,n<4u 
 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 
 
 1.4 1 
 
 ^ 1 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 6" 
 
 
 ► 
 
 Va 
 
 ^ 
 
 /a 
 
 VI 
 
 ^. 
 
 el 
 
 ^^ .v^ 
 
 <p 
 
 
 '/a 
 
 
 y 
 
 //a 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 s. 
 
 ip 
 
 i\ 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^\ 
 
 fc 
 
 6^ 
 
 <> 
 
 ^<h'- 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CiHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute/ for Historical Microraproductions 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 bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 I / I Coloured covers/ 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 □ 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 
 □ 
 
 D 
 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagee 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul6e 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manc,je 
 
 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) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound 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 ajoutdes 
 lors dune restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 film^es. 
 
 Addiiional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl^mentaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ 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 m6thode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommag^es 
 
 I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 Pages restaur6es et/ou pellicul^es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxei 
 Pages d^colordes, tachet6es ou piqu^es 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages detachees 
 
 Shuwthroughy 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Quality in^gale de I'impression 
 
 ides supplementary materic 
 prend du mat6riel supplementaire 
 
 edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 I I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 
 I I Pages detached/ 
 
 I I Showthrough/ 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 □ Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comi 
 
 I I Only edition available/ 
 
 n 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 ODScurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t6 film^es & nouveau de facon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 V 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 26X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 30X 
 
 ^—■^^ 
 
 n 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Izaak Walton Klllam Memorial Library 
 Dalhousie University 
 
 L'exemplaire i\\vn6 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 with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and endmg on 
 the last page with 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 or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — »> (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 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 images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film*, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont film^s en commenpant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — *► signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diff^rents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour §tre 
 reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film6 d partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes SL-Vants 
 illustrent la m^thode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 4 5 6 
 

 ^/^V7c?-^ I?? 
 
 fT» l^nantitieift Of TH^nty or more a Di«K«oant of !iO per eent. 
 
 BAPTISMTereusRANTISM 
 
 '* ltfi|»tlHanofi-><% ' Olpi>ln«' lmm«^rHi«n.'> 
 " ltfiiitiMiii(«0'-'% Mifrliikllnir/* 
 
 Robinson's Greek Lexicon of N T. pAgei iiy Hml 6+; 
 
 BAPTISM AS A M IfSIAilil OHDINANCE 
 
 A COVERING OF THE PERSON WITH WATER, 
 
 ANn 
 
 TO THE mtsvStatrmv;nts and fallaoiks 
 REV W A MoKAY, B A., 
 
 nv 
 
 ; RKV CALVIN OOODSPEED. M.A., 
 
 ■' He ihu! »v iii>.t ill U\< own cauvcj settmeth in^t, ^ 
 
 bw ill- iieijj;iil>o( ooiiieth and KCRivhetl) him Tr'H' -f^ii-7 
 
 WOOOfiTOCK: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE ' TIMRS" HOOK AND /OH PUrNTINfi OKprCFi. 
 
 j88o. 
 
 M Postate Free ea Receiit of Frite t? Jaies Efamlii, WoolM. 
 
 Tr'j-r.-sT 
 
 / 
 
'■■ \B^:OsU'Sf>'%mMtM ^ ' 
 
 ~i) 
 
 JOHN JAMES STEWART 
 
 COLLECTION 
 
 '' J A 
 
 ■'f 
 
 * - , ■■■ '- 
 
 Immersion proved to he not the only mode 
 of Baptism, and not a Scriptural mode at 
 all, htit an Ini;ention of the Church of 
 Ront^^. -This is the title of a Pamphlet of 
 46 pages by Rev. W. A. Mackay of 
 Woodstock, Ont., published by C. B. 
 Robinson, Toronto. Price 10 cents.-: — A 
 trenchant and clever essay. 
 
BAPTISM versus RANTISM 
 
 m 
 
 nM 
 
 Z!>^ 
 
 Bu|)tiNiii09— A *DIpplns' Immersion." 
 RnntlstmoH— A MprinKlInic'' 
 
 Robinson's Greek Lexicon of N. T. pages 119 and 64: 
 
 BAPTISM AS A M TFSTAiNI OSOINANCE 
 
 PROVKD TO BE 
 
 A COVERINe OF THE PERSON WITH f ATEE. 
 
 AND 
 
 
 TO THE MISSTATEMENTS AND FALLACIES 
 
 OF 
 
 • KEY. W. A. McKAY, B.A., 
 
 BY 
 
 REV CALVIN GOODSPEED, M.A. 
 
 " He that is first in his own cau.ie seemeth just, 
 hut his neighbor cometh and searcheth him. — Prov. iR:i7< 
 
 WOODSTOCK : 
 
 PRINTKlf Ai- IHE "TIMES" I'.OOK AND JOB IMilNTING OFFICE. 
 
 i38o. 
 

 Jul ,'l^^'^u<^ ^ mT 
 
 f f 
 
 -»»( 
 
 
 y ^:{ 
 
 "13, ^ ,. ^. , 
 
 » ' f V ^ ft 
 
 ^O,^;' 
 
 <i^ti i 
 
 -f-r'-r>" T.- 
 
 
 r:'.^^??-' 
 
 i ♦ 
 
 
 
 
 v^' *'. 
 
 I V'- . ,■/' -..I 
 
 ' //; *-;.• ':*« ■•rri , , 
 
 i " ■ 
 
 <f^ 
 
 ^'^ ^' ,« . ; (! 
 
 -•^' '>I^ A 
 
 
 ■-* '■ « til 
 
 p I ,-t 
 
 KU: 
 
 I i '^O ''\ ^y- T"' * . 
 
 ./ ■Ti r 
 
 '1 
 
 r'S^* 
 
ij 
 
 ■^{ 
 
 l*S If^ r,* 
 
 4^ 
 
 — -.' 'f'oH.t ?o 
 
 A. aa> 
 
 t '. t-x * i;«fftv:v 
 
 A PAMPHLET on Baptism by the Rev, W. A. McKay, B.A., of 
 Woodstock, has been put into my hands. At the request of quite 
 a number of friends I propose to give it a review, not because I 
 think it of any Hcholarly worth, but because it is fitted to impose 
 on the ignorant and careless and because, also, a reply to it will 
 be an answer to productions of a similar kmd which are being 
 freely circulated. I regret exceedingly that the author of this 
 pamphlet, for whom I have had a high regard, has been betrayed 
 into a bitterness of style which is sadly out of keeping with the 
 sacred work of defending or advancing the truth. To seek to 
 carry a point by appeals to prejudice is miserable work, with 
 which I propose to have nothing to do. Neither haye I any ill 
 words to speak of the denomination to which the author belongs, 
 and which in his harsh spirit, I should hope he misrepresents. 
 Their loyalty to what they believe to be true I respect, while com- 
 j elled to ihink them in error on some points. I recognize, also, 
 in all denominations true and noble men, with the friendship of 
 some of whom I am honored. Any barrier to the fullest com- 
 munion with them gives me pain and the time when the last one 
 is removed by the universal prevalence of the whole truth, is 
 contemplated with the keenest pleasure. But while this is true, 
 and 1 believe that Baptists generally share with me in this feel- 
 ing, we think ourselves compelled to act upon a principle well 
 expressed in thif« pamphlet, that " liberality to error is treason to 
 the truth." I shall therefore show no mercy on fallacies, or misre- 
 presentations, or boastful pretensions ff superiority in scholarship 
 to the great men of the past and present. If this should give 
 an air of severity to some parts of the discussion I cannot help it. 
 
Before proceeding to our chief work a brief reference is 
 required to some general insinuations against our people as a 
 
 body. 
 
 Is it fair to judge of all Baptists by a few harsh expressions 
 culled here and there from two of their writers? This is a good 
 way to work up prejudice, but it is not the way to deal justly. 
 It will be the strangest news to most, and to none more than to 
 Presbyterian ministers themselves, that they are silent about 
 Baptisn: out of forbearance to Baptist errors. We have always 
 thought them the last men to forbear to attack any error, much 
 less what they may esteem Baptist errors Neither has it ever 
 come to our ears that Baptists, of all men, have resorted to the 
 snivelling of conscious weakness when attacked, by raising the cry 
 of " persecution," " disturbers of the peace," &c. 1 have always 
 found them standing up fearlensly against all comers, while they 
 use their God- given weapons right manfully. If Baptists so 
 »' constantly apply the most insulting language to the conscien- 
 tious convictions and practices of others " they are guilty of a 
 2reat rudeness, which is very common in all denominations ; but 
 it is rather hard to be taken to task by the author of a pamphlet 
 which makes this one of its staples, witness his references to 
 immersion, as a " course of water," as " soaking sin out and grace 
 in," his pleasantry over the case of re-baptism wherein his 
 description is a caricature of the facts, and the gusto with which 
 he uses the expressions " watery grave, ' " swollen flood." 
 '' liquid tomb," &c., &c., &c. We might add that his merriment 
 over the scrupulousness of Baptists in rendering an exact obedi- 
 ence to what they believe to be the divine instructions, is more 
 sad than seemly, in one who professes to be himself a servant of 
 Christ. Whatever others may think, and whatever others may 
 practice, we believe that such passages as *' we should obey God 
 rather than men," and " he that loveth father and mother more 
 than me is not worthy of me," do teach that, in the case of con- 
 
 sci 
 frc 
 
 ag< 
 
 se^ 
 
 vi( 
 
 lii 
 
 on] 
 
 sol 
 
 sU 
 
 of I 
 int 
 bel 
 
 fiWl 
 
 dc 
 
reference ia 
 >eopJe as a 
 
 j> 
 
 scientious conviolion, the higher authority of God does absolve us 
 from the lower authority of parents when the latter is arrayed 
 against the former. We are surprised that this pamphlet should 
 seek to teach that parents have the right to crush down the con- 
 victions of their children by forcing them to keep within the 
 limits of a hereditary belief. Here is an introduction to a fierce 
 onslaught upon Baptist unchariiablenean, '' No wonder that with 
 so much indifference on our part and so much misrepresentation, 
 slander, and unscrupulous zeal on the part of immersionists, 
 many of our young people should become the unconscious dupes 
 of Baptist proselytizers who are ever eager to take advantage of 
 innocent icnorance." The nearlv 3,000,000 Baptist church mem* 
 bers of America should surely feel abashed before the honied 
 sweetness of the author of this pamphlet! If he can afford to 
 make such general charges we certainly can afford to have him 
 do so. 
 
 This pamphlet asserts that nine-tenths of Christendom are 
 against the immersion views of the Baptists. How much truth 
 is there in this oft-repeated statement? Even the author of this 
 production must know that the Greek church, number'ng 
 70,000,000, always has and does still, practice immorsion. The 
 Homan Catholic church, while it practices sprinkling, assc i'ts that 
 immersion was the original baptism and bases sprinkling upon 
 the authority of the church. So they are with us in the view 
 that baptism was originally an immersion, and this church num. 
 bers 150,000,000. There are also as many, at least, as 6,000,000 
 Baptist adherents. These sum up 220,000,000. Even if we 
 should include the Episcopalians, who, by their liturgy, declare 
 that pouring and sprinkling are allowable only when the child is 
 unable to be immersed, as against our view, there are only about 
 70,000,000, all told, who profess to believe that sprinkling or 
 pour was never a form of baptism originally. So much for this 
 statement. 
 
6 
 
 .1! 
 
