &c.t *Apol. 79, 85,86. Did. cum Trypho. Ch. XIV. fCoroua Militis, Ch. III. Baptism, Ch. VII. De Spectaculis, Cti. IV., &c. tr tr ^8 baptism: an argument and a reply. In three other passages he speaks of bai)ti8m as an ininier- sion, using the word tingo. Hippolytus, A. D. 225, speaking of our Lord's baptism : "How was the boundless river which makes glad the city of <jrod, bathed in a little water, the incomprehensible fountain ♦ * * covered with scanty and transitory waters. There is not yet the remotest hint of sprinkling or pouring as baptism. But it was about to appear. The idea began to prevail that baptism was necessary to salvation. Hence when any were sick and in danger of death, being unable to submit to immersion, they were sprinkled or poured as a substitute. The first instance of such a baptism is the case of Novatian, A. D. 250. The following facts speak for themselves : 1. Eusebius, in his history, written less than a century after, quotes from a letter of Cornelius, a bishop contemporary with Novatian, as follows : " He (Novatian) fell into a grievous dis- temper, and it being supposed that he would die, immediately he received baptism, if indeed it be proper to say that one like him did receive baptism."* 2. Novatian recovered, and was nominated for Bishop. In reference to this, Cornelius in his letter to Fabius, says "All the clergy, and many of the laity resisted it, since it was not lawful that one baptized in his sick bed by aspersion, as he was, should be promoted to any order in the clergy."! 3. One Magnus inquires of Cyprian the great N. African bishop of the time, "Whether they are to be esteemed right Christians who are not washed in the water, but only sprinkled (non loti sunt, sed perfusi)."| 4. Cyprian, with great diffidence replies, "In the sacrament of salvation (baptism), where necessity compels, and God gives *In my reference to this passage in my review, not having EusebiuB in the original at hand, I touli the translation of Dr. Hicox. The translation given above is prefeni))]tr. The change does not affect the argument. A generous opponent would not use buch » case as Mr. McK. does, to impute ignorance or forgery to nis antagonist. tBohn's Eccl. Lib. JC^uoted by Bp. Taylor, Dout. Dubit B. 3, Ch. IV. K. 15, and Pen- gilly, Baptism, p. 78. baptism: an argument and a reply. 69 n immer- tism : ihe city of > fountain )r pouring li began to ence when ! to submit )stitute. Novatian, s: itury after, M)raiy with rievous (lis- mmecliately lat one like Jishop. In ', says "All it was not as he was, In. African jmed righfc sprinkled sacrament Grod gives the original at 3 ia preferable. not use buch * 15, and Pen- pemiission, the divine thing, though outwardly abndged, bestows all that it implies on the faithful."* 5. People who were thus sprinkled on their beds, partly, at least, from the inadequacy of their baptism, were not permitted to hold office in the church."! 6. The Edinburg Encyclopedia gives the fui-ther history of sprinkling. "The first law to sanction aspersion as a mode of baptism was by Pope Stephen II., A. D. 753. But it was not till the year 1311 that a council held at Ravenna declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent," &c. I One more fact need but be mentioned to make the absurdity of the assertion that immersion is an invention of Rome, patent. The statement, I give in the words of Dr. Wall, Hist. Inf. Bap. II. p. 414. No one but a very ignorant man can question it. It is "All those nations of Christians that do now, or formerly did, submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, do ordi- narily baptize their infants by sprinkling or i)ouring. But all other Christians in the world, who never owned the Pope's usurped power do, and ever did, dip their infants in the ordi- nary use." Thus we find that spnnkling — not immersion — comes to us with the stamp of Rome upon it. "Well may that most learned of German works, Brockhaus' Real Encyclopadie, Art. Bap- tism, say : "The mere spiinkling with water which earlier was the ])ractice only in the case of the sick, came into use in the *Neander, Ch. Hist. 1. p. 310. tKurtz, Cli. Hist. 1, 30-1 and 46-2. tMr. McKay, referring to this quotation, says in his review, "It is unfortunate for this statement that there was no council held at JRavenna in the year 1:111, — the huptint Robinson to the contrary, notwithstanding." Now any reader of this confident and em- phasized statement would suppose Mr. McKay knew. There may be some surprise when I state that Mr. McKay mal<es this denial without having examined the facts, or regard- less of them. The Encyclopedia Brittannioa, states "The Council of Ravenna in 1311 was the first council of the Church which legalized baptism by sprinkling, by leaving it to the choice of the ofl[iciating minister." Meyer's great Encyclojiedia (Das grosse Conversations Lexicon), the most learned work in Germany, says, ( I translate) First, Since the 13th century, at the council of Ravenna, 1311, became aspersion (probably on medical grounds) permitted.** To be absolutely sure I consulted, in the Library of the British Museum, London, Labb^'s "Sacrorum Conciliorum Collectlo," (Collection of the Sacreil Councils). Under the year 1311 was the Council of Ravenna, among whose acts was the one on baptism xeferred to by the learned authorities. 60 baptism: an argument and a reply. Western (Roman) Church for tlio first in the thirteenth cen- tury. The Protestants brought this custom over from the Catholics, (nahmen diese Sitto von den Catholiken heruber)." While sprinkling was thus early practiced in extreme cases, and we might well & appose that some early writer would refer to it as a form of baptism, yet not one single reference of the fathers of the fii'st four centuries can be found to literal water baptism as a spirinkling. I quote a passage from each of the principal ones, who wrote in Greek. Cyril of Jerusalem, A. D. 315. Instruction III., on Bap- tism, 12 : "Thou, going down into the water, and in a manner buried in the waters as ho in the rock, art raised again, walking in newness of life." , ^. \ '.. : BasU, A. D. 330. On the Holy Spirit, Ch. XV. 35 : "Imitating the burial of Christ by the baptism : for the bodies of those baptized are as it were buried in the water." Chrysostom, A. D. 347. John's Gospel, DLsconrse XXV : "When we sink our heads down in the water us in a kind of tomb, the old man is buried," &c. ' . • Athanasius, about 300. Questions on Psalms, Prop. 92 : "For that the child sinks down thrice in the font and comes up, this shows the death and the resurrection," &c. Gregory Nazianzen, A. D. 330. Discour^o XT ; "Let us, therefore, be buried witli CI' baptism," ifec. These quotations might be coe ♦*•«*"'' ^t at I forbear.* It is no wonder then that A u On jh iHstorians who have expressed themselves, Pedobaptist' though they be, unani- mously declare that the original baptibiu was immersion, and that sprinkling came in later, in case of the sick. *Mr. McKay, Pamphlet, p. 52, evades the force of the testimonies of t' initive writers in a way which few would care to do. He calls Basil, Cyril, Chrysosi i eg:ory Nazianzeri, Photius, and Theophylact, Romish writers ! ! ! Surely a very poon i ( irmed man always risks the strongest assertiona What will the reader think, wh he calls to mind that these were all Greek Fathers of the East,— that Chrysostom wa.- .'atriarch of Constantinople, the rival of Rome, and that Photius was the leader of the Greek Church in itH final separation from Rome. See Hageubach Hist. Doc. I. p. 230. Kurtz Ch. Hist Sec. 67. Comment la needless. baptism: an argument and a reply. 61 Let us quote a few of the greatest of them as to the practice of tlie first three centuries. Noander, a i)rince of historians, Ch. Hist. I. p. 310 : "In respect to the form of l)aptisni, it was in conformity with the original import of the symbol performed by immersion. ■* * * It was only with the sick, when the exigency required it, that any exception was made, and in this case baptism was administered by sprinkling." ■ • Giersler, Ch. Hist. I. p. 277: "The condition of catechumens continued several years; but the catechumens often deferred even baptism as long as possible on account of the remission of sins by which it was to be accompanied. Hence it was often necessary to baptize the sick, and for them the rite of sprinkli/ig was introduced." Kurtz, p. 119: "Baptism was performed by thrice immersing. **■''■ Sprinkling was only common in case of the sick." Hase, German edition, ps. 1 1 1 , 112: •* Baptism was performed by a trine immersion, in case of the sick by sprinkling." SchafF, probably the greatest living Presbyterian scholar, Hist, of A post. Ch. p. 568 : "Finally, as to the outward mode of administering this ordinance, immersion and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original, normal form. This is shown by the very meaning of the Greek words Baptizo, Baptisma, Baptismos, used to designate the rite. Then again by the analogy of the baptism of John, which was performed in the Jordan, (en), Matt. 3 : 6, Comp. 16, also eis ton Jordanen, Mk. 1 : 9. Furthermore by the New Testament comparison of bap- tism with the passage through the Red Sea, 1 Cor. 10:2, with the flood, 1 Pet. 3 : 21, with a bath, Eph. 5 : 26, Tit. 3 : 5, with a burial and resurrection, Rom. 6 : 4, Col. 2 : 12. ^ Finally, by the general usage of ecclesiastical antiquity (as it is to this day in the Oriental, and also the Greeco-Russian Church), pouring and sprinkling being substituted only in cases of urgent necessity, such as sickness and approaching death." 62 babtism: an argument and a reply. Dean Stanley, Art. Bapt. : " For the first thirteen centuries: the almost unanimous practice of baptism was that of which we read in the New Testament, and which is the very meaning of the word baptize, that those who were baptized were plunged, submerged, immersed into the water. * * * Baptism by sprinkUng was rejected by the whole ancient church (except in the rare case of doatk oeds or extreme necessity) as no baptism at all."* ; - And so, had I space, I could quote to the same effect from Cave, Gregory, Winer, Kahnis, Waddington, Smith, Mosheim, Hagenbach, Fisher, Pressens^, tkc, and these are all Pedo- baptists, and the most noted church historians who have ever lived. As I have not space to quote, I will challenge any one to produce a single church historian who has ventured to state that sprinkling aad not immersion was the practice of the primitive church. I will also challenge an instance, in any church father of the first three centuries after Christ, who refers to literal Christian baptism with water as a sprinkling — literal Christian baptism, I say, for the early writers saw a figurative baptism in many things. But what do the Encyclopedias testify. I ccnFulted all contained in the British Museum Library^ London. The following is the result: Encyclopedia Brittanica: "The usual mode of performing the cerenipny was by immersion. In the case of sick persons the *0n the cover of Mr. McKay's pamphlet is a plate representing the King and Queen of the Longobardi (?) sitting in a bath and beinfj poured. Hear what Mr. McKay says : "Thsir sitting in the water in the family bath is immersion ; but their baptism is by Water poured on them from a vase. Their immersion, like that of the Greek Church of the present day, was far from being a submersion of the whole body under water, and would not be recot^:iized as baptism by mof'.en. immersionists. Yet it is of just such inimer- aions that l)?an Stanley speaks, vvliom Baptists claim as sustaining tlieir practice." Dean Stanley iiays above thai baptism was a submersion, and j'et Mr. McKay says he did not mean submersion at all. To what lengths of wild assertion will he not go to carry his point, an'', the "war into Africa." Here is another passage from Dean Stanley's ^Jastern Church, p. 117. "There can be no question that the oritrinal form of baptism Was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters, and for at least four centuries any other form was «. 