» t ill * I. ' n/ .»: ^» CIHM c Series (Monojgraphs) '■h f :/.., -^ ■■ IGMH Cbllection de ji^icrofiches ImonDgeaphies) 4J» •r Canadian Inatituta for Hiatorical Microraproductiona / Inatitut Canadian da microraproductiona hiatoriquaa - I * ■ ttoriques •T •chnical and BHfliograpMic NqIw / Notas tMtmiquM «ti)ibli«>grapliN|iMt i':-. ■I ■I Tha Inilitttta hai attamptad^obiain tN tiajl ori«inal copy availabia for filmin|. NKtura* of thit eopy which may ba biMiographicallv Mmquf, wrtlich may altar any ' of thl imagti in ttia raproductitm. or which may (ignificantiy changa tlia usual niathod of filming, ara chackad balow. QCoiiourad co«ars/ Gouvartura da coulaur Covars damagad/ ^ I Couwartura andomifiagte □ a □ n Covart rastorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartur* rastauria at/ou i>allieul*a Covar titta missing/ La titra da cowvartura nianqua Colourad map*/ ; Caitas gtographiquas an coulaur Colourad ink (i.«- othar than blua or Mack)/ Encra da coulaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noira) Colourad platas and/or iilustrationsA Planchas at/ou illustrations an coulaur Bound with pthar matarial/ Ralia avac d'autres document Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion along intarior margin/ '^ La raliura sarr';-^^ Pourings or Tmmersion OlMcb? A RECENT CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN. AN ANGLICAN AND A BAPTIST - CLERGYMAN PUBLISHKP WITH AN APPENDIX BY C. W. K. \ •roRQMTO I . DUOLEV & BURNS, I'RI^JTERS 1898 ,: ^^#»Sa i i ■V .1 ^' ■ Sprinkliiig, Powind, or trnmersion OlMcb? ^— --iSt^,,, ,1 KECENT coHHEsroNnimcE ' ■ liETWEEN AN ANGLIC AX. AND A lii^irriST - C/.ENGYMAN ■■■■■■ . ■ '' ■ * '"■■*. PVHI.ISHK1) WITH AN AIM'KNDIX HV (\ W. K. ■■■■ .:' ■■"'■-,..- ■ ■■ 4.. '•-. . : . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ; ■ ■ '■. ^ TORONTO bui>i,Ev .1 mlkns, i'kin tkr.v' 1898 • > •>W. .' ■ ■ ■ ■/ ■ "V *«< i.-.-^ liS l^ur^MW.^ > PREFATORY NOTE The following' correspondence is the oiitcome t)f a brief and friendly conversation. It is to be hoiied that no one will think, from a few warm words here and there, that the writers laid aside their pens with any- thing Init a friendly feelinjj^ As to who is right, or nearest to the right, on this ([uestion, the reader is invited to judge; but not until a/t^r rending hotii- through to the end. The whole correspondenctfl^^iven. There has been no change made ui the arguments ; and) therefore, no advantage taken. A short appendix is given on the Subjects and Importance of Baptism. That our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be honored and truth served through these pages, is^ he one desire. : ■ ■■■:":^'' ..■€.■ w,>k;' Kingston, Ont. ^ 'l^^F? s ' . V \:.-. ^•..:'»" ■. .• '■ 1 ;J3. ^^^ ■ %■.■■'*'• J ■ ANGLICAN S FIRST LETTER. Dkak Mi{. r hnve been l^>oking into the ftHsertion yuu made the other evening that haptko always means to 'Mmmerse." I find that while lexicons do give thin an the meaning of hapUu they are unanimous in declaring that it is not the invariable meaning of the derivative hapti.o, which often means *Vto consecrate by pouring upon or dipping into." You will find an instance in Matt. iii. 11 and the parallel passages: autoS humas baptisei eu pnenmali haifut kai pnri. The fulfillment of this could have been at no other time than at Pentecost, for wo read of no other baptism with the Holy (ihoHt and with fire. But at Pentecost there was no immersion into fire, but the cloven tongues as of firei rested **upon the head" of each of those present. Can any one say, either, that the Pharisees immersed every time they ate food ? Yet, ean me baptimoUai, ouk enthimma. We know, as a matter of fact, that the common mode of washing was T)y pouring water on the hands and feet, as is still prac- tised in the East. , Ify^U can supply the references for the action of King James who, you state, forbade the Bishops to translate bap- tizo^ a prohibition they neglected in more than one instance, I have friends in England who will examine the papers for me and give a correct transcription. I am inclined to believe jjTou have been misled by the many reckless ({notations made in controversial writinjgs, from men who are more bold in assertion than careful in proof, ^ Yours faithfully. N • ■•T e # • BAPTIST'S FIRST LETTER. ^. Dear Mb. — •■:-■'■' ' :'■■■■■■; Onrihg to pastoral dufcies, and other matters »f imme- diate importance, I have been obliged to defer, until the present, a reply to your letter of the 2nd ult. I certainly did not make the nnqncdijied assertion that ba^^tso always means '* immerse." What I do hold is, that ita primary meaning is "immerse," **emerse," or its 6quiv valent,, and that to the exclusion of either s^inkling or pouring, as an act of Christian baptism. I, of course, refer only to the New Testament meaning of this word. ^ It seems to me that you make a most unwarrantable state- ment when you say that the "lexicons are unanimous in declarmg that it, * immerse,' is not the invariable meaning of the detivative bajp^tzo, which pf ten means ' to consecrate by pouring upon or dipping into, "'I find that Liddell and Scott— a lexicon of classic Greek — gives as the meaning of this word, *' to dip repeatedly, dip under— ^Med. to bathe, 2nd, to baptize," and after baptismos, "a dipping in water, baptism" ; but no such expression as " pouring upon." Sophocles' Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine periods, says of haptiza, "to dip, to immerse, to sink." " There is no evidence that Luke and Paul, and other wri- ters of the New Testament, put upon this ve|rb meanings not recognized by the .Greeks/' Thayer's New Testament Lexicon— another universally recogniized auth()rity — gives, after baptizo : *' I.— 1. prop. To dip repeatedly, to immerse, submerge. 2. To deaiise by dip- phig or submergingy to wash, to muke clean with water ; in the Mid. and I Aor. ]psaa., to toasfi one's self, bathe. S. Meta- phorically, to overwhelm. . \l. — In the New Testament it is used particularly of sacred ablution, first instituted by John the Baptist, af terwar(» by Christ's command, received by Christians and adjusted to the contents and nature of their religion, viz. : an imm&mion in water, performed as a sign of th^ removal of sin." He quotes Mark i. 9 ("Jesus was bap- TIER. ler matters »f imme- to defer, until the d ult. dijied aasertion that tat I do Hold is, that smeree," or its 6qui^ dither .li^inkling or I, of course, refer this word. — unwarrantable state- 8 are unanimous in invariable meaning leans ' to consecrate id that Liddell and 3 as the meaning of ler— 'Med. to bathe, 'a dipping in water, pouring upon." mail and Byzantine immerse, to sink." Paul, and other wri- this veirb meanings another universally : *' I. — ^1. prop. To I. To cleaiiLse by dip- H with water ; in the if ^ bathe. 3. Meta- !^ew Testament it is t instituted by John nmand, received by and nature of their irformed as a sign of 9 ("Jesus was bap- ■ . - .■■■■', ■ ■■ ■■ ■ * tized of John in the Jordan "), as oiie df the places where baptko M used with eta, and says : '* It is to mark the ele- ment into which the immersion is made." On baptuma, he says : '*3. Christian Baptism ; this, according to the view of the apostles, is a rite of sacred imineriiioH commanded by Winer's New Testement Grammar (Revised Andover ^ has : ** Itaptkein en htuiats signifies baptize in water (immer- sing); baptizein hndati, bapti'ze with water. Here, and in , most other passages, the identity of the two expressions, ity sense, is manifest," \t m ^ ^. Wescott and Hort's Lexicon to the New Testament, re- vised by Rev. Thos. S. Green, M.A., says, after baptizo, "Ho dip, immerse, to cleanpe or purify- by washtttg, to admtmster the rite of baptism, to baptize." And so mth baptistnos, ''im- merse,'' etc. ; and not a single word about either pouring or sprinkling. Rom. vi. 3, 4, is referred to, which please note. •It describes baptism as a burial and a res«»rec«to»i— whether this be of water, or, as some would have it, of the Spirit, makes no difference : " the inward and spiritual grace is a burial and resurrection ; baptism, the 'outward and visible sign,' must also be a burial and resurrection, in order to_have aresemblance between the 'sign' and the thing signified. Change the 'sign' and you change the conception of the thing for which it stands, and thus fail to teach the great foundation doctrine of our Christian religion, of which our New Testament baptism is the one great Divine symbol and mould. \ - ■ ■,, , ^ : . The all but universal testimony of the world s best scho- larship, irrespective of creeds and times, agrees that the English translation of the Greek word for Christian baptism as practised by the a^wistolic church in obedience to our Loro's command* is "immerse," „ vw Conybeare and Howson say : ".This passage (Rom. vi. 3, 4) ^'cannot be understood unless it be borne m mind that therprimi/ive bapthm was by imm/ersion." " It is needless to add that bapt'sm (unless in exceptional cases) was adminis- tered by immersion, the convert being plunged beneath the suifaceof the watkr to represent his death to a life of sin, and as". (icu!l«si: I y ■/ ,..:■-..