 This pamphlet states that the Baptist theory casts out as 
 heathen men and publicans all who have not been immersed, 
 and treats all such as aliens from the commonwealth of Israel 
 and hands them over to the •' uncovenanted mercies of God.' 
 So far as the last expression 's concerned the Presbyterian and 
 other churches may maintain that there is no covenant mercy to 
 any but the baptized, but we are happy to state that Baptists 
 have ever rejected such an idea with abhorrence. If he were not 
 80 desirious of arousing prejudice against the author he would 
 not have used such words as the fore-going and others of a similar 
 bitter character, against strict communion ; for he must know 
 that Presbyterians are as strict as we, admitting none to the 
 Supper but such as they deem baptized. The following quotation 
 from R. Hall will show that the stinging words which Mr. McKay 
 quotes as referring to us alone, were meant for oth^r denomina- 
 tions likewise. "They," (Baptists), says Mr. H., '' 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 clamoiir of those 
 who condemn Baptists for a proceoding which, were they but to 
 change their opinion on the subject of baptism, their own princi- 
 ples would compel them to adopt." Vol. Ill, p. 349,350. Candid 
 and manly Presbyterians like Dr. Patton and Dr. J. X. Hall are 
 admitting this, and are urging that Baptists, instead of being held 
 up to orprobrium because of their strict communion, deserve the 
 admiration of their brethren for consistent adherence to a prin- 
 ciple which is common to Presbyterians and them. But these are 
 broad souled magnanimous men. We quote Dr. Hall's words, 
 "There is a tendency to heap censure on the Baptists in this 
 country because of the views generally held and acted upon 
 regarding the Lord's Supper. Restricted communion is being 
 assailed by many in the interests of catholicity. It is a course of 
 
 val| 
 thi 
 
 br( 
 
 Ubj 
 
 ma| 
 br( 
 arei 
 as 
 
 1| 
 ihi 
 thi 
 
asks out as 
 1 immersed, 
 kh of Israel 
 es of God.' 
 yterian and 
 It morcy to 
 It Baptists 
 e were not 
 'le woul.j 
 >f a similar 
 >ust know 
 "G to the 
 quotation 
 r. McKay 
 
 enomina- 
 preoisely 
 me it for 
 pception 
 of this 
 of those 
 
 y hut to 
 
 prinoi- 
 Candid 
 all are 
 igheld 
 ve the 
 * prin- 
 >se are 
 ^ords, 
 1 this 
 upon 
 beinff 
 'se of 
 
 doubtful catholicity to raise a popular outcry a^'ainst a most 
 valuable body of people who honestly d«?fend and consistently go 
 through with what they deem an important principle.'' 
 
 *' Our love for the brethren should surely include the Baptist 
 brethren. And it is doubtful if. considering the len/^ths to which 
 liberal ideas have been carried in this country, there be not some 
 gain to the community as a whole, from a large denomination 
 making a stand at a particular point, and reminding their 
 brethren that there are church matters which we are not bound? 
 are not even at liberty to settle according to the popular demand' 
 as we would settle the route of a railroad." 
 
 In proceeding with the chief part of our work we may not follovr 
 the^order ofH,heJpamphlet which we review, but we shall notice all 
 that is worth the trouble, considerable, peihaps, that is not. 
 
 And first let us glance at one or two positions taken by our 
 opponents. The most argue that baptism can be performed 
 either by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. Such an idea 
 appears to me unthinkable. This ordinance is to symbolize a 
 definite thing — regeneration, as admitted by Mr. McK; by whicft 
 old things paws away and all things become new — and to serve a 
 derinite purpose. Now can it be conceived, by any effort of 
 imagination, that such dissimilar acts as these can possibly repro 
 sent with equal clearness this change, or equally serve any 
 definite and single purpose. Neither can it be supposed that the 
 All-wise would enjoin or permit any oth r than the most adequate 
 symbol to show forth this change, muchless that he would permit 
 two or three, some less and some more adequate. In all the 
 Bible there can be found no such instance. In every case (Jod 
 enjoins the one symbol which seems best to hirj and then woe be 
 to the man who through rashness or self sufficiency tampers with 
 it. Neither can 1 suppose that, when God commands us to 
 observe one symbol, he will permit us to substitute for it somo- 
 thing else which we deem more convenient or suitable. It is 
 

 self-evident that no change can be made in a symbolic ordinance 
 without injuring its expressiveness and neutralizing to some 
 extent the divine purpose in it. So baptism must be one thing, 
 not one of two or many. If it is immersion it is not sprinkling. 
 If it may be sprinkling it cannot be immersion. 
 
 The first help in discovering what baptism is, is the meaning 
 of 
 
 THE GREEK WORD BAPTIZO, 
 
 which is used in the New Testament to enjoin and describe it. It 
 will save confusion if we remember that we have to do with its 
 literal meaning, since Christian baptism is a literal material act. 
 With its figurative meanings we have nothing directly to do. Let 
 us examine this pamphlet then, on this point. The author's first 
 appeal is to 
 
 , THE TESTIMONY OF THE LEXICOGRAPHERS. 
 
 f. : ' 
 
 He asserts that they are " all arrayed against the Baptist posi- 
 tion,"' for proof he makes this declaration, " Even the great 
 Baptist controversialist \^Car3on) acknowledges this ; for having 
 said that the word baptize always signifies to dip, he adds, " As I 
 have all the Lexicographers and Commentators against me.'' As 
 these words of Dr. Carson have often been wrested from their 
 connection and used in the most unscrupulous way, explanation is 
 needed. The facts are these, Dr. Carson, in the connection in 
 which these words stand, expressly says that " there is the most 
 complete harmony among them (Lexicographers) in representing 
 dip as the primary meaning of bapto and baptizo, and adds " Ac- 
 cordingly Baptist writers have always appealed with the greatest 
 confidence to the Lexicons even of Pedobaptisl; writers. On the 
 contrary, their opponents often take refuge in a supposed sacred or 
 spiritual use, that they may be screened from the fire of the 
 Lexicons." Still further, he declares, "Nor is it with real sec* 
 
 ondarl 
 
 taken! 
 
 what 
 
 he dii 
 
 can H£ 
 
 this dl 
 
 »» Eacj 
 
 other 
 
 Carsoi 
 
 ^c.bj 
 
 where 
 
 hapth 
 
 stanc 
 
 tweer 
 
 ingof 
 
 Now i 
 
 the 01 
 
 statei 
 
 accort 
 
 welco 
 
 niersi 
 
 feide, 
 
 Comr 
 
 ranee 
 
 to sh 
 
 to th 
 
 then 
 
 is tri 
 
 wast 
 
 men 
 
 eics, 
 
 cone 
 
 bett 
 
 Lex 
 
ordinance 
 
 to some 
 
 one thing, 
 
 Jpiinkling. 
 
 © meaning 
 
 ribe it. It 
 o with its 
 terial act. 
 ' do. Let 
 hor's first 
 
 )ti8t posi- 
 he great 
 >r having 
 
 ds, " As 1 
 
 aie. ' As 
 om their 
 nation is 
 Jction in 
 ^he most 
 esenting 
 Ids "Ac- 
 greatest 
 On the 
 acred or 
 ? of the 
 eal sec- 
 
 -9 
 
 ondary meanings that they (Lexicographers) are likely to be mis- 
 taken, their peculiar error is in giving, as secondary meanings 
 what are not probably meanings at all." To illustrate wherein 
 he differs from the Lexicographers, he uses this illustration. We 
 can say dip the bread in wine, or moisten the bread in wine, yet 
 this does not import that dip means to moisten or moisten to dip, 
 '' Each of the words has its own peculiar meaning which the 
 other does not posses." The exact point, then, at issue between 
 Carson and the Lexicographers is this, because an object is washed 
 Sec. by dipping in water, they give wash as a meaning of bapiizo 
 whereas Carson contends that wash is not a meaning of the word 
 bapiizo, but only the result of its action under certain circum- 
 stances. About the act in baptism there is no controversy be- 
 tween them and Carson ; for although they giye wash as a mean- 
 ing of bapiizo, it is always a wasbmg by an immersion in water. 
 Now as the act of baptism is all that concerns us in reference to 
 the ordinance of baptism, we see how much truth there is in the 
 statement that Lexicographers are against the Baptist position 
 according to Carson. Under these circumstances, Mr. McKay is 
 welcome to the triumph with wiiich he exclaims, " On the im- 
 mersionist side of this question we have Dr. Carson, on the other 
 feide, even as acknowledged, we have all the Lexicographers and 
 Commentators of the world ;" for if his elation is not due to igno- 
 rance and carelessness, it arises from what is worse. His attempt 
 to show that the Lexicographers are against us by direct reference 
 to them is equally fitted to mislead. He states that certain of 
 them give to bapiizo three meanings dip, wash and cleanse, which 
 is true of some ofthem, although not of all. He then declares, since 
 washing and cleansing may be done in other ways then by im- 
 mersing an object in the cleansing element, baptism, in the clas- 
 sics, is not alway.^ an immersion. The false impression which the 
 concealed sophistry of this statement is liable to make cannot be 
 better corrected than by quoting the definitions of two of the 
 Lexicographers to whom he refers. 
 
it! 
 
 10 
 
 i^chlemner '^ bapHzo/' Properly to immerse and dip in, to 
 iijmerse in water, from bapio : and it answers to the Hebrew 
 /aZ/ttZ, 2 Kings 5:14. Also, because not vnjrequenfh/, something is 
 wont to be Immersed and dipped into water that it might be washed, 
 hence it denotes to perform ablution, to wash o/f, to cleanse in water. 
 Scapula, " baptizo. To dip, plunge into, plu.ige under, to 
 overwhelm in wrter, wash off', cleanse, as when we immerse anythinf/ 
 in water for the sake of coloring or washing ity 
 
 Also, Alstedius. To immerse, and not to wash excejit by 
 consequence. 
 
 The Lexicographers then, say that baptizo means to wasli, only 
 in so far as tne washing is done by immersion. Mr. McKay 
 quietly assumes, because I aptism is sometimes a wasliing, that 
 washing is always a baptism, however done. Mis reasoning, put 
 into a syllogism, is ; to bnptize is to wash, to pour is to wash, 
 therefore baptism i a pouring- as transparent a fallacy as can be, 
 as can be seen by the following : To burn is to destroy, to drown 
 is to destroy, therefore to burn is to drown, or perhaps this, Mr. 
 McKay is an animal, ^n ass is an animal, therefore. * * Until 
 he tin«]s a case where any washing is callec" a baptism.pxcept a 
 washing by immersing the ol^ject washed, he must drop this 
 .point, or a<^cept the consequences of his own metliods ot reasoii 
 ing. As Pedo Baptist scliolai's have been seeking for years to 
 lind any jiassage where anytliing bui an immersion is termed a 
 baptism, and have failed, we do not anticipate that he will 
 succeed, even though he thinks that they know little, about 
 (lipping, compared witli himself 
 
 But, the reader may reply, is it not asserted in this pamphlet 
 that in Greek writings we have the following expressions : 
 *' Baptizing — J, the grass with dew "' — 2, " a garment with needle- 
 work ' — 3, " a wall with arrows ' — 4, ''the head with perfume "' — 
 .'), " the sea with the blood of a mouse " — G, " a rock with the 
 blood of a stag '— 7, ** plants by pouring ,or sprinkling water on 
 
tlip in, to 
 he Hebrew 
 'omething is 
 t be washe.d, 
 se in water. 
 
 un<ler, to 
 sc. anythiiKf 
 
 except hy 
 
 wash, only 
 >. Mo Kay 
 iiinir, that 
 onin^', put 
 i to wash, 
 as can be, 
 » to drown 
 this, Mr. 
 Until 
 pxcept a 
 rop this 
 reasoi. j 
 ears to 
 ernied a 
 he will 
 e about 
 
 iiiiphlet 
 issions : 
 needle- 
 irne '' — 
 ith the 
 atRr on 
 
 « 11 
 
 them '"—8, "an altar by pouring water upon if— 9, "a man 
 (Nebuchadnezzar) with the dew of heaven "—10, **the sea shore 
 by the advancing tide" — 1 1, " the ashes of purification by water 
 poured upon them "' — 12, " persons while reclining on their 
 couch "—13, " with tears ? ' 
 
 On this list purporting to give instances of the use of baptizo, 
 the only word used to describe the rite of baptism, we remark, 
 J, As the author has not reterred us to the works where these 
 passages occur, we cannot identify them all. 2, Ot the passages 
 we can identify, 2, 5 and 9, Have hajtto a word never used to de- 
 scribe baptism and not baptizo, the word whose usage Mr. 
 McEjiy purports to givs in this list ! ! 3, So far as I can learn, 
 only 8, 10, 11.12 and 13 contain baptizo and hence these only can 
 be used honestly to prove his point. 4, On these I remark, No. 
 8 refers to the flooding of the wood on the altar by command of 
 Elijah ! Kings 18 : 33 — and expresses strongly Origen's idea of the 
 completeness of the deluging — as though it had been immersed^ 
 Is not the sea shore buried beneath the flowing tide — and so 
 immersed ? The case of the baptism of the ashes of purification 
 is not described as by pouring water upon them, but by putting 
 them into the water. Jos. Antiqu. IV, 4:() The baptism of persons 
 while reclining on a couch, refers to the laving of the hands It 
 was a baptism ol the hanils only. See Clement of Alex. Stromat, 
 Lib. 4 How much the baptism of tears helps sprinkling may be 
 learned from the following quotation, from Gr'»g. Nazienzen, ''Yea, 
 1 know a tilth baptism — that of tears ; but it is still more difficult, 
 because it is necessary to wet one's couch every night with tears." 
 But he adds again, *' How many tears can equal the flood oftlie 
 baptismal bath.''' Oratio. 39,7 and 00,9. So much for these 
 passages. 5, On the remaining passages which have not been 
 identified, we remark, Dr. Dale from whose works he purports 
 to quote them, states of Dr. Conanl's Baptizeins,(see Classic Bap. 
 p. 02,) that it is an "accurate exiiibition of all passages in which 
 
m 
 
 
 ^ I 
 
 1 
 
 12 
 
 baptizo is found." These passages are not in Dr. Conant's work 
 and so cannot bo in Dr. Dale's, who admits that there are none 
 beside. How can we explain this. Probably thus, that in these 
 remaining cases, just as in Nos. 2, 5, 9, Mr. McKay gives us passages 
 which have bapio, and not baptizo, while he expressly declares that 
 these are instances of the use of baptko. If he has done this 
 ignorantly, he had better abate from his high assumption ot 
 superiority to Pedo-Baptist scholars whose reputation is world 
 wide. If he has done it wilfully in order to carry a point which 
 4ie could not carry otherwise, then I had sooner not characterize 
 the act, on the part of one who is avowedly seeking to advance 
 the truth. Yet this is rot the first time that such a deed has 
 been done. 
 
