IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) Y // fc V «?. y 1.0 I.I 1.25 |50 ""'^ 6 IIIM IM mm JA III 1.6 0^! y <^ .•Si.. /. VI ^a > '> 5^ ^v^^^ ^'^ o 7 M Photographic .Sciences Corporation w^ iV ■1>^ :\ \ ^v *> * 4!^. ^. \ 23 WIST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. MSSO ( tX'. "t // fA J CIHM/ICMK Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The tot The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. Coloured covers/ Couverture da couieur rT| Covers damaged/ IVJ Couverture endommagee □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou palliculde □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couieur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre da couieur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couieur Bound with other material/ Ralii avec d'autras documents n D n Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion along interior margiV Larsliure serree peut causer de I'ombra ou de la distorsion le long da la marge interieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut qua certaines pages blanches ajoutAes lors dune restauration apparaissant dans la taxta, mais, lorsque cela itait possible, cas pages n'ont pas iti film^as. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires: L'Institut a microfilme le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a ete possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-^tre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages da couieur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagees □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurees et/ou pelliculees Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^colorees, tachet^es ou piquees Pages detached/ Pages detachees Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualite in^gale de I'impression D n I I Includes supplementary material/ D Comprend du material supplementaire Only edition available/ Saule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totaiement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelura, ate ont iti filmAes ii nouveau de facon i obtanir la meilleura image possible. The pos oft film Ori( beg the sior oth( first sior or ii The shal TINI whi( Map diffc entii begi righi requ metl This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux da r*duction indiqu* ci-dassous. 10X 14X 18X 22X y 26X 30X lax IfX 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library Acadia University The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'examplaire fllmi fut reproduit grAce A la g6n6rosit6 de: Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library Acadia University Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de I'exemplaire film*, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont film6s en commengant par ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon ie cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film^s en commengant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la darnidre image de cheque microfiche, selon ie cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmds d des taux de reduction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 it partir de I'angle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche A droite. et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 32X 4 ffp' 1. 9» tip i r^ :l ♦ in ♦ tisttaii gct^wBi SERMON ■'iSffiH^s- IN REPLY TO JWO SERMONS ON THE SAME SUBJECT. ALSO fcTKICTURES ON r. A-nnand's Lecture OH THE MODE OF BAPTISM. BY EEV. D. M. WELTON. « .' Prove all tUngi. Holdfast that which is ^oo »» ' "T " BY BEV. D. M. WELTOII* -■« ^«^ » ^' f>f^()t)c a« thinffs. Hold fait that lohich is yoorf.'^— pAUt. " CHRISTIAN MESSENGER " OFFICE. HALIFAX, N. S. 1870. t^ PREFACE. On Lord's day, April 3rd, I preached in my own pulpit Thi, sermon, which was no. of a coDtiwersial character aented n. the pnbhc press, that nry Pa^dobaptist friends in W.nds^, taking it for granted that tbey had' been raVj cause. He preached two sermons, one on the 17th of April on the Mode„/Japti.n., and theotber on the 24th AprH ^ he Proper Subjec,.. j ,hen deemed it proper to repfy to llo^ h. sermons on the following Lord's day. May ul -^1 only a week or so for prepat^tion, I could not be expect^ t' rea. the q,«stion so exhaustively as otherwise I migtt have done. On the ll.h of May, Rev. Mr. Annand, in a I cture n the Presbyterian Meeting-house, replied to ^y "ermr „ 2 f- only as .be ^* of baptism is concerned 1^:; devoted a few pages to the considemi„n rf Hs iectm-e. I have not thought proper to encumber the pages of this one 0* tliem can be produced if required. When the sermon in reply to Dr. Kichey was delivered r rr"' '""^.'"'"8"'P''« "- omitted for waTof "me. ihey are DOW inserted. Mr earnest prayer is that tiie controversy may, under the d.^^.e..g, result in the futheraneeof L t^t^al it il A. Windsor, May, 1870. Jg- (, ti ^' "' ^' C.J SERMON. ** Go ye therefore^ and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever 1 have commanded you." — Matthew xviii. 19, 20. When three weeks ago, in this house, and for the benefit principally of the congregation usually worshipping here, I considered in a sonoewhat full and explicit way the question ot Christian Baptism, I did not suppose there would be occasion to refer to it very soon again. The semion preached on that day was one of a series on the life and teachings of Jesua Christ. As the principal allusions to baptism in the series are only two, namely, the baptism administered by John, and that received by Jesus at his hands, I had resolved from the first, on reaching thera in the course, to give them the attention they seemed to require. In considering the first, I contented myself with showing that, while John was the connecting link between the old dispensation then passing away and the new dispen- sation then being introduced, yet he belonged to the new more than to the old, and the baptism he administered was rather christian than otherwise, since those who received it were required as a previous condition to repent of their sins, — a condition necessarily excluding infants, who were in the very nature of the case incapable of complying with it. In the second — on the Sunday following — my treatment ot the subject, as I had purposed, was more exhaustive. It was then my humble endeavor to show what is the external rite of baptism, its spiritual signification, on whom it is to be performed, and what are its spiritual benefits. It is a matter of deep regret to me that those sermons, which were delivered with no wish or design of provoking controversy — for controversy unless conducted in a proper spirit may rather hinder than help the cause of religion — an issue which none could deprecate more than myself: — it is a matter of deep regret, I say, that those sermons were not generally received in the same kindly and charitable spirit in which they were delivered ; or at least, that they were -77/1 not allowed to speak for themselves, and interpreted by the sentiments which they rf/c? contain. Instead of this, however, the first sermon was grossly caricatured in the public press j not only was the language which I employed distorted into a meanmg which it did not convey, hut language which I did no< employ was imputed to me, and of such a character that I could not have forgiven myself had I used it. And more than this, ere a denial and refutation of the statements could appear, there were not a few who seemed to take it for granted that they must be correct, and no small excitement consequently ensued. Though for nearly 13 years, or since the begmning of my pastorate, I had never, except inciden- tally, alluded to the subject of baptism, yet when it did regularly come up, and I chose in my own pulpit to say what I conceive the scriptures teach and do not teach concernincr It, I was given to understand that this liberty which my mniistering brethren of the other denominations have always clauned, and wh'ch some of them have frequently and freely used— a liberty surely inalienable to every human beina I was given to understand that this liberty must be used by myself with some limitation or restriction ; that virtually, I may tell to any extent wherein 1 agree with my Pcedobaptist friends, but it is not fitting for me to say wherein I difer from them : I may freely declare how far I conceive their religious sentiments to be sanctioned by the word of God, but it is not expedient for me to intimate that in some things they are not sanctioned by the word of God at all And then, as if the ark of the common salvation were in danr^er, I have scarcely preached my second sermon, in which I took the utmost pains to discriminate between what I conceived to be error, and those holding it, than, at the solicitation of a number of influential persons, my learned, and veneralde, and highly esteemed brother, the Rev. Dr. Richey is notified to set forth in two sermons the opposite side of the question. ^ow since, quite unexpectedly to myself at first, it has been deemed necessary to make this matter a subject of discussion, I cannot tell how deep and profound is my c^rati- iication in having Dr. Richey for an opponent. AiTd for these two reasons : in the first place he is eminently a cliristian gentleman, and secondly, he is a scholar of no mean attamments. It was my privilege to listen to a part of his first sermon and to the whole of the second, and I scarcely knew which the more to admire, the skilful ninnner m v^l ch he handled his theme, or the lofty cour esy which he exhib ted towards those who differed from hun. 1 could not he p wishing that all the controversies of past time, ha be n conducTed in the same noble and generous «l-r't J^^^^J^ « disnlaved Then the world had been spared the Mght ot tnc many scenes o violence and blood with which «ery zeaU)ts, ZZrZ. civil power, have sought to propagate their '^^ tS:Z days when the ^' might " wa. considered "ri-ht" are numbered, and the sacred ^.g^s of conscience are%etter understood and respected. And because I am resolved in dealing with this question to consider it on ^ts own merits, to allow no harsh or »^-^^y ^.