'^!^i f^ — ^ A LECTURE BY ^ REV. EDWARD ANNAND ,:,^- '/ J? IN KKPLY TO A SEKSIOJS BY REV. D. M. WELTON y--: HALIFAX : "NOVA SCOTIA PRINTING COMPANY," CORNER SACKVILLE AND GRANVILLE StREETS. 1870. . .0^ J «■ ^■^5. ^"^t ■^^^«%4- A LECTURE BT REV. EDWARD ANNAND, IN REPLY TO A SERMON BY REV. D. M. WELTON. HALIFAX : " NOVA SCOTIA PRINTING COMPANY," CORNER SACKVILLE AND GRANVILLE STREETS. 1870. •!;5' .-( ; ••^ ( PEEFACE. This jfemphlet is intended to meet the requirements of a local controversy — it makes no higher pretensions. In substance it consists of a Lecture, the first part of which was delivered in the Presbyterian Church, Windsor, May 11th, 1870, in reply to a sermon by the Rev. D. M. Welton. The author of that sermon has seen fit to publish his production together with strictures on my Lecture, and also a private correspondence. The interests of truth seemed to call for a printed reply. As exception has been taken to the tone of the Lecture in general, and some of its statements in particular, I have retained the spoken form as far as possible, and given the offensive portions entire, so that the public may judge as to the spirit and decide whether *' invective " or argument predominates. I have not followed Mr. Welton into all his tedious details, but believe that the argument covers nearly the whole ground. Additional light will be thrown on the origin of the controversy and the place ■which this Lecture occupies in it, in my reply to his last letter which will be found appended. May God hasten the reign of truth ! E. ANNAND. TIlE MODE or lUPTISM, I AM sorry to find so large a cmigregation here to-night, as it proves that this community is stirred and excited by this nuschievoue controversy to a degree far beyond what the relative importance of the subject demands. I regret that the voice of our friends below us* is still for war. I am a man of peace. Controversy to me is " strange work." In proof of that statement I can confidently appeal to those who have waited on my five years' ministry in this place. Their testimony will be that while disputed points have been at times dis- cussed the controversial spirit has been carefully excluded ; that while placed in a community in which opposite opinions have been indus- triously circulated, I have preached on the proper " subjects" of Baptism only once, and on the " mode" never. It is important then to bear in mind that at the present time we stand entirely on the defensive. We have been assailed. Our principles have been de- nounced, our practice ridiculed, and ourselves referred to in terms that never should have fallen from the lips of one who on the union platform calls us " brethren." Holding our principles firmly and loving them dearly, I cannot longer maintain silence. Faithfulness to myself, to you, to truth, and to my solemnly recorded ordination vows, demands that if I have anything to say it should not be longer with- held. Let it be remembered then that I am here to-night, not from choice, but from necessity. Mark the point in dispute. Baptists maintain that jnode is essential ; that the person must be sunk below the surface of the water to con- stitute a valid ordinance ; that sprinkling or pouring is not Baptism ; that all who have not been immersed are unbaptized and out of the visible church. On the other hand, we maintain that mode is not essential ; that if regularly administered otherwise either sprinkling, oj pouring, or immersion, is valid Baptism. More concisely the difference — •— — ' < * The relative position of tke Windsor Churches locally. 6 may bo stated thus: — the one puny applies the perfton to the water and denies tliut any other mode is ri^ht ; — the other party applies the water to the person, hut is willing to admit that where the other mode is adopted the rite is valid. ILmico, in this whole controversy, we stand on the defensive, and on that account occupy u strong vantage ground. We recognize their lJa[»tism. they refuse to recognize ours. The lip curls wiih scorn at what they contemptuously term "baby sprinkling." They charge us with unfaithfulness to the ((Mnnnuid ot tlesus in refusing to go down under the water. Now we find no fault with our brethren for being immersed ; but we do decline to do like- wise — and as to the charge of unfuithfulness to the command of Jesus we Him[)ly plead '• not guilty," and proceed to give reasons for our belief and practice. At the outset notice some presumptive proofs, probable evidence on the Poedobaptist side. 1. The main ground on which our opponents rest their practice is the meaning of the word Baptidzo. Now, in all languages it is often found that the same word is used to denote a number of thoughts more or less differing from each other ; and still more the meaning of words is continually changing with changing customs and changing times. Now, it does seem most improbable that God would impose an ordinance on his church and crisp it up into one stiff unalterable form, attach to that form all the tremendous importance which our opponents claim and then rest it on so insecure a basis as the meaning of a word. Other foundation would surely have been laid. The probability lies against our opponents. 2. That Baptism must be confined to one mode in every case, in every age, and in every clime, seems to attach too much importance to the form, and appears inconsistent with the simplicity and spirituality of the Gospel. Mark how little importance the New Testament attaches to form and how prominent it makes the reality. The Lord's Supper may be observed sitting, kneeling, or reclining ; a small or large quantity of bread or wine may be used ; so that the essentials of the ordinance are preserved it matters not for the form. Hence, to make Baptism take one unalterable mode is to commit Peter's mistake when he demanded to be washed head, and hands, and feet ; it savours too much of the ritualism which Christ smote with the tliunders of His denunciation. In short, it is inconsistent with the simplicity and spirituality of the Gospel . . 