'her unknown or disregarded, except in case of dangerous illness as an exceptional alpic?t a monstrous case. To this form the Eastern Church still rigidly adheres." By this same method immersion could be eliminated from the New Testament and sprinkling substituted. BAPriSM: AN ARGUMENT AND A REPLY. 63 centunes^ vhich we Baning of plunged, ,ptism by except in > baptism Bfect from Mosheim, all Pedo- have ever 3 any one id to state ce of the je, in any irist, who inkling — rs saw a Libraiy^ :nung the Irsons the Lg and Queen iMcKay says : [aptism Is by phurch of the Er, and would [such immer- tir practice." pKay says he I he not go to Jean Sta,nley'8 In of baptism bur centuriea lerous illness 1 Church still Voni the New minister was allowed to baptize by pouring water upon the head, or by sprinkling. In the early church, clinical baptism, as it was called, was only permitted in cases of necessity; but the practice of baptism by sprinkling gradually came in, in sjute of the opposition of councils and hostile decrees." Burrow's and Wilkes' Encyclopedias and Pantologia all^dopt the following statement: "Tn performing the ceremony of bap- tism, the usual custom (except in clinical cases, and where there was scarcity of water) was to immerse and dip the whole body.' English, Penny, and National Cyclopedias state: "The man- ner in which it (baptism) was performed appears to have been, at first by complete immersion." Rees' and Howard's Cyclopedias: "In primitive times this ceremony was performed by immersion, as it is to this day in the oriental churclies, according to the original signification of the word." Encyclopedia Metropolitana : ""We readily admit that the literal meaning of the word baptism is immersion, and that the desire of resorting again to the most ancient practice of the church, of immersing the body, which has been expressed by many divines, is well worthy of being considered." Edinburgh Encyclopedia: "Baptism, in the apostolic age, was jierformed by immersivA." London Encyclopedia: "It is certain that the literal meaning of the word baptism is immersion, which is further confirmed by the practice of the ancient church." Chambers's Encyclopedia: "It is, however, indisputable that in the primitive church the ordinary mode of baptism was by immersion. ♦ * * But baptism was administered to the sick by sprinkling, although doubts as to the complete efficacy of this clinic (sick) baptism were evidently prevalent. * * * The dispute concerning the mode of baptism became one of the irreconcilable diffrrences between the Eastern (Greek) and Western (Romish) Churches, the former genei-ally adhering to the practice of immersion whilst the latter adopted mere pour- ing," «fec. I 64 baptism: an argument and a reply. I add translations of what two others of the greatest German Encyclopedias say. Meyer's Das Convereations Lexicon : "The first mode of baptism (immersion, untertanchen) was practiced in the apostolic as well as in the primitive Church, and is continued in the Eastern Church, which regards sprink- ling as arrant heresy, and has made it a grounc of their separation from the Western (Roman). Yet there existed a sprinkling already, at that time, in case of the sick." Hertzog's Real Encyclopadie : "In the primitive chu.'ch we find immersion (untertanchen) as a rule in baptism, pouring and sprinkling being only in case of the sick." In view of all this, and much more which might be advanced, did space permit, how absurd is the attempt of Mr. McKay's pamphlet to arouse prejudice against immersion, by branding it as Romish. How unseemly, also, are all the eftbrts which are made to obscure the plain facts of nistory, which declare that immersion, and immersion only, was the primitive baptism. Probably, also, those of these most learned of the world's scholars who are alive, would smile did they hear that Rev. W. A. McKay had declared that they "knew little and cared less about 'dip- ping,'" p. 27. But the testimonies of all the church historians and encyclopedists must be got rid of in some way ; for they are all compelled to concede that immersion is the original baptism. And so Mr. McKay sweeps them all aside by the authoritative assertion that they were all careless ignoramuses, so far as what they assert about baptism is concerned. But Mr. McKay's attempt is worse than absurd. He says, p. 37, "The very fii-st mention of dipping as a mode of baptism is by Tertullian, who lived about the beginning of the third century." Why did h(3 not state that sprinkling is not men- tioned until half a century later, and then it is to question it ? He seems to have put it so purposely, to leave the impression that immersion was but then being introduced, and that baptism: an argument and a reply. 65 German en) was Church, 5 sprink- of their existed a tanchen) V in case dvanced, McKay's branding ts which. h declare baptism. 5 scholars McKay ut *dip- istorians they are baptism, oritative as what [e says, I baptism lie third lot men- stion it ? pression. id that sprinkling had been the practice up to this time. Again he seeks to discredit immersion because it was threefold until the seventeenth centuiy. "Those who did not dip three times did not dip at all." Why did he not add also that, during the same time, those who did not sprinkle three times, did not sprinkle at al) 1 Such a resort to half truths which teach a lie is utterly unworthy of a Christian controversialist.* Again, Tertullian is said to have included immersion among the observances "based on tradition, and destitute of scriptural authority." He does just the opposite. In De Corona Militis, chs. 3, 4, ho mentions traditional observances associated with baptism, but he gives no hint that the immersion itself was traditional, while i-^ other places, he expressly declares that baptism was by immersion, and by our Lord's command. These are his words : "As of baptism itself there is a bodily act, that we are immersed (mergimur) in water," &c. De Bap. ch. 7. "And last of all, commanding that they should immerse (tinguerunt) into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." Against Praxeas ch. 26. f *Mr. McKay, in reply to my statement that it was as much the custom, until the 17th century to sprinkle three times as to immerse, as usual flatly contradicts it. Of this, he says, "there is noproof whatever," p. 103. A denial is needed, and he makes it. But what are the facts. The American Cyclopedia, Art. Bap. , declares "The Latin Church favors affusion three times. " Meyer's German Conversations Lexicon declares that sprinklinjf, permitted by the •Council of Ravenna, "has certainly gone over into the Protestant church as a threefold one." Richard and Gerand's Biblotheque Secret, French, Art. Bap. "They (Christians) im- merse (the candidate) three times, or they cast water on his head three times (on lui verse trois fois de I'eau sur la t^te). " Dr. Wall, Hist. Inf. Bap. I. p. 576, gives acts from the Synod's of Anglers and of Lan- gres, from the Council of Cologne, and from the Agenda of the Church of Mentzs instructing the Priest to sprinkle three times. And so the proof might be multiplied, were it needed. tMr. McKay waxes both merry and indignant at my translatini^' tingiierunt in this passage, immerse, and he asserts, as usual, as though he was certain, that this verb "never inc(inn immerRe" p. 104. Any tyro in Latin, especially ecclesiastical Latin, should know better. His own Dr. Dale gives tinpo but two meanings, to dip, and to die, making it the exact equivalent of the Greek hapto. In the Lexicons of Adams, For- cellinus, and Kiddle's Scheller, dip is ^iven as the primary meaning of tingn, while Ainsworth, under tinctus, gives dip as its eceleniafttical vsatje. Smith's Christian An- tiquities refer to this very passage where tivgo is used of bajjtism, to prove that triple immertn'on was the rule in North Africa, where Tertulliaii lived. Art. Bap. sec. 49. The translat<irs of the Ante Nicene Library translate (tinguimur) in the last of this same j)assage "immerse." Ed. Beecher, Congregationalist, declares "Tertullian uses tivgo mterchangeably with wergo, mergito (to immerse)." Christ. Rev. 1840, p. 241, and "But to prove that it means immerse is needless; no one can deny it." And so I might quote from M. Stuart. Prof. Toy, Prof. Tohey Dr. Hovej', ic. So much for thig proof of Prof. Goodspeed 8 ignorance and unfairnesa. There is quite a number of just, •uch instances. 66 baptism: an argument and a reply. What shall we say of the Rev. gentleman's assertion that "during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Church of Home was compelled by the force of the example of the Pres- byterian (!) Waldenses to abandon her superstitious dipping and return to the simple and scriptural baptism by affusion V^ Church historians declare that this church was more intent on sweeping the Waldenses from the earth with fire and sword, than on following their example in anything. But Mr. McKay and the church historians never agree, as we have seen. He also says, p. 58, that they put down dipping as among the superstitions of Rome, and refers to Perrin, Ch. 3, p. 231. T can find no such statement there. Elsewhere Perrin states, "The things which are not necessary to baptism are * * ♦ dipping it (candidate) thrice in water." They thus admit a single immersion to be baptism, but object to the threefold dipping. There is no proof that they had any other. Note. — Mr. Lathern, Baptisma, p. 149, sq., refers to Patristic Testi- mony, on the question of the form of the original baptism. He gives no hint that there are scores of plain and express declarations, in the writings of the early Fathers, that baptism was an immersion. But he refers to some figurative allusions to baptism, which, out of their con- nection, seem to favor affusion, and leaves it to be inferred that this is all the evidence from the Fathers, and that it is against immersion. How much even the figurative allusions he quotes favor sprinkling can be seen when the passage is given. I shall give what Mr. Lathern quotes in ordinary type, and add the part of the passage which he omits, in italics, and leave the reader to judge for himself. Cyril of Alexandria, Com. on Isaiah, Ch. 4 : 4 — **We have beer baptized not with mere water, nor yet with the ashes of a heifer fuive u >een sprinkled, enmUismetha, but with the Holy Spirit and fire." Chrysostom, Homily II. — "Wonder not that I call martyrdom a baptism, for there also the Spirit descends in rich abundance, * • * and as they who are bap- tized are bathed with the waters, so are the martyrs ivith their own blood." TertuUian, Baptisma, 16. Translation 3, Ante Nicene Library — "These two baptisms He shed forth from the wound of his pierced side in order that they who believed in his blood might be bathed with the water, they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink of the blood. This is the baptism which stands in lieu qf tJie fontal bathings." baptism: an argument and a reply. 