^^ f ,^X and lip., to meet my learned friend in ^ ^^'''' fj^^t^^^,. cou teous as that with which he has advanced to the discus i sL,to state his points with fairnes., and to give to his * ^^mnents all the deference to which they are entitled :-on this account I am encouraged to believe that the pre^^en controversy will, on the whole, ^« /"-f "^'^jr^^/, ,3;,.^; will have the effect, I am persuaded, of making ^l^e ditte^en religious bodies in the community better ^f'^'}^'''XLZt thei^- respective principles, and so of Btrengthemng the bonds of union between them. For no persons are so bgotedly attached to their own opinions «« ^.^««%^^'"^^^X I'ro^.'^h the opinions of others. When the mists of FTJ^f f^J"?"^^ which the different denominations of christians l>^^eb en Tccustomed to look at each other are more entu-ely dispe ed we may expect that, nothwithstanding their difference , they will regard each other more as brethren. There w.l be a „K,re a^rdial and happy reciprocation ot » hose sent imen^^^^^^^ which they do agree, and chnst.an union, <^ «^' f ^^ !^^f ^^ ception, will rest on a firmer basis Surely it i. time n this last half of the 19th century, that religious /ree^orn in its broadest sense should be understood, and that chri> ans should love each other notwithstandmg their minor pe.ul ar- ities. I love the image of my Saviour m whomsoevei t appears. It may he obscured and marred by erroneous principles in the heart, ^"^, erroneous practices n the life, but if the image be really there, 1 am bound to love it. And by whomsoever sinners are won to Uirist, In'd with what branch soever of the Evangelical Church 6 ir born nf h % .*'l«T^^'««' ^« Io"g «s they are truly LZk ^ '^^';«^ «»d chief concern with every one should De to be a christian, and plainly no one is properly qualified tnllTrV'"' «P'^r-'--ing,the tr'ue Vpel sigS controversy n ,s infinitely more important to aim at the 'rrnT'f ^ w^ than, regardless ol" the truth, merdyt^ beiwi*..« H ?'' u^;.^ ^''^" °"'^ ^'•^' b« r^^l'^^d among iuvIhZ ' 1 '"^ "^' a-chetypal idea of union that i1 unnshed m the re at.on subsisting between the Father and tne bon, and for which the Redeemer prayed. Policy, and expediency, and conventional agreements may hold christians 01 different religious beliefs together for a time, and good ZLI' ' ^* '^" ^^"^^ «^ ""^«" ^l"«h binds christian heai ts in s>yee est accord, and which no shock nor centingency can sever, is the truth as it is in Jesus. ^ ^ hnrilTT' ^1'^ ^'"^!' concerning the ordinance of christian baptusm, to place it in a purely scriptural light, and strip it of the perversions with which it has been encumbered, shall be my present endeavor. My respected brother who has taken the opposite side of the question, has been admitted I believe, by those whom he represents, to have set forth their views with ability. I am Zl7r u\ ^' u^ "°'' '^ ^^""' "»"^' «" ever/essential point, say «// that they could have wished him to say. His learning, his long experience, his reputation as a preacher nn!; 7^'i^^'*^'"^^ '"^'^^^^ ^""^ ^« ^^'^ confidence on their InX V, ,!? 'i Tf ^^. admitted that, considering the difficult vvoik he had before him, he acquitted himself well. Con- sidering that there is not in the whole Bible a single precept or example for the baptism of infants or unbelievers, it must be admitted that he did as well as could be done in tryirto make the contrary appear. Surely, if God has not put th°ese in his book, Dr. Richey should not be blamed for not findin- hem there, nor should his failure be deemed a reflection upon his learning, since no amount of learning can accomplish impossibilities. That he is sincere in his views, and that the great majority of those who hold these views are sincere, no one for a moment will question. But we must remember that error does not cease to be such because conscientiously i held. F have eve Nor does the won their act guidance of Christ therefore this it rai the state prove nc of all na would y< in the w that, on right, w heatheoi It W£ mon by consider Doctor 1 publishe Baptists pamphle consider iota fror fully sai argumei rather ( be able conclusi by the ^ when I of your As n delivere subjects confine range o It 8e( assume! •Eev. held. For on this principle the most pemlcioua errors that have ever gained currency among men n.ight be justified. Nor does the authority of great names make that right which the word of God condemns. Nor again do majorities in their action furnish a safe and reliable standard for our guidance. It has been said by some that the largest part of Christendom sprinkle their children in infancy, and that therefore the practice may be assumed to be right. But to this it may be replied that, if we except the Roman Catholics, the statement is not correct, and if it were correct, it would prove nothing for those who maiie it, for putting Christians of all names in the world together, the adherents of the devil would yet outnumber them. There are many more heathens in the world than real and nominal christians together, -^ that, on the ground that majorities must be supposed to be right, we ought to renounce Christianity and embrace heathenism. It was asserted at the close of Dr. Richey's first ser- mon by a minister of the same denomination,* and with considerable assurance, that the pamphlet from which the Doctor had been reading, and which was his own production, published 35 years ago, had never been answered by the Baptists, and was in fact unanswerable. A copy of that pamphlet I have now before me. I have most carefully considered its contents ; and while I would not detract an iota from the merit which belongs to it, I must yet respect- fully say, that I have been unable to discover in it any argument sufficiently strong and conclusive to justify this rather confident assertion concerning it. Whether I shall be able to show that the pamphlet is answerable, that the conclusions it endeavors to establish are entirely unsupported by the word of God, will be for you, my friends, to decide when I have done, and I am not unwilling to abide the verdict of your intelligent judgment ,. i i. As my venerable brother, in the two discourses which he delivered, devoted one to the nwde and the other to the stiljects of baptism, I shall for the sake of appositeness confine my remarks on this occasion to the same order and range of topics. It seems almost needless to premise — for all it may be assumed are prepared to accept the condition— that in «Bev. Mr. Smallwood. r discussing this question^ our final appeal must be to tlie word of G0d. " The Bible," said Chillingworth, " the Bible only is the religion of Protestants.'^ What the Bible does teach and command, we should hold ourselves ready to follow; what it does not teach and command, or what it positively or by implication forbids, we should not be unwilling to give up. Many of the grossest errors and corruptions which have been embraced by men, may be traced to a departure in the first place from the word of God. The blessed book closes with words of awful warning to those who should dare to add to or take from it. Said our Lord, ''Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and fhall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." He plainly deemed it of great importance that his apostles should be thoroughly instructed in his will, since during the forty days he spent with them after his resurrection, he *' spoke of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." And his reference maybe principally to these last instructions when, having told them to disciple and baptize all nations, he adds—'* teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you'' .-—all things whatsoever "—there must be no exception — the ordinances of the gospel, so mighty in their spiritual significance, must be observed in their purity and integrity. "No matter by what reverenee for antiquity, by what tradition, by what councils, by what consent of any branches of the church, or of the whole church, at my particular period, an opinion or practice may be sustained, if it be not sustained by the command or the example of Christ, or of his apostles, we ^-alue it only as an opinion or as a precept of man, and we treat it accordingly. To a Baptist all appeals to the Fathers, or to antiquity, or general practice in the early centuries, or in later times, are irrelevant and frivolous. He asks for divine authority as his guide in all matters of religion, and if this be not produced, his answer is, ' in vain do ye worship me, teachii)g for doctrines the commandments of men. * " It is proper here to observe that all the commands of the Bible are of two kinds, namely, worn/ ixndi positive^ between which it is important to distinguish. Moral commands are t-iOH-e v/hich enjoiii moral acts and diBpoaitioiia, such aa love eal must be to the word ingworth, "the Bible What the Bible does Ad ourselves ready to command, or what it s, we should not be le grossest errors and ced by men, may be flace from the word of mill words of awful e to add to or take !ver shall break one liall teach men so, he kingdom of heaven." tance that his apostles will, since during the r his resurrection, he the kingdom of God." these last instructions 1 baptize all nations, he ivgs whatsoever I have )ever *' — there must be I gospel, so mighty in )served in their purity >r antiquity, by what Misent of any branches cb, at any particular sustained, if it be not ample of Christ, or of nion or as a precept of a Baptist all appeals eneral practice in the 'relevant and frivolous. ;uide in all matters of lis answer is, ' in vain es the commandments the commands of the I ixnd positive^ between Moral commands are Ositioiis, such aa love ,0 God and the forgiveness of injuries PpfJ^-Xro'r „e .hose »hieh vequirc .'he observance of ou,„arf ae ^^^ ceremonies, as circumcision and '^o ^»''Oy«f " ji^^^i and baptism and the Lord's supper ""^^^ 'f 8"?