'^1 BAPTISiM HOW? AND FOR WHOM? BY REV. W. W. COLPITTS * >x<- - — TORONTO WILLIAM BRIGGS Wesley Buildings Montrral: C. W. coaxes 1896 Halifax : S. F. HUESTIS 9 3033 7 Entrred accordingf to Act of the Parliament of Canada, in the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, by Wilmam Briggs, at the Department of Agriculture. INTRODUCTION The reader will find in the following pages a popular exposition of the doctrine of Baptism. Although in popu- lar form, it will be found that the author's treatment of the subject is thorough, and his exegesis sound. There is great need of such a work at tlie present time, and the Conference that requested the publication made no mis- take. It is a work that can be read, understood and appreciated by the connnon people. Its wide circulation cannot fail to be productive of good. Having read this work, the average Christian parent will be able to give a reason why he presents his infant child for baptism, and why he prefers that the child be baptized by sprinkling. In communities where this little work is circulated and read, the specious arguments of the immersionist will have but little effect. We heartily commend it to all lovers of sound biblical views on the subject of Baptism. , A. STEWART. Wesley Collkue, Winnipeg. AUTHOR'S PREFACE. Dear Brethren of the Manitoba and North-West Confef^ence, — Since being laid aside from the active work I have revised and condensed the manuscript that three times you have asked me to publish. In my enforced solitude I have had time to ponder and discriminate, in a way that I could not have done when occupied with the activities of a busy ministry. From material on my mind and in my hand, gathered from many a field, collected during forty years, tried in the crucible of discussi(m on many a plat- form, I have had to leave out so much th.at to me was interesting and important, that to my eye there is a bald- ness that my hand would fain relieve. There are many illustrative incidents present to my memory, where men stretched after the sublime and only reached the ridicu- lous — men, hoping to make the simple rite of the Gospel more impressive, repeated Peter's mistake of having head, hands and feet washed, and burlesqued the -solemnity — which for brevity's sake I have had to repress. Here you VI AUTiioKs imil:face. will find exposition and logic put into such form that no intelligent and unprejudiced person can become familiar with, and then l)ecome a prey to the proselyter. And this is, T think, what you had in view when you ordered this work. It may invite criticism and provoke discussion : so be it. I shall not l)e driven into a long drawn-out liews- paper discussion, to most readers tiresome and useless ; but if any accredited exponent of the doctrines of some evan- gelical Church feels that he nmst discuss the })osition here taken, and is willing to give me a fair chance to reply, if we can arrange time and overcome distance, as in the past, I shall be most happy to accommodate him. My sympathies are with you, and in my prayers I remember the men with whom for thirteen years I have companied in the Gospel ; and though I may never again follow the trail, ford the streams, or sleep out under the stars, I shall never forget the men that I have met on the rolling prairies of the great North-West. Yours in the bonds of a common faith, W. W. COLPITTS. 110 Symington Avenue, , - . Toronto. - ". .• ' BAPTISM. It happened once on a time in a certain eastern city that a Methodist Minister attending Conference met the Baptist Minister of the place, when a discussion, something like the following, occurred : Baptist. I am glad to meet you, Doctor; I hope you will preach for me on Sabbath morning. Methodist. Yes, Brother ; I will be pleased to do so. B. It is our Sacrament Sabbath, and perhaps you would give us a sermon on that subject ? M. Yes. And I will be glad to remain and take the emblems of the Lord's death with you. B. I am very sorry, Doctor, but you know that we are close communion, and therefore cannot admit you to the Lord's table. M. What do you mean by " close communion " ? B. I mean that our Church does not admit to the Lord's table one who has not been baptized. M. But I have been baptized. B. How ? and when ? M. By affusion, in my infancy, B. But we hold that nothing is baptism but im- mersion, and that of a believer. M. I have often wondered how you, a kindly and Christian gentleman, could call the minister of another 8 BAPTISM. flcnoiiiination Brother, invite liiiii to preach for you, and then wlien you take the bread and wine, repre- senting the bi'oken body and shed blood, you eject him as if he were unclean. B. I know it seems hard; but we are obliged to do it, because you will not obey the Saviour's com- mand, and be innnevsed. M. As you are well informed in the doctrines of your Church, I should very much like to discuss this whole subject with you. And I promise you that if you can show me one clear case in the Scriptures wdiere one man ever took another man and put him all under water and lifted him out again, and called that baptism, I am willinj^ to be dipped. B. With all my heart I accept your offer to discuss the (juestion of baptism. But why do you feel so keenly our excluding you from the Lord's table ? M. Because of its excessive bigotry ; and the in- stances coming under my observation in which it was unchristian and cruel. I knew a young lady, a daughter of Methodist parents, converted in Methodist special services, baptized and taken into the Methodist Chrrch, who was afterwards proselyted to the dip- ping theory, and thereby put a water-fence between herself and her parents, and thereafter could not take the emblems of the Lord's death from the hands of the venerable man who had led her to Christ. I knew also a Baptist lady whose husband was a Methodist. Two of their grown-up daughters were converted and joined the Methodist Church. At their first commun- ion, when they rose to go forward with their father the mother burst into tears. The narrowness of close liAM'ISM. 9 communion was crn.sliiiijr lier soul. She he.sitrtted a moment, and tlien, fcclint^^ that what (lod liad cleansed she would no lon<(er call common or iniclean, arose and went forward, and as a united family they took together the holy sacrament. For this she was dis- ciplined by the Baptist Church. These and many other instances that I have observed make me feel strongly opposed to your close communion. B But do not you hold that none but those who have been baptized can properly come to the Lord's table? M. I hold only what the Bible teaches, and I know of no place in the Scriptures where baptism is made a pre-recjuisite for admission to the liOrd's table. I do know that Christ gave this sacrament to His dis- ciples ; and you know that Christian baptism was not at that time instituted. B. But let us first discuss baptism. M. Very well ; what is your definition of baptism ? B. Baptism is immersion, and the doQi* to the Church. At. That seems to be Baptist creed. A few days ago at the ordination of one of your young ministers, he was asked this question, and answered as you do, " Baptism is immersion." B. Well, how do you define it ? M. Baptism is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, and involves a proper subject, a proper administrator, and the proper ele- ment, scripturally applied in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. 