67 Gregory Nazienzen, Orat. 39, 17: "I know a fifth, the bap* tism of tears, but it is still more difficult, because it is necessary to wet one^s couch every night with tears. But * ♦ ♦ Orat^ 60, 9, how many tears Ivave we to shed before they equal the flood of the baptismal bath." See Hag. Hist. Doc. I. p. 358. Mr. Lathem assumes, p. 201 : "Where Tertullian follows the law of Scripture, he spoke of aspersion of w^ater in baptism," and refers to the expression periginem acqua^, "sprinkling of water." De Penitentia 6, for proof. I give the passage in which this expression occurs, as trans- lated in the Library of the Fathers, from which the reader can judge of this proof. Here it is: "For who will furnish to thee a man so unfaithfully repenting, a single sprinkling of any water?" Tertullian challenges any one to find such a case. Immediately after he speaks of baptism as a "washing" in a "laver." The reference by Origen to 1 Kin. 18: 33, expresses strongly his idea of the completeness of the drenching, as though it had been an immersion. As Mr. Lathem scarcely ever tells us where to find his quotations, I cannot identify the other three, but presume the connection would explain the expressions as in the cases given above. They are but figurative allusions at best, teaching nothing about the act of water baptism. When these same writers refer to this, it is always as an immersion. The attempt to make it appear that Tertullian admits immer- sion to be a tradition, without scriptural authority, p. 200, may impose on the unlearned, but it will provoke a smile from others. Suffice it to say that no church historian agrees with Mr. Lathem. The expression, " Dehinc ter mergitamur amplius aliquid respondentea, quam Dominus in Evangelio determinavit.' Mr. Lathem declares is Tertullian's frank confession "that the practice of triune immersion was ' more than the Lord prescribed in the Gospel.'" How correct this construction is can be judged from the translation of the whole sentence which I give/*' '68 baptism: an argument and a reply. "Then we are thrice immersed, answering somewhat more than the Lord prescribed in the Gosj)el." It was the custom to cate- chise the candidate while standing in the water. Tertullian says that the "responses" thus required were not commanded. So Smith's Christ. Ant. explains these words of Tertullian: "He speaks then of other 'responses' made by the baptized while standing in the water, alleging these as an example of custom founded on tradition only, not on any express direction of our Lord."* So also Neander,t <fec., &c. I have not space to refer at length to Mr. Lathern's remarks on the testimony of the fonts. He is most unfortunate, how. ever, in alluding p. L54 to that Ephesian font (!) discovered by Mr. "Wood, fifteen feet in diameter and nine inches deep. Why such an immense vessel should be needed to sprinkle candidates for baptism does not appear. Then it was found in the Forum and not in a Church. Did Christians baptize in the Forums? It is similar to a vessel found in a heathen temple. It was found within the territory of the Greek Church where immer- sion has been always the practice. This chimera of Mr. Wood, at least will not "hand his name and fame to posterity." The smallest of the fonts which Dr. Robinson says. Lex. Art. Baj.tizo were too small for immersion, is, according to his own measurement, Bib. Res. I. p. 78, four feet in diameter on the outside, and three feet nine inches deep. When the reader remembers these fonts were not erected until infant baptism became general, he will see the absurdity of assuming that they were for sprinkling infants. They are very large for immersing them. Indeed, Dr. Hackett who examined them declares them fully large enough for adult immersion. Mr. Lathern refers to the evidence as to the mode of baptism in the Catacombs at Rome, and quotes Witherow. The facts are found in Smith's Die. Christ. Ant., the most learned work in the language on this and kindred subjects. Speaking of the *Art. Bap. bcc. 10. tCh. Hist. I. p. 308. baptism: an argument and a reply. 69 lore tlian a to cate- Certullian iimanded. 'ertuUian: I baptized cample of direction 's remarks nate, how. c^yvered by sep. Why candidates the Forum le Forumsl le. It was lere immer- IMr. Wood, jity." The Ijcx. Art. to his own iter on the Ithe reader it baptism that they immersing ilares them )f baptism The facts Irned work ling of the only baptistery known to exist in the Catacombs — that in the cemetery of St. Pontianus, it says, "This consists of a small cistern or 'piscina,' supplied by a current of water. The piscina would appear to be between three and four feet deep and about six feet across."* It is added, "It is perhaps one of the earliest examples now remaining of a chamber set apart for the per- formance of this rite" (baptism). Mr. Lathern, p. 156, remarks, "An elaborate eflort has been made by the able but erratic Robinson, in his 'History of Bap- tism,' to obtain evidence from the pici-ctice of the early pure ages, in favor of immersion. According to his own acknowl- edgment, 'there were no baptisteries within the churches till the sixth century J ^' This statement is made to make it appear that Bobinson could find no evidence for immersion, until this late period, from baptisteries, because no baptisteries existed previously. If this is not the purpose why use this "acknowledgment" ci Robinson. Robinson declares there were no baptisteries within the churches till the sixth century, because prior to that tirao they were a sepai'ate building. These are his words : "About the middle of the third century baptisteries began to be built ; but there were none within the churches till the sixth century; and it is remarkable that though there were many- churches in one city, yet (with a few exceptions), there was but one baptistery." p. 69. In the Art. Baptistery in Smith's Die. Chris. Ant. reference is made to many baptisteiies before the sixth centur3^ To explain why they were in separate ])uildings, he refers to the fact that baptism "in the earlier centuries" being by immersion, the receptacles for the water were too large to be conveniently placed in churches. This can be leadily understood when we are informed that this receptacle in the baptistery of the Lateran, the most ancient of those existing, was twenty-five feet *Art. Baptiatery. 70 baptism: an argument and a reply. in diameter, and three feet deep, and in that of Sta. Maria Maggiore twenty feet across by five feet deep. The Encyclopedia Britannica gives the reason why Robinson "acknowledges" there "were no baptisterfes within the churches till the sixth century." "In the ancient church it was one of the buildings distinct from the church itself. Thus it continued till the sixth century, when the baptisteries began to be taken into the church porch, and afterward into the church itself"* Kurtz gives the reason for bringing the baptisteries into the churches thus : "When infant baptism became general, separate baptisteries wove no longer necesssry, and instead of them, stone fonts were placed In the churches. "f Other points in "Baptisma" might be discussed, had we space or inclination. But we have neither. CHAPTER YII.— SUMMARY. ' Thus we have striven to meet objections to immersion fairly. The reader must judge whether they have not been met suf- ficiently — nay, whether the most have not proved arguments for us, scarcely disguised. In every case but one or two, we have referred the reader to the passages of the author where our quotations may be found, so that they can verify for them- selves. In the course of the discussion, also, the following facts, among others have been made apparent. On the assumption that immei-sion was the baptism practiced by Christ and the apostles, all is clear and consistent. The Greek word haptlzo is taken in the sense in which the people used and understood it — in the sense in which the Greeks of to-day, and the church of which they form a part, use and imderstand it — instead of having forced upon it a meaning not only totally foreign to it, but also that of another common word *Art. Baptism. tCh. Hiat. I. p. 237. baptism: an argument and a reply. 71 ba. Haria Robinson J churches Ts distinct h century, rch porch, es into the tl, separate I of them, icl we space :sion fairly. 3n met suf- arguments |or two, we ithor where for them- following In practiced which the I the Greeks Irt, use and leaning not limon word in the language, thus doubly confusing and misleading the people. The references to baptism in the New Testament are simple and easily understood, requiring no departure from the ordinary use of language. *In* is not required to be changed to *at,' 'with,' &c., nor 'into' to *to,* &c., nor *out of to 'from.' Neither do we have to advocate the absurd idea of a washing or bathing of the whole body by sprinkling a few drops of water on the face, nor are we required to say that the application of these drops is a burial, as baptism is declared to be. As would be expected on the supposition that the baptism of the apostles was an immersion, we find the writers of the first and second And succeeding centuries declare it to be such, and when sprink- ling and pouring are introduced we find them regarded as only permitted as baptism when immersion could not be administered, and even in this case they were regarded as insufficient to qualify for offices in the church, while sprinkling only gained an equality with imn)ersion through the Pope of Rome, by whom also the Virgin Mary is put upon an equality with the Son of God, and this only after thirteen centuries. On the supposition, however, that sprinkling was the baptism ■of the New Testament we have to face the following absurdities: 1. Our Lord chose the word in Greek which always meant to immerse and never to sprinkle, to designate the act of sprinkling, instead of taking the word rantizo which ever meant to sprinkle. Thus our Lord made it necessary for all who spoke of the Chris- tian ordinance to explain that baptizo in reference to it, did not mean baptizo but rantizo, and whenever there was no one to make this explanation, the people were most surely deluded. 2. In the New Testament reference to baptism, in addition to unnatural uses of prepositions, &c., and fanciful explanations of the need of much water for sprinkling a few drops upon each candidate, we must understand the apostles to describe such sprinkling as a bathmg of the whole body, Eph. 5: 16, Titus 72 baptism: an argument and a reply. 3: 5, a washing of the whole body, Acts 22: 19; Heb. 10: 22, a burial, Rom. 6:4; Ool. 2 : 12. 3. Although our Lord commanded sprinkling, and the apostlea l)ractised it, Barnabas and Hermes, who were contemporary with the latter, refer to ba])tism in terms only consistent with immersion, and Justin Martyr, who wrote- within forty years of John and all the earlier fathers, in scores of references to bap- tisms, always describe it as an immersion, which it was not, and never speak of it as a sprinkling, which it always was, in apostolic times ! 4. Nay more, if sprinkling was the practice of the apostles, then within one hundred and thirty or two hundred years after their time so absolutely had the knowledge of the practice faded from the mind of the church, that when the original baptism by sprinkli g was again administered, two hundred and fifty years from the birth of Christ, all the church looked upon it as to be allowed only when immersion was impossible, and even then so inferior to immersion that those who had been sprinkled were disqualified for church offices ! Will Pedobaptists please explain how within such a short period the practice of the apostles could have been abandoned in the whole church, and not only abandoned but entirely forgotten. What led the church to wish the change 1 As the change took place and was forgotten in the space of thi'ee generations, what made the change so sudden and general] How did it happen that no grandfather ever told of the old baptism to his grandchildren or no grandchild ever remembered it ? In view, then, of the fact that all lines of evidence agree in requiiing immersion, and that all lines agree in rejecting sprinkling and pouring, so that the assumption that they ever practiced it is attended by such absurdities as the above, the reader can judge whether Mr. McKay's challenge to Baptists to produce a single undoubted instance of immersion from the Bible, needs any further attention. baptism: an argument and a reply. 