^^ ^^,3 ^re acts are'commanded because ^^yJ'^T^^'^^^^, ™ay right because they are commanded M»;«^ P .„, P„,,,„ee, he obeyed in various ways. 7«f''=".°V conduct towards W to love the brethren i but 0°' 7°'%™™";,,, action ,hem is to be influenced by >»^«- «V* ";^^;7P:7,he other contrary to love is »"»7"Jrn"Xny deviation from r •nrdrrs^racT* lotren^'ltVm.y nuUify the •"•"Strwas commanded to buiid 'V-e a^k «cco^'",^ ^ Z pattern shown him in the mount. Any ^«™"";„ 73„bedi- Le or dimensions of the P»"-" -^}*„,^«:'' ^l rlicorded ence, and caused his work to be rejectert. , to the praise of Moses mqht times in one chapter did as tlie Lord commanded him. ,j,^ So of the two Po'""f l"""'"r he use '& and Lord's supper is to be celebrated n the use ot D ^^ mine We are nol commanded to partane 01 ure Tper room and i„ a reclining posture, »Hho»g». Jes»s -^l« -^^^^^^^ the Lord's supper as usually ^/f;"^^f j?^,J has Vhown that full meal, he must have forgotten tha 1 aul ^«* ^ ^^e it was not intended to .^««»""/^f ' "tasaf^eX^^ Corinthians for turning it into a feast. It was ajter .ertmed"?r?;:nl to nUe an^ ^.tr^h^ruTbXvet if Jesus commanded helkvers to be baptized, t)»«" »"^^^^^^^^^ .;. persooH incapable of believing, »9 unconscious infants, are not' proper subjects of baptism. 10 If immersion be the proper mode of baptism, then sprink- Img or pouring is not. If, on the other hand, sprinkling or pouring be the proper mode, then immersion is not. To settle these pomts shall be my immediate endeavor. 1. And first, as to the mode, w.ll'^-V^T'''''^^ K^f' '^"^'^'^on of the candidate in This definition may be justified— 1. By the uniform meaning of the word baptizo. The umform meanmg, I say, for that it has one primary meaning, and which also constitutes the ground idea on which rest al the figurative or tropical significations of the word is mnn!"l['?'" -n^ ""^'^ abundant and incontrovertible testi- mony, as I will presently show. A.d"l^^'"^ learned friend affirms that "the words Wt^o to a the various modes of ablution or ceremonial purification, whether performed by washing, pouring, or sprinkling.'' He affirms, m fact that while baptizo means to tW,., ft means pour, to wash, to sprinkle, or to cleanse as well ; (hat i" that he word has «o< one fundamental sense which must be admitted even in its figurative uses, but that it has five or six different meanings, no one of which is more primary than another : ,n other words, that it is as allowable to tran late trinUe ^ '^'^'"^'^' '^ '^ '■""^"^' «"^ ^'^ pou^.^Ty venerable Dr. willing to imperil if not wholly sacrifice his IZ 'r /«P^«'«">' when I remember that the highest aiahont.es of every denomination in Christendom, not excep ' mg his own, are against him. *^ imif^^^r"^,? ^'"""^ '"' rendering of the woM will affect the import of the great commission. That commission was spoken by the Redeemer in the Greek language, wTich was Uie vernacular language of the country. " The Apostles o ^l.on ,t was g.ven spoke the same language, being as familiar w.th it as we are with our own. AVe we then To Bupr>08e that when Jesus told his Apostles to Wm tho e whom they Bould disciple, he used a' word whosrmeanrng was not fiifijj RiiH oMr out my Spirit upon all flesh." " Baptize out my spirit. Jno. ii. 15. « Jesus poured out the changer's money." " Baptized out the changer's money." E^. IX. 10. " Moses sprinkled the ashes up toward heaven." " Baptized the ashes up toward heaven." Heb. ix. 13. "The ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean." The ashes of an heifer baptizing the unclean." I will now direct your attention to two or three different kmds of evidence, and cite a number of eminent authorities to show that the primary and fundamental meaning of baptizo is what I have stated. And Jlrst, the testimony of Lexicographers. Before citing them, however, allow me to ask you to observe as I pass along, that W\q first meaning given of the word, is, in every chs(. to dip, imm, rse, or plunge. You will al-^o please observe iliat in the matnphor- ical uses of the word, the ground idea is always immersion that is to say, if it be rendered to wash, or bathe, or dye, the idea conveyed is that the wasJmuj, or bathing, or dying is performed by immersing or ;>/?m9'/// 7. (1). Donnegan. "To immerse repeatedly into a liquid; to submerge ; to sonk thoroiighly, to satuiate, hence to drench 18 with wine. Metraphorically, to confound totally ; to dip in r vessel and draw/ Passive, '» be .mmersed^ (2) Groves. "To dip, immeKe, imroeige, piun„ "t3)"iK!'"" Bapii'o, .0 baptize, to immerse, to "Vir'" To plunge, plunge in water, dip, baptize, ^V'^r^s^^'^'sapti.o, to dip, immerse, plunge i" water, .iP-o»tion » . ;t?Uur'oolue«; and when applied to the chnstmn '"f "' J' ;°;^,,„„',A„, o/ „.d iy the primitive « ''"'X^nd C a^to" we" observe."^ '"T9?»rrTo!mm;r,e in or wash with water, m (9). yarUiursi. i" ^. „.,,;,elv. to be immersed or token of puriflcafon. Figuratively, ^^.^^.^^ plunged into a flood or sea, as it were oi gi"= ""tiof iW. '• To dip, to immerse, to dye, because it i. ^"ni^ SrS •• To dip, im.nerse. to eover with wit" •■ to wa h eleanse ; to baptize in a sacred sen.e. m'ARobertmi. " To baptize, i"""erse wash _ nU Touna. " To dip all over, wash, baptize. }!: Is. Generally, and by the foree ot the word, it has the scnce of dipping and immersion. tomary to dip and immei'se any mm^ ''^ut *°;/.™r''''"'To dip, immerse, as we immerse thin/sVffbe purpose of walbing or ^'^""^■jy''^' • ^ ^" ?w'^, ?,;r the imrm.se of coloring or washing them, r';rplun;tsubme:i^:.o cover with water, also cUmse. to wash." u wail!i,et2:%;;r^^ P^-°-' -— . ^iP -. wet, oftei^"^™ff'tr''^''- ^'^P'''^' ^"^ ^'P «ft«"' *o wash cltained tip ^1 ' meaning of the word ; for in bapti.o is contained the idea of a complete immersion under water • at least so ^sbaptuma in the New Testament." ' sink \„ [r-l^^^- ^ ^' ^'™"^^^^^' ^"^™«^g«' '"b'^erge, lanse'rotme"^^^^^^^ *« ^'«^^^' perform ablutiSn; /'f9\^ 5^1' ." '^^P^^nS^' to immerse, *M6mcm.» ini mltf h '^''?; " :^«i^^'^'"^*' immersion, dipping, plun^- iv!;rel£^^^^ ^itl' which' one is or iifpp\nf tS"' " ^^P'^^™ P^^P^"-'^ '^"^'" - -™--- nurfftlv^f/r* "^«^/^*^^.t« dip, immerse, to cleanse or purify by washmg ; to administer the rite of baptism bantize ^a^^mna immersion, ordinance of baptism." ^' ^ r.f.u-''' ,^'^^f «^^ '^'^^«- ''Bapttzo, to dip repeatedly hL 1 f 1 ""'^ '^Z"?- ^"^^- ^^ '^«^he, soaked in w^.e ov^r' liead and ears m debt ; a boy drowned with questions." definTtio~/"o/bJptt>S?e1ui?°I f« S ^«-'-"- ^^« drench. In the second edit on tLl/»f^* '° *"''•'? r"'' «Pon, and ; , giving and lexicographers of former «'™'=7,7f *S wuLo fn the such as the actual usuage of the Greek langua^ apostolic age would not justity. ,„„„,;,„ written by I have before me » Catechism of Bapt"n'.«f J^. Bev. D. D. Currie Wesleyan »•"-!" »^'^ ^ meanings Eastern British America, m w^ich, among t given to baptizo, he includes 'Pf'f , ""S'^s which I fusiify these meanings he quotes six f *^ '"\7^,i,t ,he have just named. It is *'«™"' .TrH^^teia" editions conviction that he must |iave quoted t«.m f '^^"J,''^^^ ,,„ of these authors, since of sprinkling when they mea»t notliing «U- ■'■ ■' • - — - 16 In the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the Old Testa- ment, baptizo IS the word chosrn to express th« aot of Naaman «o, I dip or plunge. rff I 18 o the word HpI f''' ""^ P""''"^ "'^ sprinkling' belongs In those times, it will be borw in „„„d, there e"i ed «« he b ith uf Chmt, six trm,8lations or ,he Bible wei'e made woia signiljing to immerse. "This J< « ,>.«of • w- .act N«t one of the translations o ,1 BibT in TteZ eight hundred ^ears renders it sprM/e or««r „ le dl .^e versions made in l lal time rmArr ii l.„ i , . ® .-».»«., or transfer thHoM tl '^fclTpi^s:"'' T'"' the early Churches v.nde..tood to mean immel 7,^'" po.s, dy acount for ,beso things, if Z nS'e o) T" P^Mieed sprinkling and pouri4Voi bapfr'" ''"'''"^ diatrr^ri" irr:„ie'i::dt''''' '"'" ''"!™'"''<"- «--» .owe.; beeauseVe ;:^Xe^^;\r srr,;;:: tl^at bap affirm tli versions in perfoi versions <1567,) cleanse ( In th <1671), <1805), <1522), (1560). the Lov (1599), the Sp (moderi Gaelic ( these t which i Tot made f( (1839) the Gr «een th the wo stood signify were not bei person and p of the while word fiftv-h havin< kind •excell liave 1 Camp word pour 19 tl^at baptizo means to cross— for all their theological writers affirm that it means to immerse, and the people who use these versions always practice immersion— but because the imest in performing the ceremony makes the sign of tlie cross, t our versions— the Persic (1341), the Icelandic (1584), the Welsh <1567,) and the Persic (1812) render the word to wash, cleanse or bathe, which is completely done by immersion. In the following twenty five versions— th« Propaganda (1671), the SabiU (1816), the Amharic (1822), tiie Armenian <1805), Turkish (1666), the Tartar (modern), the German <1522), the Danish (ir)24), the Swedish (1534), the Dutch (1560). the Helvetic (1604) the Jewish German (modern), the Lower Saxon (1530), the Flemish (1475) the Hebrew (1599), the Polish Hebrew (modern), the French (1535), the Spanish (1556), the Italian (1562), the Romanese (modern), the Portuguese (modern), the Irish (1602), the Gaelic (1767), Wickliffe's (1380), and TynJale's (1526) ;-m these twenty, five versions baptiio is rendered by a word which signifies to dip or immerse. To the^^e might be added certain ver.