3. When the person is put into the water the sign is in reverse order from tho thing eigiiified. The water iiHcd is a feign chiefly of the Spirit's influence and work. Is the person dipped into the Spirit or does the S[)irit come upon the believer? When Hpoaking of the promised Spirit tho prophet 'ays, " 1 will 8[)rinkIo clean water tipon you, &c." "The Spirit will descend as the dew;" "As the rain," " tho Spirit descended " on Jesus at His Baptism. So at Pentecost the Spirit came down. Those terms are employed to denote the Spirit's Baptism, viz.: — " poured out " — " shed forth " — "falling" — " coming upon " — " resting on." When Baptists apply the person to the water the order is reversed and the sign does not correspond with the thing signified. On the other hand, in our mode, the water is " poured out," is " shed forth," "falls," "comes upon," "rests on" the person. We hold, therefore, that water Baptism corresponds with the Spirit's Baptism, and the argument is on our side. To say that the language is figurative docs not weaken the force of the evidence. 4. Immersion is not suited to a universal religion. It is one distinguishing glory of the Gospel that it is suited to every r freemen. And yet, not only did no sect arise to denounce the mode of observing the ordinance, but Christ by His 'jxample approved of it. BAPTIST AKOl MKNT. First — ThkMkaxinc oi" thk Wokd l>ArTii>/.o. — Ailniittini>; iust now, for the sake of argimient, that Dr. Carson is right in hoi ling that this word means " dip and nothing but dip, mode Aiid nothing but mode, all through (Jreek literature," does it follow that the word must have the same meaning when applieil to a sacred use ? We say no. The Greek was tho laniiuajre of a heathen nation and had no terms to express Christian thoughts, and wdien words were taken by inspired writers from connnon use and made to denote spiritmtl ideas the meaning was often changed. Forexaniple, the Greek word ior flesh is employed to denote the old or unrenewcii natut^ in man. The word wind denotes the Spirit of God ; the word supper denotes a small piece of bread and a sup of wine ; and so of a large number of words. Hence, prove that Jhptidzo means dip in classic usage and it still remains a question whether it had that meaning in the New Testament. But Mr. W. replies in effect., that " New Testament practice proves 9 that it was use«l in its classic sense." One thinij at a time, if von please. , It will bo an after considefation in what sense the ternj was used by the New Testament writers. In the meantime, we note that, in view of tlu' above, tl>e argument from elassie nsajjo on whatever side found is stri|)|)ed of all positive force. Classic nsa^c givt>s proba- bility that the New Testament usage was the same, nothing more. IMaee side by side the two positive institutions of the church, Baptism and the Lord's Sup()er. Let us admit tor arguments sake, that the word Baptism means a "dipping." The term supper, all admit, me.uis a full meal. Hut all admit that a little bread and wiue taken in menn)ry of the Saviour's death, is sutVicient in thr sacrament ealK'd the Supper; why not admit that a little water used in the mime of the Trinity ci>nstitutes the rite called Baptism. If tht» word do not defiiu' tlu" mode in the one case why make it do so in the other? The analogy is suggestive. But it, according to our opponents, the won! has only one meaning, they ought to be able to agree among themselves as to what that uieuning is. IJut we do not lind that agreement, and are left in per- i)le.\itv about the exact thing which Mr. W. says God connnanded us to do exactly. In the Baptist Confession of 1G41, we lin»l the term " plunge" to indicate the nuuh'. Dr. Carson says "dip." The new version of which Dr. Conant is the recognized cx[)onent and de'ender, says "immerse." Dr. Fuller says, "my position is that liaptidzo means immersf, it matters not how the immersion is etVectcd." With this opinion. Cox, (Jale, Mortdl and Conant, all standing high among Baptist schtdars, substantially agree. According to this view the elenu'iit may descend on the person or the persini may be put into the element. It will be seen at once that this is virtually surrendering the whole (piestion of mode ; for all we will have to do is to increase the quantify of water until it fall around the subject, and then the case is met and the coi\ditions indicated by tin; word, aatistied. IV. Cramp admitted lately that Baptists had changed their ground as discussion progressed. A few more admissions will render farther admission unnecessary, as the question will be settled, certaiidy not on the side of the Baptists. But INIr. W. is of opinion that there is no important ditlcrence be- tween these men, or in the meaning of the terms employed, and has recourse to arithmetic for illustration. Lot us see. * The word dip means to put gently into an element and take out again. The word plunge indicates a violent putting into an element, and immersion 10 means to b<3 surrounded or influenced by an elem»^nt. Now, if Mr. W. is so dull as not to see any difference in the meaning of those terms, he should not find fault with those who can. '3ut we propose another mode of bringing home to his comprehension that the difference is a serious one. We will suppose the redoubtable Rev. D. M. Welton, A. M., with his doctrine of positive institutions, to meet the infallible Conant, D. D., with his doctrine as to the meaning of the word. Mr. W. asserts that we are to do exactly what God commands, and the word BapHdzo tells us v(^hat that is. Well, says Conant, that word puts the person into the water, nothing more and nothing less. Then says Welton, he must stay there. Thus, if we let these gentlemen alone they will drown their converts as fast as they make them. There is all the difference between Carson and Conant