73 10: 22, 3 apostles jinporary bent with y years of js to bap- was not, yrs was, in 3 apostles, ^ears after 3tice faded al baptism L and fifty upon it as !, and even [\ sprinkled ists please ice of the lliurch, and ,t led the 10, and was made the sn that no Indchildren Neither let the reader suppose that the only question between us and otlier denominations, as to tlie mode of baptism, is merely, one of more or less water. The real issue is on a principle which has to do with adherence to all truth. It is this, shall wo feel ourselvtjs bound to yield an exact obedience to the definite instructions of our Lord, thus avowing our belief that he had a specific purpose to serve in the ordinance as he com- manded it, which cannot be so well served in any other way, or shall vre take the liberty to change what lie has ordained, thus encouraging a spirit of looseness and rashness, while we attribute to our Lord the folly of enjoining what is so imma- terial that so distant an approach as sprinkling is to immersion will do as well as that which He commands. The nature of the issue can be seen in the words of John Calvin, Listitutes IV., XIX., "But whether the person who is baptized be wholly innuersed, and whether thrice or once, or whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no importance. Churches ought to be left at liberty in this respect to act according to the difi*erence of countries. The very word baptize, however, signi- jies to iirvmerse, and it is certain tJiat immersion was the practice of the ancient church." Baptists, on the contrary, hold that the form of baptism is adapted by divine wisdom to serve the divine purpose, and that therefore neither John Calvin nor any one else can tamper with it, or enjoin a different form without putting himself above Christ and in opposition to Him, Finally, may we not urge upon the reader the duty of giving to this question a calm and unbiassed consideration? To be on the side of truth in all things is to be on the side of God in everything; for He is Truth. To be on the side of error in anything is to be against Him in something. We shall soon all be in our gi-aves, and any saving of self-denial through wilfully or carelessly remaining in partial error, will not serve US. But the man who has been willing to suffer even that God's truth in its wholeness may have the devotion of his life, shall then have eternal honor. 5 74 raptism: an argument and a reply. PART II.— THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. CHAPTER I.— INFANTS EXCLUDED FROM THE BAPTISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, ♦ In considering the question of the proper subjects of baptism, I shall not so much review any Pedobaptist writer, as state some of the reasons why Baptists reject infant baptism and the arguments used in its support. I shall, however, correct some of the mis-statements of Mr. McKay and Mr. Lathern. 1. Our first proposition is: — Infanta are excluded from baptism by every deacrijUion of thin rite. 1. Infants vf ere Gxcludexl from John* s baptism. This was the "baptism of repentance," Mk. 1: 5; Acts 19: 4, viz. : in token of repentance. In harmony with this, the candidates were exhorted to "bring forth fruits meet for repentance," Lu. 3: 8, and were "baptized" confessing their sins. Matt. .3: 6; Mk. 1 : 5. As infants cannot repent and confess sin, they were shut out from John's baptism. 2. Infants were excluded from the bajytism of our Lord^ during his life. John 4 : 1 declares "Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John." According to this, the only desciii> tion of this baptism, our Lord made people disciples before he baptized them. As to make disciples means to lead to faith on Christ by instruction, — infants which can neither be taught nor believe, were excluded from this baptism. , ; We need not discuss the question whether this baptism was the same as that enjoined in the Commission. It is evident that in the baptism of John and of our Lord, the only baptisms of which the apostles knew, when the Commission was given, infants were excluded. Unless, therefore, infants were expressly included in the Commission, they would have continued their previous practice, and have omittted their baptism. But it requires only candid reading of Matt. 28: 19; Mk, 16: 16, to be convinced that baptism: an argument and a reply. 75 [. )FTHE LaptiHm, as state 1 antl the •ect some n. Ion of this This ^vas 4, viz. : in candidiitfis ance," Lu. iatt. 3: G; . thev were onr LoriJ, d baptized ily descvii> before he ;o faith on taught nor Lptism WHS lis evident baptisms k^as given, I expressly lued their But it L6: 16, to 3. Infanta are excluded from the haptiam enjoined hy the Commiasion. As some may object to Mk. 16: 16, because wanting in full MS authority, let us confine our study to the Commission as given by Matt. 28: 19. This reads in tho Kevised Version: "Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in tho name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I command you," kc. Now to make disciples of Christ, mathetneo in the New Testament is always to lead to faith through instruction. Tho conmiand then is to lead all the nations to faith in Christ through preaching the gospel, baptizing those thus led to Christ, kc. As infants are incapable of being led to faith by instruction, they are excluded from baptism by the terms of the Commission. Some Pedobaptists, however, (see McKay, p. 73, Lathern, p. 101) attempt to include infant baptism in the Commission by virtually making it read: "Make disciples, kc. by bai)tizing, itc."* But this is adding to the Scripture. It also fails to note the fact just stated, that "make disciples" is to make believers through instruction, which baptism does not do for any. Besides, in the desire to include infants in the Commis- sion, our Pedobaptist brethren seem blind to the fact that they thus exclude adults. For adults are not, by their own belief, to be made disciples by baptism and succeeding instruction. Neither do any believe that the apostles so practiced. Indeed, this was impossible, for men would not have submitted to bap- tism prior to instruction and faith on Christ. But the Com- mission as thus explained, will not include even infants, for infants are not thought to be made disciples by Pedobaptists by baptism and teaching "to observe whatsoever I (Christ) have, commanded you" (disciples,) but by baptism and believing, which »Mr. McKay states that "this is the view of the Commission talten by nearly all the best commentators," p. 73. This is another of his assertions mode at a venture. Ingham quotes from between one and two hundred of the most noted commentators and scholars, all Pedobaptists, who speak of the Commission as aj^plying to adults only. ■{See Subjects of Bap. 21 sq.) ■>«^ 76 baptism: an argument and a reply. the apostles were not oommanded to do, being believers already. It is best, therefore, to take the Commission as it reads, other- wise confusion and contradiciion result. Thus we see the natural scriptural order is. Disciple, Baptize, teach Christian observances. None but adults, then, can be the subjects of the baptism of the Commission. This Commission also, was given for all time. But if our Pedobaptist friends accomplish their aim, the time will come when none but infants shall be baptized. Need I ask whether that practice can bo true which would thus, at some time, make altogether void the command of Matt. 28 : 19, which was to hold through ail time ?* But if the apostles knew no infant baptism before our Lord gave them this last command, and if this command excludes infant baptism, then we must suppose they did not practice it. If we find 071 examination that they did not baptize infants, this will be another link in the chain of conclusive evidence. This leads us to our next remark. 4. Ivfant Baptism loas excluded in apostolic practice. Let us refer to every case mentioned in the New Testament. At Por.tecost, only such as "gladly received the word" were baptizod. Acts '^ : 41, noj these anr^ their children. The Samaritans believed, and ! were bo.ptized both men and women.'' Acts 8:12. Now we caimot doubt but that there were children belonging to some of the multitude baptized. Had such children been baptized is it not as nearly certain as ''Both Mr. McK. and Mr. L. seek to m^ku it appear that the Baptist argument from Mk. 16 : 16, against infant baptism, wou'd damn infants. Our argument, in the form of a p^, lloffism is this. No baptism but that of believers is tau^fht in the Bible. Infants cannot Dolieve Therefore irfants are not '.o be baptized. Now if Mr. McK. or Mr L wiil show as that there is nc sabation in the Bible, but that of believers, as there is no baptism, then we will say also, because infants cannot believe, they cannot be saved. But we believe there is a salvation other than throu^jh faith. So we believe infants can be saved, while they are not to be baptized. Mr. La*.hcrn, p. 98, quietly assumes that Baptists do not " cheridh solicitude in regard to the deuication of inLa's 'jO God," because thej do not baptize them. I^ it necessarj' to say that Baptists are showing as much concern for their children as any others. But thej' do not think the ..jbmission of an unconscious babe to a mechanical rite, has an;'thir.ff to do wit'i the w<;ll-being of the child. On.i prayer of the parent, and one act of faith ny the bane when come to years of understandinjf, are better in our estimation, i\\M. all forms wluoh do not exercise the moral nature. » baptism: an argument and a reply. 77 •eady. otlier- e the •istian ism of I time, e time ?'eed I hus, at 28 : 19, r Lord xcludes ctice it. infants, vidence. ;e. Let ^1" were len and a there iptized. iain as lientlroni tie fonn of Infants or Mr L there is no Ibe save J. I\fant8 can I m regard I nece9«arj' lers. But |l rite, has lid one act ^timation, can be that the record would have mentioned the fact, and would have read, "were baptized, men and women, and chil- dren." If infants were baptized in any case, they were in every case. As they were not at Samaria, we believe they never were. There were no infants baptized in the baptism of the house- hold of Cornelius, Acts 10 : 46, 47 ; for those baptized had received the Holy Ghost, and spake with other tongues. There were no infants in the household of the Jailer ; for Paul spake the word to all that were in the house, and they all shared in his faith. Acts 16 : 32, 34. There were no infants in the household of Crispus : for they fill believed with him. Acts 18:8. There were no infants in the household of Stephanus, 1 Cor. 1:16, for in less than five years after their baptism they had already "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints," 1 Cor. 16 : 15, and the Corinthians were exhorted to be subject to them. Tliere were no infants among those baptized at Corinth ; for they all hearing, believed, and were baptized, Acts 18:8. The only remaining instance of baptism apart from the case of Simon, Acts 8:13, and of the Eunuch, Acts 8 : 36 sq., which require no notice, is that of Lydia's household. Acts 16 : 15. All the probabilities tr3 against an infant being there. She was probably unmarried, as it was not the custom of the East for married women to do business in their own name. 11 she were married, it is most improbable that she would take young children with her on a business journey to a distant city, s ""h as she was making. The househokl were probably the servants who assisted her in her business. Besides, we find there were brethren in Lydia's house a few days after the baptism of the househokl, to whom Paul bade adieu at his departure, Act^ 16 : 40. These brethren must have been those baptized, as we have no evide* .oe that there were other converts. Under such i '}m4 78 baptism: an argument and a reply. circumstances, we are not required to assume that this house- hold was different from the rest baptized.* A general remark about the baptisms of households. Our Pedobaptist brethren do not seem to see that household bap- tisms cannot prove anything for infant baptism, without proving too much. They assume that the household was baptized as a matter of course, on the faith of its head, and speak of the improbability of all being converted. Very well, let the household be bap- tized on the faith of its head, then, and what follows 'J There must have been the wife and servants and grown-up children, or at least some of them, in every household. Then, to justify infant baptism, though assuming that infant ,i were baptized on the faith of the head of the house, we make it necessary to baptize the adult unbelieving members of any household whose head has believed. Let our Pedobaptist friends cling to infant baptism if they will, because of household baptism, but let them be consistent, and hold also, that adult unbelievers have a right to baptism, when members of a household whose head has believed. 