^ions which have been made for the use more particularly of the learned, as Schotts (1839), Campbell's, Fritzsche's, and Kuinoel's, in all which the Greek word is rendered in this sense. It will thus be seen that of the fifty-four versions just named, four transfer the word, since in its transferred form, immerse was under- stood to be its only meaning ; four render it by a word signifying to wash, cleanse or bathe, because all these acts were performed by immersion ; seven translate it to cross, not because this was understood to be its meaning— for the persons using these versions know that it means to immerse and practice immersion themselves— but because the sign of the cross is made when the immersion is performed; while the remaining thirty-nine versions ail render it by a word signifying to dip or immerse. Not one oj the whole fifty-four translates \i pour or sprinkle, or re<'Ognizes these as having any place among its legitimate meanings. And this kind "of evidence might be still further adduced. Very excellent whole or partial translations of the scriptures have been made by Doddridge, Thompson, Wesley, Penn, Campbell, McKnight, and Stuart, in none of which has any W(M-d of the Bap family been rendered by the words sprinkle, pour or purily. One should suppose the testimony from IP- J\ 20 "!«Xa17»', „ ■ •^i"'™'"'' ?■■ 'metaphorical sense of fJMpltmg, as n ruin, or overwhelming as with sorrow In all the metaphorical uses of the word the ground Xi^^f .mmerston K, preserved, and forms the basis^on whfch thl unage contamed in its raataphorical use rests. ^ wo|dr^!!rzxsrsi:^r ''-"' ■■"'■'- °^ •"« /'WcA (A. D. 50). "A bladder, thou raavestbeim ".) mc weight, the rest is buoved un anri ;c^o,:i recovered " "m^jcu up, ana is easily .nueh resistanee, that it is ha'rdly im,Srs!: "Iprer-'''" Jhe followmg illustrate the\.toy,o„o^;1e„se''of the tentltltdfrf "*^-fP"-b>ethan those who are tempest-tossed in Ih. eep, whom waves receivino- one from ^.^^ over^h,U.dng (baptizing), do not suffer to Z i I' Achillei \n a few c of evils." Clemen is not w drunkenn flato. {baptized Moses were eas; are enotij -of the w was earn sprinklin baptizo y he transl *' but ei^ flowed, 1 overivhel Dt. ( passage which t quotatio baptize Hear says, "! of liters phers, iiusbanc on the position sermon! religion ditferer ages. withou down t not an other r make i or to ( siou «i the AchtVes Tatitis. " What so great Avrong have we done, M in a few days to be lohelmed (baptized) with such a multitude ""^ Cllment of Alexandria. " For drowsy is every one who i, not watchful for wisdom, but is plunged (baptized) by drunkenness into sleep." i i j Plato » And I, perceiving that the youth overwhelmed (baptized) (wHh questions), wishitig to give him a respite, ^""koses Stuart having cited many quotations says, ^' It were easy to increase the number of examples; but these are enough to exhibit both the literal and metaphorical sense of the word." It will be remembered that Dr. btuart was earnestly seeking to find some authority for pouring or sprinkling, yet in the thirty-nine examples of the use ^ baptizo which he produces, in not one single instance does he translate it by sprinkle, pour, wash, cleanse or purify; - but eight times h« translates it plunge, once dip, once oyer- fiowed, five times immerse, six times smJ5:, and eighteen times overiohelmedr „ , - „„„„ Dt Oonant in his boot *' Baptizein" has given every passage in the Greek Classics and early Christian writers in ^hich the word baptize occurs. And in thfe .vhole 236 quotations which he produces, not one is found m which baptizo means to sprinkle or pour. Hear Dr. Conant's own words :-" These examples, he savs " are drawn from writers in almost every department of literature and science ; from poets, rhetoricians, philoso- phers, critics, historians, geographers ; from writers on husbandiT, on medicine, on natural history, on grammar, on theology ; from almost every form and style of com- posHion, romances, epistles, orations, fables, odes, epigrams, sermons, narratives; from writers of various nations and religions, Pagan, Jew, and Christian, belonging to many different countries, and through a long succession ot acres In all, the word has retained its ground meaning without change. From the enrliest age of Greek Literature down to its close, (a period of about two thousand years,) not an example has been found in which the word has any other meaning. There is no instance in which it signifies to make a partial application of water b; affusion or sprmUing, or to cleanse, to purify, apart from tae literal act of immer- sdon^s the means oi ciuuuSiuq «* t/i..Sv"-o- 22 maintain ,Ut baptiJSl- . ^"'""S" 'o "• ""^ J'" osserts that I ba, ^^L, I ^^ *'"*'""'' '""""^ »'•• Ki'<' poi'i'-r.^h'r; s3rto"th'"' '"'"*'• ?'=°^''''"'^^" "■- .Septuagi„t a°„d o^ /^^^^ ve InfT.? "'^'j^'"'^" '" «''« The Sewuagint is the !.J 1 ,• , 'u* ^^ Teslament. oldTes.aientlt'L''G,rr„nrK J'L.t';"" ■"' '■'« two Jewish Eahbisin thereign „f P,oTe "^ Ph;i ^'.'1™"'^- early as the middle of the 8^™,! ° ^^ .''',^'P''"'' «« In this version there are 1 Z ''^ ^'*''' ^"''rist. word bapn.o, two f^m the OW t'T'"'' "'""^ <''"*""■" ">« from the Apocrypha i<^sUm,„i proper, and toe- »nd^Ii;;,p:;?;:ifJ"^K'"S;^'^ "• -Then we.. hed„w„ Hebreiv^iVi'rr : "i s r.i;r ^" '" ^°'*"-" ■'■''" •ignilies todip or il3! t P'"'''^''' '^ '''«•'• 'vl'ioh Rabbis who were wel S^i,, A , ''"•■'''■'"'"° J««»l' in this passage, ehose^ba^ „s fj^; »-'c«;-''^-. '-e, bapiizo. """ "gi'liealioa ihcy g„ve ,<> afll™. ,,,e ;^i , ,„),,-• „ J -;,-;^« ^'"uart .ghtiy «"tby nigh, ino ,|,„ valev IH . • ^'A "■"'' """' (%''/^..) herself, i„ the'eX:; ,'«:;, :■.,;;".? ""--<' "nderstand U. "i-'scir, aud so we mus«j •f- I )n, can gfve- it, and yet 'nkle, is per- id Dr. Ri(!liey h lie iacludes- ^' Let him le of Greek las either vc must 23 To say, a^^ some have done, that she sprinkled or poured water upon herself, or simply washed her hands, is a moat unwarrantable assumption. Either of these acts she might have performed in her tent. Th'3 fourth passage is in Eeclesiasticus, xxxiv : 25. *' Immersing [haptizomenos) himself from a dead bofly, and touching it again, what is he profited by his bathing." It will be perceived that the bathing (loutro) in this case was performed by immersion. To say here, as some have done, tiiat loutro means a washing — ani/ kmdoi' a wasJiing — a washing by apr'inkling or pouring, and then that loutro in this scns-^, and baptizo are [)recisely similar in meaning, is a most illogical way of weakening the force of the latter word. *' Reduced to a syllogism, it is simply this: — Baptism is a washing; Sprinkling and pouring are washing; Therefore sprinkling and pouring are baptism. It would be equally good logic to say — Immersion is a washing ; Sprinkling and pouring are washing ; Tlierefore sprinkling and pouring are immersion. It is (equivalent in logic to this — A man is an animal ; A horse is an animal ; Thcnitore a hor>e is a man." In Acpiila's Greek version of the Old Testament, made in the first half of the second century after Christ, .Job. ix: 31 is thus r«mdered ; " Even tiion thou wilt plunge (l)aptisei8) nie in corruption," — a good example of the metaphorical use of the word. In the Greek version of Symmachus, made in the last half of the second century after Olirist, Ps. Ixix : 2 is render- ed — " I am plunged (ebaptisthcn) into bottomless dejiths," — another instance of the figurative use of the word, as the Psalmist refers probably, not to literal mire (see English ver- »\ou) but to the distress which overwhelmed his soul. ^11 these examples, which about exhaust the use of bap- tizo in (ireek vei'sions of tlui Old Testament, show most conclusively that the word signitl<'S immersion and not pour- ins* or s{)rinklitig, And, now having shown the primary, uniform meaning of baptizo to bo immerse, if we so understand thr^ wmvi r.^ ♦! i' occurs i,. te n" T..^'™*::^'.^"""'"'""' ""'" "■--•e.' -ill be co„.,is,e„t and cotpT;; " """ "' '''■•''•^' '■-"'"^- haptUm to he coZT ™ '"'"''' ""^ definition of Koing ,„to t|,e ,.i„.,. ,„ I ,„„^ ,"''; .*'■ ^- ^ Now (l,e idea oC ,"^lu;ud, is too absu,:, t „:',;''*' tr "I'-P""™-^ °" ' f indeed baptized you fen ud„ il .' , ''"''" '"m-'df-^aj's, as in .1,6 auJhori.ed ve. 'io, 'rf ' """"'• ""' «"'"'' «">'«'■' "'Wfer- in some of iheearlv !''t'"'*"F, """"•""^'•'"''l .nent into our language A, d it i • ' "'" ^'■"' '''"»'"- •Vi,., Arabic a,^ EtbioptteL;;,,: '""" '" ""= ''"^'^'" «.'■£;•;; ^/r,.^':;':' 'V;:',':; ^'-'7- -^i--. •• That appear fronuhose tlu'^. ^ „dLh "^'"^ "'", '">''>■' ™"™« 'o f-t 1.0 baptised in tCI^^^' Z, b "b"' ."'' '',''"• '"""^•'^• We there was muel, walo, I e.'e " s ,''•"?' '" •^"°"' J8, 39, the Kunncb is ,enrelized of him "^ tile idea of >• pouj-ed on hirnselft^ajs, with water, IS translated J^ew Te.sta- thc Vulgate, i"e, " That ^ ^eems to 'in, namely, in ^]non, ts viii. ,30, lilip, "See :'"' "And P and the out of the as not by '« water — •ot at all, countries, '^pi'inlcling ^y\^y J do I'olh must E' Kupuoli ' into the into the yseir was ^ed '* he Y implies i i But says Dr. Richey, the Greek prepositions els, en, ek, upo, may be so rendered as to make these passages read very differently. 