.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