that there is betw^een dipping and drowning. In view of this dilemma, Mr. Welton in his strictures says hurriedly, " We have plainly nothing to do with what God would or would not enjoin in a certain word ;" and then, as if alarmed at his own admission, begins to talk confusedly about " un- conscious infants." But what is the meaning of this term BapHdzo in its classic usage? I maintain that it does not imply mode or specific action at all ; but state or condition. Anything that influences the state or condition of an object Baptizes it. Dr. Dale has lately published a work in which are embodied years of patient research through the classic authors, and with his eye on every case in which the word occurs, and with the results of Conant's scholarship all before him, he declares that the word excludes mode and denotes state or condition. And, mark that Drs. Hodge, Smith, Green, Newhall, Bomberger, and Professors from more than a dozen colleges, and the editors of papers and reviews all over the United States, have staked their reputation on the assertion that Dale has made good his position. And now, in the face of all this what becomes of Mr. W.'s assertion that Poedobaptist scholarship has abandoned this part of the field to the Baptists? Verily, "a little learning is a dangerous thing." If we knew more our assertions at times would be less positive. Wisdom is humble. From the results of the latest and ablest scholarship I consider it established as clearly as a demonstration in Euclid, that the Greek word Bapto has a different meaning from the Greek Baptidzo. Bapto signifies to dip ; it denotes in its primary signification exactly what Baptists practise. Baptidzo signifies exactly what they do not practise. Now, will some of our opponents tell us if God enjoined 11 dipping, why lie did not use the proper terni to denote it. Hence I hold that the argument from the classic usage of the word, give it what weight you will, is on the Pocdohaptist side. We leave the classics and come now to New Testament Greek, to find, if possible, whether or not the inspired writers always used the term in the sense of " dipping " 1. We find that three thousand were baptized on the day of Pentecost. We have no evidence that the Apo3tles went out of the temple area, nor that any more than the twelve were engaged in the work. It is perfectly marvellous how tanks, and pools, and brooks and assistants to the apostles, are extemporized by Mr. W. Aladdin with his lamp scarcely wrought greater wonders. But we incredulous, still incline t(\ question how the few got through with so many ; and if the number who administered the rite be increased, how they found the additional places. When we remember the scenes witnessed at times in our own communities when ten or a dozen are immersed at the river side, and then multiply that by three hundred, in the midst of Jerusalem, and bear in mind that this was a promiscuous multitude who had come together without preparation for immersion, then we may be abused for the suggestion, but we make it with all seriousness, that the scene would not accord with our ideas of good taste and decency. We i)ersist in saying that it has never been made plain to common sense how the three thousand were immersed. The word must have been used in another sense. 2. Take the case of the Phillipian jailor. He was baptized at midnight. We know it was done in the prison, for in the morning the language of Paul respecting the magistrates is, " Let them come themselves and bring us out." Where was he immersed ? Our opponents, always generous in the matter of water, kindly provide a tank. We say not so. Tanks are luxuries in those lands, and Roman discipline was not of a kind to provide luxuries for prisons. The jailor was baptized ; he was not immersed. 3. Saul of Tarsus is another ( ase in point. He was in a sick room. Ananias came, he rose up, and then and there was baptized. He was not immersed. 4. " Divers Baptisms." Tlu'se washings referred to persons and things. In Luke xi. 38, we leani that the Pharisees found fault with Jesus for not washing — in the original. Baptizing — before eating. Now, admit that the word always means immersion, and we are com- pelled to believe that every Jew, no matter how poor, had a tank for 12 immersion ; that when on a journey he must carry sufficient water for immersion ; and that he must be dipped before each meal. As to the baptism of things, we read in Mark vii. 4, that they baptized couches. These were anything on which they reclined for sleep, or to partake of food. These were in some cases attached to the dwelling. Whenever an uncircumcised person reclined on one of them it became ceremoniallj' unclean, and must be torn from its place and plunged in water. The thing is in the highest degree imi)robable. But there is another reason why these baptisms of persons and things could not have been perforred by immersion. We learn from Numbers xix. 22, that the contact of an unclean person communicated defilement to whatever he touched. But, according to Leviiicus xi. 36, " a fountain or pit wherein is plenty of water shall be clean." Now the cisterns or vessels holding the water of purification held only two or three firkins apiece, a quantity far too small to prevent defile- ment by contact. Accordingly, we find, a3 we would expect, (2 Kings iii. 11), that the Jews washed their hands by pouring water upon them. This consideration, to my mind, settles forever the dispute about the " Divers Baptisms." They were not immersions. 