5. Infants are most definitely excluded from baptism by its significarice. In Rom. 6 : 3-5, all who were baptized are said to have signified, in their baptism, a viiLal union with Christ, by which they die to sin and rise to newness of life. But have infants been brought into a new relation to Christ? If they are vitally united to him, havo they ever been separated from him? If they are in a state of spiritual life, have they already passed over into it from a state of spiritual death? To such as were baptized in infancy Paul's argument would have been an absurdity. Mr. McK. takes orir translators to tasK -rain for translating oj7. ^ household, and not fanidy, and adds, *' Wero it not for this l)lnnder on|tha part of our translators, together with the 'into,' the 'out of,' and the 'much water," the Baptist denn,nination never could have existed." Now should the woria ace- pt Rev. W. A. McKay at his own esti- mate, it would go hartl with the Baptists. Hi when people 'know that the learned authors of the Revised Version retain "household" as the translation of oikos, as they do the other "blundering translations," they may think there is a possible hope for the Baptists stUL baptism: an argument and a beply. 79 So also in Col. 2: 12, "Having been buried with him in bap- tism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh — you, I say, did he quicken together with him." Re%'ised Version. Infants have no faith which all the baptized are here said to have. Neither have they been quickened from a state of death through trespass, to i- e of life. So infants were excluded from the baptism administered at both Colosse and Rome. But if there was no infant baptism at Colosse and Rome, there was none anywhere; for we cannot suppose tb'^re was one rule for one place and another for another. Baptism is also to signify the complete purification which attends the death to sin and resurrection to newness of life — regeneration. Hence Paul was commanded to "be baptized and wash away his sins," Acts 22: 16. The Hebrew saints were to have their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and their bodies washed with pure water — baptized — Heb. 10: 22. But can baptism signify purification to babes — purijicntion ; mark — not purity. If they are pure, have they been previously unclean, and been purged, so that baptism can thus signify cleansing? Only one reply is possible. 6. hifants are also excluded from haptisvn by its purpose. Gal. 3 : 27, declares that all "who have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ." I do not know of any who deny that baptism is here said to be a profession of faith in Christ. So evident is this that in uhe case of the infanl., sponsors have ])een appointed to make this profession on its behalf. Because it is a profession of faith, it came in the New Testament im- mediately after believing. But can infants have faith to profess^ This purpose of baptism cannot be served in thoir case. In 1 Pet. 3 : 21, baptism is called "the answer (interrogation R. V.) of a good conscience toward God." This can but mean that in each case where baptism is according to Scripture, the so baptism: an argument and a reply. T)aptized acts according to a good conscience. But unconscious "babes can have no conscience, good or bad in anything. As this purpose of baptism is without limitation to church or age, it excludes infant baptism absolutely and forever. Thus we have found that infants were excluded from the terais of John's baptism, of that of our Lord while on earth, of the Commission, and fiom the practice of the apostles. The evident reason for this exclusion has also been found in the fact that baptism, in case of the infant, could signify nothing it was intended to symbolize, and serve no purpose for which it was designed. What shall we say then? Had infant baptism been the practice along with adult, can we suppose the New Testament would have been without mention of a case"? Had infant bap- tism been the usage, can we conceive there would not have been at least one single description of its design and purpose which would include infants. Can an outward rite, which was not commanded or practiced by our Lord and his apostles, and which serves none of the divinely appointed purposes and designs of baptism be recognized as valid baptism ? Can we suppose our Lord intended such a rite as this to become the substitute of the one which fulfils all the purpose and design of baptism as described and practiced in the New Testimtnt'? Nay. are we to suppose it was his desire that, by the gradual progress of the gospel, pedobaptism was to become universal, and thus the time come when the descriptions of baptism in the New Testament should be no more fulfilled in any cas3 of baptism and thus lose all meaning to men? Let such as can, beiiovo this, I cannot. But upon wliat supposed Scripture proof do our Pedobaptist friends rely to justify infant baptism in the face of these undeniable facts. Matt. 19:14, "SuITer the little children to come unto me, a id iorbid them not j for of such is the kingdom of heaven," is W:!^' baptism: an argument and a reply. 81 mscious As or age, Lg- •om the ;arth, of iS. The the fact g it was ;li it was )een the estament fant bap- lave been. )se which was not ^tles, and >oses and Can we lome the [design of istimtnt 1 m'H«lual Universal, jtism in cas3 of as can, jiobaptist )f these Into me, iven," IS appealed to. Some aver that "of such" here, does not mean, of such an humble spirit, and declare that children are prepared for heaven without the purging out of the bias to sin in the nature. But concede they are pun?, and need no change, and it does not make them fit subjects for the baptism of the New Testament. They have never, then, been anything else than pure. But the baptism of the New Testament is a washing to symbolize purification, not pnrity, — a life which has succeeded a death in sin, not a life which has been from the first. Besides, baptism to them can never be the answer of ' /xl conscience, and a profession of faith. So even thoug) unts were pure, baptism to them could serve none of the pii. ^joses which Scrij)- ture declares must be served in all cases of baptism. Another passage is quoted, 1 Cor. 7:14. "For the unbe- lieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother (husband) ; else were your chil- dren unclean, but now are they holy." Unless driven to desperation for some New Testament ground for their practice, Pedobaptists would never appeal to this passage. Let us very briefly examine it. First: It shows supreme ignorance of the history of the exegesis of this verse to say, as Mr. McKay Joes, that Baptists translate it "'Else were your children bastards' in the height of their desperation, tfec." These are the facts. Pedobaptist scholars quite generally so interpret it, including John Calvin, Beza, Doddridge, Whitby, Barnes, Bloomflold, Erasmus, Wolf, Bengel, Newcombe, Cranmer, Camerarius, Melancthon, Mus- culus, tkc, while Dr. Gill, so far as I can find, is the only Baptist who takes this view of the passage. Second : Notice, the same holiness is asserted of the brother, husband, as of the child. As this holiness, whatever it be, does not entitle the unbelieving parent to baptism, Pedobaptists themselves being witnesses, how can they assert that this very holiness does entitle the child to baptism 1 i.tl 82 baptism: an argument and a reply. Third: The apostle is speaking q/* the cases of mixed marriage to the believers at Corinth. Hence the expression, "else were your children unclean," must refer to the children of the be- lievers to whom he addressed his epistle. The apostle, then, assumes that the unbelieving wife or husband is as holy as the children cf believei-s. So Olshausen, De Wette, Meyer, Dress- ier, Bengel, tkc. Fourth : Now if the children of believers had been baptized, either because of their purity or for any other reason, they would have had the same standing as their believing parents, instead of being compared to the unbelieving husband or wife in these mixed marriages. This passage thus so plainly shows that infants were not baptized in apostolic times, that Wiberg, the great Swedish Baptist, was first led by its study to distrust the scripturalness of infant baptism, and such men as Dean Stanley, Stier, Lutz, Neander, Lange, Meyer, De "Wette^ Ruckert, Muller, etc., concur in the statement of Olshausen, "It is evident that Paul would not have chosen this way of arguing, if infant baptism, already, at that time, had been in » use. The adducing of Acts 2: 39, "The promise is unto you and to your children"* as proof of infant baptism, needs no serious reply : for children here is in tiie sense of descendants, as r.ny can see who chooses to read the connection. Neither does the assertion that children are in the church, on the evidence of 2 Jn. 1; 1 Jn. 2: 13; Eph. 6: 1-3; Col. 1: 2, meaning' by chil- dren — infants. Let the reader turn to these passages, and there will be need of no word from me. Eph. 2 : 19, 20, "Ye are fellow citizens with the saints, and of +he household of God ; and are built upon the foundation of *Mr. Lathem, Baptisma, makes this one of his chief— the chief— argument for infant baptism. Now there cannot lie tha shade of a doubt that children here Tiieans descend- ants. If it meant "the promise is to you and your infants, it would s mt out all but the infants of that generation. But allowinij that children here, niear s descendants, and what ima^yinable bearing it can have on infant baptism, I fail to sea. It says, vir- tually, that the promise of salvation is for all the generations to come. The consistency of our Pedobaptist friends adding, "therefore, infants are to be baptized" is apijarent. baptism: an argument and a reply. 83: the apostles and prophets," &c., is termed, "Baptisma," p. 91, "Paul's authoritative and masterly statement on the subject" of "the identity of the Church of God through all disi>ensations." Now to justify infant baptism it is not enough to show that there was a church of Go.i a the Old Testament— the Jewish nation, into which infar ts were born, must be that church. To serve Mr. Lataern's arguaient, the "saints" here with which the Ephesian believers were made fellow citizens, must have been the membera of the Jewish nation, against whom Paul had shaken off the dust of his feet as incorrigibly opposed to Christ. Mr. Lathern will scarcely attempt to maintain this. "The foundation of the apostles and prophets" has been vari- ously interpreted. Some think it means the gospel as taught by the New and Old Testament, others, as taught by the apostles and prophets (teachers) of the New alone. Others still, the foundation on which apostles and prophets rested for salva- tion. But however interpreted, there is no shadow of ground for the use made of it by Mr. Lathern. Alford says "saints" here is the mystical body of Christ, the commonwealth of the spiritual Israel. Besides, Paul addresses the Ephesians who are thus made fellow citizens with these saints as having been quickened from the death in trespasses and sins, &c., Eph. 2 : 1 sq. The saints then with whom they thus became fellow citizens must have possessed spiritual life, and could not have been a body of people, introduced by a mechanical rite into the church of God, and growing up, a large share of them at least,, in ungodliness. But enough. The breaking off the wild olive brandies (Israel as an unbe- lieving nation), and the grafting in of the believing Gentiles, Rom. 11 : 18-20, is taken as a proof that the church of God of the New Dispensation is the same essentiailv as the church o^ God of the Old. Who denies this 1 Certainly God had U people among the Jews, but these did not include all the nation, and men were not bom into it by natural birth, but by spiritual. M baptism: an argument and a reply. So Paul says, Rom. 9:6," For they are not all Israel (spiritual) who are of Israel (natural)." For this very reason, because the natural and national Israel were unbelieving, they were broken off from the old believing patriarchal stem,-and the Relieving of the Gentiles grafted in. Now pedobaptism seeks to do what Paul declares God had overthrown, viz., give men a place in the visible kingdom cf God — the church — by natural birth. Paul says God broke off the Jewish nation from the believing patriarchal stock because of unbelief. Pedobaptism says, let all be grafted in by natural birth, growing up in unbelief, as they surely will, until they are led to faith. Thus p'-aobaptism seeks to restore the old Jewish national idea which was set aside in Christ, to justify itself. Is it any wonder then that the prac- tice which requires us to set aside the spirituality of the new dispensation, and go back to the vanished principle of Judaism, meets with the most determed opposition from Baptists'? Thus we find that there is no design or purpose of baptism which can be served in case of unconscious babes. They were not baptized in apostolic j)ractice. Neither is there a passage or allusion in the New Testament which favors it — nay, which is reconcileable with it. Need I ask, in view of all this, can infant baptism be authorized or valid ? CHAP. II.