■';. :r''\ ■■,:■,•;/,, 8- ■■■■;■;■" ■;■.">■■■ •■■■■.,. ' . ' then raised . from this momentary burial to represent, hi n resurrection ^ the life of righteousness, tt must be a sub ject of regret that the general discontinuance of this otigitial form of baptism (though perhaps niocessary [?] in our north- ern climates) has rendered obscure to popular apprehension some very important ))aBsages of Scriptut>e. Bishop Browne, in Smith's Pictionary of the Bible, says - • ♦ Baptism properly arid literally means immersioH. " • ♦ Thu language of the New Testatnent and of the primitive fathers Sufficiently points to immersion as. the common mode of baptism. But, "---and thton, like Chalmers and others, ho attempts to weaken his 6wn words by creating supposed exceptions and difficulties, ^uite unwarranted, by saying, in reference to the family of tKe.Philippiah jailer andof th« three thousand at Pentecost, *' it seems hardly likely that immersion should have been possible," etc. Such theories, however, have been repeatedly exploded by facts in history Our own missionaries of the American Bap' ist Foreign Mis sionary LTnion, in-July, 1878/ buried with Christ by bap tism, and with the usual formuhm in each case, two thousand two hundred and twenty-two candidates in nim hours^ and with but two ad^iinistrators in the water at the same time. Surely, with one hundred and twenty disciples, there could have been no difficulty on the day of Pentecost ! The late scholarly Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., says : "All commentators of note (ekcept Stewart and Hodge) expressly admit, or take itfcu^granted, that in this verse (Rom. vi. 4) the ancient prevailing tnode of baptism by immersion and emersion is implied, as giving additiprial force to the going down of the old and the rising up of the new man." He also tells us that, " Respecting the form of baptism . ^ . ." the impartial historian is compelled by exegesis and history, substantially to yield the point to the Baptists, as is done in fact by most German scholars." Added td such testimony, is the fact that the whole Greek communion rigidly adheres to immersion, and immersion only for baptism. , As to the use of other forms, such as sprinkling and pour- ing, for baptism, I cannot see a shadow of authority for such • ■:' ' -■ . ■" ■■■ . '■; ^ ■ ■ - ' ■ . ^j^. ''-.■:'■■ t ■ m^^ >icii!|W" < % irial to rdpreseni. hit B8. tt must be a sub nuance of this oi'lginal ssary [?] in our norths popular apprehension tulre. ry of the Bible, says : a immersioH. " • * Th« : the primitive fathers he common mode of imers and others, hu )y creating supposed rarranted, by saying, ipian jailer and of the ms hardly lik6ly that ' etc. Such theories, id by facts in history. Bap' ist Foreign Mis with Christ by bap- ch case, two thousand es in nhi^ hoitrs^ and ;er at the same time, disciples, there could eiitecost ! ,LL.D.,says: "All md Hodge) expressly lis verse^Rom. vi. 4) n by immersion and il force to the going the new man." He lof baptism . ^. exegesis and history, taptists, as is done in )hat the w^ole Greek lion, and immersion sprinkling and pour- of authority for such 9 - in the inspired Record. I recognize, n the end, only the New Testament as our authority in this matter; and God has given 4is no right or privilege to change or substitute a hurtan form for the Divinely ordained. .,^ Christ and the Apostles never used any other word but Iniptizoi and its different fornis, to designate the Act of bap- tism. The word "sprinkle" (i(intko), in our English New Testament, is found only in the Hebrews (six times),; and once (proskmis) in I. Peter. You will find it in no other Kew Testament book, and never in reference to the act of bap- tism. ' " Pour " is found eighteen times. The Greek words Ate cheo, hallo, etc. ; never baptlzo. The word " baptize " is found one hundred and one times ; and, without exception, baptizo, in one of its forms, is the word used ; never rantho, never c/»eo, or any of their kin- dred words ; not even katharhOf which is the word used to denote the application of watqr, without reference to the form of the act. Now if our Lord meant that the ordinance should be per- formed by sprinkling^or by pouring, I cannot understand why He used an entirely different yrord for the words used ii^ the original for "sprinkle " and "pour " ; or if He meant baptism to be " Ihe application of wat)er," without defining the act, it would seem strangJB that He did not use the pro- per word. But it is haptizOt "to dip, to 7, use it of one washing herself at a spring where affusion only was possible. Even in much later times it did not denote the complete immersion of the body, but only of th^ head (kathaper^ en tini tdpho to hudati kataduontown humomi Ids kephalas. Ch^ys : in loan. IIL 5. Hom.; xxv.> while standing in the water." Dr. Wnu Smith and Prof. Cheetbam both state that baptisjn was ordinarily administered by dipping ^he head under water thrice, the baptized- person meanwhile standing in the water. Early art frequently represents this, and though not of course inspired it is reliable evidence of the sense in which the word was understood and the rite administered hy the early Christians. M ' \v* 4 # 1^ * 12 ■'* Yet again, we have abundant evidence that peraona were / baptized on their deathbeds, in prison, or in private houseB ; and in aome caaes immersion would evidently be impossible. Even the testimony of the Greeks is against you, for though they maintain the older practice as a general rule, they admit as valid baptism performed by aflusion (if not asper- sion, as to which I am uncertain) in cases of necessity. I may refer to a very interesting picture found in the cemetery of St. Calixtus (^nd century) the home of so many martyrs^ in which we see a person standing in the water, and another^ pouring water on his head from a veissel of some sort. It is not until the 9th century that we find baptism by actual immersion of the whole body pictured and then only in the case of infants. ^ , Now with this discription of plunging the head only under water the lexicons fully agree. Liddell and Scott, " to dip iw orunderwater.''^ Parkhurst, "to dip, plunge or immerse in water. But in the New Testament it occurs not strictly in this sense except in so far as this is included lii sense II. and III. below." "V, in a figurative sense to baptize with the Holy Ghost. " ' ' It denotes the miraculous aff\i»mi of the Holy Ghost." Stockins in loco. Baplo, however, always means to dip or immerse. J. H. Blunt says that " the original mode of administering Holy baptism was undoubtedly by the descent of the person to be baptized into a stream or pool of water. It is probable that the per- son baptizing also, stood in the 'tfater and poured some of it with his hand upon the head of the other as the latter bowed, himself three times into the stream." ^ All this ; the known use pf our Lord's day, the use of the word in Judeth, the very ^arly Christian picfeutea, and the description of baptism by so many learned Chnatian men agreeingtherewith, is surely sufiicient to show that from very early times indeed, only a few years after the death of the last Apostle, the word iopftsein has been understood in a sense less strict than that you would assign to it, the great stress being laid upon two points, viz, contact with water, and faith of the baptized. Now is this sense warranted by scripture, or have all Christians (the vast majority at least) ^ ■ •i. :l ./■•::, persons were / •ivate houses ; ' be impossible, au, for though ■al rule, they I (if not asper- necessity. I I the cemetery nany martyrs^ r, and another^ ne sort. It is ^ism by actual en only in the sad only under Jcott, "to dip p, plunge or It itocciirsnot is included in ative sense to the miraculiius Ivco. Bapto, J H. Blunt 5 Holy baptism I to be baptized e that the per- ired some of it ■ as the lattet the use of the 3tucea, and the Christian men^ low that from Br the death of understood in to it, the great gict with water, J warranted by gority at least) 13 \ erred in so thinking t I have already pointed out the word baptv:em WM \i8ed in our Lord's time, and is used in Holy Scripture to denote washing by affusion. Does He give any '^hint that He used it, or that His disciples should use it m a different sense ? I think not. You ti8m in any other baptism at all, it SB who were bap- all the Christians n baptism at all. msandf^ of Chris- . 1 to say that those >le faith that they ving His baptism ai often accused of anything quite sp alists and ritual- as all that. Are t from pronounc- can honestly and ion ? You main- I alouf from the immersion as the 16 \better way, or the fuller way of obeying Christ's command. ftflTusion nevertheless being a sufficient way, bringing all the blessings which Christ has assigned to baptism. As to King James' dirf yours, or save non-verification on the part of the author!