5. The Baptism at Pentecost. The house was not filled with the Spirit and the people dipped into it, but the Holy Ghost came in cloven tongues, as of fire, and alighted upon them. Here was a Baptism, but it was not au immersion. Israelites were baptized in the cloud and in the sea. They walked along the bed of the sea dry-shod. The spray may have dashed over them. They were baptized — they were not immersed. The Egyp- tians were immersed, and the result is not favourable to the Baptist argument. Thus then, in examining the argument from the meaning of the word in classic and sacred usage we have not only not found direct and positive proof on the Baptist side, but we hp.vc gathered additional probable evidence to sustain Pcedobaptist practice. The idea ex- pressed by the word is general, and not specific ; it denotes state and not mode. For example, the word cleanse is general, and does not define mode. Filth maybe on this table, I may dust it off; by chemicals I may dissolve it away ; or, with water I may wash it away. The ground idea is to purify ; it matters not in what way. So of the word Baptidzo : it denotes state and not mode ; and when used to denote a religious rite it denotes change in the outward relationship of the person. Hence, we are justified in holding that Baptism need not 13 be confined to any one mode, but either sprinkling, or pouring, or im- mersion, i« valid Baptism. Secondly — John's Baptism. — We are lold that he Baptized in, or at the river Jordan. The argument drawn from the meaning of the Greek prepositions by those who admit that these words vary ac- cording to the connection in which tliey stand, we leave for those who have time to deal with trifles. The argument from the word Baptidzo we have already disposed of. The fact of John taking up his position by a river is the only point in this connection which re(piires attention. We are free to admit that at first sight this circumstance does seem to favour Baptist practice ; and it seems refreshing to be brought face to face with what looks like an argument. Let us examine it. There may have been reasons to the mind of an oriental for this course which we do not understand. We know that Jeremiah and Daniel took up their abode by the river. Elijah took the prophets of Baal to the brook, not to immerse them but to slay them. But, besides other reasons which may have existed, I think we have only to bear in mind that the contact of a person ceremonially unclean communicated defilement, to see that " running water" was, in the case of such multi- tudes, as came to John, essentially necessary. That all were immersed whom John baptized, I do not believe, for the following reasons : — 1. If there were a large number to be baptized it would be easier for them to go to the water than for others to carry the water to them, 2. The Baptism was effected after they went to, or inio the water. The going down is one thing, and the baptism another. 3. The oldest pictures which refer to this rite, dating about the 3rd or 4th century, represent John standing in the water and pouring water on the head of Jesus. 4. There is a sect in the East who profess to be the followers of John, and they baptize in a river by pouring. This fact is adduced simply to prove that there may be river baptism without immersion. 5. The vast numbers who came to John forbid the possibility of immersing them all. " Then went out to Him, Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan." Allow the j)opulation of these places to be a million, which is alow estimate. From the terms employed we may put the number baptized at one third. Let John work ten hours a day, and baptize one every two minutes, and it will take two years and a half to do his work. John's ministry only lasted six months. We admit there is difficulty in the case whichever mode is 14 adopted, but we a«sert that the difficulty lies with tenfold force agaiust the Baptist view. The immersion theory would keep him iu the water more than half his time and not do half his work. Now, John was not an amphibious animal ; he belonged to the genus man, and hence we conclude that he did not immerse all whom he baptized, it was a physical impossibility. In noticing the above argument, Mr. W. represents me as saying that all the population went to John, and then deals with the matter on that ground. His friends will be su'-prised to find that he has knocked down only what he himself has set up, while my argument, untouched, stands firm as truth. The caricature given and the ridicule cast upon Poedobaptist practice, are unworthy of a Christian. Thus, if we look calmly at John's Baptism, and weigh the evidence on either side, we will find that the probability is that he did not immerse any, and the certainty that he did not immerse all whom he baptized. The arguments drawn frorai the baptism of the Eunuch and the much water of Enon, are so weak and the answer so easy and well known, that we pass them by without remark. Thirdly — Buried with Him in Baptism. — This passage, say our opponents, proves that Scripture baptism is immersion. Our first remark in reply is, that even admitting the Baptist view to be right, it only proves immersion to be one mode ; it does not prove it the only mode ; and hence the cause of our opponents hangs as pitiably helpless as ever. It seems improbable that the Baptist view is correct for the simple reason, that there is no external resemblance between the dipping of a person into water, and taking him out again, and the burial of Christ. Jesus was laid in a tomb hewn out of a rock, and when any one who has entered the door of such sepulchre and seen the bodies of the departed deposited horizontally on the side, will point out any striking resemblance between such burial and a Baptist immer- sion, then we will be ready to listen to the teaching. In the mean- time, we regard the view only as creditable to the imagination of the Greek father who suggested it. , We prefer another and far more precious meaning Names on this particular subject far more weighty than those which Mr. W. has adduced, support the following statement by Owen : — " There is not one word or one expression (in Rom. vi. 3-5) that mentions any resemblance between dipping under water and the death and burial of Christ, nor one word that mentions a re- 15 semblance between our rising out of the