10 BAPTISM. B. I do not know that I can object to your defini- tion. But what do you say of mine ? M. I think I know enougli of logic, and I am sure I know enough of Scripture to reject it as utterly untenable, and unworthy of your head or heart. For instance, I saw a man yesterday throw a dog over- board from a boat. The dog went entirely under water, was then lifted out. Now, according to Bap- tist interpretation of immerse and your definition of baptism, that dog was baptized and had entered the door. Would you give him the other rites of the Church ? B. Such a suggestion is insulting. M. Pardon me. Brother, but I think it wise to use plain language and striking illustration, to dispel, if possible, the mists that encompass your definition of baptism ; and I assure you I am quite willing to have my definition just as sharply criticised. Let me give you another instance of how your definition looks to those who have not your prejudices. Once in a town in Prince Edward Island an official in an inmiersionist church had some money taken from his till by a deaf mute. The mute was pursued and overtaken at the end of a long wharf. The money was taken from him, and not wishing to put the case into law, but thinking that he ought to be punished in some way, this church official summoned help, a rope was placed around the culprit's waist, and he was plunged over- head into the sea. On drawing him out, the very zealous churchman was accosted by a bystander with the {juestion, "Are you making another member of your Clnu'ch ? " Here again is what you call immer- BAPTISM. - 11 sion, and that of a human subject, and according to your definition that was T)aptisni, and that mute had most unwillingly entered the door. * • B. What I meant was that the word baptize as used in the Scriptures always means innnerse. M. That reminds me of a lecture I once heard, in which the lecturer asked, " What action did Jesus Christ command when He commanded baptism ? " And then he answered his own question by declaring that "that action was immersion." And I see that Dr. Conant, the author of the Baptist New Testament (the book that was published by the so-called "Ameri- can Bible Union"), takes the same view, and endeavors to make the text so read in every instance. He seems to have got along swimmingly until he reached Mark X. 39, when to read as the Word of God, " Can ye be immersed into the immersion that I am immersed into ? " seemed too much of the Hydromania even for Conant, and in the second edition (a copy of which I possess) he is compelled to yield this ai'gument that it always means " immerse," by rendering it at least once as " undergo." And I have no hesitation in saying that any man who makes the assertion that baptize always means immersion is either dishonest or ignorant. You may think this a hard expression ; but if I do not prove my assertion to be true I will retract and apologize. , B. That is fair; I await your proof. M. First, I have to say that innnerse is not an act. The word comes, as you know, from imi and viergo, and is state or condition. Now, the Latin is the most, fixed and definite of all the languages spoken by the 12 BAPTISM. babbling sons of men, r.nd means exactly what it says, nothing more, nothing less ; hence the lawyer and the doctor, when they wish to be exact and defi- nite, employ it. Now, the word you use, and the word Dr. Conant uses, does not describe and set out what you do for baptism. I have seen people receive what you call baptism. These individuals waded a portion of their persons into the water, and the minister dipped the remaining portion under water. Lifting the candidate to his feet, he waded to the shore. I have never witnessed dipping in a tank. Now, imimergo does not only give no authority for lifting out of, but does forbid it ; " coming out of " is emergo. If you take a Latin word to express a Chris- tian ordinance, you must be held by that word in all its exactness, and not by the vagueness of your idea. To immerse a human subject is to drown. This was well brought out by Dr. Rand when he was translat- ing the New Testament into Mic-mac. Holding the immersionist view, he was naturally anxious to trans- late the word haptizo by a Mic-mac word that would give exactly an equivalent for innnersion. The Indian . assisting gave the word required, but objected to its use by saying, " Sartin drown 'em." B. But the learning of the world is against you. The lexicographers give " immerse " as the meaning of haptizo, and the best Pedobaptist writers admit their correctness. M. Here again you are not accurate. You say the word always means " immerse," and that you are sup- ported in this contention by the lexicons, and yet you cannot find a single lexicon that gives that meaning V BAPTISM. . 