1 reply, this cannot be done without violence to one of the most fundamental and commonly received laws of exegesis. That law is that evei-y preposi- tion shall have its primary and ordinary sense in the render- ins given it, unless good and sufficient reasons for another sense aris*^ from its relation to the vei'b that goes before or the noun that follows after. This principle of interpretation will be adii.ilted by all scholars to be sound, and I should be sorry so seriously to reflect upon Dr. Richey's >cholarship as to intimate that he is not aware of it. Wh:it then, the question arises, is the ordinary and common use of the Greek preposition en .-* I answer in. It means m in Greek, just as really and truly as in means in in English. It occurs 2720 times in the New Testament, and in 2500 of these it is, in our version, correctly rendered in. " In over 20 other places, in would better express the evident meaning of the original." '* In oidy about 40 places out of over 2700 does it of necessity mean with" and these are " in the sense of the instrument or material with which any thing is done." On the very face of the scriptuie narrative, therefore, it is evident in the ratio of 2700 to 40 that " I baptize you in water," is the correct rendering. And further, what is very important to observe, as showing that en cannot be used in the instrumental sense of with in this expression, its connection with the preceding verb forbids it. That is to say, you cannot baptize a person with water, since baptizo, as I have shown, never means the use of w^ater in this instrumental sense. It never means the application of water to the person, but always the application nt' the person to or into the water. The man has never lived, and does not live to day, who can produce a sound aiTument to show tli;tt bajjtizo ever means the a[)plication n' water to a person- The water is always the element fo whieh or info which the person is applied. John could tint therefore have baptized icith water. In the original it is in water and so it should be rendered. So in the passage, " lie shall baptize you with the Holy i 26 «I'<«>1,« wcr« sUti,^, v4s fllt,I r,'" .'5'"'«'= " wlHTO ,h. Their so.ls were b-,lle I ;™h fh 7'"' "'" ""'y Ghosl." 'livinei„Hu.,,I'%'';^'^^j' '■»''«'''^''l. and "-"xl-d with the every s.Me. .. -n,- v t^"?"'!'"'""-''* a''^ overwhehned tliem on "■e.-e entirely i^^rh T '"""■• " ^' •'"'"'"^ '■""-»™'-« immerse the ,onlT?,f i i "'*'''' '"' "'« Me'si.-,!, ^vould brhim.elf:", tt ,Sd"th:;„""L'; ™^ «'"''' ■■™P»""^d and (brra wiilm, ,1 ""„ ""'™"?.'' / penetrate their being, expression, " pou "„' ,",1" J"".'":',!"'^ "'^ »f«-" A. to tlfe' ?"gi.t ,„ k„„4 thatt i 'I'r' ;] ; '^?'.?K°"'' . ■?"»-• - J8 not a niaterlil «nK..fo "o^^r.uive. Ihe spirit of God poured ou T : ICi^'o ^;";''''' r'"'^ «'" ^'^ ^•'^'X f spiritual inKce fi"o,™' u '''''^P '•'' '' "•e™Pa.--a.io,^ pervaded by diviLrgraee!" ' ^'""" I«="''"-a'e'l and -o and co™"q,tl't'!,£n Vh^'"' '"• ''''""'^ "" "<=' »"<'seq„ently 'T'z,t";.r?--^^:erir--- •<• -I-. ,n. , :,3" ,-;';^"r''' ™S'";"- P"'--'! in regard These pre ,o.i i"' h- ve b,.!," ""'''''"'• ''"' "/""<' A». cotmeclion in wbioh they "t nd and 7' '''""'" P'"""''"'' passam, reoiiire It Ti. ' '""'.•""I the obviona sense of tlie after S ver?,:„^tti,„UoSr""'r "■'""""'"«''""• - " d "■e haptisM, „f II™ Kn ,, f ,, ' "A"' '" "'" "'^'^""nt of ■nanne'r in wlnV.h he Z ;' tl^r^'r "" "? "''"''" ^ "> "'« aoeo„,,t of tbo l,aptis,Z tte KtCt""'''-, /^"' ''" ""^ the b„p,i,,„ „,• jj„„ , j,,,™_ ■'"'"■ -"I'd I m.gbt add, "on witb the vcrbnnd o,,i f P^'PO'^'ons it. cu,niK>si. and out of co.npo8,l,on or slandntg „ one, J ^^ reads. *' [fe promise was Holy Spirit wliero (he over that the oly Ghost." ed with the ned them ou ine element. ncnt Chris- n's followers ssiah M'ould >t imparted their being, As (o the lrtli of his h into the i'limersed ict of the ill refranl "1 signifi- P'wticular ise of the 0, 18 used unto, or ('Count of ••IS to the in this ;lit add, com|)osi. i? alone, I 27 are so explicit in their meaning, that the description amounts t€ a kind of word' painting — the whole scene of the immersion is made to stand vividly before us. They both went dowik — katcbesan, eis to udor — into the watet\ and then anebesan they came up, not/ro/» the water, but ek tou udatos — out of the water. But I have already shown from the use of the preposition en, as indeed «lie narrative raads, that John was baptizing t« M.« n»er Jiwf/aw, and that Jesus was baptized »n the Jordon, so that if even there could be any doubt as to the meaning of eis into and ek out o/\ it would be dispelled by the fact that these baptisms were perfoa-med in the river. If cannot be, therefore, that they simply went down to the river, and came up from the river. But Dr. Riehey has uoanaged — 1 hope not intentionally — to throw a little dust into the eyes ot ordinavy readers of the New Testanaent, by a strange manipulatioM of theee Greek prepositions, so as to make certain passages ia which they occur, convey n6> oth»r sense than nonsense. Unfor- tanately, however, for himself, this species of argument proves too much, and vebounds with killing effect. Fop instance, if he would have en mean with instead of in, let us put with in certain passages, and see how they will read " And John was baptizing with the river Jordan." Again, "And John was baptizing with the wilderness." And again, *' And John was baptizing with j-Enon near to Salim." But some may ask if btiptizo means to immerse, why did not the translators of the Bible so render it? I answer, because these translators had their orders from King James so to render ecclesiastical words as to protect the interests of the Church of England. The third rule imposed by King James on the translators was that " The old ecclesiastical words should be kept, namely, as the word Church not to be tianslated congrega- tion," ifcc. The fourth rule required them to render words of " divers aigniHcations" agreeably to "the analogy of faith," that is, the faith of the Church of England. In some of the earlier versions on which King James'' version is made to rest— for it is not strictly speaking a translation, but only a revision — in some of these versions, baptizo is correctly rendered immerse, and in the prayer book of the Church of P'ngland, it is dip to this day. 28 3. But thi \\ iij" I were baptized into J^su, Ch TI ^^ ""i"'"! *» ""«">' "f "b as •l...t like a, Cl,nVt ,vas a ill ? ? ^T"" '"'» '^<«"h ! F-ather, even .,o we alto Z^TJ Z. ■""" "'" ^^''^ ^j the '■f we have heerntt?, i^ 7""" """"«'' "f 'ife. For ^■•eciion." The .secondt Col 2 % ""«' -1 *!" '•«*"■- baptism, wherein also ye m-e ri'.n -ut""^ '""' '''™ '" faith of the oneralionrfp? , "'"' h.m through the dead." '*'""' "^ Giod, who hath raised him from the obvious at a glance lid l^f^'T "^^ ^^ ™™ersio„, are the number my "enrnWe rl„ , n '''JIT''"'' ''"'' ''"""S '« explain this manlfc, 'fell ^'^ ^'"''1.^' ''"^ '""S'" many of us as wore an :11^ ? t '"™y- P»"' '""y--. "As into -Lis death/b ,t S rI,? ° '^''''' ?™'' ^'-"^^^ "-"P'-ed hereto the mode o "ptifr^^ Zn"^! '^'"' \] "" •■''l'«»" indeed ! ' ™ *" ""— " marvellous discovery Wesley^ffri'Slwii am"|7sar ""T '"^. """'"^ *"'' «- "ony of John Wesley and Adam rr?" '" "'" "■'"'■ authorities in their oJn denottnaTio^'""'' "''" "™ """"-•'' hays John Wesley, referrin","'., • words are an allusion to the «n^"?„ ""' ^''fS^'' "these immersion." '^ ''"'^"'"' ""nner of baptizing by the whole body bein;',:t":: '-,■;= tXr " "'^ '"'"T"-' Benson, another emin .nf i; . /"^ /^^" '• oajs Joseph -Therefore we are ^JS^ T '^.l,"-: M^"'"^- (-■''ur,!;,, manner of bapiizin,, bv immll^t"'"'"^""K '» 'ho ancient leading Presb'yteria°„ ^^n.^nta to?' . i'^"^' P''' ''"'™^ « able that the apostle in ihrnV e ' n "• """S'^'bcr prob- of baptizing by immersion ^^ "' """""" '" ""' '^"^W"' no't i:cX^*;;g;- ---i^-byt,.,.i«n, i„ his e , v^iinst submitted to be baptized, that 29 '■/ler evident of baptism ages. The nj of us as Ill's death, ito death; f*d by the liTe. For ess of his liis resur- ith him in 'ough the 1 from the the clear *rsion, are d among e sought ay.s "As baptized allusion iiscoveiy that our lie testi- standard " these izing by le here nt^rsion, •Joseph ^'liurch, ancient rnes a r prob- custom in his d. that is, to be baried under the water by John, and to be raised ou'' of it again, as an emblem of his future resurrection. In like manner the baptism of believers is emblematical of their own death, burial, and resurrection." Says the Assembly of Divines, " In this place the apostle seemeth to allude to the ancient manner of baptism which was to dip the persons baptized, and as it were to bury them under the water for a while, and then to draw them out of it and lift them up, to represent the burial of our old man, and onr resurrection to newness of life." And so Beza, Calvin, Chalmers, and a host of other distinguished Presbyterians testify. Says Conybeare and Howson, eminent Episcopalians^ " This passage cannot be understood unless it be borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion." Says Bloomfield, " There is here plainly a referene^i to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion; and I agree with Koppe and RosenmuUer, that there is room to regret it should have been abandoned in most Christian Churches." And Archbishop Tillotson, Daniel Whity, Dv. Wall, and a multitude of other Episcopalians say the same thing. So testify Schaff, Tholuck, Neander, Meyer, Gesenius, and other German critics. And so says Dr. Watts : — Do we not know that solemn word, That we are buried with the Lord ; Baptized into his death , and then Put off the body of oiu' sin." 4. If now we consult the practice of the church in the apostolic titne, we shall find that, without a shadow of doubt, the universal practice of that time was immersion. Says Bretschneider.