water and the resurrection of Christ. Our being being buried with Him by baptism into death is our being planted together in the likeness of His death. Our being planted together in the likeness of His death is not our being dipped under water, but the crucifying of the old man. Our being raised up with Christ from the doad is not our rising from under the water, but our walking in newness of life, by virtue of the resurrection of Christ." Thu3, we will see that the baptism spoken of is spiritual By the baptism of the Holy Ghost we are one with Jesus, and die and are buried and rise with Him. To make the teaching of this sublime passage refer to mode is to obscure its meaning, enervate its force, and destroy its beauty and preciousness. Fourthly — The Practice of the Early Church. — The Bible is the religion of Protestants, and when we leave that field of argu- ment the evidence loses all positive force and becomes only probable. And here we admit frankly, that at an early age of the church Baptism by dipping was recognized as one mode of the ordinance. But we accompany the admission with the assertion, that the same source of evidence that proves the above, proves also that other modes were recognized, and that immersion was not held in the modern Baptist sense. What, then, does the evidence amount to on either side ? "VVe find that the Episcopal, Methodist and Presbyterian churches all admit that immersion is Baptism, but they deny that it is the only mode, and hence these churches seem to me, in theoi'y at least, to stand where the early Church stood. But when the Baptist theory is broached, that dipping and nothing but dipping is Baptism, then early Church History meets the view with a most decided contradiction. Fifthly — The Greek Church. — This is the most corrupt church that bears the Christian name, and yet into this dreary mass of superstitution Mr. W. devoutly wades to find an argument for immer- sion ; and here it is in substance, " The Greeks ought to understand their own language ; they practise dipping and hence we have the weight of their authority on our side." Our answer is : 1. Onl} about one tenth of the Greek Church speak the Greek Language, and what is spoken is so far removed from classic Greek that to reason from the one to the other is inadmissable. 2. The Greeks do not rest their practice on the meaning of the word, for they use the word in other senses than dipping. They do rest their mode on the superstitious notion that there is some special virtue in the water, and hence the importance of having as many 16 inches of the body as possible brought into contact with the element. But my chief answer is, that if the Greek Church be authority on one point it is also authority on another, and the man who asks rae to ac- cept their authority on one point must not shrink when I ask him to accept thi same authority in another. The Greek Church teaches Baptismal regeneration ; is Mr. W. ready to teach that ? The Greek Church makes over the convert the sign of the cross; is he willing to do that ? The Greek Church baptizes her converts in a state of nudity, is he willing to do that ? If he declines, then I must decline to baptize by dipping till better authority be given. Perhaps it would be as well for Mr. Welton the next time he fills up an argument trom numbers to leave out the Greek Church. In his strictures, Mr. W. says, that by parity of reasoning I should go with the Catholics on all points, because we agree in baptizing children. By no means. When he finds me making that church on authority on the point, then there is force in his strictures, but not till then. • ' Sixthly — TiiR We8tmin8tk,r Assembly. — Baptists have claimed that their views were largely shared by that body, and refer to a certain vote taken, to show that it was only by a majority of one that Poedobaptists views prevailed ; in short, that we Presbyterians were saved from all being Baptists by a solitary vote. We almost tremble when we think of our narrow escape. But, even according to Mr. W.'s representation of the matter in his pamphlet, the difference of opinion was not whether dipping should be adopted as the only mode, but whether it should be recognized as a mode at all. In fact, Baptist views as held by Mr. W. found no place in that Assembly whatever. How any vote of theirs can be tortured into a testimony in favour of our opponents is a matter which I fail to comprehend. Seventhly — Authorities. — Mr. W. admitted that the Bible and the Bible alone, was to be the supreme authority in all matters of con- troversy, yet we find the names and opinions of English divines and semi-infidel Germans arrayed before us to an extent that hardly agrees with his profession. To avoid pen drudgery, and to save time, I have chosen not to follow his example, but prefer to allow the truth to find its own way by its own weight. The authorities quoted are chiefly Poedobaptists, and the impression is conveyed that these men held one view, and practised another. Now, in reference to authorities, we have two general remarks to make which ought to deprive of any special force the use made of these names, d hun ,;?;, t. vi •!;? a, onm'^ 17 1. Autliorities slioiild be weiglied and not oounteil. The opinion of one man may bo worth the opinion of scores. Still more, the opinion of n man on one subject may beweighty. and on another worth very little, r^uijier is good anthority on justification by faith, but very poor authority on baptism, because to that subject he had not to any great extent turnedjiis attention. Even the o[)inion of Lexicographers as to the meaning of a word, when their attention has been scattered over the thousands of words in a language, is of little weight when compared with the opinion of a man who has given years of study to that one word. 2. Authorities f-houM be represented and not misrepresented. Now it is one of the tactics of a large class of small liaptist writers and speakers, to misrepresent I'redobaptist writers. They do this in two Wfiys. 