^. [ wish we could find that reference. -- Very sincerely yours. tJNDLE OF SYLLOGISMS. I; Major Premise : The word baptizein is used to denote washing by pouring water on the hands. It was commonly iBo used among the Jews. Minor Premise : Christ used baptizein without condem- ning this use, or defining its meaning in any way. >^^ Conclusion : Christ used it in the same sense that it was co!Aq|only understood in His time and country. ^>--<, '' "iL .,■ Y Major Premise : Baptism is only lawfully performed. b| ii immersion. i»»iw»™-""*-Tr-' W> I 1« Minor Premw<^ M4ny ^nrly Chriktians Atid most Western Christians were baptized by affusion. Cunolusion : Those who were thus baptized have npt received lawful baptisi Major. Premise : Christ instituted baptism for a detinite purpose. ' \ Minor Premise : That purpoie is only effected by immer- sion. ■■ , . f- \'-\ \ ■ Conclusion : Thi^ purpose of Christ has not been effected in those baptized by affusion. i- IV. Major IVemise^ : Obedience to CH^fist's cot^timands brings a blessing. Minor Premise : Baptisni^ by affusion is not an act of obedijenee to Christ's command. \ / Conclusion : None baptized by affusion h^ve received the blessing conferred by obedience to Christ's command. Query: Can you disprove^ or show faults in the first of these. Dare you accept the conclusions of the last three '. (Jf do your deny the premiaeal ? If so, on what grounds ? BAPTIST'S SECOND LETTER. Dbak Mr. I an^ glad to see that you do not deny that ,'* Immer- sion " is the /»'imari/ meaning, aiid in classical Greek per^ haps the almost invariable meaning of baptizo ; also that you seem to recognize t^e Inspired recl>rd as the one authority to which, in the end, we must appi^al. Well, this is com- mon ground upon which we may stAnd. , Then, to say the least, the safest Way, if we would be sure of doing the Master's will in this n^atter, is to follow the K:^ /:■■ %7r « Atid f nott Wegterii >ai>tized have npl • :.; :\ tiem for a detinite affected by immer- I not been effected ■♦:/ "• .;' ,■ ■•■^/. ■■.;:::■■■• / . cot|t)mand8 brings ia not an act of h^ve received the 's command. u|tB in the first of of the last three / what grounds ? /"■■'■ ■ ■:" ^-: "■• PER. ' sny that ,'* Immer- utsical Greek per- tho ; also that you the one authority Yell, this is com- if we would be sure r, is to follow the \:: \ . ■ \ ■ ■ «»km«n/ meaning of the one word He used in giving bs the c(inmand, especially when, as I have already shown, the wArds translated into •* iwmring " and " sj»ruikling ' are not m^e n>ted in connection with the act of Christian baptism, and n4 even the word to denote the Application of water with- out defining the act, but a ivpid Vhiob sets forth the act in- temed in A clear atul dffinitaiomi. ^ ^ Now, you acknowledge that in classical Greek the almost invl^riabfe meaning of baptizo is imme.rne. Very good then, what is the declaration of Sophocles' Greek Lexicon, and a lot t>f other undisputed authority ] It is " that there is no evidence that Luke and Paul and fell into a grievous distemper ; and it being siliiposed that he mustdie, immediately he received baptism, ilf indeed it be proper to say that one like him did receive baMism." On Novatian's recovery and nomination for the bishopric, Cornelius says : "All the clergy and many of the laitylresisted it, since it was not lawful that one bap- tized in his Viok bed by aspersion, as he was, should be pro- ■ moted to any order in the clergy." Cyril (of jViwalem, A.D. 316, Introduction III. on Bap- K: ^""W 1 ""^ f ' 1 * 1 \ t m^ • If '■%\ -/ 18 I f tiaiii), *' Thou Koinf( down into the watur and in a manner buried in the wateiH aa He in the rock." (Thia is New Teata- ment teaching of the first water), "art m/W affain walking in newneaa of life." And again, *• He who ia imnieraed in water and baptized, in ia^rrouwt^d with water on all aidea." (Juat aa the Maator enjoined. ) Basil M.D. SJU), on the Holy Snirlt XV.) " Imitating the burial of Christ by bai»- tiam ; for the bodiea of thoae are aa it wore Unried in the water." Clear language, thia. Gregory Na/.ianzen A.I). 3.T<), Diacourae XL.) Let ua therefore he hurietl with Chriat by baptism." .' ■., Gregory NyalMn on Baptiam of Chriat. ••Coming to the 'ynder yre roncealt'd onrselven in it," (a real burialj^|gih aee), •^as the 8aviour concealed Himaelf in the ear|)r^ H«w ^ iCould thia man, living so near the fountain head *»f thedChria- tian era, possibly recogni/e in your *' three hundfuls or spade- fuls " description (?) of this rite, the jkct of Christian bap- tism ? No handfuls covered the entombed Christ, The atone waa rolled up to the entrance and aealed there, com- pletely hiding Him from the world. Thia ia one of the .thinga aignified in /baptiam. The aign, therefore, must be in keeping with th4|^ing signified, or it ia no aign but a proclamation of hafipiruths and error. Chryaoatom, (Ep. Ad. 'Mnnrwent," Vol. III.), we read '♦ On the great Sabbath of the Easter Festival, the J«th day of April, 404, Chrysostom, with the assistance of ttll"clergy of his own chttrch, baptized by immersion in Constantinople, About ^{.000 nAtflnhiinnnn* " XnA attain <> V^^m ^^ V.» :.» about 3,00Q catechumana." And For to be of our Lord. The fir8l^Ma|^>^^e flood. The old man was entirely buried in 9BBHB^*"^P"* byfthree handfula or apadefuls, though '^'||I^Wi|^<^ion ivaa clear, and a beautiful one too. ArM^sp^W(«e deiwjmm," of the lAtina, ♦ ' You immersed^l/ra^'i.-fe. , you Were Imried. " These and others I might quote, show very little room in their faith f«»r any substitution for the one and only Divinely ordained symbol of Christ's, and our burial and resurrection '■4 !\ # '^?V*;" .•#* >d in a tnAiiner ia is New Testa- d afjain walking is imniersed in I' on all sides." p. 3;J0, on the ' Christ by bap- re fmried in the finzen A.l). 330, I with Christ by Coming to the )urialjjj|k sue), J earfir^ How iad«>f thejChris- ndfu la of spade- Christian bap- d Christ, The led there, corn- is one of the refore, must be no sign but a ■ III,), we read 1, the 16th day je of cfll''clergy Constantinople, For to be im- lerge, is a sym- :6. "John, of sents the death , The old man three- hand fuls ui clear, and a liwim," of the ire Intried." f little room in i only Divinely nd resurrection i' in Him. Dr. Smith *U*J*i»l(|p«t»''»"» .^^ *^« contrary. And further, y.m|iriliaB|| thaime unanimous v«rd,ct o Church Historia|is,*wlipilal wit^ the cjucstion at all, is that the original baptism was a qunuibto immersions, and that IK.uring and sprinkling came in later, and was very slow in comiiiK in tod. . . , , . ^ • Dean Stanley tells us that " for the hrk thirtoon centuries tho almoxt nuanimmH practice of bwitism was that of which we read in the Now «I>B8tHmont, and which is the very mean- inff of the word baptize ; that th«>se wh(» wore bapti/ed were ,dnnqid, mbmenfed, ImmerHed into the water. . . • I»»JP»»«»|| by sprinkling was rejected by the whole ahcient Uiurch (except ill rare cases of death or extreme nocosHity) as no baptism at all. Were it not for Mr. Stanley s evident be- lief in the Divine right of the Church to change this sacred rite to suit cold climates, etc., I fear ho might be open to the charge of. " bi^otry " by some, as plain statements of New Testament facts by him would exclude from the ro I of the baptized all but the immersed,— I 8UpiM)se h»mse" included. But what is truth, and tidelity to it i What is conviction ? and what is "bigotry " ? But, if I remember rightly, you refuse to recognize this man as an authoijity on this subject. Then Neander, > utA^jd historianr, Schaflf and a host of other such g(. to tRHnfiiri' ^*">- H9«eeve|r^hat does Nmiider say V He ly^BffiLith mtltl0pr^^y good men (so has Dr. S.) HBJfPKrnamedT^m " the father of Mbdern Church Tleaays (Ch. Hist. I.) '* In respect to the form of ^bap- tipm it was in conformity with the origiiMl twporf of the symbol performed by immersion. ..... It was only with the sick, when exigency reccuired it, that any exception was made. " To this SehaflF, Winer," Fisher, PreMwnce and many others, all foremost historians ^gree. In f*cl you will hnd this statement true, that all church historians of resi>ectable standing agree that immersion was the universal practice for 1300 years. There were exceptions ; but the practice was immersion. . The eiM5ycloi)edias, of any note, are unanimous in agreeing ."7. si 4 «» ^ ^ (T* ' % "N .-»• ^f ■ %!,'>, ^ ■ *. , • -*. t ■A 20 to this. The Encyc. Britannica says, It was '* the usual mode, and clinic baptism .... only performed in cases of neces- sity. ... . Sprinkling gradually came in, in spite of the o|)- pbsition of councils and hostile decrees." Chamber's Encyt-. gives in substance the same, saying that *' doubts concern- ing sprinkling for baptism in the case of the, sick were evidently prevalent. " ' _ V - The testimony of the Greeks is no^ against me, but en- tirely in my fav(»r. I, of course, recognize Inhere are exce))- tions to the rule ; but they are grea^ exceptions, and wouUl not exist, and I hold, would never have existed, were it net for their belief in baptismal regeneration, which is a post- i^^tolic and not a New Testament teaching. A , Df. Schaff, in showing that the origiual and fiormal form was immersion, says "Finally, by the general tisage of ec- clesiastical antiquity (as it is to-day in the Oriental and also the Greco- Russian Church) pourirjg and sprinkling beinj,' substituted in cases of urgent necessity. Kncy6. Herzoj^ says : •• But in the Greek Churcli immersion is imiated on as essential^"* .^ i You apoeal to Archaeology in support of frequent asper- sion amon^ the early Christians. Now, in the first place, I regard early art as not oiily not inspired, but often unreli- able evidence on this and other sacred queistions. The men who painted these pictures may have been artists of a rude sort, but they were not always theologians. Biblical scholarship is often clearly against them, as it is of many modern productions, e.gi. the paintings of the Nativity, whero the Ma ji are represented as finding the Holy Child in a manger and in the presence of cattle, ete. ; while the in spired Record tells us that " when they came into the house diey saw the young Child ;"a viait^ weekis, and it may have been months after His birth/ Art is a poor substitute for the Inspired Record if we would get at the Truth. As to the untrustworthiriess of early art Dr. C<)te (Archa,'- ology of Bap.) concerning the picture on the dome of Raven- na Baptistry says "The mosaics of this baptistry ihave been r^e^tedly restored ; and well Informed critics are of opinion that unwarrantable additions and alterations haver been •H (^■kdi^R.