* '' The apostolic church baptized only by immersion." Says Winer. " In the apostolic age baptism was by immersion." Says Tholuck. " The candidate in the primitive church was immersed in water, and raised out of it again." Says Neander : Baptism was originally by immersion." Says Guericke : Baptism was originally administered by inimersiwi." Says Rheinwald in his Archeology original, apostolic practice." J; Hahn -. " AnfTordiiior fo anastolical instruction anci " Immersion was the i 30 -ample, baptism .as performed b, i.^ersbg the whole -^';foS ccmenta^or: "Baptism »'^e bo iy in watt3r- ^^^'^ ba,X.sm-the immersion of Sajs Calvin, speakincr of Jobn q • 9q i a "From these words if m.,/^ c ^ ^"'^ Acts 8 : 38 1 administered by Joh. LTcVA ^^7"^ '^'''' ^^P"'^"^ ^a tinder water." ^ '"^ ^''"^^* ^y P'^""g''ng the whole body Says Jeremy Tavlnr • « Tu the se„.,e of ,h. woM b. "if; t T""'""'' T P'"-^^™<^« "f ej^ample of our blessed SavTo^"..''" """""""dmeni and ,l,o hajs John Weslev • " M«^., w i ■ baptized according'^ Ibe c's LTlf ! '' T^ «'^™" ''''?«• ''^^ ™l| of the Churd, of EnX 'd t "l* '"■^' .'='"'«=h and the Says Dr. Wall » iL °, " . ''^ immersion." brateLorfclliehfarr'f';'?'''"'^''"' "'«'- <>f - -le. general and ordinary way with tFn • .f?"™™'™" ^ " The to b„|„i,, by immersion ^ This ^'T '■'""' '''"'''"'"' "as ■nfinite number of nas-a^es V 1 f'"'" ''"'^ •='«"••- by an endeavors of sucirpSobap.^,, ?"""' ^"f P"^ "'" ««'k ■"•g:;.iveofi,. Soalso* C;. ?o T"'*^ '™''"""» 'be dishke of the profane smff^ri-r! '''^°"" ""'' "bow a Kngli,!, a".i.Pa,doLptSs IrS r^l^-'P''^ f?"'^ "> 'he I' was in all probabilifv ,L -^ "■■ "'^"' "'« «'' •'--<> ^"l the an<.ient chrisiians did reVeive .?,? TT'^ ""^ ''^ «'bieh want of prudence, as well 7s !f L! . "P"""- "^'* " K'-eat «n ..Iversary wha't is eer". , ly true !^^ ' '^'''"r '" *-"""• '» As for sprinkling, I .,w I,., ,7 j' , """y be proved so. ^ Says !he E,,4:c oS. y' :i:''''t"'' '■' «■''" "«e it." duri..« ,ho first ag,Z{tLt^nT''V r"^' '■» "'•*'" 'bat afenvards, .be p?aelice o^imm ';.„""'' '•"'•,™"^ «■"'""« seems in.fced never ,o be den-rt.dr ^'"'"^'"^- ■'""l «i,ieb «dmu,i-tered to a person „?X "l' ""''•^l" "'b^'re it was bedolsiekness-wWch V tns';!':; "f <'-"h, or upon the P"v. ■.OS of bapM-sm-o ;r; ,, "i"»""'8»-b,g 'bo (i,II supply of water. Exoent in , I "" """^ """ " s"«i",nt 'ort'l'or immerse tl^e X'e ll"""'''' ™-^<-'Mhe custom wa, ■arabc, , C; oloped.a .■ « i„ ,he p..i„i,ive times, .hi. i 31 ' the whole ' " I'Japdsm nmersion of ^cfs 8 : 38 1 apiisni was whole body >e ancient irsuance of nt and the 1 days, was h and the of a cele- which he an : «' The itians was ^•'; by an the weak main the show a ye to the dipping, 5ed Lord, hy wliich '^ a great gi'ant to "oved so» it." dent that "oniuries d wijich i"e it was pon the tlie full ufficirnt oni was es, this s ■.fs. i ceremony [baptism] was performed by immersion, as it is to this diiy in the oriental cliurches, according to the original signification of the word." All these authorities, I may observe are Psedobaptists, and scores, if not hundreds of others might be adduced. And if we trace the history of the church from the Apostolic time down through the following centuries, we shall find that this evidence, so far as it proves any thing for the mode of baptism, favors the Baptist view of the cas(^ As already observed, the Greek church practices immersion to the i)resent lime. Says Moses Stuait : "The members of this church are accustomed to call the members of the western Churches sprinkled christians by way ot ridicule and contempt. They claim that baptizo can mean nothing but immerse, and that baptism by sprinkling is as great a solecism as immersion by aspersion : and they claim to themselves the honor of having preserved the ancient sacred rite of the church free from change and from corrup- tion, which would destroy its significancy." Infant baptism, as I will show presently, sprang up in North Africa, about the year 200 after Christ. As I am now speaking of the mode, what I wish here to remark is, that for many hundred years, even in the western church, when infants were baptized, it was almost universally by immersion. The principal exception was in the case of sick persons, who were unable to be immersed, and as the error of the sacramental efficacy of baptism had now began to prevail, they were sprinkled or poured in their beds. This was the case with Novatian, who is the iirst recorded instance — please mark the expression — the Jirst recorded instance of pouring or sprinkling. Eusebius, the father of eccl<\siastical history, speaking of this case says that Novatian " fell into a dan^jerous disease, and because he was very like to die, he was baptized in his bed where he lay." " From this period, that is, from A. D. 200 onward, sprinkling was permitted, but only in a case of necessity, and in prospect of death ; originating, as I have said, in a false view of the necessity of the ordinance to salvation." *' h\ the Church of Rome, pouring was first tolerated, and only tolerated in the 8th centuiy, while immersion was still the established law of the church ; and so things stood for several hundred years. •^ ' '♦'^i i ! 32 this day instructs the de~^^ 'ZfTu 7''' ^'"^^''^ ^« d.screetlj am] warily' b'tiMt Vn ^^^" ^'P '" *^^ ^^^er fhe> shall certify tha tl" d ii !'' "\^^^«Pt'«"> ' but if pour water upon it."' ^ '^ ^^^'«^. it shall suffice to Cl^h'^f^^a^rs^r^:!/"^^^^^^^^^^ of the observed by all ^hr^stiaX; ISO r"""'^'" ^"^ religiously »'7 the Church of England '' '"'''' """"^ "^'^^ "PP''^^'^"' In Scotland, however ^nrir.]-!- ordinary cses till .^ te ' Ke ]{ 'J^^ ""■' """'' P™''"""' i" even in tl,e rrign of Edwa d yr """'"".' ""'^ '" Kngland, observed. " Kecor,is of tht h '™™"'--'"!" -™« eomSoni; pe.-so„a,e3 illustrate! T, e " s.Me'm:" "' P-'" "^ ™'>'' fidest son of Henrv VIT '"vement.>. Pnnce Arthur P™.cess Eli.abet^hld^EdCd vj'"'""' """ ^° -" •'"« seems to have b.-en the H^J « Paragraph. "France baptism by af^sZ w uel o,^;';""'^, "" ""^ ^™'« "here »"«J- [">« » l-asin. This learned assemblv £,n "'"""^ ""^ ^""^ '■"« fon ., fo baptise in had ber^ w. "<>' «™'^'n'>er that chnstian. l^„g before the bea X "V P ^ "" P""''"'^'= snice chnrches were built- but th .^ "f Popery, and ever »'on use of baptizin.-, w'-,s rp f -"P""?''""' '"'■ "'« ™™- hm and then in otherpopfeh couli'. T"''"?"'' P" I''''"""" And that accordingly a Itho e oo ,n,™'^-'" T'' "' ^"P^n'- power of the Pone is n, i, ™™"'«-^ '" "'"oh the usurped '?/< «# rfw»/of ch dmt 'r;,.'"™^^'^ l-^^" o,vned, hLe conntries in the worW „h eh h.d ""' ' *•"' "'"' ""other '•"y do still u,e it \an^ h. i"r'' '•"K""'^'' ^^ autho- necessity, were never used by P.,„T, '' '"'P' '" «'«o of "batsoever, till by tiemselvel wt,t' T "? «"'"■ <-''"-isli«n8 custom of ponrini or sorinlTln , "" ''«'" ""'<• of this ''»p&m, i^ to be uS;i:f:,r''''''?"^'''"'''->''-^«of western parts of Europe IritTf ".' "^^ """"" '° 'l'™« elBe. The Greek Chu^l in a 1 b u*^ '"t""""y "» «''ere use nnmersion ; and they l"!' " ""''"r/ ''' -"oessliU -0 of Sickness, well '^ttd'^vru. "it'l'^t.^Tr do ft ft 33 I pmctice o*^ le Kubric to in the water t'on, ' but if lall suffice to ivine of the leligiourilj is approved practiced in in P^ngland, commonly I or noble ^e Arthur, M-ere the ^ a whole " France 'I'ld where > in health, 'hey [the 3 font into aiber that primitive and ever ' the com- 1 France ' Popery. e usurped -ed, have all other lis autho- case of christians ^ of this ^y use of to these o where ^oes still Kcept in so do all other christians in the world except the Latins. That which I hinted before, is a rule that does not fail in any particular that I know of, viz.; all the nations of christians that do now, or formerly did submit to the autho- rity of the Bishop of Rome, do ordinarily baptize their infants by pouring or sprinkling. And though the English received not this custom till after the decay of Popery, yet they have since received it from such neighboring nations as had begun in the time of the Pope's power. But all other christians in the world, who never owned the Pope's usurped power, do, and ever did, dip their infants in the ordinary way." Such was the aspect of this question down as late as the middle of the I7th century. In Dr. Lightfoot's Journal of the Westminister Assembly, which sat from 1643 to 1649, and by whom the Presbyterian Confession of Faith was approved, we have these words : " After a long dispute, it was at last put to the question, whether the Directory should run thus : ' the minister shall take water, and sprinkle or pour it with his hand upon the face or forehead of the child," and it was voted so indifferently, that we were glad to count names twice ; for so many were unwilling to have dipping excluded, and the votes came to an equality within one : for the one side was 24, the other 25 ; the 24 for the reserving of dipping, and the 25 against it. And there grew a great heat upon it. And when we had done all, we concluded upon nothing in it ; but the business was recommitted." On the next day when the subject was again taken up it was carried, principally through the influence of Dr. Lightfoot, that it would be " not only lawful, but also sufficient " to pour or sprinkle water on the face of the child. I ough perhaps to add here, that the vote might have resulted th^ other way, had it not been for the feeling— I will not not sae animosity— against the Baptists ot that day, which seems y have inspired not a few of the members of the Assembly, to Is it not then surprising that any mind should be closed conviction touching the meaning of baptizo, and the prevato lence of immersion in the history of the church, seeing tha- the evidence on these points is so vast and incontrovertible ?t And what of the prevalence of immersion throughout Christendom at the present day ? Why just this : that it we except the Roman Catholics there are far more that practice 3 I i 3i immersion than SDnnklinrr n^i • but reliable stat ft c" 2^ '^ "'»™^^ ^''"^''^ ^^^ '"«">'' there are in theoZkn I *^^' ^^''''^«^- ^o^" instance millions that pLtrLt^st^^^^ -Ji^erent branche^ioo' together, including the R^mTc^th^r 'T °^ Christendom Catholics, and putting the Greek rr.ini ^'"^ ^"' ^^« Church together, it is found that tL ,p T^ "^^ ^^P^'^^* spnnklin. are i„ a great a"n' dti ^^^ ^^'^ P-ctice 'he great numbers who nrl.