1. r>y garbled statements they make the writer say the opposite of what he did say. For example, Dr. Cramp in one case puts the words of Lange, a modern German, into the mouth of Theophylact, an ancient Greek Baptist Noel makes Calvin speak for Baptists in this way, Calvin states the view of his opponents and in the next pa'agraph refutes it. But Mr. Noel takes the quotation and sets it down as Calvin's o|)inion ; making him to say exactly the opposite of what he does s.^y. In this way of course authorities can be found in plenty to support any class of opinion whatever. It does not avail Mr. "VV. to say that he has given " The very words ot the writers." Satan quoted Scripture and gave the words, leaving out what suited his purpose. It is the mode of quotation to which we object. Mr. W. thinks it very deprave never aduiitteil iuimersioii to 1x3 the only mode of baptisoj, aiu) in the name of justice and fair phty, and in t?ie name of tho.ie men dead or alive, who are made to su[)iK>rt a system which in their souls they rejected, and in their lives opposed, I pvoto»t against siich use of their aothority. I quote two sentences to settle the mntter. Dr. "Wall was one of those who hold that immersion was one mode, but denied that it wa& the only mode. Speaking for English divines he says : " What nu idle thing it i» for tltese deniei-s (viz. Baptists) to bring instances of that which is confessed oii both side, instead of confuting the instance* brought by the others for tire other loode of IJuptism*" l>i'. Schalfr than whom no living man is better (jualified tO' speak on the sul)jectr referring to German Tlieologians, after admitting that immersion is baptism, says, " But they do not intend to deny the vrider use of the term, much less to convey the idea that imnjKirsioti is the only mode of Baptism, the effect and validity of v/hich do not depend on the quantity or quality of the water, or om the mo brief what Mr. W. has asserted of the inperfectious of our English 19 Bible. Tliiit King James was a good lunii I do not assert. That the translators were his pliant tools to the extent indicated I deny. I do not take the ground that the time will never come when a new version of the Scriptures could he profitably introduced, but I do believe, that in the present state of sects and opinions. CJladstone was right when sjjeakiiig for the British Government a few weeks ago, he said, " A re- vision of tlu! Bible is dubious, tedious and untimely." Hut what shall we say of that sect which has cut loose from all others, and brought out a version under the warping influence of sectarian feeling ! T believe the future historian will write it down as one of the most serious and mischievous blunders of sectarianism. It is an outrage on our common Christianity. But Mrv W. says that u Committee of the American liible Society found twenty-four thousand errors in the received version. To the man, woman, or child, who believes that statement, our Bible is no longer the Word of God. He has no guide in the wilderness, no <;hart on the sea when earthly lights grow dim. The assertion is cruel, and I am sure that many a humble child of (iod feels grateful that it was a Baptist Committee that made such report, and only Mr. W. who is found ready to fling it broadcast without qualificaton. Right beside Mr. W.'s talk about new MSS. and the results of brilliant scholarship, I set down the opinion of one qualified to speak. The Editor of the British and Foreign Evangelical Review, says : — " The result of a comparison of our English authorized version with the most ancient copies of the original Greek known to exist, is happily such as excites our admiration at the great accuracy of the (jrreek text from which that version was executed." Our version, then, can stand the test of modern criticism with admirable results. Any errors discovered either in the original text, or in the translation from that text, refer to trifling points and shades of thought which tonch not the grand verities of our faith. Criticism has not shaken one imi)ortant doctrine, has not paled the lustre of a single truth, or stolen the sweetness of a single promise. Dear Christian friend, go to your loved Bible with the same confidence as ever. The grand simple iSaxon in which it conveys the truth of God to human hearts has the gathered sanctity of ages, has been the channel through which life, hope and peace have flowed to millions, who along these old paths have walked up to God. Clasp it close to your bosom, m^Jseitalamp to your feet and a light to your path. ♦' ' - . '• Holy Bible, book Divine, » , Precious treasure, thou art mine !" 20 Thus, we have run thiouj^li ili« lino of Haptist ftrgmiioiit and have fomid no positive proof tliat 'lipping is the only tno«l'' of liiiptisni. On the otlwir ha'.nl, \vo havo foiiii«l. at noaily cvisry j)i..iit. additional proof that INudohaptist views are Scriptural. The prohalde I'vidcnco with whicli wo set out has received additional strength, and now in its cuniulatlvo force it amounts to demonstration. To sum up then, I approve of haptism with water and not in wat(!r, — I)e(;ans(i it accords best with tlie classic and New Testament use of th« term ; l)0(:austi it corresponds with New To-tametit practice, for wherever the party was, the three thousand within the temple area, the jailor in i\\v. prison, or Saul in the sick room, then and there the UaptiMu was performed ; because it accords best with the representations of the spirit whose symbol it is ; because it is suited to every age and clime, to the old and young, rich and [)Oor, sick and well. And then, on the otluM- hand, I object to baptism in water, because it crisps that part of religion into the forinidistn for which Jesus denounced the Pharisees, and makes the mistake for which Peter was rebuked ; because it reverses the order of the Spirit's coming ; because it lays a burden on the aged, the sick and the weak, and those in frigid and tropical climes which they are notable to bear ; because it makes a small matter bulk up beyond duo proportion, and thus mars and obscures the glorious Oospel of Jesus Christ ; because it adds one more sect to the world already cursed with sects ; and because it unchurches tliree-fourths of the Christian world, refuses communion with those whom Ciirist welcomes, and shuts from the table on earth tliose fit for the Kingdom of Heaven. For these and other reasons, which time fails to tell, I object to the Baptist view of Baptism in water, and maintain and practice Baptism with water. THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. This is, in my estimation, by far tlie more important part of the subject, and I regret that it cannot in this Lecture be discussed at the lengih which its relative importance demands. The Question in Dispute. — It is commom to hear the term " believers' baptism" appropriated by our opponents, as if they alone had regard to faith in connection with this ordinance. Let no one be deceived on vhis point. Let it be distinctly understood that we hold to believers' baptism just as strongly as the Bible does In all the circumstances in which the New Testament requires faith, we require 21 I'iiitli. Wt) find that when any oii»' was coiivortedfrom tlio Sanmritans or CJontiN's ami lnoiiylit into the Christian chiiiTli aitrofjMsion ot faith was always a condition of the ordinance. And so, whcu any one \h hroii^dit in from the worhl ii profession of faith on his part is always demanded hy INi'dolKiptists. In sneh ease we never think of adininis- terin«,' the (trdinance without it. As to adults then there is no diH|»uto. All a<,'ree, too. that children are not to he admitted to fidl ehureh privile^'e. The sole (juestion that renjnins is, shall we jLjivo to tho infants of ln;Iiever's any (ihureh recognition at nil ? liajitists say, let them ^'low up until they profess (oy themselves. We say, reeognizo their ehurch-standin^' by administering this ordiiuince. Onji;c"rivN«. — 1. Christ was not baptized in iulaney. "Wo unawer, for the best of all reasons, that Chri^tian lJa[)tism was not then in-stituted, and of course, He could not submit to a rito which was not in e.vi.stence. 2. The child cannot understand the ordinance. A'ery s-ad pictures indeed are sometimes drawn of the poor, unconscious bain! being sub- mitted to such a rite. It is pronounced a mockery of tht; ordinance. Wo answei', that a child does not "understand the use of its clothes and yet it is necessary that it w-ar them. The child does not under- stand the nature of its mother's milk, and vet it is necessary that it partake of it." Uesides. this objection holds with greatei- force against a rite which all admit was appointed by God Himself, viz.: cireuuicision. IJut if any one made the I'aptist objection to the Jew ho would quickly reply, that all such reasoning and ridicule did not weigh a feailier as against the appointment of CJod* And so in this case, if God has appointed it, all such objections should ■ cease. No Command. — We admit there is no command to baptise children, but we hold that direct command is not required. A iaw once passed remains in force until repealed, and this is the case here as we shall afterwards sec. Let it be borne in mind that there are other things in religion which all admit, and for which no one can give direct command. There is no command for Sabbath Schools, and yet they have been generally established. There is no positive command enjoining feuude membership, and yet Baj)tists do not exclude them. There is no direct injunction to observe the first day of the week as the Sabbath, and yet all evangelical Christians observe it. Thus, we. see that the objection is without force. Faith is Nkckssaiiy. — We ask for this point the very closest 00 att(;iilioii. for it Ih .'iNitiil oin'. 'I'liis in tlio ViM'y i'oriicr-sloiit' in this [iiiri of iIh< Ituptist hinicliii')', iiixi if tlio r(>:isoiiin<<; on this pcjint ho, not \iilitl t.li«! nyMtom fiills. Tht! rciisoiiinj^f of our ()|»|>oii('iiIh r<>Mls on tho passage, " Wn that h«!liov(!tli and is liapti/.c.tl, .-hail ho «avoji'(!t the aro;Mtnent in all three caHCM. ('hildr(!n should (.'at. tlionv>;h they cannot woik ; childron are saved, I hon;,'h they cannot helieve; children ar Maptist system is knocked away. Ilaviiij; se(!n th;it tho ohjetMioiis to infant baptism ai'e without forcu, we now prococMl to positive! arf;um«Mit : — 1. 'I'ho mitural ralation in wliirli the parent stands to tin; child favours infant baptism. Reason says th.-it the child should stand in the same outward relation to the church as does ilie parent. L.iw aiul ciiHiom re(!Ognizo that rel.'itionhhip. A for«!iifn lius (l<'<'l;»r«Ml (itluTwiso. Tlu! opposite view is liJU'sh !in(l rriit'I. T\u> puiiiit in iho clmii'Ii atnl tli<» rliild horn out <»f tin* church! tho parent livinc; tor Christ ami th<» rhihl horn for lh« (juir(» that, w«» rcf^aiil the rliihl in ih<' vaino outward r<.'hitionnhip t(t the church as th<» parent. 