-*- f ,-f M ** the usual mode, d in cases of neces- 1, in spite of the o|)- Chamber's Encyt-. i *' doubts concern- of the. sick were gainst me, but en- ze there are excel I- eptions, and wouUl sxisted, were it not •n, which is a post - ling. -V:, ■■; ::-^' I and fiormal fortu eneral tisage of ec- a Oriencal and algliable. :entury, of build - itiBin, such as thu iter and three feet et by five feet, is he sixth century, became general, ary ;and»' instead urches. GriBeks is i^ainat such men as Dr. td immersion and I Encyc. Herzog ; \Xi common use at iS favored by the ) present practice Jhurch immersion Grreek Church re- le body ; but the snth century, the authorities do not at in making state-. 1 that King James I' have by the very thers, of the great J — proved beyond bctice of the early I that, while there unto death, etc., id even then the and its value dis- s Chnstiah era (at I ages, the age of jy of arrogant as- ras anything else Western Church ■ :'■• It follows then that the practice of the early post-apos- tolic Christians condemns you. For see ! You practice as the»itZe (with how many exceptions?) what they recognize, only in extreme cases, as valid, and that with grave doubts ; their exception, is your rule ! Now, I submit that, if the ancient Church has an^i weight as an authority with you, you surely must feejHfB ground upon which you stand rather shaky and Mrmir Is not this a natural conclusion < Again, let ua ia^^jif ittle closer to the fountain head, where we may drlni^ure water and find firm ground upon which to stand. What we want is a clearer understanding of what was the apostolic practice in obeying the Master s command. An examination 6f your neat littlie bundle of Syllogisms will be in order. ' . _ Your First will certainly not hold together. Its major premise is not right. Cleansing by pouring was commonly used among the Jews, true ; but jt was &n evasion ol the law, and recognized as such by the more scrupulous, who, when polluted, immersed their hands, and some going fur- ther in their ' interprkation of the command, immersed themselves (See Mark fii : 4, R/ V,, •'themselves"). _^ See Herodotus 11.; "that if anyone—Egyptian Jew— touches a swine with his clothes in passing, he- goes to the river and dips (bapto) himself." I find on looking up this matter more closely, that some Jewish authorities (Wiinche and Schwab), that there was no question as to the comttiand requiring immersion, they simply diflFering as to whether it meant washing the hands by dipping them, or by dipping the whole person in water. Further, Dr. Meyer, the very, best of authority, says "(a) before every naeal the washing of hands ; but(b) after the return from the market where there was so much danger of coming into contact with un- clean men, the 6a«/i was used as a washing of the whole body" And on Luke xi : 37, 38 (mai-veUedthat He had not first washed before dinner.) '' They expected that He would* first purify Himself by an immersion,, th&t is, by a bath (Comp. Mark vii: 3, 4) before the meal," There is nothing like autliority right from head-quarters. Here it is. ' The question is* of the Jew : let a Jew of the 24 Jews speak. MaimonideB, called ** ^e eagle of the doo-' tonn" and "the lamp of Israel,'' says, •* Wheresoever in the Law washing of the flesh is mentioned, it means nothing else than the dipping of the wlide body in water ; for if any man wash himself all over, except the top of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness. What room iis there for New Testament exceptions td^the primary meaning of the word boptizem, such as you i^Uege,^ adFter this ? Then I cannot accept your minor premise. Certainly, Christ may h&ve uaed baptizein without condemning the Jewish erroneous, or evasive use of it. But 1 would not for a moment agree that by such silence He sanctioned it ; ndt by any means. Did our Lord approve of the institu- tion of slavery? Certainly not. The whole tenor of His teaching was against it, and has ultimate^ overthrown it. Yiet there is not a single recorded word from His lips against slavery. This evasive habit of arguing "that Christ did not condemn it, therefore, it lAust be right, our fathers did it," etc., etc., is accountable for the presence of more than one unscriplural and, therefore, unwarrantable dogma and practice in Christ endom, Rome taking' the lead.^ While 1 recognize that, like some of the apostolic Chris- tians, multitudes of the early and western Christians were granted repentance unto life, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit before and without Ireceiving water baptism, I must accept your second syllogism. Ydt, if it is true that "all Christians, the vast majiority at * least," have not been " buried with Him by baptism," immersed, as Christ Himself was, and commanded for all, they have erred. The vast majority of them. may have erred unwittingly ; yet that does not make what they have twt done as if it were accomplished. How could it ? Such, by faith in His Son, arei God's children and heirs of eternal life, no doubt ;^ and Ood will reward thetn according to their light and^jDpportunity. And, therefore, in reply to your question, Are you prepared to say. that those who accepted the affusion of water in humble faith that they were obeying Christ's command and receiving His baptism were all wrong?" t would say certainly not. They oW ! .1 ::( ■1 :^ rie of the doo-' Vheresoever in meanB nothing iter ; for if any Ilia little finger, m is there for neaning of the '.■■.■■■ le. Certainly, indemning the it I would not sanctioned it ; of the institu- 9 tenor of His overthrown it. His lips against ihat Christ did our fathers did ) of more than ble dogma and tpostolic Chris- Christians were m of the Holy aptismt I must ast majiority at by baptism," aanded for all, lem may have rhat they have uldit? Such, beirs of eternal Q according to •e, in reply to hat those who. aith that they g His baptism not. They all ■ 'I » ". ' ■ ■. ■■•■:■ ■■,'.■■'.■■■■■■■.■■. were wrong; but they were not all wrong, i.e., altogether wromr which is quite a diflferent thing. In the light of the above my nieanrffg and distinction will be plain ; and I do not see the slightest call for your charge of bigotry because of such belief either. . - .^ - - ' . , . - ^ . As well charge Vrith bigotry those who hold that there is no salvation apart from baptism and the Lord's Supper ; and vet they know that, if they are right, such doctrine excludes from Heaven the wholp Quaker fraternity, for nietv almost peerless, and that host of Salvationists, so wonderfully used of God, in spite of their questionable methods, in the uplifting and saving of millions of the world's worst dasses. . . But it is a question whether the " vast majority are aspersionists or aflFusionists. There are the eighty millions of Greek immersionists ; Europe and the other countries East have about six hundred thousand ; Catiada has its ninety thousand : in and about South America are forty- seven thousand, and in the United States there are over four million immersionists ; and all these adults &nd those of the U. S. in^e than th^ English Episcopal, Presbyterian and Congregational communions of that country combined. However, it is a' question of '' What saith the Lord " ; the balancing of numbers does not affect the question either ^*" Holding aloof from the Body of Christ "! Well, I will not argue-that point here : I am simply content with saying that 1 believe, notwithstanding this pet dogma of a small -part of Christendom, that I am a part of, and living in the closest union with a New Testament Church, and, there- fore of the Body of Christ, though without the support (?) of "Apostolic Succession," yet a Church "after the pattern given in the Mount." , As to your third Syllogism, your major and mmor pre- mises are both wrongly put; and, therefore, your con- clusion is wrong. You say '' Christ instituted baptism for a definite purpose. " But I hold that Christ instituted baptism for a nnmier of purposes. Some of those purposes are effect- ed only by immersion, as the symbolizing and proclaiming of '-. i .1 ■>-'. \ 96 .the great foundation doctrines of %he resurrection, regenera- tion, justification, complete cleansing, ^te. But the bless- ing of an open confession of Christ and a desire and effort to do His will, it may be amidst great opposition, may , follow as a result of pouring or sprinkling fpr baptism. It is, therefore, wrong to say that that purpose, which is a .manifold one, is only effected by immersion. Your fourth is wrong, because it proves too much. The first statement is true,; but i<- is too broad to find a place. in thi« Syllogism, if you would conclude as you do. Then th& second premise is wrongly stated, because the person sub- mitting to affusion for baptism may do it in all good faith _^and with an obedient he&rt and submissive will, which can- not fail of a blessing. . ^ Your rfiasoning, therefore, falls to the ground. Your appeal' to Polybus' use of the word baptkein only strengthens my position. It certainly cannot help yours. Were not their bodies immersed in water up to their breasts ? Then what other word could you expect ? Surely you do not understand me to believe that on^ the immer- sion of the whMe body is baptism ! I certainly hold that it, and it only, is Christian baptism. But 4ihat is quite a different things If I plunge my hand or foot or head or my body up to tbS breast into water that is baptism ; but it is iiot the thing Christ commands for the act Under discussion. So with the <5ase you quote from Joan (III. 5 Horn. xxi.). It was a baptisnt of the head, but not of the whole jperson. The Ghristiari— saved-through Him who gave Himself/His whole person a sacrifice for him -gives himself, his whole ftemg' to Christ the Lord in fellowship and service. Thus the beautiful emblem of complete immersion and emersion to set fo|th the full and complete salvation for the believer and of huhfeirowship in Him. . ^% Your statement concernitig Judeth (Xli.), that " She washed herself at the spring, where affusion only would be possible," is not at all warranted by the language of the text. It reads thus, • ' And she remained in the Camp three, days; anc| went fortb by night into the valley ©f Bethulia, and washed*' {bap.) "herself in a fountain," (not "a Hs^ iction, regenera- But the blosB- lesire and effort tpposition, may [ir baptism. It pse, which is a 00 much. The 3 find a place. in 1 do. Then the the person 8ub- 3 all good faith nrill, which can- und. I baptizein onljr lot help yours. 