 Is it necessary to follow him as he tries to make it appear that 
 baptizo cannot always mean to immerse, because Dr. Conant, 
 even, takes seven words to express its meaning m different cases 
 of its use ? Has he ever beard of synonymous words ? Had he 
 given the words used by Dr. Conant, viz : dip, immerse, immerge, 
 merge, submerge, plunge in, whelm and overwhelin, anv reader 
 would have seen that they all convey the one meaning of cover- 1 
 iug in an element, which is all that Baptists now claim. Need I 
 add that the last two meanings are in cases of its fig'irative use, 
 as whelm in trouble, where the idea of direction of motion is 
 ruled out. Mr McKay accepts the statement of Mr. Gallaher, 
 that excellent classical scholar ; that " in every instance " quoted 
 by Dr. Conant, " The baptizing element or instrumentality is 
 moved and put upon the person or thing baptized, never is the 
 person put into the element.'' The " classical scholarship 'of 
 both Mr. Gallaher and his endorser can be seen from the following 
 cases, two out of a score or two of similar instances cited by 
 Dr. Conant, No. 16 : " Continually pressing down and immersing 
 him while swimming;" No 17, "Being baptized by the Gauls in 
 a swimming bath he dies.' But why proceed further ? Even Dr. 
 
 Jul 
 
onant's work 
 lere are none 
 that in these 
 s us passages 
 declares that 
 is clone this 
 sumption ot 
 on is world 
 point which 
 characterize 
 ; to advance 
 a deed has 
 
 appear that 
 Br. Con ant, 
 Perent cases 
 1? Had he 
 3, immerse, 
 finv reader 
 of cover- 
 Need I 
 rative use, 
 motion is 
 Gallaher, 
 *" quoted 
 ntality is f 
 ver is the 
 rship ' of 
 following 
 cited by 
 amersing 
 Oauls in 
 Even Dr. 
 
 13 
 
 Dale himself, who is the latest and most voluminous writer on 
 the Pedo baptist side, staters that " an object baptized is com- 
 pletely invested by the baptizing element," Classic Bap. p. 129. 
 Dr Stuart, the great Andover professor, after an elaborate 
 treatment of the subject, says, "Baptism" p. 51, Baptizo means 
 to dip, plunge, or immerse into any liquid. All Lexicographers 
 and critics of any note are agreed m this." 
 
 John Calvin declares, " The word baptize means to immerse." 
 Just. 4: 15, 19. And so we might quote from scores. 
 
 I may say here I am not concerned to defend Dr. Carson in his 
 idea that in baptism the object is always put Into the element. It 
 is enough for us that the object is always buried in or by the 
 element. Nor do Baptists hold that baptizo means both to put 
 into and to take out of the baptizing element. They claim that 
 it requires an immersion, not an emersion as well, and it is in 
 this .sense that dip is used by Dr. Carson, although it may popu- 
 larly have another meaning. The word baptizo will compel us to 
 bury the candidate for baptism in water, while it is left to common 
 sense, the prepositions and the descriptions of the recorded 
 baptisms to take him out again. 
 
 Thus we have followed this pamphlet, while it has sought to 
 prove even a single instance of baptism, other than by immersion 
 either on the authority of a lexicon or by appeal to an author, 
 and the author lias failed, although to one who was unable to 
 follow his sleight of hand he may appear to succeed. And he 
 could but fail when such men as C'>nant, Dale, Stuart, 
 Wilson, &c., with their vast learning and research nad not 
 succeeded. But even though one or two instances of sprinkling 
 had been found out of hundreds of the meaning to immerse, 
 unless baptism may b^ in more forms than one, it will undoubt- 
 edly be according to the general usage of the word. 
 
 Mr. McKay, finally, shields himself behind a supposed sacred 
 use " to screen himself from the hre of the lexicons." 
 
 But this is in vain. 
 
14 
 
 ^ No word takes on a new meaning in the Bible to express a 
 religious idea unless there is no word already in common use in 
 the language to express 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 express the 
 same thing ? Were there not words in the language to express 
 every meaning which men have ever supposQ^ baptism to signify? 
 If it was a sprinkling rantizo wan ready for use, which never had 
 any other meaning. Why then give a word which never meant 
 anything but immerse the meaning sprinkle, and ignore the word 
 which the people ever knew to mean sprinkle ? And so of pour 
 and purify. There were tie words C/ieo. Kafharize, which ex- 
 pressed these ideas. Why then change the meaning of baptizo 
 into a signification it never had, thus confusing the people. an<l 
 leading to misapprehension, while these words stood rea<ly ? The 
 figment of a sacred use of baptizo meaning to sprinkle, &c , is but 
 the desperate clinging of a drowning cause to a straw. If the 
 word baptizo used to enjoin and describe the ordinance meant, 
 in the language used by the people, to immerse, as we have iound 
 that it did, then, common sense would say that they were 
 immersed when baptized. 
 
 But we have subsidiary evidence, of the strongest kind, in the 
 testimony of 
 
 1 
 of I 
 
 llil 
 Cb 
 of I 
 
 spl 
 iiei 
 
 .^^.j CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 Let me^ere firs* dispose of the alleged discovery of Mr. McKay 
 that immersion is an offspring of the church of Rome,— discovery 
 1 say, for of all the church historians who have ever written, and 
 many of them cherished anything but the kindliest feelings 
 toward Baptists, no one has ever made such a statement. Many 
 men too have written against our view of baptism, but no one, so 
 lar as 1 know has had the hardihood to make such an absurvl 
 assertion 
 
express a 
 on use in 
 50 rd with 
 luike ono 
 5i'e88 the 
 
 express 
 si<jni fy? 
 iver had 
 r meant 
 he word 
 ' of pour 
 lich ex- 
 baptizo 
 3le. and 
 y ? 'i'lie 
 , is but 
 
 If the 
 meant, 
 ' iound 
 
 were 
 
 in the 
 
 cKay 
 3 very 
 , and 
 lings 
 Tanv 
 
 e, so 
 surd 
 
 • 'lo 
 
 <Jne fact only needle mentioned to make its absurdity patent. 
 1 give it in the words of Dr. Wall, the groat PedoBaptist historian 
 of infant baptism, so that it may not be suspected. lie says 
 History Infant Baptism Vol. II, p. 414. "All those nations of 
 Christians that do now, or formerly diil, submit to the authority 
 of the Bishop of IJomo, do ordinarily baptize their infants by 
 sprinkling or pouring. But all other Christians in the world, vfhM, 
 never owned the Pope's usurped power, do, and ever did, dip their 
 infants m the ordinary use." This fact thus stated can be ques- 
 tioned only by such as are too ignorant to know better. Well 
 then, does it appear conceivable that immersion is from Rome, 
 when Home and those who have been subject to Home are the 
 very ones, and the only ones, who have rejected it, ^hde ail those 
 who have never submitted to her, have never practiced it, and 
 they only have always done so 
 
 We will deal with his alleged proof, after we have stated the 
 facts. They are these : 
 
 In the Epistle of Barnabas, attributed by many to the com- 
 panion of Paul, and so ancient that it was esteemed canonical by 
 some in the earliest tim*^?, and included in some of the earliest 
 MSS of tlie New Testament, we Hnd these references to 
 ba[)tism : — 
 
 " Blessed are t loy who, plaoing their trust in the cross, have 
 (/one down into the water " anl '• We desciud into the water full of 
 sins, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, char, XI. Hermes, 
 writing about A.D. 95, prior to John's tleath, perhaps, describes 
 the Apostles as having gone ^^ da^ into the wafer''' with those 
 they baptized and " come up ai/aiii.' — Shepherd. 
 
 Justin Martyr, who wrote about A.D. 140, speaks of the 
 baptized as " washed " in the name of the Trinity, and as obtain 
 ing forgiveness of sins " in the watcr^ Apology 79, 85, 86, and 
 again in bis Dialogue with a Jew, chap, xiv, he exclaims, " For 
 what is t'le benefit of that baptism which makes bright thejiesh 
 
16 
 
 and body only? Bo baptizerl Cs to the*oul from anger, «tc." 
 
 Tertullian, A.D. 204. The candidate is let down into the 
 water, and with a few words said, i.s dipped," De Bapt. ch. 2, with 
 several other passages to the same effect. 
 
 Hippolytus, A.D. 225, speaking of our Lord's baptism, says, 
 
 *' How was the boundless river which makes glad the city of God, 
 
 iHtht/ied in a little water ; the incomprehensible fountain that sends 
 
 forth life to all men, and has no end, covered by scanty and iran- 
 
 sftory waiersy Discourse on Theophany, II. 
 
 TMre is as yet not the remotest hint of sprinkling or pouring as 
 baptism. But it was about to appear. The idea began to prevail 
 that no one could be sayed unless baptized. Hence when men 
 were threatened with death they sought baptism, fearing lest 
 they should be lost if they died without it. But as many of 
 them were too ill to be immersed, water was poured or sprinkled 
 upon them as a substitute. 
 
 The first recorded instance of such a baptism is that of 
 iSovaiian, A.D. 200. The following facts about this case speak 
 volumes: — 
 
 1, Eusebius who wrote a ciiurch history less than a century 
 after quotes from a letter of Cornelius, a bishop contimporary 
 with Novatian, the following words : " He (Novaliau; fell into a 
 grievous distemper and it beinji supposed tliat he would die 
 immediately he received baptism, being besprinkled with water 
 on tne bed nrhereon he lay, if that can be termed baptism. Eccles 
 Hist. B 6, ch XLIII 
 
 2, One Magnus enquires oLCyprian who lived at the time and 
 was the great leader of the X. African church " lohether they ivho 
 are baptized in bed, as Novatian was, must be rebaptized if they 
 recover.'^ Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. II p. 387. 
 
 3, Cyprian in his reply, wiih gt-eat diffidence, replies : " In the 
 sacrament of salvation (baptism), where necessity compels, and Go I 
 gives permission, the divine thing though outwardly abridged 
 
 besi 
 
 lea^ 
 
 perl 
 
 ;jo,] 
 
 spri 
 mo<J 
 not] 
 imi 
 
anger, «S:r." 
 ^n into the 
 • ch. 2, with 
 
 5tism, says, 
 
 JityofGofi, 
 
 that sends 
 
 Uj and trail- 
 
 ])oiirinff (IS 
 1 to prevail 
 when men 
 'aring lest 
 3 many of 
 sprinkled 
 
 is that of 
 ase speak 
 
 a century 
 imporary 
 ell into a 
 ^ouM die 
 ith water 
 Eccles 
 
 iime and 
 ^hei/ IV ho 
 i if then 
 
 "In the 
 md God 
 
 ihvidged 
 
 17 
 
 I bestows all that it implies on the faithful.'' Neander ch., Hist. 
 I, p. 310. 
 