2. Chihlren wero, enilnaced iu tin; covenant of (iml with Ahtahatn. fn all th<' |»Iaces in uliich the (Hm* C((v<*nant was riMK'Wed, (lod <'n{^aj;«;(l not, only to Iw ilx' («n(l of ihe (aiihlul, hnt. also of his sc and the same, tho'Ji,di oft iv»peat oercmo- nials of th« old economv ami ^iver<'alitv to its symhols ; and orw, atnl tho same Htill. when Christ came to make nil thinjrs tiow ; for Peter carries it liijht across the ir'df that lln^ Haiitist system leaven yawnin<; hetween the Old Tt^slamenL and tln^ New, and on tin; day of Pentiu'ost, rd as memhers of the Old T<>stament church. The C(»venaiit of which cinaimcision wa-< tln\ seal, ami als(« to the .lewish Church. In fact, the Jc^wish polity was a Theocracy ; thc> state and church were <'(unbined, and both were governed under tim directi«tn of (iociuise the teaching which supports it tells me tiiat the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob is n)y God and father ; because it makes all the' sweet promises and truths of the Old Testament mine ; because it cheers me with the thought that my child is a sharer with mo in the blessed promise ; because it Itinds the parent to parental faithfulness by the solemn sanction of religious vows ; because it is fitted in theory, and has been proved in [)ractice, to promote happiness in the house and order in society ; and because God has enjoined it and never authorized its repeal ; for these reasons I object to the one system and approve of the other, and shall oppose the one and practise and defend the other while strength is given, or till new li'iht be communicated. Let others follow their conviction, I shall follow mine ; and in all things I pray that God may be gktrified. GSSb LETTER TO REV, D, M. WELTON. To THE Rkv. D. M. Wki.ton : Dear A>-,— You have published my private lette.s without aslat you made an impor- tant statement in that letter which you have not ventured to publish ? This will be taken as a sample of the recklessness with which you have Hung out assertions all through this controversy. My reasons for declining a public discussion with you remain unanswered. I do not assert that " gentlemanly treatment " of each other in such case would be impossible ; but I do assert that the controversy in the community was " bitter" before I had anything to do with it; that in the state of feeling which then prevailed, to conduct such discussion in a spirit favourable to the interests of truth and piety was simply out of the question, ami yuu know it. I still think that the proposal on your part was a piece of pedantic bravado not at all credit- able to yourself. You convey the idea that Poedobaptists find fault with you for defending your own views in your own pulpit. We do no such thing. We only expect that those views will occupy a place and assume a form consistent with union profes- sions ; and we do venture to suggest that to put us down as abettors of Popery and Infidelity is not consistent with what we hear at the union meetings. You have said that Infant Baptism is a part of Popery, and that the Infidelity of the State Churches of Europe is the result of that practice. Of that we complain. And here let me ask for information how you can meet with other denominations on the union platform .' If your view of the ordinance of I^aptism be correct, then all others than Baptists are out of the visible church. Our ordinances are not Christian ordinances, our churches not Christian churches, our ministry not a Christian ministry. Now it puzzles me to know how you can come forward and blandly say, " ]5rother Nicholson, Brother Annand," efore, how good and plea- bant a thing it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. I came home resolved to labor according to the strength given in behalf of the Y. M. C. A., whose object was to band all Evangelical Christians together and carry them forward on a tide of holy enthusiasm in Christian work. The blessed influence of that institution was soon felt. Union prayer meetings were established in every direction. The churches were aroused to an extent not known for many years, and the membership showed a spirit of self-denyinp activity which was most commendable. In all the adjoining districts a religious interest was awakened, the sad spiritual dearth of years seemed to be passing away, and the solitary l)lace3 were glad. In common with others I rejoiced in that movement, and toiled and planned and prayed for its prosperity. Imagine then my feelings when I found the apple of discord recklessly flung in among us. I knew well that controversy meant death to the union movement, and plead for peace With sad heart I watched the brewing stornv which you were awakening and which I could not avert. Then when honour and duty called me to defend the principles I held and loved, with the dying association before my eyes, and the community so lately united, torn and rent with discord, was it any wonder that there was indignation manifested against the authors of all this mischief. I verily believe that Peter or Paul or Jesus Himself, would have used far greater severity. And now, when I think of the life gone from the union movement, the strife that has riven families and embittered christian intercourse, ot the jeers of the scoffer and the taunts of the infidel, of the Young Men's Convention from which Windsor 32 expected so much good, meeting in Charlottetown, of public hospitality thus sacriticed to sectarian bitterness ; when I think of all this, and trace the train of evils to the IJ.iptist pulpit, it is with mingled indignation and pity that the words of Jesus occur, " It must needs be that offences tome, but woe to the man by whom the offence comcth." Your closing appeal is somewhat pathetic, l)Ut not at all alarming. Allow me to suggest for your edification and comfort, that I do not feel troubled at the awful "consequences in this world and the next," which you fear may follow me for the sin ot bapM/ing cliiKlren. I did at one time in my life " pause and seriously consider" the subject. I'erple.xed by Haptist perversion of scripture and mis- representation of authorities, it was with s.vl heart and weary feet that I trod each step in the way of this dreary controversy ; but at last light came and I found a resting ])l.ace on the basis o( truth. Every renewed investigation into the grounds of my belief only tends to confirm my conviction that Uaptists are wrong, that Picdobaptist principles are of God, and that society suffers where these principles arc not recognized and carried out. The time for pausing with mj has p.i-ised. " I believe and therefore speak." Whether yni .should pause in your treatment of those who hold their opinions thus conscientiously, I leave you to decide. In the meantime, I am, yours, &c., EDWARD ANNAND.