9r up to their sxpect ? Surely >n]y the immer- ily hold that it^ ihat is quite a b or head or my )tism ; but it is ider discussion. . 5Horo. XXI.). ) whole person, e Himself, His inself,'his whole service. Thus 1 and emersion or the believer .), that! "She (miy would be anguage of the the Gamp three, ey of Bethulia, un," (not "a '»! •pring") ** of water by the Camp. And when she came out she besought the Lord," etc. Here we have language, circumstances, and surroundings that, not only permit of, bttt clearly indicate that Judeth took a full bath by immer- sion- (a) She sought the seclusion of the night for this bath* (b) it was a religious rite before prayer, and not for cleansing j (c) It was in a fountain of the Camp from which the army got its water supply, and, therefore, large enough for a complete immersion. I do" not insist, however, that this was a case of a4joinplete immersion of the person, but I think it was ; (d) The>ord used to describe the act means immersion. This case is also against you. . ^ | ^ Ih the light of the scholarship, from which I have already (luoted, and I might give a host of others to the same effect, Blutt^'s assertion that *' pouring was undoubtedly the origi- nal mode of baptism," seems to me rather bold ; and if a sample of his fidelity to the plain and well recognized facts of history, would, I think, forfeit his right to the claim of soholarship. Liddell and Scott, who had "pour upon" after baptizo in their first Lexicon at once expunged it, and so it stands injaXtM their fiveMater editions. No scholar- ship of tpidi^worthy of the name, will recognize "pour- ing" aiTone of the meanings o^^ this word. The learned and candid Moses Stewart (Bible Repository), no doubt with good ground for it, says ** Bapfo and baptizo mean to dip, to plunge, to immerse," and that "aJllexico- eraphers and criticd of any note are agreed on this." As to the Penticostal Baptism, the language clearly indi- cates immersion. In Matt, iii : 11, not only the usual word for baptism, but the preptisition en, which means primarily " in," and is most frequently so translated, is used of both the water baptism and of the Spirit baptism. Qn this Meyer says, "J?h is in accordance With the meaning of baptize (immerse) not to be understood instruiiientally, but on the contrary, in the element wherein the immersion takes place." (Meyer is formost among the German com- mentators, and cannot be discounted). You acknowledge that the primary meaning of baptizo is " immerse,' Is wot the recorded actions of the Spirit- baptized. Christians such •'i^wm^' I- .»\ kr 1^' J V . ' ■ »■■■■ M io convey the idea of their being under a surchargiiig, overwhelming, completely controlling powe^ ? They were filled as a consequence of their inimersion in the Holv Ghoit. ; ' Thii^/is how Neander thinks on the matter. He says, . '* Ke ii tas that should baptize them with the Holy Ghost and ;with''fire, that is to say as John^s followers were entirely immersed in the water, so the Messiah would immerse the souls ., Prof. Church' History, Bangor Maine, in the Christian iAfhroVy Aug. 3rd, 1875. Referring to the fact that immicle to insist upon it. It is a point upon which ancient madite- val, and modern historians alike Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Calvinist have no controversy. And the simple reason for this unanimity is that the statements of the early fathers are so clear, and the light shed upon these statements from the early customs of the Church is so cdn- clusive, that no historian who cares for his reputation would dare to deny it, and no historian who is worthy of the name would wish to." If there is any of the uncertain and hazey about this New Testament question it seems to me, it is because of the fog- banks of the middle, '* the dark ages," which men have gathered around it. Strange that any one should seek light from darkness ! What we want, rather, is light, fountain light from the Manner, the Jordan, the Cross of Calvary, i; ■ !• / 8» iK^: ■ , we fropi th« new Tomb" and Olivet upon the uncertain light of the fast deolininff primitive Christianity and the deep gloom and wide spread corruption of the media'val ago that Ateer clear of theii'tmistakeB, and gather only the goodi * i||- -^ Yours sincerely, ■ ■...•• ■:■ '■^:: >..'■• ■;■ ...-——-^ ANGWCAN'S THIRD LETTER. Pkar Mr. . : ' t note that you admit that a partial immersion fully^satij- HeS lh9 meaning of the worif UaiAizt^. This being admitted, ^ you £4ve to prove th^t such baptism as Blunt and others desd^pMetivWhere the baptized "went down into the water " and 'i^^ there sprinkled, or had water poured upon him, iS not Christian l^ptism. Most of the quotations you give, and notably those in Bathabas, Tertullianand Cyril are per- fectly descriptive df^such baptinm, and the following from TertuUian (De Baptismo Cap. 11.) seems to confirm it. *VA man is dipped in water, and amid the utterance of Some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again." Cyril's and Basil's expressions ** in a manner buried," *' as ii were buried " pioint plainly to an act which was not literal and complete, but only symbolic burial, in fact to a burial symbolized by pouring Water on the head, such as I believe to have been the primitive niode of baptism. As you have not given references, beyond the name of the authors, I have not been able to read with their context all the pas- sages to which you refer. I note, further, that you take the word 'Vimniersed " in the translation of these passages as a proof on your side. Whether it is so or not depends entirely upon the original. If that word is hapUze'm or haptizare it provies nothing, for the proper interpretation of that word is the point at issue. Yet, again, you admit that clinic baptisms were not by immersion, and th4t such baptisms were not repeated or completed by immersion. As the Christians of those times believed in baptismal regeneration this amounts to proof t4iat they regarded such baptism as valid^ however irregular ,;. :' . •». |l'^ it might be. The truth or falsity of the doctrine of baptiH msi regeneration does not affect the result. They believed it, and would therefore havti repeated the baptism, if the clinic baptism had been invalid. This they did not do. "C? The objection to the consecration of Novatian is taken from CruseV very faulty translation. I ({Uote the translation edited by Snhaff and Wace. '* As he seemed about to die, he received baptism by afftmou on the bed whereon he lay, if indeed we can say that such a one did receive it." The whole passage shows that his character was the ground both of the objection to his consecration and of the doubt as to his having received baptism, many of that time denied that such baptism" was baptism at all, hut this opinion *' the church refused to sustain " (c. f. Cyprian Ep.,al 19.) The Council of Neo-Cmsarea (early in 4th cent.) gives the reason for the bar imposed Upon such persons from becoAiing oflicers in the Church. *'If any man is baptized in time of sickness he shall not be ordained a presbyter ; hecaiue his faith v^aa not vdnntariff but as it were of constoaint^ except his subse ((Uent faith and diligence recommend him, or else the scarcity of men make tt necessary to ordain him." 1 am not concerned to deny that immersion was practiced in many places (especially in the Eait), nor even that it is the more complete symbol of the burial of Christ. All I maintain is that baptism by affusion at least, if not by anpersion also, is a suihcient obediencel to the law of Christ to procure the blessing which He has assigned to baptifa^ I wish you would but read the whole of the writiifgs from which you make short extracts, ipparently &t second hand, and you would see how closoly the faith of the Church of England agrees in all matiers with that of the early Christians and martyrs, and how :ery widely your own diffejs therefrom. The doctrine of Tdrtullian in the West and of Cyril in the Elast is identical with ours and that of ; Ireenous and others still earlier. But it is Separated from ^ours by a gulf as wide as that betwe< m tke rich man and ■'• Lazarus. ■ '':■■.■■:.-.'"■■.. '•/.'■.' " / W^he I, therefore, see in baptism the fulfilment of one pui^se, you see a fulfilment of many! purposes. It is ini- I ,N. \»«v. '/ ne of baptiH hey believed [itifltn, if the [ not do. tian ta taken le translation ibout to die, areon he lay, ve it." The ground both I doubt as to ) denied that ** the church he Council of m for the bar fticers in the f sickness he faith VHiH not ^t his subse or else the ivas practiced even that it Christ. All t, if not by law of Christ :ol>aptifa^ the writiirgs tly at second faith of the I that of the ely your own in the West I and that of parated from rich man and Iment of one es. It is ini- »3 ■■**■.