— OLD TESTAMENT EVIDENCE, Strange as it may appear, Pedobaptists depend chiefly on the Old Testament for support of this assumed New Testament ordinance of infant baptism. Their first argument is this: — 1. The church of the Old Testament and that of the New are essentially identical. Infants were included in the former, therefore they must be in the latter, and be subjects of its initiatory rite-baptism. ^ / ^ Let it be distinctly understood that what our Pedobaptist friends mean by the church of the Old Testament is the nation baptism: an argument and a reply. 85 ritual) ise the jroken k^ing of a what )lace in , birth. ?lieving ays, let elief, as baptism jet aside ihe prac- the new Fudaism, baptism They there a ors it — !W of all on the btament lis : — [ew are former, [s of its ^baptist nation of Israel. This is not denied, and alone will serve them. They assume then that the church of the New Testament and the Jewish nation, are essentially identical. The only proof of the essential identity of the Jewish nation and the Christiaii Church adduced by Pedobaptists is Acts 7 : 38, where the Israelites are called the church in the Wilderness. In quoting this as proof it is assumed that the word ecdesia is never used except of the Church of God. Then in Acts 19: 22, the Ephesian mob which cried "Great is Diana of the Ephesians" must have been essentially a Church of Christ: for they are termed an ecdesia as well. The truth is this word means "assembly" generally, and is used where there is no reference to a church. Thus it is in this case. Acts 7 : 38. The apostle, following the general practice of the Seventy, uses ecdesia as the translation of the Hebrew Hahal, assembly or congregation. But if the Israelites in the wilderness did constitute, essen- tially, the Church of God in the New Testament sense, then what a constitution a Church of Christ may have ! In Acts 7 : 39. these Israelites are described as disobedient and idolatrous. In Heb. 3 : 7-19, we learn that through their sin and unbelief they were shut out from Canaan, and died in the Wilderness. If then these were the Church of God, to which the New Testament Church is to conform, then a Church of Christ may be composed of such as are shut out of heaven through unbelief and sin. If it be necessary, in order to sup- port infant baptism, to plead for such a constituted church, then may the Lord deliver us from it. But what is the constitution of a New Testament Church ? Paul addresses or speaks of the members of the churches at Jerusalem (Acts 9:13), Lydda (Acts 9 : 32), Rome (Rom. 1 : 7), Corinth (Cor. 1 : 2), Ephesus (Eph. 1 : 1), Philippi (Phil. 1:1),. Colosse (Col. 1 : 2), ls saints. 8G baptism: an argument and a reply. Ho addresses the churches of Rome, Tliessalonica and Galatia as b-('thren (Rom. 12 : 1), 1 Thess. 1 : 4, Gal. 1:11). He calls the members of the church of Tliessalonica *'holy" (1 Thess. 5 : 27), of the Hebrew churches "holy brethren" (Heb. 3 : 1). The church at Corinth is called "the temple of God which is holy" (1 Cor. 3: 17), and it is exhorted to be separate from unbelievers (2 Cor. 6 : 14-16). The church at Ephesus is called the "body of Christ" (Eph. 1 : 22 sq.), "an habitation of God in the Si)irit" (Eph. 2 : 22). To the members of tho church at Collosse Christ had imparted life and forgiveness (Col. 2:13). And so we might enlarge to almost any length. Now can any one, on sober thought, maintain that these descriptions could apply to the Jewish nation, which was as sin ful as it well could be ? But notice furcher. If all are to be received into the church l)y right of natural birth, as all became members of the Jewish nation, then, as in the new dispensation, the whole world are on an equality, all men are born in the church and have a inght to baptism in recognition of this fact. Let pedobaptism, then, gain what it seeks, and all infants will ])e baptized, and grow up in the church, thus obliterating all distinction between the church and the world. Can this be the idea of the grand con- summation which the Scripture writers had in view? Do they not contrast the church and the world in all their references t^ the two. One is light, the other darkness. One is holy, the other corrupt. One is subject to Christ, the other to Satan. And yet the theory to justify infant baptism is such that it requires the progress of the gospel gradually to make these one, not by changing the first into the last, but by including the ■world in the church, through bringing all into her in infancy, to grow up in her, and make her corrupt with the reeking cor- ruption of innate depravity and sin. So, to make it appear that that is baptism which does not meet any of the New Tes- tament descriptions of its practice, design, and purpose, we are baptism: an argument and a reply. 87 vlatia calls CheBS. !)• lich is from called f God irch at :13). ; these 5 as sin church Jewish )rld are a right , then, Id grow jen the Ind con- )o they Inces to ]ly, the [Satan. Ithat it 36 one, Ing the ^fancy, IS cor- ippear iv Tes- jQ are tiskod to assent to an argumen*; which makes equally empty all the New Testament descrii)tions of a church of Christ. There is at least consistency between the practice to he upheld and the argument to sustain it. How simple, however, is the matter when we are willing to take plain New Testament teaching. Instead ot the New Testament church being like a nation, into which men are born, the kingdom of heaven is spiritual and not national, and men are to become members not by natural birth, but by spiritual regeneration, Jn. 3 : 1. So Paul does not say to the Jews, you belong to the kingdom of heaven — to the church of Christ — by natural birth. This is the very idea he had to combat. The Jews sui)pcsed they had r-rtembership in the Messianic kingdom, even as in the nauonal realm, by virtue of natural descent from Abraham. But Paul tells them, in relation to the spiritual dispensation of Christ, that they that are of faith are children of Abraham, Gal. 3 : 7. This argument for infant l)aptism, viz: that tlie Jewish nation and the Christian church are essentially the fiame, is just the position of the Judaizers of old, who mistook the spiritual nature of the new dispensation. Can any wonder that we cannot consent to have infant baj)tism forced upon the New Testament by such an argument as this? Can we do less than protest against a practice which destroys the constitution of the Church of Christ, and opens it to bad and good alike 1 II. It is said that the Old Covenant and the New are essen- tially one. Infants received the seal of the (.)ld — circumcision. Therefore they should receive that of the new — baptism. Let us test this statement. ,; = It is said Heb. 8 : 8 sq. "Behold the days come saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not accordinf; to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt," tkc, A/. ^^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) / o V WJ >^^ c^ s fe L^'/ '% M/. 1.0 I.I 1.25 ^»' lillM III 2.5 - IM 111112.2 1116 2.0 lll'i ' p \A. Ill 1.6 "/a ^ /a. e. '^w c-l 'a O /a 7 /a W Photographic Sciences Corporation 4^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 w< w. 88 baptism: an argument and a reply. and in V. 13 "In that he saith a new co tenant, he hatli made the first old. Now that which deca}^th and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." The argument for infant haptism from the covenants requires that the new be according to the old, which flatly contradicts Scripture which declares that the new is tiot according to the old. So Gal. 4 : 22 sq. Here Paul compares the tv/o covenants to the bond-woman Hagar, and the free-woman Sarah. The old he says ''from mount Sinai, beareth children unto bondage, which is Hagar." But Jerusalem that is above and is free, is the mother of the free children of the new. The argument from the covenants to support infant Ijaptism requires us to suppose that the contrasts between the bond-woman and the free, the children born to slavery, and to freedom, Mount Sinai, and the Jerusalem which is above, here made, are des- criptions of what is essentially the same. And so we could point to the whole scope of the Xew Testament, and show that the old and new covenants ever stand in contrast to each other. I will give an outline of the argument which the reader can fill out for himself. 1. The Old Covenant of Circumcision and the New Covenant of Gr.ice were not for the same classes. That of Circumcision was for the natural seed of Abraham and their slaves, Gen. 17 : 10-14. It was a race covenant, a national one. That of Grace was for a spiritual seed, Jn. 3 : 3-7, ikc, which is ever opposed by the natural. Gal. 4 : 28, 29. That of Grace was for the children of Abraham through like faith. Gal. 3 : 7-9, or; on * 2. The benefits of the two are not the same. "♦Mr. Lathern actually quotes Gal. 3 : 27-29, to support the idea that in the New Cove- nant as in the Old, blessinys descended to the natural seed. Has he read the preceding; verses where faith and not baotlsiu is spoken of ivs the condition of sonship and blessing? Has he rea<l v. 7, "They that be of faith, the same are sons of Abraham," and v. 9, "They which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." How then can he hold that the blessinjjs of the Covenant of Grace are for the natural seed, and not the spiritual through faith? baptism: ax augument and a rp:plv. 89 made ikl is [uires idicts Lo the jnants The idage, ree, is ument us to id the Mount L-e des- I could w that other. er can tenant :ahain [ant, a iwhich lOrace 1:7-9, kv Covc- ic ceding fesfling? "They Ihat the Ihroutrh That of Circumcision did not inchide salvation, (Ion. 17 : 1-14. That of (jraco is saving, Heb. 8 : 6-13. 3. They were not tlio same in Iheir condition. * That of Circumcision was circumcision, Con. 17 : 10-11. That of Grace is faith, Rom. 4:16, etc., i^'C, 4. They are contrasted in their relation to the law. Tliat of Circumcision included the law, or was included in it, Gal. 4 : 21 sg. ; C^al. o : 1 sg. ; Ju. 7 : 22, 23; Acts 21 : 20, 21 ; Rom. 2 : 25, re. That of Crace excluded the law, or was excluded l)y it, Rom. G : 14, 15; Rom. 1 1 : G ; Gal. 5 : 4, S:c. I quote one passago, Cal. 5 ; 1-4, "Stand fa,"'^t, tlierefore, and 1)0 not entanolod aijain with tlio yoke of bondaf-e. Behold T Paul say unto you that if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing. Yea, T testify again to every man th it receiveth circumcision, that ho is a debtor to do the whole law. Yo are severed from Christ, ye who would bo justified by the law, ye are fallen away from grace." (Rev. ver.) Paul says that such as are circumcised put themselves under the law, and are thus out of the rc-alm of grace, and severed from Christ. And yet, to get an argument for infant baptism, we are told that Ijaptism takes the place of circumcision a.s the seal of a covenant essentially the same as that of circumcision. If this be so, then it follows that all the baptized are severed from Christ, c^:c. How much more simple to accept the plain declarations of Scripture, and believe that the Old Covenant, ]?eing national, all were by national birth, entitled to its blessings, while the New, being spiritual, none but those who have spiritual birth — regeneration — have a right to them, and to its sign. Another form of this argument is this: — Baptism was substituted in place of circumcision. Infants were circumcised. Tlierefore infants should be baptized. ii: 90 baptism: an argument and a iieply. 