 4, Persons who were thus sprinkled upon their bed partly, at 
 least from the supposed inadequacy of such baptism, were not 
 permitted to hold any office in the church. Kurtz ch., Hist. I, 
 ;jO,1 and 45,2. 
 
 The Edinburg Encyclopedia gives the further history of 
 sprinkling as follows: '' 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," 
 
 The reader can now iudge whether it is immersion which is the 
 offspnng of Rome, and associated with baptismal regeneration. 1 
 may add that not a tithe of the evidence for immersion from the 
 Fathers has been presented, as there are scores of references to 
 baptism as such in those who wrote in the first four centuries 
 while there has not been produced a single undoubted reference, 
 to sprinkling from any of them. It is no wonder then that all 
 church historians that have ever expressed themselves on the 
 subject, Pedo-Baptists though they all are, unanimously declare 
 that the original baptism was by immersion. Let us quote from 
 a few of ihem. Dean Stanley, one of the first scholars of the age, 
 Art on Baptism " 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 sub- 
 merged, immersed into the water. • • • • Baptism by 
 sprinkling was rejected by the whole ancient church (except in 
 the rare cases of death beds or extreme necessity) as no baptism 
 at all." 
 
 P. Schaff, probably the greatest living Presbyterian scholar, 
 editor of Lan^je's commentary «&c., in his History of the Apostolic 
 Church, p. 568.savs : — 
 
f 
 
 ^ 
 
 18 
 
 '• Finally, as to the outward mode of administering this ordi- 
 uance, immersion and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the 
 original normal form, This is shown by the very meaning of the 
 *ireek words Baptizo, Baptisma, Baptisnio;, used to designate the 
 rite. Then agam by the analogy of (he baptism of John, which 
 was performed in the Jordan (en) Matt. 3:f , comp IG, also eis ton 
 Jordanen, Mark. 1:9.) Furthermore by the New Testament com 
 parisons of baptism 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:.'). 
 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 GraecoRussian Church) 
 pouring and sprinkling being substituted only in cases of urgent 
 necessity, such as sickness and approaching death. 
 
 Neander, the prince of church historians, says : — 
 
 •' In respect to the form of baptism, it was in conformity with 
 the original institution, and the orginal 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." C'h, Hist 
 J p, 310. 
 
 Giessler. Ch. Hist. 1, p 277, sec 71. 
 
 " 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 accom 
 panied. Hence it was often necessary to baptize tae sick, «/m! 
 for them the rife oj sprinkling was introduced.'''' 
 
 In view of this, how pitiful is the puny attempt of this 
 pamphlet, or any other for thai matter, to obscure the plain facts 
 of history, and how proUigiously absurd ^is the swelling air of 
 superiority assumed by an unknown village preacher of Ontario' 
 when he patronizingly alludes to these and scores more of such 
 men of world wide celebrity for scholarship, as " knowing little 
 
 andl 
 the] 
 ba] 
 
 is c| 
 
»g this ordi- 
 ionably the 
 tning of the 
 ?8ignate the 
 ^ohn, which 
 also eis (ou 
 iraent com 
 'Sea (I Cor, 
 26, Tit. ?,-.:>[ 
 
 uity, (as it 
 in Church) 
 ' o^ ur<'ent 
 
 mit}'- vvitli 
 le syiuhol 
 » the sick- 
 lade, atul 
 Ch. riist 
 
 ?ar3,' but 
 possible 
 ^ accom 
 3ick, and 
 
 of this 
 lin facts 
 ? air of 
 Ontario' 
 of such 
 ig little 
 
 1» 
 
 and caring less about " dipping," because they are compelled by 
 the force of facts to concede that immersion was the original 
 baptism. 
 
 But Mr. McKay's attempt is worse than pitiful. Although it 
 is disagreeable work, some things must be exposed. He says, 
 ' The very first distinct mention of dipping as a mode of bnptism 
 is by TertuUian, who lived about the beginning ot the third 
 century," (he was born the middle of the second, by the way). 
 Why clid he not add that sprinkling is not mentioned until a half 
 century later, and then it is to question it ? He seems to have 
 put it so purposely, to leave the impret jion that immersion was 
 an innovation, and sprinkling was of the higher antiquity. Again 
 the seeks to discredit dipping, because it was threefold until the 
 17th century. '• Those who did not dip three times did not dip 
 at all.'' Why did he not add also that, during the same time, 
 all who sprinkled, sprinkled three times also? Such a resort 
 to half trutlis which teAch a lie, is des[)icable, if it is through any 
 other cause tlian ignorance, and then it is blameworthy ; for no 
 one should make assertions when ignorant. 
 
 Again TertuUian is said to have inclut^ed "dipping ' among 
 he observances " based on tni lition " and destitute of scriptural 
 authority.'' He does no such thing, for these are his words in 
 hts treatise, *' Against Praxeas ch. 26, speaking of the Saviour's 
 command. Matt 2S:1'J he declares " And last of all, commanding 
 that they should immerse into the Father, and the Son, and the 
 Holy Spirit.' 
 
 As to his assumption, because immersion is mentioned in con- 
 nection with " Romish practices " b^U'ertullian, that therefore 
 mniersioM is Romish it is simply ridil^)us. 'TertuUian, mentions 
 the doctrine of the 'Trinity in connection with them also. Is it 
 also Romish ? Because there is some falsehood in a writing, does 
 it follow that it is all falsehood ? We may mention, also, that 
 TertuUian is likewise the first writer who distinctly refers to 
 infant baptism, and it is to condemn it. But enough. 
 
20 
 
 Mr. McKay's attempt to cast the stigma of being Romish upon 
 immersion on such grounds, especially in view of the fact.-* about 
 the incoming and prevalence of sprinkling, is an outrage. Besides, 
 he is in a dilemma. He professes to believe that immersion is 
 unscriptural and Romish, and yet he has received a member mto 
 his church upon just such an unscriptural Romish rite, and. Pres- 
 byterian and all other churches receive the immersed, and seem 
 only too glad to get them. Many of the ministers of all otht;r 
 denominations will immerse candidates for baptism, if immersion 
 is insisted on. Why does Mr. McKay not enter upon a crusade 
 agamst such countenancing of what is Romish in his own churoli 
 and in his own practice? Why does he give all his attention to 
 us? Or does he think that by gaining a member to his church 
 from ours, there is a sufficient justification for countenancing 
 what is Romish, and violating principle and truth ? Consistency 
 IS a jewel. 
 
 We have found then thus far, that the word haptizo which is 
 used to describe the ordinance of baptism, has always meant to 
 immerse. AVhile this of itself affords the strongest evidence that 
 baptism was an immersion ; for our Saviour in using it to enjoin 
 the ordinance, would undoubtedly u.se it in the sense in which it 
 was universally accepted, we have in harmony with this idea, and 
 establishing it beyond question, the practice of the Church from 
 the earliest times — within half a century of the apostles them 
 selves. Lot us add to this the fact that when sprinkling was first 
 mentioned within a century and a half of the apostles, it is to 
 deny its validity as baptism except in cases of extreme necessity 
 and even then as renderij^fcthe candidate su*'ject to di-sabilities, 
 and where is there the i?ossibility of doubt that baptism was 
 originally an immersion ? 
 
 Those who nevertheless hold that baptism was by affusion will 
 have to make two astounding assumi)tions. Although there were 
 words in common use in the language to express sprinkle, pour, 
 
; Romish upon 
 i« facU about 
 fige. Besides, 
 immersion ig 
 member into 
 e, and. Pres- 
 et and seem 
 of all other 
 r immersion 
 'n a crusade 
 own church 
 attention to 
 ' bis church 
 ntenancinxr 
 /Onsistency 
 
 ■'O which is 
 s meant to 
 dence that 
 ^ to enjoin 
 n which it 
 ' idea, and 
 urch from 
 les them 
 I was first 
 s, it is to 
 necessity 
 ^abilities, 
 tism was 
 
 sion will 
 ere were 
 Jt'; pour, 
 
 21 
 
 wash, bathe, purify, ttc. and which had no other meaning, yet 
 our Lord chose a word which always meant to immerse, and 
 never to sprinkle «kc., to express the sprinkling ka , which these 
 other words always meant, rather than either of these words 
 themselves. The original baptism was a sprinkling and not an 
 immersion. Yet we never hear it referred to as a sprinkling but 
 always as an immersion from forty years after the apostles for 
 centuries, while this original baptism by sprinkling ha<l become 
 so forgotten bv the church within a century and a half of the 
 apostles, that when it began again to be practiced, its validity 
 was conceded only in cases of necessity where immersion could 
 not be practiced. Vrt some are prepared to go even this length, 
 rather than abandon a hereditary belief. What does the reader 
 iOnclu le to do? 
 
 We join issue with this pamphlet iinally, on the 
 
 TKACIIIN'O OF SCRIPTUKK 
 
 On the question'of the mode of baptism. 
 
 We shall Hrst follow hiui as he attempts to show that in 
 certain instances baptism was by sprinkling. 
 
 kaaman's skvknfold baptism, 2 KiNos, 5:10 — 14, 
 
 is not a sevenfold dipping as our Bible says but a 'venfold 
 sprinkling This is the way he makes this appear, '' How (was he 
 baptized) ? Certainly not by a physical washing in the river, but 
 by symbolic sprinkling ; for he did it according to the saying or 
 command of the man ot God And the man of God would com- 
 mand him to do what the law of God prescribeil. this was 
 sprinkling seven times; Lev. 14:7." 
 
 J^t us see. IfElisha would have commanded what the law 
 prescribed, it must have been that Naaman's was an instance of 
 the case for whom the ritual of Lev. 14 was provided ; for Elisha 
 had too much reverence for the law to prescribe its solemn cere- 
 
m 
 
 I ! 
 
 '1 '1 
 
 • I 
 
 22 
 
 monies for any tliun those for whom the ritual itself was given 
 But Nrtaaiati's was not an instance of such a case The ritual of 
 Lev. J 4 was for lepers already cured, to declare that they had 
 been healed. Lev. 14:3. Naaraan was still diseased and Elisha 
 enjoined whai was miraculously to cure him, 2 Kings .kIO, 11 
 So much for this assertion. 
 
 Again if Elisha commanded him Jo conform to, the ritual of 
 Lev. 14, he did so conform ; for he obeyed him But he did not 
 thus conform, even though he obeyed a command to wash, by 
 sprinkling himself. In Lev 14, there is to be an examination by 
 a priest, a bird killed, its blood mixed with water, wood and 
 scarlet an.l hyssop dipped therein, this mixture sprinkled upon 
 him by a priest, washing of clothes, shaving and hatlung, to be 
 followed by sacrihces, <fec,, for eight days. And yet, in order to 
 get m the sprinkling which is so <lesperately in need of help, men 
 would iDiikti it appear that if Xaamaii sprinkled //-//rt.>«'^{/' seven 
 times in Jordat) water and tiien pro(!e«(led on his w.ty. he went 
 through the whoUi long rituul oi' ibis ciiapter. But it uui?.t lie so : 
 for has not ■Iv. McK, himself usssuii'd us that he " knows what h»^ 
 *.ays," having ''carefully examined every passage in the (Jld Tes- 
 tament and the New relating ti baptism." It would be most 
 lukind to question it when he takes the trouble to tell us so him- 
 belf Did he think that if lie let jjis work speak for him people 
 miyht doubt / 
 
 Following others, this pamphlet makes 
 
 on; l,Oi:i)'s BAPTISM 
 
 ',! •.•^#•«.«J|.' 
 
 bis i;onsecijit!on u> the priesthood He ridicules the idea that 
 our ij.iril s hajitism \va,> us an example. " If Chrii.t v.as baptized 
 lis an example, why," !ie exjlaiins " Do not Baptists follow his 
 example and that in evfry point. ' Why are they not baptizeil 
 at 30? Wliy are they n<H circumcised ? Why do they not keep 
 the Jew sli Passovor and Sabbath. &:c ? What logic ! ! If Christ is 
 
 an el 
 
 in al| 
 
 his i 
 
 not 
 
 Chril 
 
 the 
 
 enjoi 
 
 USSU] 
 
 hooq 
 of wi 
 29:4,1 
 does! 
 