13 • . as the only one. And do you not know that Drs. Carson and Full, two of your best writers, assert that baptizein means " dip," and only " dip," through all Greek literature ? They reject '" immerse " entirely, and say " dip." '"' '* B. But is not " dip " and " immerse " substantially the same ? M. Certainly not. The one is to put in and take out quickly — and you only do that to a {)art of the body ; the other is, as we have already seen, to leave in and to allow to remain under — and that is to drown. B. But I nnist insist that the lexicographers do give " immerse " as one of the meanings. M. But we are endeavoring to learn not so much what the old dead Greeks and Romans meant by baptizo in its heathen use, but what Jesus Christ meant by it as it is used in the New Testament. And here I may remind you that Schleusner, a learned theologian and critic, as well as a lexicographer, after giving " dip " as one of the classical meanings of bap- tizo, adds, " In this sense it is never used in the New Testament," but " in the sense to cleanse, to wash, to purify with water." And if all the lexicons did give " immerse " as one meaning, that cannot help your argument, for you assert that it is the only meaning, which is certainly untrue ; and then you add that the best Pedobaptist writers admit the correctness of this view. Now, to whom do you refer as the best Pedobaptist writers ? B. I might give you many, but as you are a Meth- odist, I will give you John Wesley and Dr. Adam * 14 BAPTISM. Clarke. Clarke says in his note on Romans vi. 4 : "It is prol)a})le that the Apostle here alludes to the mode of administei'ing baptism by immersion." M. Have you (juoted the whole note on that verse ? B. No. But I (piotcd such as I think applies. M. That, I am sorry to say, is Baptist tactics. In a discussion that I once had with a Mr. C, at Glen- dale, he took nearly an hour in reading extracts. When I turned to some of them afterwards, I found that he had garbled, that is, left out (pialifying phrases, and then endeavored to make it appear that he had given the true idea of the author. Now turn to the note, part of which you have quoted, and you read, " Noah's ark floating upon the water sprinkled by the rain from heaven is a figure corresponding to baptism." You and your Church hold that inniiersion is the only mode of baptism, and you quote Dr. Adam Clarke as adnutting the correctness of your view, which is most untrue. B. Well, but Mr. Wesley not only says in his notes, alluding to the ancient method of baptism by immer- sion, but in his Journal declares that he so adminis- tered the rite, as the following (juotation shows : " Mary Welsh, aged eleven days, baptized according to the custom of the first Church and the rule of the Church of England, by immersion." Now, your founder not only admits it in words, but emphasizes it in act. M. Did you ever think when it was that Mr. Wesley did and wrote these things ? In that same Journal, after his conversion, he writes : " I went out to Georgia to convert the heathen when I was BAPTISM. 15 myself an unconverted heathen." When he was an unconverted lieathen, he did some heathenish things, sucli as tlie dipping of a child eleven days old over- head in water, such as a Hindoo devotee riay be seen doing along the Ganges any day. But when he became a Christian and a Methodist minister, he put away those things forever, and wrote a work to prove that innnersion was not the scriptural mode. Did it ever occur to you that if Mr. Wesley's act proves valuable as indicating what is right, you have infant baptism proved, as Mary Welsh was only eleven days old ? And then the expression, " alluding to the ancient method." Who was alluding to the ancient method ? Why, the writer, and that was Paul. Was Christian baptism an ancient method when Paul wrote ? Certainly not. Then this whole contention that immersion is the only mode of baptism has as yet, in the evidence produced, no support. Indeed, ivimergo as an equivalent for baptizo is pure modern invention. The old Latin version of the second cen- tury takes us back nearly to the apostolic age. It is more ancient than any Greek manuscript now^ extant ; it constitutes, next to the Word of God in its original form, the most decisive testimony. In that venerable translation the Greek verb is never rendered by any form of the Latin ivimergo. B. But is this not rather a strife about words, rather than seeking to know what the Scriptures really teach as the proper mode of baptism ? M. There is force in what you say, and I am glad to recognize it ; but you must have observed that 16 BAPTISM. there has been a great change in the arguments that are relied upon now to sustain Baptist views. B. To what do you refer? _. ' M. In my early days I was accustomed to hear it stated tliat Baptists just took the Bible as it read, and compared passage with passage, and relied upon that alone to establish their view. The later argu- ments are lexicons and Pedobaptist concessions. In ten public discussions, including Glendale and Rapid City, these were the principal witnesses produced, and I have no hesitation in affirming that no man who understands this question will publicly in the presence of a controversialist, who has the oppor- tunity to reply, undertake to prove that the Bible sustains your contention that baptism always means to immerse. B. Well, I am old-fashioned enough to prefer the Scriptures, divinely inspired, to man-made lexicons. M. Good. I am glad to be able to agree with you, for language is of greater antiquity and higher authority than any lexicon ; for language makes the lexicon, and not, as some ignorant persons suppose, lexicon makes the language. B. Do not the Scriptures tell us of John baptizing in Jordan ? Again in Enon, expressly stating it was because " there was much water there." And Philip took the eunuch down into the water. And Paul speaks of being buried by baptism. M. Would it not help us in this discussion to criti- cally examine the different passages in which baptism occui-s, in order to discover what meaning the woi*d lias in each case ? BAPTISM. 17 B. Agreed ; let us begin at the beginning. M. Tlie firHt case of baptism recorded in tlie Scrip- tures directly called such, is alluded to by Peter in his first Epistle, chapter iii. 20 and 21, where the water falling from the clouds on the ark and on its occupants is said to baptize them. Here it is clear that those who were baptized were sprinkled and saved, those who were innuersed were drowned and lost. Or take the next in the historic order. Paul speaks of it in 1 Cor. x. 1-4 : " Moreover, breth- ren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea ; and did all eat the same spiritual meat ; and did all drink the same spiritual drink ; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them : and that Rock was Christ." Turn now to Exodus, chapter xiv., and read the posi- tion occupied by these people when they received this baptism. The 16th verse says, "They shall go on dry ground." Verse 21, "The Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wnnd all that night, and made the sea dry land." In Miriam's song of triumph (chapter xv. 19), we are further instructed, " The children of Israel