■: possible to agree with such diflferent l)a8es \x\yi>\\ which to . argue. And yet I think that you must admit that the one ' overwhflping, chiefly important nurpose of baptism, was to admiCraan into the visible Kingdom on earth, of our Lord Jesus Christ. And that in order to effect this punKise it must be administered, in all essential points, as he ordained. , If, then, immersion be essential, none who are bantizod by affusion or aspersion can be regarded as admitted into that kingdom. And as, further, no promises are made ex- cept to those so admitted, none can bo .sun- of salvation, none rlaim as of riqht the promiiies of Ood except those who are immersed. But to say this is to leave out of the C»)venant the whole body of Western Christians (ineluding the early Kngliah Baptists who did not in»merse) who are dead and gone. And these with the present numbers of the Knglish- speaking and Roman Catholic Churches undoubtedly form tne large majority of^ all who have lived since Christ. For you claim more than your authorities prove. They my th&taprinklinil came in about the 12th century. Y'ou speak as it affmion w^re then first introduced, which is not the case. ^5 ; » ,. V i- > !.. I will not occupy time and space in dealing seriatim with your letter. I bplieve I have dealt with every essential ])oint in it, and as regards the Scriptural argument I fail to see that you have really replied to mine. It must, I think, be granted, that our Lord used the language of His day in the meaning accepted commonly by the Pharisees and other scrupulous persons so often condemned by Him. If that be admitted, my argument holds good. > If it be denied I find no room for argument. The bases are too different. With all possible respect for your conscientious belief, I remain, Yours faithfully in Christ. BAPTIST'S THIRD LETTER. - I \ Dear Mr. — ^■:' ''■'*■■-' It would be a strange and altogether new line of argu- ment which had no objection laid against it. I would not .• .',1*; f ^' 1 « ' . ,» ' ■J I ■ S- '^4- ^Z f 34 for a moment pretend toattemptsuch ; but I do claim thi», that while I certainly admit that while a partial immersion fully satisfies the meaning of haptizo— when iiut applied to New Testament baptianiyl have already proved, and you have not - refuted, that only a complete immersion satisfies the pom- mand, practice, and design of our Lord. That there were exceptions in post-apostpUcv times, such as you claim, aspersion, aflfusion, partial itomersion, etc., proves nothing, unless *' the exception proves the rule." That the first exception to the rule was not until late in the third century, that such exceptions for centuries were only in the case of mortal sickness, and also that there is no pre- .cept, practice, or even meiititm of anything but complete immersion in the NewTestam^t times, is altogether against such innovations. ^ To take it for granted, iuiyoil seem to do, that aspersion for baptism is right because that in the third- and later ceji- turies such practice is found, in isolated and extreme cases at that, is begging the question quite. Hti Shelden's works, (Anglican Vol. vi., p. 200o,) there .'is this pertinent remark : ** In Bngland^, of late years, I ever thought the parson baptized hi$ (nvn /infers TAther than the child " ; and I>rof. Harnack (in the **l>r. Y. Independent," T'ebi 19th, 1885) says : *.* Baptize undoubtedly signifies immersioiti. No ^ proof can be found that it signifies anything else in the New* Testament and in the most ancient literature." Now, if the words of the eayly fathers mean anything, if the testimony of the very best theologians and historians of the different sections of Christendom, if the witness of the universal practice of the Greeks themselves count — and^to them we must look— Blunt's the»ory of partial immersion acbompanied with or without aspersions of water for Chris- tian baptism, falls to the ground. Look at expressions alrefkdy quoted in my last (pSr. 6 seq.). • ' The fathers— Cyril, •' Surrounded with water," (which clearly interprets his idea^ ^t Ijgttst, of the aet over whiclj^ you seemed to have difficulty becatfte of ihis isxpression *Mn a manner buried"); Gregory -Nazianzen — ** Buried with Christ." Go" with him" and you are completely hidden r ^'^-•^*t^' vi^ [";:*t> w claim thi», inimersiun lied to New tuhave uot- 1 the pom- itnes, such rsion, etc., the rule." latct in the were only is no pre- t complete her against - aspersion later ce^- reme cases 3n's works, pertinent hought the lild" ; and Tehi 19th, rsiob. No^ in the New* anything, if istorians of ness of the int — and to immersion r for Chris- expressions ». (which over whic^ ression **in uried with iely hidden in the tomb; Gregory Nyssan,—" We coticeaZed ourselves tnit;" Chrysostpm,-— " To sink dowih, then to emerge ;" Ambrose,— "Yotf immersed ywtrael/ (mersisti), i.e., you wereburied." / ^. . /*^ i/^x" • The theolojgians, historians, etc. , are clear on this. (Far. 10) Stanley,—" Plunged, submerged, immersed into water." Encyc. Americana,— '* The Greek Church... .immersing the whole body i" and again Neander,—V John's followers were entirely immersed ;" Lange,-** A mhmersion;" Dean Alford.— •' As the baptized passes wider the water." Now, tf partial immersionist, aflhisionists; or aspersionists- can get wppoft for their theories from such expressions ]■ as thrf above-f which are unciuestioned as to their author- itative worth-|they ijan work miracles. But let me add here a few more quotations from good pedo-baptist.aiithority, and if they are right— and they^are men whose learning is universally acknowledged— see how utterly untemible is the theory of a partial immersion, and how unreasonable. . ^ - . . Yo6 will recognize this man,— F. W. Robertson, ("Ser- mons," p. 102J Harpers,). He says : " It was impossible to see that significant act— in which the convert went down into the water^ iravel- Worn and soiled with dust, (i/^?>pcar for a moment J and J/ten emenjed pure and fresh— without feeling that^ the symbol ^nswered^ to, and interpreted a strong craving of the human heart." " Liddon (1* The Lord's, divinity ; "p. 346.) " As the neophite 19 pltinged beneath the waters, so th© old nature is slain and buried with Christ." Stanley ("Sinai and Pales- tine," ps 306,) of John, "As he plunged them under the rapid torrent." "Quarterly Review," June, 1854. "There can be no question that the original form of baptism— the very meaning of the worA—yrM complete immersion in deep baptismal waters." Bretchneider(" Theology," Vol. II., pp 673, 684.) "An entire imrmfsion belongs to the nature of Jbaptism. This is the meaning of the word," "The apostolic church baptized (nily by immersimi. Conjecture that the three thousand were sprinkled is too much of a con- jecture to be tru|ited." Rothe, ("Dogmatic," YoL II, p. % 36 J" 308.) "The form of complete immersion oi the candidate, we find always observed in the age of the apostles, and in the whole early church." . And a word from Luther ("Sacrament of Baptism. ) ** Although the custom has grown out of use with most per- sons, yet they ought to be entirely immersed and immediately drawn out. The mode of baptism ought, therefore, to correspond to the signification of baptism, so as to set forth a full sign of it." And from S. "S. Schmucker (Bibl. Theol. Vol. II, p. 290.) ** The disciples of our Lord could understand His command in no other mahner than as en join- ing immersion. . . .' It is certainly to be lamented that Lu- ther was not able to accomplish his wish with' regard to the translation of immersion in baptism, as he had done in the restoration of wine in the Eucharist. Luther and some late theologians have thought that the aspersion destroys the force of some passages in the New Testament. ". . In view, therefore, of all this clear testimony, and much' more which 1 migbjb advance did time pennit, the baptism which Blunt and others describe as a pi» and much' lie baptism minersion, cording to ihe limited I the word, y manner," e buried." B is not so. fok It is a ; expressly reat truths I were cohi- 3 resurrec- torth but a Dr. Adam The whole > say, 'the out of the bhe man is Thus Cyril of Jerusalem, whom you regard, saw it ("Cat. ^ Mystag.", II. )» *' As in the night so in immersion, as if it were night, you can see nothing." And, as already quoted (from Cat. xvii.), " He who is immersed in water aind bap- tized is surrounded with water on all sides." Whicji siettles at once the form of the act in Cyril's mind. / Notice also the opinion of an Unprejudiced man, Dean Goulburh (" Bampton Lectures," p. 18). " There can be no doubt that bajytism when it isl administered in the primitive and most correct form, is a Divinely instituted emblem of bodily resurrection. And it is to be regretted that the form of administration unavoidably (if it be unavoidably) adopted in cold climates, should utterly obscure the emblematic sig- nification of the rite, and render unlHtelligible t« all but the educated the apostles* association of Burial and resurrection with the oriiinance* Were immersion universally practised, this association of two, at present heterogieneous ideas, would become intelligible to the humblest." j. Note, please, that TertuUian's " immersed," as quoted by me, is mergimtiry " we are immersed." This, with the pre- position •' in," makes clear the form of the act (See " Cor- ona MUites,'.' Chap. III. ; and also "De Baptismo," vi^., mergitdnmr, *' We are immersed "). With the names of the authors I have in-every case, with the exception of Barna- bas, which is Chapter X., and of TertuUian and Cyril, which you have above— given you the references. these men, both of the East and of the West— Barnabas^ Hermas (The Shepherd, iii.), CyrUof Jerusalem, also Dio- ny8iUB(See "DeEccl. Hierarchia," «:, " The to«aZ conceal- mewt in water fitly represents Christ's death and burial"), and the rest of them would utterly repudiate\the notion of a partial imtaeTsion, followed by a pouring of water, m Christian baptism. If pouring, or what you give translated t sprinkling," followed the act of immersion, it was the iual ceremony of cdnsecration, as I have already shown ; ^ and this, no doubt, is what TertuUian refers to in the quo- tation you give from him. You a!amit,*certainly, that immersion is the more com- plete symbol of the burial and resurrection of Christ ; but • •it ■fijff ^^srP ;■ ^^■;;'^ ■■;..