?lf was given 
 The ritual of 
 fifit they had 
 I and Elisha 
 ngs '3:10,11. 
 
 he ritual of 
 t he did not 
 to wash, by 
 niination hv 
 » wood and 
 ikled upon 
 nng, to be 
 in order to 
 ' help, men 
 I'-'elf .seven 
 
 »ij»t l>e so; 
 V8 what he 
 J Old Tes- 
 I'e rno.st 
 Js so him- 
 in people 
 
 <Jea tiiiit 
 i'aptized 
 )I]ow his 
 >apti2pd 
 iOt keep 
 ^'iirist is 
 
 23 
 
 an example in one thing he must be in all then. But he was not 
 in all, according to Mr. McKay, therefore he was not in any, and 
 his reasoning leads to two opposite conclusions. But we need 
 not discuss the point whether his baptism was, in all respects, 
 Christian or not. We are concerned in this discussion only with 
 the mode ot baptism and all admit that its form was the same 
 enjoined upon believers generally. But how, even on the 
 assumption that his baptism was his consecration to the priest- 
 hood, does he gel in sprinkling? Knowing that there was no use 
 of water but as a washltuj in the consecration of the priests Ex. 
 29:4, which was too near an immersion to serve his purpose, what 
 does he do but declare that our Lord was consecrated to the 
 priesthood by the ritual for the consecration of the Levites^ Num. 
 S:7, and so had the water of purifyin^^ sprinkled upon him In 
 the name ot all that is sacred I protest, against such handling of 
 the word of God. But let us sift this matter further. Di 1 it ever 
 occur tD those who thus seek to pervert our Lord's baptism 
 that he did not belong to the tribe of Levi, but to that of Judah, 
 '•of which tribe Moses spake nolhin;: concerning priesthood,"' 
 Ileb. 7:14? But some would retort, but he was a priest after 
 the order of Melchisedick. This i.-, true, but it is argued in Heb. 
 7 that the Mosaic priesthood and that of Melchisedec are so 
 completely distinguished that, v. 7, '• the priesthood being 
 changed, there is of necessity a change in the law "' whereas this 
 performance argues that the new priesthood must subject itself 
 to the ritual of^the old law. Fine reasoning truly. 
 
 But again, to make it appear that our Lord received this con- 
 secration to the priesthool, it must be assumed that John was 
 performing on men, at Bethabara, the iitual ot the Mosaic law 
 Xow I read of the consecration both of priests and J^evites, Ex« 
 29:4, Num. 8:5—13, that it took place at the door of the taber- 
 nacle, if there were any consecration other than this general one. 
 fhey were to wash and 8have au'i otfjr sacrifices, and robe, and 
 
i'^i 
 
 24 
 
 all this to be repeated for seven days, while the candidaies 
 remained secluded in the holy solemnity of the sanctuary. And 
 yet Mr. McK, and others, in order to bring in their beloved 
 sprinkling, and rule out the hated immersion, do not hesitate lo 
 declare the simple rite performed by John identical with thi.-< 
 X>rolonged ceremonial. To what audacity of assumption will not 
 men go, when they have no better reliance? Upon what depths 
 of Ignorance in their readers do they not reckon ? 
 
 THE BAPTISM OF THE EL'NUCH, ACTS S:3S, 39, 
 
 'l-.i*!;'?^ j^V 
 
 is a plain case of sprinkling in Mr. McKay's eyes. Hear him, 
 " If they (Baptists) will examine their Bibles they will see that 
 the eunuch was on this occasion reading in the 52nd and 53rd 
 chapters of Isaiah. And here it is predicted of Christ, among 
 other things, that ' He shall sprinkle many nations ' (a passage 
 which the best scholars, by the way, say should be rend:>red, * so 
 shall he cause many nations to ^xult ') and the eunuch seeing 
 water at once thinks he is one of tlmse he was ro s}>rink]e, ttc. 
 Very conclusive surelv, quite specious, at least, liiit we have 
 learned enough V>y tliis time to take nothing for granted because 
 it is roundly declared in this pamphlet, an 1 others of a similar 
 kind. Baptists do " examine their Bibles,' all the worse for such 
 performances. Let us turn to Acts 8:32, it is there said that the 
 eunuch was reading, " He was led as a lamb to the slaughter," &c. 
 not Isaiah 52: 1 5, but 53:7, Thus again the boasted proof is an 
 assertion contradicting the Bible. Under such circumstances it 
 is hard to receive in all meekness the reprimand which intro- 
 duces this piece of wresting of the scriptures, " Instead of ignor- 
 antly dwelling upon unusual or false translations to prove their 
 theory let me recommend immersionists to a better way, &c.'* 
 May we not say, in all humility, that we do not wi>h to follow 
 his wav. 
 
25 
 
 e, itc. 
 
 e have 
 
 :>ecausf* 
 
 similar 
 
 or such 
 
 lat the 
 
 r," &c, 
 
 is an 
 
 nces it 
 
 intro- 
 
 ignor- 
 
 e their 
 
 , &c.'- 
 
 follow 
 
 THE BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT 
 
 is becoming the chief dependence of the advocates of afFut^ion. 
 Their argument appears quite plausible, on first sight. In this 
 baptism the spirit is represented as coming down upon the 
 baptized. The water baptism must conform to the spiritual 
 therefore in physical baptism the element must cohie down upon 
 the candidate, and the candidate not be put into the element,— ' 
 baptism must be affusion, not immersion. Let us examine this 
 argument somewhat closely. / ' ' 
 
 1, It assumes that there was a literal affusion of the spirit. 
 If the language — the spirit was poured out &o. — be figurative, 
 referring to the copiousness of the influence, and 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 
 spirits manner of reaching men, there can be nothing in it to 
 determine the mode of water baptism. Who can doubt as to 
 this? Cananvone, on sober thought, believe that there is a literal 
 material pouring out &c. of the Holy Sp'rit ? Is not the very men- 
 tion ofsuch an idea shocking ? Besides, do we not believe that 
 the spirit is omnipresent, aiid so does not require motion in any 
 direction to exert his energy on the soul? So this argument 
 crumbles away at the first touch. ' ' 
 
 2, But allowing this gross material conception in the realm of 
 the purely spiritual, and still our opponents are not helped much 
 unless the " pouring out " &c, are called the baptism. But it is 
 not. Etren Robinson in his Lexicon, in the very article on baptizo 
 in which he makes a special plea for sprinkling, declares that 
 Matt. 3:11 should be "baptized in the Holy Ghost, 'and not "with 
 the Holy Ghost," as in our version, and all candid scholars agree 
 with him. Now, if we go to the record of the fulfilment of this 
 promise, Acts 2: 1—4, we find it in perfect agreement with the 
 meaning of the word baptizo, and the terms of the promise thus 
 
T 
 
 rightly rendered. The audible accouapaniment of the spirit's 
 presence and power *' fills the house where they are sitting," and 
 *' they are filled with the Holy Ghost." Cyril, one of the ancient 
 Fathers writing about A.D. 350, Cat. 17 Sec. 8 puts it well in his 
 highly wrought way. " The house became the reservoir of the 
 spiritual water.) the disciples were sitting within -, and the whole 
 house was filled. They were therefore completely immersed, 
 according to the promise. We might quote Theophylact, 
 Neander, Moses .Stuart, Lange and others to the same effect, bui 
 we forbear. 
 
 3, Again still allowing the idea that there was a literal material 
 outpouring of the Spirit, it must further be established that water 
 baptism is to declare the mode of the Spirit's coming upon the 
 soul, before the fact of the Spirit's coming in a certain form will 
 stamp the same form on water baptism. But even on this 
 monstrous supposition, how could the manner of the Spirit's 
 coming require to have something in an ordinance, or an 
 ordinance itself to symbolize and show it forth ? Why should 
 Orod take such pains to keep men in mind that the Spirit descends 
 upon them and does not come in another way. The idea is 
 simply unthinkable, and no one could have perpetrated such an 
 argument as this, unless forced by the exigency of a preconceived 
 
 4, Finally the true symbolism of baptism destroys this argu- 
 ment completely. Mr. McK. is right whfn he asserts that it 
 symbolizes the Spirit's work of regeneration in the soul, although 
 he makes a statement which is incorrect when he says that 
 Baptists do not believe this, since they are the only people who 
 hold this view consistently ; for in infant baptism this cannot be 
 the symbolism, unless baptism first regenerates. Well then, if 
 baptism symbolizes the work of the Spirit in the soul and this is 
 undoubted, how can he make it show forth the mode of the Spirits 
 coming wptm the soul. 
 
 But 
 oiakes 
 1 : 32, " 
 dove." 
 Vets 1 
 would I 
 prevent 
 
 So t 
 :uonstr( 
 materia 
 the Spi: 
 deep ar 
 a work 
 absurdi 
 one of i 
 
 We 
 
 In tl 
 he reac 
 pleader 
 fies the 
 baptisn 
 of such 
 thus pr 
 second , 
 0:18 to, 
 sprinkli 
 sprinkli 
 passage 
 necessi^ 
 else wa 
 punfica 
 
;he spirit's 
 tting," and 
 be ancient 
 well in hiti 
 oir of the 
 the .vhole 
 immersed, 
 eophylact, 
 effect, but 
 
 i1 material 
 
 that water 
 
 upon the 
 
 I form will 
 m on this 
 ie Spirit's 
 ce, or an 
 'hy should 
 t descends 
 ie idea is 
 3d such an 
 scoDceived 
 
 this argu- 
 ts that it 
 , although 
 says that 
 •eople who 
 cannot be 
 
 II then J if 
 smd this is 
 
 he Spirits 
 
 But the idea that the dsncent of the Spirit is the baptism 
 naakes the most arrant nonsense when applied to the passages, Jn. 
 I ; 32, would re«*d, " I saw the Spirit baptizing from heaven, like a 
 dove." Acts 2 : 17, " J will baptize of my Spirit upon all flesh.'' 
 Acts 2 : 33, '• He has baptized this which ye now see <fec," which 
 would make it appear that the element is the object baptized, and 
 prevent the baptism of the people altogether. 
 
 8o this boavSted argument is found to be based upon such 
 :uonstrou.s assumptions as that the Spirit is poured out in a 
 material way, — that water baptism is to show forth the mode of 
 the Spirits descent. JSco., thus emasculating from baptism all its 
 deep and blessed import, — thus denying that it is a profession of 
 a work of f»raoe in the soul, — and reducing referencee to it to an 
 absurdity. Verily a practice is well supported which has this as 
 one of its strongest arguments. ,,„|. ,. ., v,^ ' l/wi ■■ ^rt v>^ 
 
 We come now to the ; Jir" -; .«'>'^f:.-.;" 
 
 L-iil. 
 
 
 DIVKRS nAITISSIS HRB. 9 
 
 
 r:n U'mU t%S 
 
 In these Mr. McKay sees nothing but sprinklings. How does 
 he reach this conclusion? Just as a number of other special 
 pleaders have done. He boldly assumes that the apostle identi- 
 fies the .sprinklings mentioned in vs. 13. 19.21, with these divers 
 baptisms of v. 10, whereas the apostle gives not thv<» remotest hint 
 of such a thing. Let the reader examine for himself. Having 
 thus proved his first step by assuming it, he establishes the 
 second in the san * way. Having quoted Lev. 19:13:20 and Heb, 
 0:13 to show that the essence oF the purification was in the 
 sprinkling, he then asserts that '' God's word says that the 
 sprinkling constituted the baptism." The most that these 
 passages prove 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 all 
 purifications were sprinklings. As well might we reason, because 
 
k 
 
 ii 
 
 
 r !i 
 
 one man died because he had not his leg amputated that all men 
 will also die unless they have theirs cut oflf. Two more assumpt- 
 ions are needed, viz., that only purifications belong to these divers 
 baptisms, and that only sprinklings are purifications, before he 
 can prove that these baptisms were^not immersions. As they 
 are needed, he makes them, and calls this proof I ! 
 
 But although this argu^lent on careful dissection, resolves 
 itself into a series of bald assumptions, it is frequently used ana 
 is well fitted to impose on the careless — especially on those who 
 are predisposed to accept it. We therefore propose to give it as 
 exhaustive an examination as our space will permit. ; 
 
 Let us first examine the passage itself to find its true 
 meaning. :' ' 
 
 First : the " divers baptisms " are called carnal ordinances, 
 for the " and " of the clause, " divers baptisms and carnal ordi- 
 nances," is without MSS. authority as all scholars admit. So the 
 divers baptisms are restricted to such rites as pertain to men and 
 to their outward persons, 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 continue to be observed until the end 
 of the old economy can be included in these baptisms. 
 