1. But if baptism takes the place of 'circumcision, it must have the same adult subjects, as well as infiint. But adult slaves were to be circumcised, with no regard to moral character, Gen. 17: 12, 13, while no adult is to be baptized unless a believer on Christ, Acts 2: 41, »kc., &c. So also in Gilgal, Josh. 5th chap, all the Israelites were circumcised, bad and good. Can we say, then, that baptism must take the place of circumcision in case of the infant, when we knovr it did not, in case of the adult? This would be argument with a vengeance. 2. If baptism takes the ])lace of circumcision, they must have the same infant subjects. But they have not. Circum- cision was for males only. Baptism was for both sexes. 3. If baptism takes the place of circumcition, the apostles would not have practiced both together. But they did, Acts 1G:3. 4. If baptism took the place of circumcision, Paul would have mentioned it. The Judaizers Avere ever persecuting him because they thought he set aside circumcision. If baptism was virtually circumcision in another forn., would he not have silenced their outcry by telling them so? But how difl'erent was the course of the apostles? Judaizers are teaching the Gentile converts that they must Ije circumcised. Acts 15, the apostles and brethren meet to consult. Peter asks, v. 10, "Wliy tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the dis- ciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear.'' They conclude, Acts 21 : 25, that the Gentiles are to observe "no swh things Yet to have support for infant baptism we are told that baptism is just such a thing as circumcision, which placed this unbearable yoke on the Jews. Either the ai)ostles or the Pedobaptist friends who use this argument must be wrong. I cannot conclude this part of the subject better than in the words of Moses Stuart, the grtat Congregationalist. baptism: an argument and a reply. 91 Idr- tr." krve we iich bios be the "How unwary, too, are many excellent men, in contending for infant baptism on the ground of the t^'ewish analogy of cir- cumcision'? Are females not proper subjects of baptism^ And again, are a man's slaves to be baptized because he is 1 Is there no difterenee between engrafting into a politico ecclesiastical community, and into one of which it is said, that it is not of this world 1 In short, numberless dilHculties present themselves in our way as soon as we begin to argue in such a manner as this."* Thus we have presented the New Testament evidence, and considered us exhaustively as space would permit, the arguments from the Old Testament by which it hi sought to justify a prac- tice as though of the New Testament, which is shut out by every New Testament reference to it, I will add a few concessions by Pedobaptists scholars out of scores which might be quoted, and leave this part of the argu- ment to the candid reader. Luther: "It canrot be proved by the sacred Scriptures that infant baptism was established by Ciirist."t Jacobi : "Infant baptism was established by neither Christ nor his ai)Ostles."| Hngenbach : "The passages from Scripture cited in favor of infant baptism as a usage ot" the priijiitive church are doubtful and piove nothing."^ Neander : "Baptism was administered at lirst only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution," (S:c.\\ M. Stuart : "Commands, or plain and certain examples in the New Testament relative to it, I find not."^ Bp. Taylor: "All that either he (Christ) or his apostles said of it, requires such previous dispositions to baptism, of which infants are not capable, and these are faith and repentance."** Dr. Paley : "At the time the Scriptures were written, none were baptized but converts."!! (). Test. Can. M\\ A. IVh Variety of In. Ban. I'art H, p. 8. tKitto Enoy. Art. Ban. §Hi8. Doc. I. p. 200. iCh. His. 1. 311. "iBap. 101. "Lih. of Prof. 340. ttScr. on 2 Pet. 3 : 15, 16. 92 baptism: an argument and a replv. Prof. Halin : "Baptism according to its original design can be given only to adults, who are capable of true knowledge, repentance and faith."* Almost any number of testimonies could be quoted from the foremost Pedobaptists, bu<. we forbear. Of course they all have some way, tradition, church authority, continued usar^e, &c., to justify their practice to themselves. It is significant, however, that it is not by the direct teaching of Scri})turc. t CHAPTER III.—THE TESTIMONY OF HISTORY, About the references to l)aptism in the writings earlier than Justin Martyr, it may be said that thi^y are fanciful, for the most part, and give no hint that it was for infants. Justin Martyr was in his youth contcmi)orary with the apostle John, lie wrote an apology for the Christians to the Emporor Antoniims Pius, aboui fifty years after John's death. In this lie gives a detailed account of ba])tism, stating as his reason for so doing the f(^ar lest, if he omitted to do so, he should "seem to deal in some respects perversely" in his account. He then proceeds : "As many as are persuaded and believe that the things taught by us are true, and jn-omise to li\c by them, arc directed first to pray, and ask of (Jod, with fasting, the forgiveness of their former sins ; we praying and fasting together with tlunn. After- wards they are conducted by us to a place w^here there is water, and after the same way of regeneration whereby we were our- selves regenerat(»d, they are regenerated. For they are washed in water. * * * "And now in reference to this thing (l)aptism) we have learned from the apostles this reason : Since at our birth we were bovn without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, * * in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge * "'^ there is })ronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the 'Theol. 55C. baptism: an argument and a reply. 93 Ined lo;n Iren of 111 III Ithc . name of tlio Father. * * And this wasliing is called illumi- nation, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understanding." If infant baptism had been the practice in Justin's d.iy, it would have been just what he said baptism was not, viz., a i»mtter of ignorance antl necessity, and it would not have been what he said ba))tism always was, viz., a matter of choice and knowledge. Neither could it have been called "illumination," becauao those who received it were "illuminated in their under- standing." Besides, would Justin have dared to promise to give an exact account of baptism to the emperor on the ju'etense that he feared to omit it lest he be thought to deal perxersely, and then suppress all reference lo infant baptism ? Yet this is just what ho did, was infant baptism practiced in his day. If this was then the usage, Justin deliberately attempted to deceive the emperor, when deception would serve no purpose, if it were possible, and when it was i'npossible, if it would servo a pur- pose. Well thei'eforc, may it be said by the learned Semisch : "Of an infant baptism, he (Justin) knows nothing." Olshauscn : "In the most ancient j)eriods, belief in Christ was indispensable to bajitism, as passages from J. Martyr prove." Semler: " Froin Justin Martyr's descri})tion of baptism, we learn that it was administered only to adults." Clement of Alexandiia, who wrote the last of the second century, makes the following references to baptism : "When we were regenerated (baptized) we immediately obtained the complete knowledge for which we were striving." " This transaction (baptism) is also called grace illumination, projection, and bathing — bathing, because by it our sins Jire washed away ; grace, because by it tha guilt of our transgres- sion is remitted ; illumination, because by means of it we behold that holy saving light." "The bonds of ignorance are quickly severed (in baptism) by human faith and by divine grace," "Illumination is the changing of the character so that it be not the same as before baptism." 94 baptism: an augument and a reply. "Religious instruction leads us to faitlj and faith is taught by the Holy Spirit in connection witli baptism." "Our sins being removed by one healing remedy, baptism, received in the exercise of the mind." The idea that infant baptism was the practice and that a large part of Clement's hearers had been baptized in infancy ia utterly inconceivable in view of the above quotations. lie assumes that all the baptized among his readers had by baptism obtained knowledge for which they had ))een striving, had received remi^jion of tnmsgressions, had exercised faith, had been instructed, had had a change of character, had been bap tized in the due exercise of the mind. Who can say that infants, in ba})tism, could fnllil any, much less all of these con- ditions? Besides Clement is arguing with the Gnostics, and is proving the position that everything pertaining to Christianity is done in the full exercise of intelligence, and instances bapti'^'u. Now if Christians (piite generally had been baptized as uncon- scious babes, baptism, instead of being an instance of an act done in the exercise of intelligence, would have been an instance of the exact opposite, and for Clement to use this as an instance to illustrate the general principle that all acts pertaining to Christianity arc done intelligibly, would have been idiotic. So we conclude with many scholars, Pedobaptists as well as Bap- tists, that Clement knew nothing of infant baptism as the recognized practice; of the church. The foundation for infant baptism, however, was now laid in the idea of its necessity to salvation, which already had begun to prevail. So infants were bai)tized because it was feared they could not otherwise be saved.* In Tertullian's time an ap- proach to it began to be practiced, as we learn by his opposition to it. Tertullian says, "Let them (children) come for baptism when they are growing up, when they are instructed whither it is they come ; let them be made Christians when they can know Christ ; let them know how to desire his salvation."! % •^See my Baptist Principles, ps. 2(5, 29. tDe Baptismo, Ch. XVIII. baptism: an argument and a reply. 95 it by tism, liat a fancy He ptism ;, had 1, had L bap- \f that 50 con- and is lianity iptr'n. iincon- an act istance Lstancc liins to ic. So Bap- LS the laid in Ibegun ll they \n ap- )sition Iptism Iher it know % That this opposition of Tortullian to infant baptism, proves that it was not then regarded as an apostolic institution, is evident. Neander says : "Towards the close of the second century Tertullian appears as a zealous opposer of infant baj)tisni — a i)roof that tlie })rac- tice lias not yet come to be regarded as an aj)ostolio institution ; for otherwise he would hardly have ventured to express himself so strongly against it."^' It is also more than doubtful whether Teituliinn had any ft reference to infant bapLism. It is probable that he speaks of the first step toward it, since he uses the word jxirvnli and not infantes. ' * Dr. Bunsen, the learned author of "Ifippolytus and His Aije," savs : "Tertullian's opposition is to the baptism of young growing children ; he does not say a word about new born int*antx."t Hippolytus lived during the first half of the third century. Dr. Bunsen believes he would have spoVien as follows to people of this century : "We never defended the baptism of children, which in our day had only began to be practiced in some regions." "Bap- tism of infants we did not know.":]: • About the middle of the third century infant baptism pro])er 'lad made its appearance in North Africa, as the question of Fidus, whether the infant should be baptized as soon as born, or when eight days old, proves. But this very question proves also that the practice had but just been introduced ; for who can imagine such an absurdity as that, had infant baptism' always been practiced, it would still be left in doubt, after over two hundred yearsj what was the proper age to baptize a babe, so that a council of sixty-six bishops should need to gravely consider a reply. The reply of Cyprian, the president, also proves the same. He, in his decision, makes no reference to ''Ch. Iliat. I. p. p. 312. tClirist. & Ma)ik. II. 115. ;Hip. & His. Age I. p. 184. 