- :' -■ . •'■-;■>>.;■ V": ■ .■'"./-.;'::'■"•'■';■-.■ ^' ^:.; ■ " ho^, by any possible language, yo'ii can find a symbol of burial in the act of pouring, not fo speak of sprinkling, water on a pe^on's heady I cannot understand. Once more, w^iat is this symbol, if it is anything ? It is an outward sijga of .an inward and spiritual grace— the new birth, the npw4ife. It is a sign or symbol clearly setting forth, in a descriptive way, the great facts of the pomplete burial and resurrection of Christ aiid His people. Every one, yourself included,' recognizes this. Now^ if a person, ignorant of the nature of spiritual and physical burial and resurrection, should ask you to show by a sign, symbol, type or emblem what it was, what Would you give them?— the act of pouring, or sprink- ling, as practised by ycta and others for baptism ? Not for. a moment ! It you di4, they would go away with ideas con- cerning these most vital- and glorious facts- of our Divine religion as vague and mysti4 as a dream. Does thf dealer in general merchandise hang out a s/»oe as -a sign or emblem of what to expect within ? No more, and ^ot as much, is aflfuslon a '* sign " of this great central and all-important fact of Christianity. To change the form of ■ j the apt sd as to exclude the ^thought of burial and tesurrec- ' w ; :^ tiori, is to destroy the ordinance. Your substitution of Schatf's translation for Cruse scon- ; corning Novation's clinic baptism, does not^ affect the argu- ment/one whiy immersion." As to your remark concerning *' the Pharisees and other scrupulous persons so often ci>ndemn«d b^ our Lord," you caniwt show (0, single case' when' He condevafied them for obey- ing the laws of Moses He did condemn,them for putting the Idastof the commandments above^the greatest ; and exalting ceremonial observaifce rfbove love, judgmtjut, etc. But He said, ♦'* These ought ye to have 4pn<^* a»d riot to. hiave left the other undone." I have cleanly' established the gpm- monly accepted meaning of ba^pf 120 in our Lord's day to be ' immersion, to the total exclusion of sprinkling or pouring, i.e., if the interpretations of the very highest authorities count. ' I would here j^dd; that my quotation from Maimo- nides (par. 27), concerning the Jewish bath, is substantially the same as Lightfoot'a <" Annotated Par. Bible," p. 1126). " He gives **dip" instead of "wash," which strengthens my position. "Indeed, Scripture language itself requirps com- plete imm^iriim for thp Christian." (See Meyer on Rom. vi. ^ AS ■ » ^ '"You claim pretty close relationship with Tertullian, "Oyril, and their contemporaries, wHen you say theil doctrine is identical in all matters with the English Churcli.* And then ^ you quietly remark, that *'it is separated from ours"— the ' Baptists— '* by a gUlf as wide as that betweerithe rich man and Lazarus." I? this tr»e ? If it is, theni,so much the worse for Tertul lian and feis ifriends. But it might be — T' ^ -^ ^ . " ~~> I ? ■Jtk - / -, / ../ .' I i 46 .worth wUa© to qtiietiylook into the truth of your statement. It happens that I have read a good part, though not all, of the writings of TJertuUian and the others,; and this week ' review them with.a doubliB interest. . Now, Jet us see how much of a ** Churchman " TertuUiah \ was, and how little a Baptist. . . y«v . i.. Tertullian believed (1) in the .Holy Trinity, (2) in the Fatherhood of (Jod, (3) in the He denied the co-equality and co-eternity of %he Son : and the. Holy Spirit with the Father (this is vital) ; (2) He regard^ his own dreamings or^alleged direct revelations from the Holy Spirit of more importance as authority -than > the Holy Scriptures (this also is vital) ; He also taught (3) ' the arbitrary division of sins into tVnaortal " and "venal "; and (4) the yovter. of *he church to remit the ^latter (by some Anglicans)-; (5) the unpardotiablehess of post-bap- tismal siiiii ; (6) asceticism and «(h almost gnostic me Christians when they become able tt> know Christ." ^(De Baptismo xvm.>» Meander says (Ch. His. Vol. I. p. 312). - In the 'last years of the second century, Tef-tullian appears as a - zealous opponent tof infant baptUm ; a proof that the prac- tice had not as yet come to be rega^^ed as an apostolical . institution, for otherwise he would ^hardly have ventured to express himself so strongly against it. And (p. ^11) ''Baptiam was admhiidered at first mdy to adrdtit, as men were accustbmed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have alt reasan farnotdenvimj mfant bap- tism from aposMic iifistihitiou," ■'':..:- -^ It is also worth noting here that the "fathers Gregory Nazienzen, Basil, Chrysostem and Jerome were all of ^pious parents,iindyet not until manhood^were they baptized ; whUe 6f' all the forty or forty-five fathers of the third^and fourthcenturies hDt onecan be« shown to liave been bap- tized in infancy." ApertinentHuestion, -Could this possi- bly have been, had infant baptism been the practice of the primitive Christians?'- (See Dr Goodspeed on -Bap- tism " >. As to what these early Christians and martyrs tliought on this Darticular question, let me quote j^am from - . keySr (on AfitX xvi: 15), "The baptism of children oi Christians, of which there is no tra^kto be found in the New Testament is wot to be regarded as an apostohe institu-. tion, since-it met witb an eariy and long continued opposi- tion . .It first became generalsiiice Augustine. ^ Note one more, thing. Novation, who liveA after Ter- tulUan, was the firsvrecorded " cUnicus;' ; »nf »* « ,7" recognized that in the baptism of th 3 dying-originated the denarture from the apostohc practice of immersion. This, by^elf, is a strong Presumption against the theory of any- thing else, butammersion for bapti»m in the early post- *^^oS£'2^?i^ at thefait^of Jretuiiian/ How^mucK ' mo^e^f yoursXn of mine ^hll Only with the^huit three of the second list of teachings, as gtven ^bove, do thrBaptists agree ; the whole thirteen the Church of Eng- k^d te>t ; while, the Baptists hold nine out of the eleven •' i H'- , of the more important doctrines common to Tertullian and the Church of England. Am I not right ? ' r will not take time, here^ to review the doctlrineii of Oyril of Jerasalem, suffice to say that so far as the question of the • modeoi baptism is concerned he was at one with the Bap> tists, if the quotations above from him mean at all what they say. And so with Iraenius; he knew only the burial for baptism and its significant resurrection^ It has been settled by unquestioned authority, and from all lines of teaiimony ' that anything else as a substitute was not even hinted at until a hundred years after his death. It seems to me, therefore, that you will feel a little inore at home on the Baptijst jiide of the "gulf." Great and good as Tertullian was as a man, doctrinally he was neither of • the faith of your 'denomination, norof mine, nor yefc of the apostles themselves, A. H. Newman, D.D., LL. P., (Hist. Anti-pedobaptism, pp. 25, 26, 28) tells iis that " error grappled with the infant religion in its very cradle, and whU€c4tiilid not succeed in utterly strangling it, Christianity did' not escape the ordeal unscathed '' ; and that *' error invaded the very boisom «f the Church iii the second cen- tiii^ " ; and alsQ that •* we are not able to prove that from the middle of the second century onjrard a single congrega- tion could anywhere be found triie in every particular to thet apostolic form." But he adds "that there were hosts ^ of true believers during the darkest ages of Christian history cau'by no meaniE^ be doubted." This fad among the denominations of cliaiming relation- ship with the 9arly church fathers and parties tod sects is rather unsatidSactory and disappointing when all the facts concerning their faith and practice are known. As to the theory that the *• one overwhelming chiefly ii^portant purpose of baptism was to admit menmto the visible Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ," I* do not grant. In a: shortf note) like this I may be misunderstood ; but I must be brief. I regard the chiefly important purpose of " this (ordinance to centre first in the individual. It is intended to be an act of consecration, of obedience and con-, fo ss ion of th e c a ndid a t e 's faith in all that the ordinance 43 Bymbolizes. *riiB Christian, like W Lord in. His public miuistFy, closes his life as a child of G4»d as he began it,— with a butial aiid resurrection. That upoir which our salva- tion, and the salvation of the world depends,— burial and, ^ resurrection, finds its image and counterpart in the act ^f Christian baptism. I know that it is regarded as a rite by which we are admitted into the -visible church. But how ]fo«t can give ifethe prominence you do I cannot see. Wherb . ,> is your scripture for ffi? ■ « .