went on dry land in the midst of the sea." Again, Heb. xi. 29 : "By faith they passed through the Red Sea as by dry land : which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned." Here it is most emphatically stated four times over that this baptism occurred on dry ground. Now, your plan (call it what you like, immerse, dip, plunge, over- 2 18 BAPTISM. whelm) never was, and never will be, practised on dry ground. B. But you have not yet shown how the water was applied. . M. True, but I have shown that the people whom the apostle calls " Our fatliers " were not dipped under water and lifted out r ;ain, and yet they were bap- tized. Read the 77th and 78tli Psalms, and observe the many allusions that the Psalmist makes to their splendid history, when God led His people like a flock by the hand ot* Moses and Aaron. He says, " The waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee ; they were afraid : the depths also were troubled. The clouds poured out water." That is how the Psalmist, writing by divine inspiration, understood it. The cloud passed from before the Israelites and came between them and the Egyptians. Passing over the Lord's hosts, the clouds poured out water upon them, baptizing them whilst they were on dry ground. And they were saved from an immersion, but the Egyp- tians assaying to follow them were immersed, and, as a consequence, were drowned. B. But let us come to New Testament Scriptures. M. Do you not forget that it is the New Testament that says that this falling of water upon these people who were on dry ground was baptism ? and it says further, that they all drank of this Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. B. But the transaction is recorded in the Old Tes- tament, and describes the people as having a wall of water on both sides of them, and a cloud over them. Does not that cover them ? ^ " BAPTISM. 19 M. It does not iminerse th(3iii, or dip tliem, aiul certainly did uot overwhelm them. There was no water before them, no water behind them, no water under them. The cloud above them was dropping its fulness upon them, baptizing them. Would it meet your views of baptism to place a candidate for baptism between two tanks on a rainy day ? If so, I think we have reached a basis of agreement. And now, having established beyond dou))t that the Israel- ites were baptized by efi'usion, and the word in this case most certainly indicates that the baptizing ele- ment fell on those who v/ere baptized, let us search the Scriptures to see if it ever was changed to mean dip or immerse. B. Yes : the spiritual baptism on the day of Pente- cost. "It filled all the house where they were sit- ting." M. What filled all the house ? Why, the sound as of a rushing mighty wind, and they were all over- whelmed in that sound — but the baptizing element was the Holy Spirit, and that " sat upon each of them." B. Give proof. M. Certainly. Peter declared that this w^as the fulfilment of Joel's prophecy : " I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." Or, as stated in Acts x. 44 : " While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." Again, in the 45th verse : " Because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." Or Acts xi. 15, 16 : "As I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remem- 20 BAPTISM. berod I tlio word of the Lord, liow that hv said, Jolin indeed baptize*! iHtk water: ])ut ye shall be baptized ivUh the Holy (diost." Thus, what Christ did with the Holy (jrhost John did with water. But Christ did pour upon them the Holy (ihost, tlu^rel'ore John did pour upon them wIkjiu he baptized the water. B. Let us take up the baptism (jf Cyhrist, our great example. Now, the Scriptures assert that " He came up out of the water." If He came up out of the water, He must have been in it. M. If that is the oidy reason that yon can give ] why Christ was dipped ]>y John in the Jordan, and it is the only reason I ever knew a Baptist ccmtrover- sialist to give, then I nuist say that it is worth nothing ; for, as you know, Cod never wrote a book in English, and it is admitted that the Greek prepo- sition does not mean " out of " in the sense of coming from under, hence the Revised Version renders it from, and the Baptist version admits this is correct by so rendering it, "And Christ came up from the water." B. But we hold that He was immersed as an exam- ple for us. M. But you know that He was previously circum- cised. Was that an example for us ? If not, why not? B. Why was Christ baptized ? M. I am glad that you have asked that question, for I find a vast amount of ignorance, both in Baptist and Pedobaptist churches, on that question. Christ says when He applied for baptism, "That it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." Christ was ^ BAPTISM. ' ' 21 iiiidcr tlic law, not one jot or one tittle of which sluMild I'jiil until all should he t'ultilled. John's ordi- (nary baptism was unto repentance. Chi'ist was no .sinner to repent, and needed no such haptisni for himself, and was not baptized as an example to sin- ners, for His baptism did not occur till all the people were baptized. (See Luke iii. 21.) He could not have been Ijaptized as you baptize people on a pro- fession of their faith in Christ, as He was himself the Christ. Therefore, He could in no sense be re- garded as an example to you who insist upon what you call " Beli(iver's baptism." And I repeat I am surprised at the profcmnd i^7 ranee that prevails about Christ's baptism. Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews, states and proves at large that Christ was a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. This he asserts over and over again. His epistle was directed to a people who would understand him and all that that claim involved. They would naturally ask wlien and by whom was He ordained a priest? Paul tells them, and us as well (chapter ii. 17), " Wherefore in all things it l)ehoveth him to be made like unto his brethren." And just as His brethren of the Levitical order were made priests, so was Christ. In Ex. xxix. 4, we have the general directions in reference to their washing. In Num. viii. 7, the mode of this washing is fixed : " Thou shalt sprinkle water of purification upon them." So that whether you read He came " up out of the water," or as the two versions read that I have (juoted to you, " He came up from the water," if He was not sprinkled with water, He did not fulfil the law. And lest there \ 22 * HAI'TISM. , should still