96 baptism: an augument and a remt. the apostles and the usage of the Chiircli,* wliich ho uiulouht- edly would, had infant bai>tisni been always practiced. The time of baptism, whetlicir the eighth or tli(5 llrst day, was un- determined, showing conclusi . ely that the practice was a recent innovation. There is another proof that infant baptism was only just beginning to spread m the third century, and did not become the general practice until much later. The I'atheis Gregory Isazionzen, iJasil, Chrysostoni, and Jerome, wcvv. all born of pious parents, and yet were not baptized until manhood, while of all the foity-four or forty-five fathers of the third and fourth centuries, not one can be shown to have been baptized in in- fancy. Could this possibly have been .so liad infant baptism always been practiced.! In view of the evidence fiom history thus imperfectly sketched, wo can see why church historians should testify as they do. We quote : Neander : " Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution."! Gieseler: *'Tlie baptism of infants did not become universal till after the time of Augustine. "v^ Hagenbach: "Infant baptism liad not come into general use before the time of TertuUian." " In the time of Cyprian it became more general in the African church."|| Kurtz: "After the general introduction of infant baptism the strict distinction between the "massa catechumenorum" and the "massa fideiium cease."1I See also p. 70. . Dr. Kitto: "Pcdobaptism was unknown in the post apostolic cliurch, till Cyprian first established it as a principle. Baptism of children had only begun to be practiced in some countries, being defended in the time of TertuUian and Ilippolytus as an innovation; but infant baptism was not known."** ♦Epist. 59. tChrist. Rev. Vol. XIII. p. 218. tCh. Hist, I. p. 311. §Ch. Hist. II. 48. llHist. Doct. I. p. li)d ^ICom. Acta 10: 15. -Ilutterus Rcdivivua, sec. 122. perse grou] of Jl] In /^ all, I ' \1 little BAPTISM : AN ARGUMENT AND A REPLY. 97 I'sal [al usG •ian it Lptism n-um" )stolic Iptism jitries, as an I II. 48. Meyer: "The baptism of the children of Christians, of which there is no trace to be found in the New Testament, is not to be regarded as an apostolic institution, since it met with early and long continued opixjsition. But it is an institution of the church, which gradually arose after the ajwstles' time, in connec- tion with the unfolding of dogmatic teaching, * * "'^ It first became general since Augustine."* Hase: "The necessity of infant baptism, which Origen con- sidered an apostolical tradition, is incapable of certain j)i-oof from the New Testament. It tiret l)ecame general after Augus- tine."t But we forbear quoting further testimonies wlwch might be extended to almost any length. Let it be remembered that these from whom I quote, stand in the highest rank of the v/^orld's scholars. I might, therefore, say nothing about the evi- dence for infant baptism which some suppose they find in a passage or two of the lathers, since these men have formed their conclusions with the most thorough knowledge of all the facts. But I will add a brief examination of these supposed patristic proofs of infant baptism which Mr. McKay and Mr. Lathern mention. Justin Martyr speaks of "numbers of men and women * * discipled to Christ in childhood, who still continue uncoiTupt." But childhood is not necessarily infancy. Many are brought to Christ in childhood. The fact that those spoken of continued pure, proves that they were really converted, and so were not infants. Besides to "disciple to Christ" is to lead to personal subjection to Christ by instruction. Well may the learned Semisch say "The ti*aces of it (infant baptism) which some persons believe they have detected in his (Justin's) writings are groundless fancies, artificially produced.]: The real testimony of Justin on the subjects of baptism in his day has been seen. Irenaeus says: "Christ came to save all persons by himself — all, I say, who are by Him regenerated to God — infants, and little ones, and children, the young and the old." *Ck>m. Acts 16 : 15. fHutterus Bedivlvus, sec. 122. |Life, &c., of Justin Martyr, IL d 884. / baptism: an argument and a reply. But in its connection, Hagenbach, the learned church hin- torian declares, " It oidy t'Xpresses the l)eautilul idea that Jesus was Kedeeuier in every sta^i! of life, but it does not say tliat He redeemed children by the water of bxiyi'ismr* Origen states that infant baptism was an apostolic tradition. Hut they already referred exorcism, unction, giving salt and milk and honey to the baptized, and crowning him with ever- green to apostolic tradition. W(;ll therefore does Ncander the great church historian say, "Origen declares it (infant baptism) an apostolic tradition; an expression wliich cannot be regarded as of much weight in this (Origea's) age when the inclination was so strong to trace every institution, which was considered of special importance, to the ajmstles, and when so many walls of se])aration, hindering the freedom of prospect, had already been set up between this and the u})ostolic age."t Augustine is the only other father who calls infant baptism an apostolic tradition. But Augustine calls infant communion also an apostolic tradition, which all now reject as such. Augustine also declares it was practiced always everywhere and by all. Yet at the Council of Carthage, 418, at which Augustine was present, it was declared "Whoever denies that children just born are to be baptized, let him be accursed." Jerome and Julian, two contemporaries, state that there were those who refused baptism to children, and Julian wrote against those "who supposed baptism not needful to children." The explanation is this. In Augustine's time, those who did not agree with the decisions of the general church were refused a place in it, and called heretics. As Augustine speaks of the practice in the church, the dissent of these was not noticed. Pelagius is made to say, "I never heard of any, not even the most impious heretic, who denied baptism to infants." In view of the above facts he must have been a very poorly informed man, did he say this. But he did not. His language, correctly translated, is "Men slander me as if I denied the sacrament of baptism to infants. * * * Never did I hear even any im- pious heretic, who would say what I have mentioned about infants." t ii *Hi8t, Doct I. p. 20O. tCh. Hist. VoL I. baptism: an auoument and a keply. 99 Ht! wa8 not only free from the; charge of denying the propriety of infant haptism ; he hail ho strictly abstained from all asso- ciation with those who opposed this practice, that h(^ had never heard one of tluMn state their views on the subject. I have finished this attempt to defend and advance truth, and commit it to the hands of Him for whose service it is meant. If any word has been written in a wrong spirit, may it u(; forgiven. And may the gracious Master condescend to use it in some snuill way. Note. — It is matter for rejoicing that in America, where the Baptist denomination is strongest, and wliure its protest iigainst I'edohaptiam is not nullitied by open communion, infant baptism is rapidly dying out. In an article recently published in the "Baptist Review," Mr. \ edder shows that by the published statistics of the various denominations, there has been the following decline in the baptism of infants, in the last fifty years. The ratio of infant baptisms to communicants has decreased in that time — Episcopalians from one in 7 to one in 1 1 Reformed Dutch " " 12 " " 20 Presbyterians " " 15 " " 33 Methodi8:;8 " " 22 " " 29 Congregationalists " " 50 " " 7H The id not ised a )f the mthe view )rmed |rectly int of ky im- labout Errata.— Last two foot notes on page 9G should read:— ^Ch. Hist. I. p. 229. **Jour. Sac. Lit. Jan. 1853. ^'«|!IWA'l!% '). .;.' 1-2 ''] "^" ""'•'K^^,, YARMOUTH BOOK STORE. THE EYBRSON BLOCK, - YARMOUTH, N. S. EWAN & COMPANY KEEP A LARGE STOCK OF .A.T WJSl-R-Tr IiO"^^r leXlXOXQS. Sabbath School Libraries FURNISHED AT SPECIAL RATES, With the privilege of personal seleotioD and exchange if not satisfactory. BIBLES FROM 30 CENTS EACH. ENGLISH, BAPTIST, METHODIST AND PRESBYTERIAN H^ri^IST BOOEZS. Ghromo Cards suited for Reward Cards. -♦*♦•♦- EVERY NEEDED SCHOOL REQUISITE CON- STANTLY IN STOCK. ORDERS BY MAIL PROMPTLY FILLED. F/NB S TA TIONER Y A SPE CIA LTY. EWAN & COMPANY. Hign of the Big Book^ Yarmouth^ N* 8, ■-*i'4n •3i;^«(* * *>^=»-^*Ji^l // Ih y THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST. THE REPBBS2NTATION IN THE MOSAIC WORK OF THE DOME OF THE BAPTISTERY OF RAVENNA. The fdcts about this piece of art of which Mr. McKay makes such use, may be learned from the following quotations : Dr, Cote ^^Jrcha^ology of Baptism/^ '^ The mosaics of this baptistery have been repeatedly restored, and well in- formed critics are of opinion that un- warrantable additions and alterations have been made in this magnificent worh by incompetent artists. These restora- tions have been rendered necessary by the leaky conditwn of the cupola— a defect which, unfortunately still exists/^ Paciaudus, a Latin writer in his De Cultu S. Joannis Baptistce a^ks, in vieiv of this mosaic work : ^^Was our Lord baptized by aspersion ? This is so far from being so that nothing can be more contrary to the truth, but it must be attributed to the error and ignorance of painters, ivho, being often uiiacquainted with history, or believing they could dare everything, sometimes greatly altered the subjects they por- trayed. For facts about the other representa- tion, on back of pamphlet, see p. 62. L THE MUTUAL RELIEF SOCIETY 1 HOME OFFICE, - YARMOUTH. -*• ITS MISSION AND PURP0SE(5. 1. — To give all material aid in itn power to its members and those dependent upon them. 2. — To establish a Widows' and Orphans' Benefit Fund from which, on the satisfactory evidence of the death of a member of the Society who has complied with all its lawful requirements, a sum not exceeding five thousand dollars shall be paid to his family or those dependent upon him as he may direct. i I ( EXPENSES OF MANAGEMENT LIMITED TO MEMBERSHIP FEES AND DUES. TOTAL COST QP ADMISSION. ♦1,000 Death Benefit $5.00 2,000 " «.00 8,000 " : 7 00 6,000 " 9.00 ANNUAL DUES. After first year one-half of the sum charjjred for admission fee will be required from each member to meet the general expenses of the Society, as follows : On $1,000 Benefit $2.60 " 2,000 " 3.00 " 3,000 " 3.50 •• 5,000 «• 4.59 WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' BENEFIT FUND. After admission there are no expenses except the annual dues and assessments for the Fund to meet the claims by death. Thirty days' notice will be given for the payment of assessments and dues, and members not paying within that time i^tand suspended. A death claim will be paid within sixt3' days of proof thereof in due form. THE GOVERNMENT Of this Society is vested in a Board of Trustees, who are elected at the Annual Meeting. These Trustees appoint the Officers, determine their salaries, and by committees jKiss upon sUl claims for loss, and all expenditures are audited by them. All funds of the Sticiety are in the hands of the Treasurer who is required to furnish bonds, from time to time, as the interests of the Society, and the Trustees demand. This Society thus presents to those needing assurance all the elements of safety and advantage that knowledge and long experience can devise. THOMAS B. CROSBY, A. O. ROBBIN8, Treasurer. President. (^?fr' I 9 i II it