^1 f '•gument for sprinkling i„ Of course, U is ^n^; tS ' ^'^ S"" a "T '*'"-" tmm«mo«, and has done so frnl .1 « '^'""''''' Praclices wi.h the Baptise den„rna.io^rt UcaTeui?"'' '""P'^ " H .ts»:r;;^- ^^ ^'•p'-:t"'-?oT,;ern.at,ers, the'„"„'x\To ;"rS ::;inXTT '"i ^r"""- ^- do not profess to do it on thpT,,,h ^- '/"P'J ''«'=«"*« they sole authority is the churd 'VCels f„1 ' n ""'"h ''''"''' emment Baptist minister who !,»? v u" '^""«'' Elates an >n the Catholic Communion TheJ 1 "i^'f "'j" " » ^''^hop copalians. The Baptistm^ister i7n!! ' ^!' ""S'^''^' %'»• New Jersey, called on biTbroA^'Ih^'"^'''">"-^ thestateof course of conve«ation he saTd to h^ t'^f '""' "';^'^- ^" "■« ■s U that you and 1 took such different^ P f""^"'' ''«« apart-I becoming a Bantist and T^ 5^* ""'' «<" «» f»' said the BishoD "that i« I •', ^"^ * Catholic h" " n " Bible and I ^iowed he Ch^r!'^^''"!' '/™ '"'•"<'-<' «^- t le «oman Catholics, instead of L, 1^"'' ".'' " '■'«^» 'h"t 'l-Bible,,.gula.e,he^bL^;^h^ctrl'''' ""■""'' ''^ unpnrthrtr^-ii^X i^^ - ^■•^'- - ch«;ch,.as expressed uf the d^cees of c! ""f"""^ "^ "'^'■' nowhere in Chrislendom wassnrinl" ""''■ " ^ever and mordinary cases,unt°l the cou^icil 'Tr'"' ^"""^ """"^O by the Pope in 131, ; and „„, eariier th,"'-""".' '"^'^""''-'d tury was pouring received as th„ ■'" ">« '^'h cen- Roman Church." ""^ general custom of the j^iji- 85 In Milan, even the Catholic Church practices immersion to this day. From all these arguments, it must, I think, be pretty evi- dent to unprejudiced minds, that immersion, and not sprink- linapttsontai\ and m our version is rend^'red " they wash," but ought to have been renden-d "they immerse." Now observe 1. It has always been a custom in the East for men to l)athe themselves before eating, when they have been out on business. 2. It is expressly commanded in the law that the children of Israel should bathe in water so often as they had become unclean in the sense of the law. From Lev. 15th chap, and Num. 19th chap., it appears that not only pi^rsons but various articles of furniture, &c., which were eoiiaidered unclean, were purified in this way. But 3. The text tells us that the Pharisees did more ihau the law re(juired, so that they even when they had been at home would not eat unh^ss they had washed their hands [nipotontai] ; but when they had been out to market, where they might have become polluted, they did not eat, unless they had bathed or been immersed [baptisontai]. And 4. It is also said that the Pharisees did this thin-^ to keep the tradition of the elders. If therefore we know what the tradition of the elders is, we have a plain exposi- tion of the passage. Let us liear what Maimonides, a highly celebrated Jewish Rabbi of the 12th century says— an authority whom the Jews place next to Moses himself. He says, " generally whenever in the law washing of the flesh or of the clothes is mentioi>ed, it means nothing else than the dipping of the whole body in a laver; far if a man dips himself all over, except the tip of his little fnr/er, he is still in his unclean- ness. If the Pharisees touched but the garments of the common people they were defiled, all one as if they had touched a profluvious person, and needed immersion ; and were obliged to it; hence when they walked the street they walked on the side of the way, that they might not be defiled by touching the common people. In a laver which holds 40 seahs of water, every defiled man dips himself." The Talmud— a b( ok containing the doctrines and laws of the Jews— and the hereditary custom of the Jews to this day, confirm this testimony of Mainujiaides. TIhkh all things most clearly show that i)apf.izo here as everu where, does not mean wa>h bwt immerse. So also of Its derivative, baptismos in Heb. ix. 10, rendered in our version, divers washings. In tlve original it is diverts immersions, and so it should be rendered; lor 1. The law of Moses [Lev. xi. 32] required that all kinds of unclean vessels should be put into water &c., and 2. As Maimon- ides tesliiies, touehing the customs of the Phari^ics, " ihey i.'p iill unclwUii vi33d&.." ^ ii« that buyvs a vessel ibr th^ 41 use ot a feast, of Gentiles, whether molten vessels or glass, they dip them in the waters of the laver, and after that they may eat and drink in them. With this testimony agam, both the Talmud and the present custom of the Jews correspond." The tables mentioned in Mark vii. 4, were quite easy of immersion. Says Yahn in his Archeology : " Tlie table in the east is a piece of round leather, spread upon the floor, upon which is placed a sort of stool. This supports noth- ing but a platter. The seat was the floor, spread with a mattiess, carpet, or cushion, upon wliich those who ate sat with legs bent and crossed." » These tables, together with the mattresses or cushions, might easily be defiled in the sense of the law, and needed therefore, as often as this happened, according to the traditions of the Pharisees, to undergo a ceremonial cleansing by means of immersion." " Every vessel of wood " says Maimonides, " which is made for the use of man, as a table or bed, receives defilement ; and^ were washed by covering them in water." So say Meyer and Luther, and a host of Pa^dobaptist critics, as Beza, Grotius, Lightfoot, Rosenmuller, Kuinol, Jahn, Schleusner, Olshausen, Geo. Campbell, McNight, Wetstein, and Lange. I have thus shown from the genius and structure of the Greek language, from the uniform testimony of Greek Lexicons, from the translation of ba|)tizo in the ancient versions of the scriptures, from the uniform practice of the early church, from the universal practice of the Greek church, from the almost universal practices of the western churches down to the 17th century, from the unshaken testimony of Greek classic literature, in the whole range of which for two thousand years the word baptizo uniformly mean* immerse and notliing else, from the testi- mony of critics, commentators, and duirch historians of every thade of sentiment, from the circumstances attending the administiation of baptism in the apostolic age :— from all these sources, I have shown that the sole, uniform meaning of Itaplizo is to dip or inmn r>e, and so accordingly we must understand it iu the great commission of our Lord. What then, in all candor, I nsk this intelliweiit as«Gm-blv L'ornes of Dr. Kichev's nssurtion tlmt. l»iinfi'/.n nieai hey baptii wmB MIMIiMi 42 ing, pouring, and sprinklmg, as well as immersion ; and that baptism by sprinkling is the most scriptural and appropriate ? I leave it with you, my Wends, to decide. i5ut It immersion is the scriptural mode of baptism, who according to the word of God, are the proper persons to' receive the rite ? r r r II. I will now endeavor to show, and will be as brief as possible. As Baptists we believe not only that immersion is the only scriptural mode, but that believers in Christ, or those who give credible evidence of faith in Christ, are the only proper subjects. If any thing we attach more importance to the latter than to the former. On listening to Dr. Richey's second sermon, I could not resist the impression that he felt himself that he had an exceedingly difficult task to perform. And I wish here to call Tu /l"^"i'''" ^""^^^ "'^''y important admissions which he elt obliged to make throughout. For instance, he admitted ih^t there i^ -ot in the whole New Testament a single command for the baptism of infants. On what then, the question arises, does he i^st the practice ? Simply on inference. That is to say, the Dr. would have us believe the practice ofincludino- infants in the church was so general under the old economy, that when the new economy was introduced, it did not require a command to enforce it, and so it was taken for granted. On this inference, then, according to this reasoning, this positive institution-positively defined and guarded as the great initiatory ordinance of the gospel— the door to the New IVsta- ment church, solely rests. We shall see presently whether such basis is sound. And here I would call your attention again, not to another admission ofthe Doctor's, but to an omission-the omission, namely, ot every single passage in the New Testament which goes to show that repentance and faith, or a change of heart IS required before baptism- Not one of these passages doe. he refer to, and the argument they furnish is very strong and conclusive. '' o « v3!n^!''