linoer some of that old fallacy of oxamplo ahout your mind, I ^o further: why did ('hrist defer haptisiii till He was thirty years of a^e ? Most of tlu^ people that you receiver into the Church come for haptisni before that a^^e, and some a few years later. If you were sincere ahout (yhrist's example^ you should meet them at the thresholtl and insist upon the thirty years. Now, you see that Christ waited till that a^e, because the law had Him in its keeping, and it required that age of the priest coming forward to ordination. That this is the only tenable position in the light of Scripture is demonstrated by, Christ himself. (Luke xx. l-cS.) Christ was teaching in the temple and enforcing reforms, interfering authori- tatively with what might be called vested rights, when the cliief priests, and the scribes, and the elders came upon Him, and demanded His authority for the line of conduct that He was pursuing. Mark well His answer: "The baptism of John." With that reply 'they were silenced, for they well knew that He had been most publicly consecrated by John at the Jordan. And when His authority is questioned to teach in the temple and to reform temple worship, He points to the baptism of John, and asks, " Was that from Heaven or of men ? " John baptized a whole generation of sinners, but that ordinary bap- tism of his did not make priests of them; but this one, with its new and select fornmla, in which the Father took part, saying, " This is my beloved Son, hear him," did give Christ such authority as silenced scribe and priest. IJAITISM. 23 7i. If Ho wjiH not an example for uh in His baptism, hen what lias it to do with the Hiil)ject in hand ? M. Thi.s, and this only : according to the lavv% as quoted, He was sprinkled, and that sprinkling was called baptism. B. But wliat you call John's ordinary baptism was in the river of Jordan. M. John first baptized in the wilderness beyc nd Jordan. And if "in" means under when at a river, wliat does it mean in the wilderness ? That it could not have meant under water is proved from the fact that Christ came and took up His abode where John lirst baptized. If John always baptized in w^ater, and that by putting the person under water, would you have us believe that Christ was amphibious ^ Is it not the fact that John began his vocation beyond Jordan, but when men began to crowd his ministry and to wait upon his baptism, that for convenience he removed to the river, and then when the waters became warm he removed to Enon, because there w^as much, or many, waters there. For if he had just wanted much in quantity, Jordan would have been the place at which to commence, to remain, and con- clude his ministry, for Enon, as a place of springs, could not have rivalled the Jordan as a place in which to dip people. B. Then you are not sure that John did not baptize by dipping. M. Oh, yes, I am ; and I will give you as one reason he could not have dipped in the short period of his ministry half of the population of the country. We 24 BAPTISM. are told tliat there went out to him " Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan/ and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." Now, if John had stood in the water up to his waist from sunrise to sundown during his entire ministry, he could not have handled that many people without a miracle ; and the Scriptures tell us that John did no miracle. Therefore John did not dip all those people, and to infer as you do in reference to Enon, that the English expression, "much water," j helps your contention, is about as logical as the man's argument who contended that Christ, in feeding the five thousand with so meagre a supply of ordinary food, had them complete their repast on grass, " for it," said he, " expressly states that there was much grass in that place." u B. But you must admit that at the baptism of the eunuch they went down both into the water, and that they came up out of the water. M. So says our English version, but how does that language help your contention, as what was affirmed of the one was as much affirmed of the other ? Did both go under the water ? .., , > B. I suppose not. r l 1 ; , ,.' ' r M. Is it fair, then, for you to say that one was sub- merged and the other was not, when precisely the same language is employed in reference to both ? B. But can you show any reason for sprinkling there ? M. I think I can. When Philip joined the eunuch he was reading Isaiah liii. Philip asked him if he BAPTISM. 25 indorstood what he was reading. He replied he did ot, and incjuired of whom the prophet was speaking, uppose I were reading a letter in which the words *he," " him," " his," were frequently used. When you intjuire of me whom I mean I give you the letter to find out for yourself. What would you do 1 B. I w^ould begin at the beginning of the document. M. This is the very thing that Philip did. Acts viii. 35 : " Then Philip opened his mouth, and began 'at the same Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus." And as he read of Him in the writings before him, he found that it was prophesied of Him, " So shall he sprinkle many nations." As he discoursed to him they came to a certain water. " See, water," cried the eunuch; "what doth hinder me to be baptized?" What did he know about baptism ? What was before him ? And so connnanding the chariot to stand still, they both went down to the water (or into it, if you like), and he, probably the first of his nation that was to be sprinkled, received that rite, at the hands of Philip. Do not think that going into water neces- sarily implies going under it. I saw a Methodist minister take three young men, candidates for bap- tism, dow^n to a little brook, where they knelt upon the sand in a few inches of water. The minister took up what water his palm would contain, and let it fall upon their heads, saying, " I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." They went down into the water, and came up out of the water, and yet there was no dipping of the person — the water was not sufficiently deep if they 26 BAPTISM. had desired it. And so of the eunuch. He was travelling by way of Gaza, which is desert — a land in which no man has found sufficient water for your plan. It was evidently a surprise to find any at all, as the exclamation of the eunuch indicates, who, after his baptism, went on his way rejoicing — no with- drawing room or dry clothing for the eunuch neces- sary, or rubber wading-pants for Philip. These, like your form, are