 Bearing these two facts in mind, let us turn to the Old 
 Testament and question H as to the forms of personal purification 
 which these baptisms may include. There are but five cases of 
 personal sprinkling. At the ratification of the covenant, Ex. 24 
 18, — at the consecration of Aaron and his sons, Ex. 29:21. Lev. 8 
 30, — of the Levites, Num. 8:7, — at the cleansing of lepers. Lev. 14 
 7j_of those defiled by contact with death. Num. 19:13—21. But 
 the sprinkling of blood at the ratification of the covenant was 
 never to be repeated. Neither was that of the water and ashes 
 at the consecration of the Levites ; for it was a consecration of 
 the whole tribe, once for all. Neither, probably, was that of the 
 
 pi- 
 th 
 
 thi 
 
 we 
 
 spi 
 
 anj 
 
 ha 
 
 mil 
 
 lei 
 
 the 
 
 the 
 
 use 
 
 the 
 
 be 
 
 the 
 
29 
 
 at all men 
 ! assumpt- 
 ese divers 
 before he 
 As they 
 
 , resolves 
 
 used ana 
 
 those who 
 
 give it as 
 
 I its true 
 
 dinancesi 
 irnal ordi- 
 L. So the 
 » men and 
 esh." 
 continue 
 lid come. 
 1 the end 
 
 the Old 
 rification 
 
 cases of 
 , Ex. 24: 
 . Ley. 8: 
 
 Lev. 14: 
 
 1. But 
 lant was 
 
 id ashes 
 >ation of 
 ,t of the 
 
 priestly caste; tor it was ol the whole priestly class, through 
 their haads (see Smith's Bib. Die. art. Priest.) These sprinklings 
 then could not be referred to in the divers baptisms ; for they 
 were not to continue until the time of reformation. Only two 
 sprinklings remain then, which even might thus be referred to 
 and one of these — that of the leper — probably did not occur per 
 haps once in a generation, if it did so often ; for it was next to a 
 miracle for a leper to be healed, and the rite was not to cure 
 lepers, but to celebrate their healing. There was practically, 
 then, but one sprinkling, of any frequency of recurrence, to which 
 these baptisms could refer and is it likely that the apostle would 
 use Ihe word " divers," did he refer to these sprinklings when 
 there were only two cures, and one of these so unfrequent as to 
 be scarcely worthy of notice. So much for the probability that 
 the " diyers baptisms " refer to sprinklings. 
 
 But were there any other personal purifications to which they 
 might refer ? Yes, verily, although those who seek to have the 
 reader see sprinkling through the '' divers baptisms " very pru- 
 dently strive to keep them hidden. There are 40 specified cases 
 where the clothes are to be washed, and 30 where the whole body 
 of individuals is to be bathed or washed. So much care is taken 
 to conceal these facts that we give the most of the passages so 
 that the reader can see that they really exist. 
 
 Washing of clothes. Leyiticus, 11: 25, 28, 40. Leviticus, 13 : 6, 
 34, 54. Lev. 14 : 8, 9, 47. Lev. 15 : 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 21, 22, 27. 
 Lev. 16 : 26, 28. Lev. 19 : 16. Num. 8 : 7. Num. 19 : 7, 10, 19. 
 Num. 31 : 24 
 
 Washing oj the whole body. Lev. 14 : 8, 9. Lev. 15 : 5, 6, 7, 8, 
 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 27. Lev. 16 : 4, 24, 26, 28. Lev. 17 : 15. 
 Lev. 22: 6. Num. 19:7, 8,19. 
 
 In addition to these there are bathings of the hands and feet. 
 
 But were these bathings immersions ? When we consider the 
 scrupulous exactness of the Jews in conforming to the ritual of 
 
so 
 
 ; ! 
 
 the law. and tuke into connection with this the fact that 
 immersion of the body in water is the common eastern mode of 
 taking a bath; can we doubt that those bathings were equivalent 
 to immersions, if they were not immersions. But we have other 
 evidence. 
 
 Maimonides, the greatest and most learned of Jewish Rabbis, 
 and who ought to know the customs of his own people, says : — 
 
 '' Whenever, in the law, washing of the fle-ih or of oloihes i» 
 mentioned, it means nothing else then the dipping of the whole 
 body m water J for if any man wash himself all over except the 
 tip of his little finger, he is still in his uncleaness. Hilch. 
 Micooat. 1 : 2. Dean Stanley says in his article on baptism, and 
 from his life long researches in the history of the Jewish people, 
 he should be an authority, ^' The plunge into the bath of 
 purification, long known among the Jewish nation as a symbol of 
 a change of life, wat* still continued, (in baptism)/' 
 
 Let us sum up, on the one hand there are about fifty distinct 
 cases of washing and bathmg which were, if not actuaj 
 immersions, yet equivalent to immersions. The^iQ immersions 
 were of frequent repetition aa^ong the most of the people until 
 the end of life. On the other hand there is but one case of 
 sprinkling of general and continuous use. The question then 
 is, shall we suppose that the apostle designates this one case of 
 sprinkling with the extraordinary case of the leper, " divers " 
 baptisms^ thus using a word to describe them which never meant 
 sprinkle in all its use, as all scholars admit. Or did he use this 
 word "divers " of the thirty or fifty cases of bathing and wstshlng, 
 and the word "baptisms" which always meant immersion of 
 these wastiings and bathings, which were at least equivalent to 
 immersions ? Did he use both the words with meanings which 
 they never bore, or did he use them in the sense they ever had ? 
 The reader can easily judge. And yet this is oae of the 
 Ktrongest arguments against us. The reader can also judge o^ 
 
SI 
 
 the learning of Mr. McKay, and the seemliness of his arrogant 
 question, ^' Do not imtnersionists know that every cleansing or 
 baptism under the law was by sprinkling ?" 
 
 Not only so, but unmixed water was never used in any Old 
 Testament sprinkling. The case of the Levites is no exception. 
 Whenever water is used in the Old Testament it is as a bathing— 
 at leagt the equivalent of immersion. If then John's baptism in 
 proved to be a legal purification by John 3 : 25, it is all the worse 
 for sprinkling; for his was the use of water only, and it must 
 therefore have been an immersion. 
 
 Our author makes the usual point of the shallow critics about 
 the 
 
 BAPTISM IX THB CLOUD AND IN TUB SEA, 1 COR. 10 : 2. 
 
 " A man cannot be dipped or immersed on dry ground," he 
 exclaims. Surely he is not so dull as to believe that there can 
 be no immersion except in water, or any except a literal. The 
 Israelites were surrounded by the sea and cloud, so as to be 
 completely enveloped in them, just as in baptism one is envel- 
 oped in the water. So far is this passage from doing duty against 
 the Baptist view that Dr. SchaS in the quotation already made, 
 gives the " comparison of baptism with the passage through the 
 Red Sea," as a proof that 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 wherein they 
 became as it were submerged.''^ Had we space, we could quote 
 Poole, Bengel, Whitby, Olshausen, Alford, Bloomfield, Moses 
 Stuart, &c., to the same effect. Need we say more on this point ? 
 
 His criticism on the washing (baptism) before meals, Luke 11 : 
 37, 38., is wonderful. He assumes roundly that the baptism of 
 himself yihxch. the Pharisees expected of our Lord was a washing 
 of the hands. He then assumes, because he finds two cases of 
 washing the hands by pouring water on them, hundreds of ycftrs 
 
// 
 
 i 
 
 82 
 
 before, that this was the invanaljlo pracLica an! so our Lord must 
 have been expected to baptize hiintel/, by having some water 
 poured upon hii hinds ! And so the exclusive immersion tlieory 
 is but the baseless fabric of a dr<^a'n. .Surely immeraionisU are 
 for ever demolished ! 
 
 th;': KviTisM ok vi;s^i:ls avd tabi.ks, maiik 7 : 4, 
 
 receives a share of attention. Ifo assumes, as is generally done' 
 thai the rites here alluded to were all necessarily parts of the 
 Mosaic ritual, and that the baptisms were therefore sprinklings. 
 Now was he so hlin I as to fail to see that they are expressly said 
 to belong to the traditions of the elders v. o., against which our 
 law proceeds to speak, v 7, 8 ? This is just the point. The elders 
 had gone beyond the law and hail imposed grievous and oner- 
 ous observances on the people. What wise criticism then, to 
 allege that tho?e traditional observances which had made the law 
 of none effect, were the very re(|uirements of this law itself! ! So 
 much for Mr. McK. Pedo baptist i eaders who have been accus- 
 tomed to hear this passage held up as utterly inconsistent with 
 the Baptist position will be surprised to know the little real 
 diflf^lculty it presents The following will suffice to make this 
 [>lain ; 
 
 Maimonides, the great .levvish Rabbi already referred to, says, 
 •' Every vessel of wood which is made for the use of man, as a 
 table, tkc , receives defilement," and he adds, further on, " A bed 
 that is wholly defiled, if be dip it part by part, it is pure. Hilch, 
 '.'elim, Dr. Holley, a Congregationalist, in his great work on the 
 .^acraments says : — 
 
 '* [ cannot rely so confidently upon these baptisms of furniture 
 as do many of my brethi en. * •' If any one will take the trouble 
 to study the various pollutions of beds and couches, as they are 
 described by Maimonides and the Talmudic tracts, tney must in 
 candor admit that these articles of furniture were, in some 
 
 inst 
 beef 
 con I 
 
 prei 
 del 
 of tl 
 
33 
 
 instances, immerse<l in water." '' I cannot deny that the Phari 
 bees as early as the time of our Saviour practiced immersion after 
 contact with the common people." 
 
 But alas ! some men have not the knowledge or the candor to 
 prevent them denying this, and so they act as though they had 
 demolished our position ; while they have only made an exposure 
 of their own ignorance. 
 
 The critical note on v. 4 of th.j passage is a cariosity, instead 
 of the Vatican, the sinaitic and seven other MSS, having ranti- 
 aontai in this verse instead of baptisoatai. Alford and Tregelles 
 give only the Vatican and one obscure MSS. as having ran//«on^at* 
 (sprinkle). Mr. McK. states that because some MSS. thus give 
 sprinkle and some baptize, sprinkle and baptize must be synony- 
 mous ! ! Let us apply this newest canon to a case. In Jas. 2:18, 
 some MS.S have '' by thy works,' others " without thy works." Mr. 
 McK. then, must believe thai to be justiiied by works, and with- 
 out works, are synonymous and equivalent. How easy it would 
 be for him to bridge over the chasm between Calvinism and 
 Arminianism ! 
 
 The old objection that there was a scarcity of water in Jeru- 
 salem to immerse the 3,000 on the day of Pentecost is brought 
 forward again as though it had not been answered times without 
 numl^er. We answer it again, the facts are taken from Dr. 
 Kobinsin's Kesearches in Palestine, vol. 1, p. 480-515. Dr. R. 
 was a staunch Pedo baptist. Jerusalem was watered by the 
 following pools with the dimensions given below : — 
 
 Length Breadth Depth 
 
 75 feet 
 19 " 
 18 " 
 
 partly filled ' 
 40 feet 
 
 '' But in addition to these " contmues Dr. R. " almost every 
 
 private house in Jerusalem of any size, is understood to have at 
 
 Bethesda, 
 
 360 
 
 130 
 
 Siloam, 
 
 53 
 
 18 
 
 Upper Pool, 
 
 316 
 
 218 
 
 Hecekiah, 
 
 240 
 
 144 
 
 Lower Pool, 
 
 592 
 
 260 
 
7f 
 
 Depth 
 
 12 feet 
 15 " 
 15 " 
 20 '• 
 
 34 
 
 east cftio or more cisterns. The house of Mr. Lanneau, in which 
 we resided, had no less than four cisterns, and as these are but a 
 specimen of the manner in which all the better class of houses 
 are supplied. I subjoin here the dimensons." 
 Length Breadth * 
 
 I 15 8 
 
 II 8 4 
 
 III 10 10 
 
 IV 30 • n^ 30 
 
 1.1 
 ThesA public reservoirs were available. Dean Stanley who 
 
 "^trAvelled in the East sa3's : "In that early age the scene of the 
 
 transaction (baptism) was either or some vast reservoir, 
 
 as at Jericho or Jerusalem, whither as in the Baths of Caracalla at 
 
 Kome, the whole population resorted for swimming or washing '' 
 
 and Dr. Hackett, also an Eastern traveller, says : "'I'he habits 
 
 of the East, as every traveller knows, would present no obstacle 
 
 to such a use of the public reservoirs." Besides we know from 
 
 the New Testament that Siloam and Bethesda were so used ; for 
 
 our Lord .commanded the blind man to wash in the Pool of 
 
 Siloam, and the sick used to plunge into that of Bethesda, Jn. 
 