\ ,t u The fact that there is only one passage in Scripture (John iii: 5) that would seem to teach this doctrine hardly warrants you in so concluding, especially as many regard *♦ Born of water ^' as meaning '* Botii of the word." Scrip- ture expressions bear this out (Seie Eph. v : 26, "Washing of water by the Word," John' xv; 3, "Clean through the word/' Psa. 119: 9, etc.) Then, again, there is not a single casein the New Testament where those baptwed^are represented as being admitted yito the visible Kingdom through the act of baptism. Much more might be said, but I must leave it here for the present. ^ However, if you are right in giving ^aptism the plfcce in the purpose of God you dov your conclusion concerning the assurance of salvation mjist of necessity folio w[. And this is how it.would stand; if, there is no salvation aj^rt from baptism, there is no salvation for the unimmersed, for there is" no Christian baptism apart from immersion. This la^t I have moved. Aiid there is no toarrant under the sun for chanqimi the form of the ordhuime; or modifyhui it m the leasL Scripture is clear on this. And as to form, scarcely - anything can be clearer to the unprejudiced mind. Ihe testimony of the ages, of scholarsjiip, and of #cri't)ture is plain, unmistakable and a unit. „ , . i. i.u This sounds and feels harsh,- 1 know. But what other conclusion can #e come to ? There is the Divine mould of doctrine plainly laid down. Then a human invention, wholly unauthorized by Revelati6n; is put in the place of jt ; and for centuries administered by a part of Christendom^ tor baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity. But that does n ot makgifc ri ght ; it does not fulfil the command. Poing ■\ 1 *' things in the name of the Holy Trinity is no guarantee that those things please God. Ooii, in His mer^y, forgives (yiir errors thrqmjh Qur faith in Uis atmmuj Son; hut He never sanctions them. He is the same yesterday » to-day and for- ever. But siich teaching as you advance here with regard to the conditions of salvation appear to me a very limited and narrow, not to Say unscripttiral, conception of God's economy of saving grace ; rfhd, if true, the above conclusions are far more appalling than those which, follow the teaching of a salvation, full and free, for all by faith alone in the Infinite and AU-siifiicient Atonement, Christ ; who, ;without mentioning baptism as a condition of salvation, again and again offered Himself as a Saviour from all sin to all accept- ing Him by faith. ' Though not one in doctl'ine, I trust we are, through His blood, one in Christ ; aipd together hope in His glorious coming. ; ' Yours sincerely, - 1/ ^■.'l &/ :/' ■' '■ «!■■'■■ : ^ ;■ ■ . ■■■■%.-.■ '■Jflj - / ■ / • ■'.<■ ■^•;/■ /r^ '. r*' APPENDIX. ^■7 Who wkbe Baptized iff Apostolic T'imes? Were they adults or infants or both ? See (p. 41) how Tertuliian stoatly resisted the baptism of childftn as an innovation and a wrong, how thatiiot one of the^rty-five church fathers,, can be shown to have been baptized in infancy. Augustine was baptised at the age of 33 ; Gregory Nazianzen at 30 ; Chrysostom at 28 ; Basil at 28 ; Jerome at 35. Infant baptism could not have been commanded by Christ or practiced by the early Christians, or these men, of Christian parentage, would have baptized in m/«nc|/ and countenanced it in their writings, Th^e first case on record of in/anr baptism wa|> not. until A.D. 252. Further, if infant baptism is of scriptural origin, why do the primitive fathers (of A. D. 90-140), Polycarp, Barnabas and Hermas say nothing aboiit it in their writings ? . Note, also, the clear wo^ds of Neander, ** the Prinpe of Church Historians," and of Meyer, "the Prince of Exege- tes, learned and acute," who MMeriyrepurf/a«e infant baptism as an apostolic institution (p. 41). But look now to ,the Inspired Record. God's Word- is •given NOT T(j) AII8TIFY, BUT TO MAKE CLEAR. [ We find: that infants were brought to Jesus ; but //ie j\ewr baptised them (Luke xviii : 15, 16). He mver baptized any one (John iv ; 1, 2), and there is"ftot the shadow of a hint that His disciples ever even thought of baptizing infants. Christian parents to-day should bring their'little ones to the Lord Jesus, but when there is not a singlejword in the Book for it, it is a mistake to "christen " or baptize them until they th6m6elves come to the Saviour aiid sho^ good evidence of faith »»d newlife in Him. (See p. . )i Were there infantsMn any of the five households bap- tized? No, the evidence is clear : let us look. 46 ■ :.L t '' 1. Corneliui *' was » devout man and one that ftared Ood with all Bis lumse." And they " received the Holy Spirit " ; Mter which Peter "commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (Acta x : 2, 33, 47, 48.) 2. Lydia, when baptized was three hundred milea from home; a merchant and, as a JeioeM, not likelv to have either husband or child. Her household wer^s old enoush to he called "brethren," and to be "comforted" by the goUpel. (Acts 16: 14, 15, 40.) ^. Of the converted jailor, we read that "they spake unto him the word of the Lord and to cdl that were in hit h&iise." Also that " he rejoiced believing in Ood if^th all his hmuse." (Acts xyi : 26, 34.) 4. Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, bdieved on thei Lord with ail his house ; and many of thei Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized." (Acts xviii : 8.) 5. We find that "the household of Stephanas" had ''addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." (Acts i ! 16 ; xvi : 16.) y : In every case you see all old enough to miniiter, believe, ' rejoice, be comforted, fear God and receive His Holy Spirit. Evidently there were no infiints in these households. The teaching that baptism was instituted in tlix place of circumcision is not scriptural, and, therefore, no support for infant baptism. The spiritual circumcision "made without hands" has replaced the literal circumcision of the flesh. It is " that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter." (Col. ii : 11 ; Rom. ii : 29). Our Lord and Saul of Tarsus and thousanda of others were circumcised on the eighth day ; but were baptized later in life. Circumcision was regularly practised among the baptized Jewish Christians for more than twenty years after baptism was introduced. Had Christ intended baptism to take its place, the Holy Spirit would have given some intimation of such change ; but ther0 IS none, and, therefore, no such change was intended! ^ Dr. Charles Hodge (Pres. "Sys. Theol." Vol. itL, p. 546) freely acknowledges the diflScul^ of establishin g authority for iiifant baptism. He says, " Much more diffi^ ^t'PJ ■*• ♦7, oulty attends the nuettion of infant Wptitm. The difficulty on the Bubieot is that baptism from its very nature is a pro- fession of faith ; it is the way.in which by the ordinance of Christ, etc., is to be confessed before men ; -but infants are incapable of making such confession, tlierefure, theij are twt the proptr snl^ects of baptism. Qr, to state the matter in another form, the sacraments belong to the members of the church, but the church is a company of believers ; infants cannot exercise faith, therefore, they are not members of the church, and conse^iuently wight iwt to be baptized." Those immersed by J6hn the Baptist repented, confeHniny their siua (Matt, iii : 4-B). Our Lord's word was, " He that hiAieveth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark xvi : Hi) ; and His command, " Teach or make disc iplen of all nations, bap- tizing them," (Matt, xxviii : 19). The crojpwls of Pentecost were commanded to **fepent and be baptized " (Acts ii : 37). *' But when theij believed," it says of the Samaritans, '- they Were baptized both men and women." (Acts viii :. 12). Here we see personal faith, a condition impossible to infania, is the scriptural condition for baptism. ^ What does a Catholic priest say about it ? *Vlt doM not - appear from scripture that even one infant was ever bap- tized, therefore, Protestants should reject, on their own princij^es, infant baptism as an unscriptural usage." (Rev. Stephen Keenan, in catechism, approved by Archbishop Hughes, of New York, in '51.) There is neither precedent precept nor principle in the whole Bi^le for infant baptism. It is an invention of man ; and as sucn^ be rejected.. / • \ '■,■../'■.. ' ■ ' ■ How DID'TH^Y ReOAKD THIT IMPORTANCE OF BaITISM ? Ini the early dayV no one ever thought of confessing Christ without a prompt, rd^y and open obedience in the baptis- , mail waters. "WhenXponvert declared his faith in Christ, '■> he was taken at once to the nearest pool or stream of water and plunged into it, and henceforth he was recognized as one of the Christian commuaity." (4.. Cunningham, Pres. ♦'The Growth of the Church," p. 173). When they of Pen-^ p ^\ m % \ \ I - 4» • -■■;':■:■:■ teoost under the Spirit's 'conviction cried: ** What shall we do V the answer of the inspired Peter was : ** Repent and be baptized, every one of you; and three thousand obeyed that very. day. So we find the converted, Samaritans prompt in obedience. So with the Ethiopian phaniberlain, far away fronuhome, and while yet on his journey, under the preach- ing of "Jesus" by Philip, believed and said :*' See, here 'is water ; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" and he obeyed without delay. (Acts viii. 12, 35-39). , " _ Peter, seeing Cornelius and his band JUled toUh the Holy Ghod, speaking witftsstrange tongues, and mi^nifying God, regarded water baptimi as an immediate duty ; and so ■ * com- manded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (Acts X..44-48V >. > The jtiiltirtDaited noifor.ashvgle day, hut " the same hour of the mgMi-— midnight — ♦' was baptized, he. and all his sfratV//t¥,^ i '^ k tit y- 4 if!)' . ',r I'M ! I . i 11 I ■iir • . ■»