all modern inventions. B. But baptism is a washing or a cleansing. How can you make anything clean by sprinkling water upon it. It was said to Saul, " Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." M. Yes, arise, that is, " stand up " (literally), and be ba]:)tized. And that is what he did. No journey to either Abana or Pharpar, no tank was brought into requisition. He stood up, and was baptized on the spot, just as was the Philippian jailor, who the same hour of the night brought water and washed the disciples' stripes, and he and all his were bap- tized straightway, without leaving the jail, B. How do you prove that ? M. It was as much as the jailor's life was worth to have his prisoners without the jail until they were properly discharged. You know that when Peter's keepers could not produce the prisoner they were put to death. And next morning, when the sergeants sent, saying, " Let those men go," Paul says, " No ; let them come themselves and fetch us out." Put in by authority, they remained until authority took them out. And the baptism that Paul administered BAPTISM. 27 was like what Christ has ordained, one suitable to all nations, to all countries, and to all circumstances where the ordinance is desired. But you asked, "How can anything be made clean by sprinkling?" In asking this question you seem to have the idea of the laundry before you, soap and scrubbing board, and I might ask, with equal propriety, what is made clean by dipping persons with tlieir clothes on ? and that not always in clean water, as I have witnessed in New Brunswick, in the Petitcodiac river, in water tliick with mud, and as occurred in Manitoba in a slough, to which one of the candidates so strongly objected that his dipping had to be deferred till they could journey some miles to a stream. Ezekiel gives a scriptural answer to your question, chap, xxxvi. 25, " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean." That is God's method, and, as Thorne remarks, " The laws of purification were given to the Hebrews in a wilderness where there was compara- tively no water, and yet what Moses enjoined was never objected to as impossible through scarcity of water." For forty years, in that waste, howling wilderness, washing by immersion daily great multi- tudes of people in water must have been utterly im- practicable. B. You seem to magnify the difficulties of baptism by immersion. M. No : instead of magnifying, I have not stated half of them. Think of three thousand men and women baptized on the day of Pentecost, the congre- gation not assembling till the third hour of the day. 28 BAPTISM. Tlie apostles proaclied, the people were pricked in their heart, and, after, full direction, were baptized. Where was it done ? Pentecost was in the latter part of May when the Kedron was dry : conniion decency as well as Oriental customs would utterly preclude their being dipped in the reservoirs used for drinking and domestic purposes. And is it to be believed that the officials, who had so lately crucified their head, would now consent to have representatives of some seventeen nations plunged overhead into water re- served for purification and drinking purposes ? No man who has not water on the brain can accept a theory so absurd. The manual labor necessary to handle so many in so short a time, and the entire absence of tanks at command, lead me to believe that that multitude was baptized by water as the disciples had previously been by the Holy Ghost. " It fell on them as on us." B. I have purjDOsely avoided bringing forth our strong point, because I was anxious to know how you would deal with those texts that we have already discussed, but I now call your attenti n to Romans vi. 4, " buried with Him by baptism." You cannot bury by sprinkling, and here is a burying. i/. I am glad that you have left this text until now, for as I have given considerable attention re- cently to an exposition of this passage to my people, and have read a very able work on it by an American minister, with your permission I will give you the entire argument, for it is generally conceded that if innnersion is taught in the Bible it is here, and if it BAPTISM. 29 cannot be found here but few persons will insist that it is the exclusive mode of baptism. Before taking up the subject in its entirety I want to say that I object to Baptist interpretation, because it confuses and confounds the sacraments by puttintr baptism where the Bible puts the Lord's Supper. In the Lord's Supper we " show forth the Lord's death till He comes." Baptist interpretation makes baptism show forth the Lord's death and resurrection. The Scriptures make baptism the ordinance of the Holy Spirit. This is its fixed and invariable meaning. Now turn to the passage to wdiich you refer and which you regard as the main pillar of immersionists' belief. " The apostle had just spoken of the reign of sin on the one hand and the reign of grace through righteousness on the other." He had affirmed broadly that " where sin abounded, grace did much more abound," and anticipating an objection to this doctrine of the superabounding of grace to the effect that it might encourage some to continue in sin, and thus tend to licentiousness' instead of holiness, he answers this objection and' shows that his doctrine Ifeads to holiness and not to sin. The answer which he presents to this objection is, that all who come under the reigning power of grace die unto sin. This thought of a death unto sin is that which he enforces and elaborates throughout this chapter. Hence the language with which the chapter begins : " What shall we say then ? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound ? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ? Know 30 BAPTISM. ye not, that so many of uh as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his deatli ^ Tlierel'ore we are buried with him by baptism into death. " I wish liere to call your attention to the very plain distinc- tion between the " baptism " and the " burial." That which is done by baptism is not itself baptism. The burial is done by baptism ; therefore, the burial is not baptism. Baptism is the agent, and the burial is the result. Let this be clearly apprehended, as it is logically proved, for here is the starting point of much of the blundering of the immersionists in their interpretation, their inability to distinguish between cause and effect. Baptism, so far as the action is concerned, is momentary, but the result, the burial, is permanent. It is something that must continue as long as we remain dead unto sin, and alive unto God. Now, is this burial the literal covering of the body in water, or is it a spiritual result of the Holy Spirit's operations on the heart ? You of coui'se, as an immersionist, can see nothing in the passage but a literal burial of the body by cover- ing it in water ; but I must be allowed to remind you of the difficulties that beset this interpretation by asking, Are not the " crucifixion," " planting," and the " death " just as literal and material as the " burial " ? For these terms all belong to the same class, and are descriptive of parts of the same process or experience, and to separate them is to do violence to all rules of interpretation and common-sense as well. But who can believe that the " crucifixion " is the literal cruci- fixion of the literal man ; that the " planting " is the BAPTISM. 31 literal plaiitintr of the literal man ; and that " death " is the literal death of the literal man ? He who can believe all this must possess a stock of credulity that rarely falls to the lot of reasoning men, and yet it is not a particle more absurd than it is to hold that the "burial" is a literal burial of the literal man, while all the rest are highly figurative. But what is it that is buried ? Everything in the passage must hinge on the answer to this (juestion. You say it is the bodj^, the literal man. But we never bury a man till he is dead ; hence a burial always implies a death. If we hear that a man has been buried, we need not be told that he has previously died. So in this Scripture. Here is a burial, and it implies a previous death ; but the previous death is expressed as well as implied, and it is a death unto sin, and that which dies is the subject of the burial. There can be no question here. The identical thing that dies is the identical thing that is buried. Then if w^e can find the subject of the death we shall have found the subject of the burial. If it is the body that dies — the literal man — viie". it is the body of the literal man that is buried ; but if it is the soul that dies, then it is the soul that is buried. What is it then that dies ? It is not the body, for Paul had had this baptism, this burial, and he was yet alive in the body, and was writing to men in the body who, like himself, had had this burial It was not the soul, for the soul was undergoing an experience that brought life and not death. What then is it ? Paul takes the aggregate or assemblage of the sinful lusts or affections of the unrenewed nature, and per- 32 BAPTISM. sonif3^ing it calls it the " old inan," and say.s that this must be put to death or destroyed. Now, we need not go beyond the text right before us to answer the questions, What is dead ? and How was it killed ? " Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." Then it is not the literal body nor the soul, but the " old man " that is crucified with Christ, dead with Christ, and buried with Christ ; and here the " old man " is left, put ofi*, not to be put on again. He is not in the resurrection ; that which is buried must remain buried. B. But may it not mean that the " old man " is the body, the physical nature ? M. If so, the body must be crucified before it be- comes the subject of burial ; and if the burial means an immersion in water, none but a dead body is fit for that ceremony if Paul knew what he was writing about. But we can learn from Paul's own pen what he did mean by the *' old man " (Col. iii. 8-10) : " But now ye also put off all these ; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds ; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." Here is the " old man " that has been put off; but the body has not been put off, neither is the " old man " put on again, but the " new man " is put on in his place. To the same effect read Eph. iv. 22-24, and as certainly as there is meaning in language, this that Paul calls the **old BAPTISM. 88 man" is the subject of the crucifixion, death and burial mentioned in thi.s passage of Scripture. Now, as we have certainly found the subject of the burial, we return to find what is a burial in the sense of the text before us. What was the burial of Christ ? His grave was a room hewn in a rock — a room with a floor, walls and ceiling, and large enough to admit sev jral persons, for a number of the disciples walked into it after the resurrection. His body was taken from the cross and placed in this room, and tlie door was closed by rolling a large stone against it. Such was the burial of Christ ; and the idea of representing or imitating such a burial by a sudden dip of a person in the water and out again is very far-fetched. Still, regardless of mode, the word has a radical meaning which we want to ascertain, and that meaning is to hide, to put away out of sight, to cover up, and conse- quently there is no burial where nothing is covered up. We have found what is to be buried, or covered, that is, the " old man." Now, what is to cover him ? Water will not do, for all material elements are of no value in this case. Now that he is crucified, and is therefore in the likeness of Christ's death, how is his burial with Christ to be effected ? Well, that which is buried is covered with that into which it is buried. If a man is buried into the earth, he is covered with the earth ; if he is buried into the water, he is covered with the water. Now, into what is the " old man " buried ? Not into the earth nor into the water, for this Scripture asserts that this is a burial by baptism into death; therefore the covering is death, What 8 84 BAPTISM. death can tliis 1x3? It is not th(^ death of the body, lor those wlio in.si.st on l)uryin^ the body refuse to bury it into death. If they sliould make the death an literal as they do the burial, they would then be true innnersionists, and drown every- one that they buried. To know what death this is into which we are buried we have oidy to con- sult the text before us. " Know ye not, that so many of us as were l)aptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death," and this death — the death of Jesus Christ — is the only covering for sin, the oidy burying of the " old man," which is the body of sin ; he is covered up by that death. Like as the lid of the ark of the covenant, overshadowed by the cherubim of glory was the mercy-seat, which covered the tables of the law, so the sacrificial death of Christ, the true mercy -seat, covers the sins of all that are crucified with Him. " Blessed is the man," cries the Psalmist, "whose sin is covered." It has already been said that this burial is not a momentary affair, but a permanent result. Old things pass away, and all things become new. When we say of a dead man that he is buried, we allude to a past occurrence, to the time when the burial took place ; but we also include the thought that the man is yet in the grave. And so of the burial of this " old man," he must remain beneath the covering of the atoning blood, so long as we remain dead unto sin and our life con- tinues hid with Christ in God. The metaphor of planting simply conveys the idea of uniting or grow- ing together, as in the case of grafting, and can only TIAPTISM. 