 9, 7, and 5 . 2. Neither would the populace have prevented 
 
 them ; for Acts 2 : 47. They were " in favor with all the people.'' 
 
 So much foi- this objection. Ot course Saul was baptized stand. 
 
 ing, becau.se lie " arose and was baptized." Mr. McK. never 
 
 knew that the expression '' arise '' is eiiiiivalont to '• get ready '" 
 
 in the New Testament use, or, if lie did, it would spoil his point 
 
 to mention it here. There is no doubt about the matter but that 
 
 when Peter asks, Acts 10:47, "Can any man forbid wa»er " it 
 
 means can any forbi<l "its being brought into tiie room" If a 
 
 judge should sav, can any man forbid a gallows, that this mar) b»' 
 
 hanged, it would mean that a gallows be brought into the court 
 
 room and the man hanged there ! ! The baptism oT the Jailer i>< 
 
 not said to be \n f/wjail, Acts IG : 32, 34, " They spake v. 32 to all 
 
 that were in bis house, -these " were bfiiitiz-^"!, ^ v. 33. then the 
 
 ion, 
 
 i I 
 
35 
 
 n which 
 MB but a 
 if houses 
 
 'eet 
 
 nley who 
 ne of the 
 ipservoir, 
 racalla at 
 .vashing '" 
 lie habits 
 ) obstacle 
 now from 
 used ; for 
 e Pool of 
 les^la, Jn. 
 )revente(l 
 » people.*' 
 erl staii'l- 
 V. never 
 t reurly '" 
 lis point 
 hut that 
 fii*ev ■' it 
 If a 
 luarf bt' 
 lie court 
 Jailer i^ 
 . :^2toall 
 then the 
 
 n 
 
 jailer " brought them into his house," v. 34. They were in the 
 house before baptism, they came back into it after baptism, and 
 thus must have gone out to be b:iptized. So much tor these 
 cases which ai-e thought inconsistent with immersion. 
 
 As to the '' much water " of Jn 3 : 23, it we admit that it is 
 literally " many waters," it will no less signify a large supply, 
 according to New Testament usage. Let the reader turn to Rev. 
 1 : 15, 14 : 2, 17 : 1, 19 : G, the only other instances of its use there* 
 in, and judge for himself. The Bible does not say that John 
 chose Enon that there might be water for the animals, or to 
 enable him and our I^rd to be near each other and not interfere. 
 It merely says that John was Imptiziiuj there because of its much 
 water or many w.it rs. Although we hear of multitudes thronging 
 our Ixjrd in the - i and elsewhere, there is no mention of suf- 
 fering from thirst. Our Ix)rd had never to work a miracle to sup- 
 ply them with water, as he did to furnish them bread A very 
 small spring would bo enough to afford water for thousands. So 
 we had better not add to the scripture narrative any suppositions 
 of our own. Jn. Calvin who says, Com, " From these words, Jn. 
 o : 23, it may be inferred that baptism was administered by John 
 and Christ by plunging the whole body under water," and Olshau- 
 sen who declares that '' John was also baptizing in the neighbor* 
 hood, because the water there affbrded convenience for immers- 
 ion," and other Pedobaptist scholars we might name, are against 
 Mr. McK. ; but these I suppose are among the ignorant people 
 who •'* know nothing about dipping." 
 
 The time worn objection that John could not have immersed 
 "all Judoa and Jerusalem, <*:c," is made to do duty again. The 
 most Pedo-baptist writers vho urge this, cannot feel justified in 
 making the whole population of the district more than two or 
 three millions, but Mr. McK makes it^t'e. In reply we remark : 
 1, Baptism by immersion can be administered as rapidly as by 
 sprinkling, especially if we remember that the most ancient 
 
d'4 
 
 •a 
 
 -fV 
 
 manner was by the candidate going deep into or kneeling in the 
 
 water and the administrator putting his hand on his head and 
 
 howing it under the water, 2, We »re not told that Johi alone 
 
 baptized. His disciples may have assisted him. The expression 
 
 ' baptized of John '' being similar to^ " the ark was built by 
 
 Noah. ' 3, Let the reader turn to Lu. 7 : 30. Mlatt 21 : 25 Jn 4 : 1 , 
 
 1:11, 3:23, and ho will see that Matt 3:5 cannot mean that all the 
 
 people without exception were baptized of John, even if it nieahs 
 
 that all without distinction were. It may mean no more than 
 
 John 12 : 32. " And if I be lifted up will draw all men unto me " 
 
 — that there went out to him many of all classes. 
 
 Does Mr. McK. not know that in the hot lr»nd of Palestine. 
 
 with the t lin clothing of the people, to be left with drippin;jr 
 
 garments is more of a luxury than an inconvenience? Dr. Page 
 
 Smith says " In Judea, during the larger part of the year, persona 
 
 n ordinary health might plunge into the water and sit down in 
 
 in their wet clothes with safety, and often with great comfort 
 and pleasure. 
 
 And now we come to what is called 
 
 i*n 
 
 " THE BURlAf. THEORY." 
 
 1 , Mr McKay holds that in Rom. 6:3, " Buried with 'him fcy 
 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 be- 
 yond a question that the baptism is not act but an effect, nOw he 
 says, in order to serve his present purpose, that baptism is hot 
 effect but means. He abounds in points against us. First, we 
 are demolished because a thing is so, and then again because 
 that very thing is not so. But whichever way he chooses to oiake 
 his point, it is useless here : for if the burial is the result of the 
 baptism, it is a burial which is the result, and that is what is al- 
 

 g in t1i<^ 
 lead and 
 iii alone 
 pre's^ion 
 built by 
 Jn4:l, 
 ,t all the 
 it means 
 »re than 
 nto me " 
 
 alestine. 
 (Irippin;,: 
 Dr. Page 
 , persons 
 , down in 
 comfort 
 
 him by 
 
 not the 
 
 |e burial, 
 
 (rgotten, 
 
 ►ved be- 
 
 I, now he 
 
 IS hot 
 
 'irst, we 
 
 because 
 
 I to make 
 
 It of the 
 
 lat is al* 
 
 3T 
 
 ways elfected by immersion, and what is never secured by either 
 sprinkling or pouring. Besides in Col. 2: 12 it is "byried with 
 liim 77} baptism," not by. Therefore here it is plainly stated that 
 th^re is the baptism in the burial. 
 
 2, We believe that water baptism as well was the spiritual, if 
 not water baptism and not the spiritual is here referred to. Of 
 course we must remember that by a well known figure baptism is 
 f^aid to eff\*ct what it only symbolizes. Paul is arguing that the 
 members of the church in Rome are all dead in sin, and that there- 
 fore the taunt that unconditional justification would lead to sin, 
 cannot be true. To prore this he refers them to the fact that in 
 their baptism mto Christ they were baptized into his death. 
 Then to make it plain that in their baptism into Christ they were 
 thus baptized into his death, he refers them to the form of their 
 baptism— a burial — wbich was to show forth this very fact, and 
 savs, " therefore— for this very purpose— we are buried," Ac. 
 
 Besides, in v. 5 it reads, " For if we have been planted together 
 (grown together, literally) ir\ the likeness of his death,^* Ac. Here 
 baptism is called the likeness ot the Saviour's death, referring 
 to its representation as a burial in the preceding verse. Now 
 spiritual baptism could not possibly be called a likeness-r-a repre- 
 sentation— of the Saviour's death. It must be something visible 
 to which he refers, and this visible likeness to the Saviour's death 
 described as a burial must be immersion. It can by no manner 
 of twisting be made a sprinkling or a pouring. Conybeare and 
 Howson in Life and Epis, of St. Paul hfsve expressed the idea of 
 this verse as follows, " LiterAlly have become partakers of a vital 
 union of the representation of his death {in baptism.) The mean- 
 ing appears to be, if we have shared the re. Mty of His death, 
 Whereof we have undergone the likeness.*' Well therefore mny 
 'they say, " This passage cannot be understood unless it be borne 
 in mind that the pnmrtive baptism was by immersion." 
 
 3, But allow these passages, Rom. 6 : 4, 5 and Col. 2 : 12, to 
 
T 
 
 
 3$ 
 
 refer to spiritual baptism, and it points to immersion as the 
 literal baptism all the same. Why, on this supposition, is the 
 spiritual baptism called a burial ? It cannot be because there is 
 any actual burial m what is spiritual, for this is an absurdity. 
 Can it be for any other reason than that the water baptism is a 
 burial, and that the spiritual is, in a figurative way, described 
 through the material fact which represents it? If the water 
 baptism had been a sprinkling, can we imagine the apostle saying 
 buried with him by baptism viz., in that case— by sprinkling ? 
 
 Well therefore may Bp. Headley B&y thnmmj jj<ij tim*nmij <m^ 
 
 ''If Baptism had been then performed a.s ft is nov/ among us 
 (by sprinkling) we should never have so much as heard of such 
 form of expression, of dying and rising again in this rite.'' 
 
 Besides, what a somersault this new ground requires our 
 Pedo- baptists friends to make? To bring in affusion, their great 
 argument is that the spirit is said to be affu.sed, 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 that this refers to the 
 Spirit's baptism, but that the water baptism need not conform to 
 the representation of the spiritual. How convenient ! If thev 
 would only notice that the effects of the Spirit on the soul, and 
 not the mode ! of the Spirit's coming is called a baptism, then 
 there would not be this apparent conflict between the repre- 
 sentations of the St;iritual baptism, which requires them to con- 
 tradict themselves point blank. 
 
 4, The history of the interpretation of this passage throws 
 much light upon its moaning. 
 
 The early Fathers beginnmg with T^rtullian who was born 
 about 150 A.D. and including Basil, Cyril Chrysostom, Gregory 
 Nazienzen, Ambrose, John of Damascus, Theophylact &c. all 
 int^'^pret this passage as referring to water baptism by immersion. 
 And sOj do all modern scholars, so far as I can learn, until Moses 
 
39 
 
 throws 
 
 born 
 regory 
 DC. all 
 irsion. 
 
 [oses 
 
 Stuart, including such names as Luther, Zuingle. Wesley, 
 Whitfield, Baxter, A. 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 bad the hardihood to follow him. 
 Until there was need then of a different interpretation to serve 
 a controversial purpose in evading the force of the Baptist 
 argument, no one thought of explaining this passage except as 
 referring to baptism as immersion, and few have done so even 
 since. Who can fail to see the force of thea©. facts ? 
 