35 mean tliat by criUMtixion witli Christ, as explained, we join CinMHt in Ills ; is Mjually fallacious. On the day of Pentecost people sufficiently aged to inquire, " What shall we do / " were old to repent and be baptized, and lest any of them ^hould be so stupid as to think that excluded chil- dren, he immediately added, " The promise is to you md your children." They wdio had committed actual ;i'ansgression must repent and be baptized ; infants lot having transgressed were to be baptized, because he promise was to them as well as their parents, 'his so plainly sets forth the privilege of children in he new dispensation, that it is seldom quoted by hose who exclude infants. A Plymouth brother on proselyting tour at Rat Portage came into a house here 1 was discoursing to a family on their duties nd privileges and interrupted us. Producing his ible he began to read the latter part of the second f Acts. Coming to the 39th verse he deliberatel}^ mitted it, going on to the 40th verse. Let me here ssure the reader that these proselyters will bear close atching, for they will compass sea and land (espe- [ially the sea) to accomplish their object. Q. Does the Gospel declare children to be members f the covenant ? A. It does. Gal. iii. 8 : " And the Scripture, fore- eeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, aying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." And so o the end of this chapter it is emphatically declared hat the covenant that was to extend to all nations nd through all dispensations included the children. 46 BAPTISM. (S(H^ Dout. xxix. 10, II.) It is not {ippropriate to put the placard over the door of tlie Church of tlie living God, " No infant admitted liere ; " but you may put it over the gates of hell. Q. Did tlie apostles baptize families ? A. Yes. In the jail at Philippi. The jailor and all his were baptized straightway. Of Lydia, it was. said she attended to tlie things that were spoken of by Paul, and she and her household were baptized. When she pressed her hospitalit}^ upon the apostles, she said, "If ye have judged me to be faithful," etc. Those grown-up apprentices that in the imagination of some people filled Lydia's house, have sprung, self- generated, from the desire to find believers where the Scripture speaks of but one. And the households of Stephanus, and Crispus, and Cornelius and all his house. So, nearly one-half of the baptisms recordec in the Acts of the Apostles were of households ; and here in these reliable chapters of church history, written by divine inspiration, there is not an instance of a 'man or woman, having children, baptized, anc the children not baptized as well. Q. Did you ever baptize households ? A. Yes. In the early days of my ministry a man and his wife and four children ; and among the more recent, a woman and her infant. The apostles bap- tized households, so have I. Very familiar with Bap- tist records in my early days. A constant reader of the Christian Visitor, a Baptist paper published in New Brunswick. I never saw recorded a case of BAPTISM. 47 ;hoir l)aptizin^ a lionscliold. Which conforins to ip(j8tolic practice ? Q. What practical good comos of tlie doctrine and ractice that yon advocate ? A. Much every way. First. When once it in settled n the mind that infants really and truly belong to hrist ; that (ill infants, though affected by the fall, re yet so related to Christ as to be members of His ingdom — how this doctrine, most unequivocally tated by Christ, cheers and supports the parental oul, when the loved of the heart and light of the ome lies coffined for the tomb ; for He who so lov- gly took them in His arms on the earth will receive em no less affectionately when they meet inside the ates of pearl. And I pity the poor tortured heart at in the hour of bereavement is sternly denied the onsolation that the Scriptures afford ; for the same rgument that affirms the unfitness of infants for the hurch on earth, pushed to its logical conclusion, cuts em off from the Church in heaven But second, his doctrine is not only true of infants that die, but qually true of infants that live. And with what nterest does this invest them. Christ's direction to eter, " Feed my lambs," comes to the Christian with oving emphasis. And the sinner will remember that he little child is made the standard to which the dult must attain in order to his initiation ir.to the ingdom of God. And what a perversity of language knd logic to affirm that the adult, to be a fit subject for baptism, must become as the little child, when the little child himself is not fit. Equal to each other, but 48 BAPTISM. not 0(|U}il to tlio Hain(3 tiling. Tlu; scnj)tui*al view greatly lielp.s in the home and in the Sahbath School in training up chikh'en in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and wonderfully helps the parent* and teacher to realize the trustfulness, the unhesitating trustfulness, of the infant heart, that Christ would have us imitate. How often has the wayward been led back to the great Father by the little child ! How often repeated in human story is this experience : " I had a little daughter, And she was given to nie To lead me gently backward ' To the heavenly Father's knee." And how many of those who deal with infants as Christ's children will say : " They have made me more manly and mild, And I know now how Jesus could liken The kingdom of God to a child." My dear brethren, I believe what I have written will be useful to you when the homes of our people are invaded by those who desire to add to their num- bers by proselyting; and though all the evidence that I could have placed before you has not been summoned, yet there is ample to secure a verdict, and here I rest.