 5, Finally the true symbolism helps to the true interpretation 
 of this passage, and to the truth about the mode *of baptism. 
 Even Mr. McK. admits that baptism is to symbolize the work of 
 regeneration in the soul, and Rom. 6 : 4,5, and Col. 2: 12 prove 
 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 ? By 
 what stretch of the imagination can we see this shown forth in 
 sprinkling or pouring? ITow can we fail to see it vividly and 
 impressivf^Iv portrayed in the burial in the water — death to the 
 old — and rising out of the water — resurrection to the new? 
 Fn^itisn) is lepvesented again inEph 5 : 26, and Tit. 3 : 5 as a 
 l>ath or bathing— the word used in thf original referring to a 
 bathing of the whole body. But how the whole body could be 
 sjiid to be !)athed b}' baptism, if baptisnf t\'er^ f\ sprinkling or a 
 pouring 1 fin.l not, but in immersion I see such a bathing. o«g«3 
 
 , ' t do not purpose to follow Mr. McK.. and those from whom he 
 
 borrows, throujrli all their remarks about the '^^^ ^"^ '^'^^v^> 
 
 'i\ ', .ui,^.;^ j^;u W <^^.ti-r »» a; '^-JiiJiU C^ »w'>ifi tO hap, <P0 ' 
 
 ' O'^ ** nOiS'; OREKK PRKPO^'lTTOXS. ' vdX am> 
 
 jou-w i.?iie ,v.i4«i', 'i)j ui,M 
 
 'vu4]vm ",if>ie'i 
 
 A'greatdeftl of dust can be thrown into the eyes of the un- 
 Biiokrlv reader, which it is almost imijossible to remove. The 
 
40 
 
 re«wrk8 a^jt "into the mountain '* not oaeaning under its sur- 
 face, and so "into tlie water '* not signifying under the surface of 
 the water may be answered by those who think them worth the 
 trouble The attempt to make it appear that in the account of 
 John's baptism " Jordan " and even the " river of Jordan " does 
 not mean the river of Jordan at all has overlooked one fact. In 
 Mark ] : 9 our Lord is said to be baptized eis ion Jordaneii into the 
 Jordan. Now no sleight of hand with the preposition eis intOy 
 here, can make sense, if we regard ** Jordan " as a place and not 
 the river. Allow that eis m<»ans to, or up to or unloy and it be 
 comes "and was baptized of John to up to, or tin^o, the land of 
 Jordan," which is nonsense. Neither will any dexterity with the 
 preposition avail here when we admit that " Jordan " means "the 
 river of Jordan " as v 5 says. Take <o, and up tOy and untOy as 
 meanings of eis in this passage in this case and there is nonsense 
 again, "and was baptized of John tOyup to, unto the Jordan (the 
 river)." Still more absurd would it appear should we insert 
 sprinkle for baptize, as Pedo-baptists would have it, " and was 
 sprinkled of John toy up to, unto the Jordan." Take, on the other 
 hand the meaning for which Baptist contend. '' and was immersed 
 of John into the Jordan," and it is plain and clear. It utterly 
 refuses to be made to serve any other sense. 
 
 Again this preposition eiSy in the Gospels and Acts, is tran- 
 slated " into " 455 times and " to " only 155 times. But even in 
 the compararively few times in which it is rendered " to " it 
 means into — for it is used of going " to " a city or place into 
 which the one who went entered. The preposition en in the 
 Gospels and Acts is translated " in " 920 times, and " with " only 
 29 times, and of these 29 times it refers 11 times to baptism. The 
 reader can thus judge whether eisjin the expression " going down 
 eis the water," means " to " or " into " the water, and whether en 
 in the expressions " baptized en the Jordan '' or " baptiied en the 
 water " or " baptized en the Holy Spirit" means " in " the Jordan, 
 
41 
 
 bran- 
 
 m in 
 
 " it 
 
 linto 
 
 the 
 
 )nly 
 
 [The 
 
 lown 
 
 iT en 
 
 the 
 
 lao, 
 
 '• in " the water, " in " the Spirit, or " with " the Jordan, water, 
 Spirit. That the preposition ek has " out of '' for its meaning can 
 be seen by any who knows the fact that there are two Greek 
 words to express the two ideas " from " and " out of." When 
 " from " in distinction to ^* out of " is to be expressed, then apo is 
 used, but when "out of in distinction to ''from," then ek is 
 used. The fact then that ek is used of baptism as well as apo, 
 proves beyond a doubt that the candidates came up " out of " the 
 water. The one case when apo is used in Matthew's descripticn 
 of the baptism of our Lord, is probably due to the fact that apo 
 designates the point at which the Spiiit descended and as he was 
 gomg up " from " the water. But in Marks account it is ek that 
 is used, and so our Lord must have been into the water. 
 
 If Mr. McK had been more careful in his remarks about this 
 preposition he would have reduced his point three quarters 
 nearly. Instead of ek b<^ing translated "out of" only Jive times 
 in the Acts, it is so translated eighteen times. It is true that it is 
 usually translated " from," but in these cases it conveys the 
 sense "out of " as an instance or two will show, Acts 2: 2 " from 
 heav3n '" Acts 3 : 16 •' from the dead." Acts 18 : 1,2, from Rome, 
 from Athens, <fec., do not mean from the outside of heaven, the 
 realm of the dead, Rome and Athens, but from within— om^ of. 
 Neither are the cases cited by Mr. McKay exceptions. Rom 
 1 : 17. The righteousness of God is revealed out of faith — faith is 
 its subjective force. Matt 12:23. The fruit of the tree is the 
 source out of which is our knowledge of it. Jn. 10 : 32. The good 
 works of Christ had their source in God. 
 
 To sum up the argument from the prepositions then. If 
 sprinkling or pouring were the original baptism, then they were 
 used in a very extraordinary sense ; whereas, if baptism were an 
 immersion, they had their most common meaning. This is not 
 denied by any one who has a reputation for scholarship worth 
 keeping. The most that is claimed by Pedo-baptists is that the 
 
42 
 
 prepositions do not necessarily exclude sprinkling and include 
 immersion. But the circumstances make it almost imposaiblo to 
 conceive that baptism was by sprinkling. Why, on this suppo- 
 sition, were places chosen for baptism where there was much 
 water, or many v.'aters, or at the Jordan river. Why unless they 
 went into the water should they take the trouble to go down to 
 It? Why unless to immerse did they go into it, both baptiaer 
 and baptized, and incur, according to our opponents, all the fear- 
 ful danger of cold and the inconvenience of wet clothing for 
 nothing? On the supposition that baptism was an immersion, 
 however, all is consistent. They resort to the plentiful waters 
 because they are needed, they go down both into the water, be- 
 cause the candidate was to be buried therein and the baptizer 
 was to bury him. From the prepositions and the circumstances, 
 then, there is another strong presumptive argument for the 
 Baptist view, although we do not regard it as demonstrable. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 Thus we have striven to meet objections to immersion fairly. 
 The reader must judge whether they have not been met sufficient- 
 ly— 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 tney can verily for themselves. In the 
 course of the discussion, also, the following facts, among others 
 have been made apparent. 
 
 In the assumption that immersion was the baptism practiced 
 by Christ and the apostles, all is clear and consistent. 
 
 The Greek word haptizo is taken in the sense in which the 
 people used and undei stood it — in the sense in which the Greeks 
 of to-day, and the church of which they form a part, use and 
 understand it — instead of having forced upon it a meaning not 
 only totally foreign to it, but also that of another common word 
 
43 
 
 liced 
 
 the 
 
 ieks 
 
 and 
 
 not 
 
 rord 
 
 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 immers- 
 ion, we hnd the writers of the first and second and succeeding 
 centuries declare it to be such, and when sprinkling and pouring 
 are introduced we find them regarded as only permitted as bap- 
 tism 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 im- 
 mersion 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 spiinkling was the baptism 
 of the New Testament we have to face the following absurdities : 
 1st. 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. 2nd. 
 In the New Testament reference to baptism, in addition to un- 
 natural uses of prepositions, kc, and ftinciful explanations of the 
 need of much water for sprinkling a few drops upon each candi- 
 date, we must understand the Apostles to describe such sprink- 
 ling as a bathing of the whole body, Ephe. 5, 16, Titus 3, 5, a wash- 
 
44 
 
 ing of tho whole body. Acts 22, 19, Heb. 10, 22, a burial, Rom. 6, 
 4, Col. 2, 12. 
 
 3rd, Although our Lord commanded sprinkling, and the 
 Apostles practised it, Barnabas and Hermes^ who were con- 
 temporary with the latter, refer to baptism in terms consistent 
 only with immersion, and Justin Martyr, who wrote withm forty 
 years of John and all the early fathers, in scores of references to 
 baptism, 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 ! 
 
 4th, Nay more, if sprinkling was the practice of the Apostles, 
 then within 1-JO or 200 yeai's after their time, so absolutely had 
 the knowledge of the practice faded from the mind of the church, 
 that when the original baptism by sprinkling was again adminis- 
 tered, 250 years from the birth of Christ, all the church looked 
 upon it as to be allowed only when immersion was impossible, 
 and even then as so inferior to immersion, that those who had 
 been sprinkled were disqualified for church otfices ! Will pedo- 
 baptists 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 ? As the chan>»e took place 
 and was forgotten in the space of three 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 
 requiring immersion, and that all lines agree in rejecting sprink- 
 ling and pouring, so that the assumption that they were practised 
 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. 
 
45 
 
 )e in 
 Irink- 
 Itised 
 
 can 
 ice a 
 
 lany 
 
 Neither let the reader suppose that the only question between 
 us and other denominations, as to the 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 we feel 
 ourselves bound to yield an exact obedience to the definite in- 
 structions of our Lord, thus avowing our belief that he had a 
 specific purpose to serve in the ordinance as he commanded it, 
 which cannot be so well served in any other way, or shall we 
 take the liberty to change what he has ordained, thus encourag- 
 ing a spirit of looseness and rashness, while we attribute to our 
 liord the folly of enjoining what is so immaterial 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 Jn.Calyin Institutes IV, XIX, " But whether the person 
 who is baptized be wholly immersed, 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 difference of countries. The very word 
 baptize, however, signifies to immerse, and it is certain that immers- 
 ion was the practice of the ancient church.'^ Baptists, on the con- 
 trary, hold that the form of baptism is adapted by divine wisdom 
 to serve the divine purpose, and that therefore neither Jn. Calvin 
 nor anyone 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 every- 
 thing ; 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 
 graves, 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. 
 
Y/7 
 
 \ 
 
 4S 
 
 And 80 we leave this work, to which we have devoted our last 
 few days in Ontario, in the hands of Ilim for whose truth an«l 
 glory it has been done. May he accept it, although so Izttlf fitted 
 to serve so high a purpose. May the Ix)rd forgive His Hf^rvant, 
 if, in the desire to tear the veil from the divine features of nacred 
 truth, he has used to ungentle a hand, or has, in the smallest 
 thing, wronged one of the Ijord's loved ones. And may He use 
 it aa He plea&e, in some small way. 
 
r last 
 li an<l 
 fitted 
 'vant, 
 acred 
 alleet 
 e use 
 
■i^-:; 
 
■■^'< 
 
 .-> r 
 
 y ' > 
 
 iV'.v::.^, 
 
^ 
 
 "pwr 
 
 wt** 
 
 THE BAFnSM OF CHiaST. 
 
 THE BBPKBIiBNTATlOir W THB MOSAIC WOKR OV THB DOMB OF THE 
 
 ; BAPTISTERY AT RAVRNNA. 
 
 The truth about this pieoe of art of whioh Mr McKay roakas 
 
 Buoh use, may be learned from the following quotations !- 
 
 Dr. Cote " Aroheeology of Baptigm.' 
 
 *< The mosaics of this baptistery hav&been repeatedly restored, 
 and well informed critics are of opinion that unwarrantable 
 additions and alterations have been made m this magniAoent 
 work by incompetent artists. These restorations have been 
 reu'lered necessary by the leaky condition of the cupola-^a 
 defect whioh, unfortunately still exists. 
 
 PaoiauduB, a Latin writer in his De Cultu S, Joannis Baptist^) 
 asks, in view of this mosaic work, 
 
 '< Was our Lord baptixed by aspersion ? This is so far from 
 being so that nothing can be moie contrary to the truth, but it 
 must he attributed to the error and ignorance of painters, who, 
 being often unacquainted with history, or believing they could 
 dare everything, sometimes greatly altered the subjects they 
 portrayed," 
 
 The smallest of the fBtKFly fonts alluded to by J)r Bobinson in 
 his Lex art. baptiao^wi disproving immersion, was, according to 
 his own measurement, Bib. Kes I p. 7H, fow feet in diamMer on 
 ih6 iiiMde, and three /Get nine inchaa d^m. When the reader re- 
 members that this is the i^mallest of the fonts to wbict he alludes, 
 and that it was not probably erected until after infant baptism 
 had become general, he d^n ju^^S^ ^^ which side the evidence of 
 the early fonts lies. WhtV would think of having the smallei^i of 
 fonts of this sine to sprinkle infants? ft" is lar^e even to im 
 merse them. Mr. McKay,'s reproduction of this objootion ia 
 unfortunate. \ 
 
 The fltatament that ^' Nd picture in the world earlier than ik^ 
 16tb century represents our Lord au being bapiiied by dipping " 
 is aliuos^t the e^iact reverse of the truth, as can be seen fay th^ 
 reallSr i^l^ffiienoe to Or. Ootes <> Archeology of Baptism.' 
 
 ■^v