^^ ^'r f^r". ""• '^^ Samaritans. We are told that 1 hilip preached Christ unto them "-that great numbers believed and were baptized, both men and women : no infants, you observe, for they did not and could not believe. So of the Ethiopian Kunuch : There was first instruction as 48 irvh^'^^P'^'""' ^f^ ^^^^'P' "'^'h^" ^^^i^est with all hy heart thou mayest " be baptised. " So of Cornelius and his friends at Cesarea : the same course was pursue ' In- formation was followed by conviction, and Ln'^ctL by repentance. Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord " So of the Corinthians. It fe said tha' many of them "hearing, believed, and were baptized!" hi, hV"/ ' 'P'"'"^ , ^^^" ^^« ''^^^i^^d t»^« ordinance at his hands, were required as a previous condition, to " brin- forth fruits meet for repentance.'' So it is told of our Lord that he madehm disc.pies before he baptized them. Baptism lowa'rd Go5.'''''"^'^'' " ^^' '"^"'^ ^^^ ^''^ ^«"«^'«"^« This also appears from the expression, " baptizing them into the name of the Father" &c, as occurring in the great commission and " baptized into Jesus Christ "in the language oi Tm\. Now into in these expressions, as every scholar knows, is the proper translation of the original word, and expresses the meaning of the ordinance, as in does not. The words of Dr. Wayland are to the point. He says : « In the name of any one means merely hy the authority of, and nothing more. The word name here, however, has a totally different signification. The riam. 'of the Father, Son, and Holy Orhost, IS only the Hebrew mode of signifying * the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.' . . The idea of the formula of baptism IS then, baptizing into the Father, Son and Holy t^host. Thus to baptize or to be baptized into any one, is into a profession of faitli of any one, and sincere obedience to him. ho the children ot Israel were baptized into Moses, that is, into d.scipleship to him. They took him for their leader and lawgiver, nromising to obey and follow him. Precise V, thus do we understand the formula of baptism. The person baptized abjures the world, and enters into covenant with God ^^was^n enemy to God by wicked works, he is now a child ot God through faith in his son ; he was dead in sin, he is now alive to God! The spirit of God dwells in his heart, and to the spirit he professes to subject every thought and purpose, every motive and action. We could baptize any thing in thf. name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The Episcopa- Jian service has this expression (we think improperly) in the ceremony of marriage. The Romanists baptize bells, stand- arUs, or any thing whatever, in the name of SfQ. We cannot 44 however, baptize ivio the Father, Son, and Holv Ghost any tiling but a rational being, a sinner repenting of his sins and now entering into covenant with the Father of his SpiHt '' ^pm-^" I>r Hodge, Professor in the Presbyterian Theological Seminary at Princeton : « In the phrase /o be baptized IZ obLrdV.'' ""''^^^r )'' ^^^"^"'^ ^«-^'- Seating th object, design or result for which any thing is done. To be baptized mto Jesus Christ, or unto Moses of Paul, t'erefoi^ or Paul, as their followers, the recipients of their doctrines and expectants of the blessings which they have to bestow!" ' _ 10 speak of baptizing an unconscious infant into Jesus Christ ^simply absurd For .0 one can eonie into the iSit^n to Dr'did"fL';::rar"^ ^"^'^' ''^ ^^^^^^^^-^ ^^-^ ^'- did^trt'JnfiTJ''°u^'.*^'^'^''''P^"^^ references in which he did try to find the baptism of infants. To follow the order he ' oftetraT r °'^ T^^' !'^ ^^"«^"«Se of the comXtnl!! l:xo teach all nations, baptizing them," &c. The Dr verv Z^^lf\^''^'^' passale should be rendered-^'aJ Sth "^ '"-''^S ^^^' G'-eekword ..atez^^a^. l^s £ 1^0 h l^hf"^' ^"' -^-^""-tely for him,this rendering become n^-- T'"' ''"'1 '^ '"'^"^'""^^ «« '""^^^ intelligence tS m.n r ^T^' ^' ^^ ^''^''"' ^"^ i»^a"ts can do neither When we disciple persons we do in fact teach them~a learner and a disciple are the same. That^'Ts'^r^- ^' ^r""'" '^'^' "^''^"' ^^ ^"^^' ^^"»«t l^e discipled. Anat 18, in discipling a nation, we cannot deal with itasi an"~Xbrf ^-^ ^r'r ^^^^ -'"PO-d o/ewLl": compose them wrf'''^^ ^r^^''"^ the individuals who CmTdi oinf « Y ' ''?' ^''^ '^"'^ individuals in nations to and Zl.rl^^^ .1' ""' ',''°'' ^^'^^ ^''^ «^-^ ^^P^^I>1« of hearinc and embracing the gospel, which infants are not ? ine truth is, infants are not referi-ed to, and were nnf no tn f ^fr^'' '^''y ^^^'«^^' "«'• ^««t because they do not believe, for they are capable neither of accepting the gospe^ Inemen^n' rf -T '^ ''^''''''^ ''' «" ^^' otTiei>7he rS hev^n?/''"^''''''''^^' «»^Ji^' they die before reacning the years of moral accountabniiv. flw.v ove 'VMib*'-, saved by virtue of that atonement. '-'"''■'' "^^ ^oub.cs 45 the m^l«'7''M ""i^'^'i^^y I>r. RIchey for infant baptism, Is itSdon^of hk r ''• ^^' !'^^'^^^ ^'' '-^^^^^th^ Particular loTeZoJ''lT%'\ ^*f-';»"ff^r "ttle children to to U.l in nriJ- 1 ' ^^'^'P' ^ '^"^^ ^^ "« better than reply lo ill? //wt'^ ! ?r ^°r^«' ^^hen he said that Christ did TntT \f%ftidren, nor ivere they brought to him for hS Zr/ ^ ^^''f ^'^ "°* ^^P*'^^ them-and we know IvoZ'tr ''"'''' ^''^'"f^ told that he baptized none- avi ^hev. i"' f "''T *' ?^' • ^^ k"«^^ ^^^-^ ' «« Matthew says they were brought to Jesus that he might bless thera, or B^fLvsT'l "^'^'"k"^^* '""^•^"^* lay hfs hands on them. J P.Ln^' .f r '' ' Y' ^^'^""^^ " «^ «"ch is the kingdom of the similar expression m the sermon on the mount. "Bless- ed are the poor in spirit, /or theirs is the kingdom of heaven^ lV.n7.K f-'"^^' "V^^^ the poor in spirit are fit sub- irefirl h1"u^^7' ^5 ^ ^^P^J'^f the dear little innocents wUlfnnt r -"^'^r ^^ ^'^^'""' ^^'^^^"«t let them go there vvithout baptizing them, which confessedly does not make hem more ht but which may do them a serious harm, leading them in after life to suppose that it has done something towards saving them. However as Dr. Richey admits the passage has nothing o do with baptism, I need not consider it further, mn.l ;Vv™ 1 character is the passage in 1 Cor. vii. 14, inas- much as i^ also contains not the slightest allusion to baptism. In this passage the unbelieving wife is said to be "sanctified by the believing husband," and the converse "else where your children unclean, but now are they holy." rhat IS to say argues Dr. Richey, the children must be irr '/ 'r.^"*^ i '^'^ P^^^"^- ^^^ PJ^^^e observe, dear friends, that no reference is made here to the baptism of the children it is not the subject the apostle is writing about. He is simply showing the Corinthians that the husband on becoming a christian should not put away his yet unbelieving or pagan wife, for on this ground, he might with equal good reason, pu away Ins children. But inasmuch as he would not put away his children, why not continue to live with his wife, he.r motiier. " He argues, in other words, that it is not con- taminating for a christian to live with an unbelieving compan- loMccaf^e It IS not contaminating for him to live with his cm dren. But if it were true that the children were all conse- crated to Uod in their infancy, there would be no force in this argument." The heathen companion and the baptized ohild- ren,in that case, would not, as the apostle assumes, stand on he same level. Therefore the passage goes rather .to prove ^at the children were not baptized, than that they were. Besides if, as Dr. Richey and others affirm, the children ought to be be baptized on the faith of the believing parent why not baptize the unbelieving wife on his faith also, for she is said to be sanctified by her believing husband. The ^'w'!: ?7''^'' X." *^^ ^^^^^"S "'''^^^'^ ^"^ commentators as DeWette, Meyer, Neander, Ruckert, MuUer, and a host of others, have given up the passage, and admit that it not only does not prove infant baptism, but actually disproves it. Nothing can be more plain and certain than that oiie person cannot participate m the benefits of Christ's atonement through ih?- .K •^"?'^'- . ?^^ '* i« that many persons claiming to be in their right mmd, and to follow the teachings of sent? ture, nevertheless believe this, is quite past our comprehen- sion. Again, ray venerable brother has quoted in support of intMit baptism, the words of Peter on the day of Pentecost, 1^ or he promise is unto you and your children." I am sorry wWK^'i?"'*'^ little further, for then we should have seen vvhether the cnudren were baptized or not. The whole pas- sage informs us,>5<, that the hearers of Peter were pricked n their heart so that they cried, " What shall we do ?» Second that they were exliorted to repent and be baptized for the mnission of sms; and third, that they who gladly received the Tfr ?' ^''f «bildren-were baptized and added to (or ioin- ed) the church. Then those who believed and were baptized "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine, and fellow- ship, and in breaking of bread and prayers." -Such was the order of the apostolic Church at Jerusalem, the true mother church of all the christian churches whidi should afterwards be organized in the same way; for whhout t^^o^'^l^^J^^' fbr the instruction and p^^rn of ChrTs^ I may here observe that the children spoken of by Peter do not refer to infants, but rfe.c.nrfan<,, in which seij the word often occurs in scnpture. " For the promise,"-that is the promise just quoted by the apostle from the pl-ophet Joe -is ZUrj r'\ ^ri'^f^T-^ V-^^-A and an that are afar off. For Joel had said that God would pour out his ) 47 on the day of PentJn.t T t ^*"^ pi'omise was fulfilled stated that " the Jailor believed on God wUh a 1 hi, C: ^ As to the household of Lvdia Dr RIpK^v fK- i u wh^i > • ""^"^^ '" ""^ """iness of felling Durole for Hev:. SruMl^Set-r^^^^^^ -' ''-■ , '?« .»"f "ry "/ Me saiK(s. It must therefore have hppn <. W»?"T ??"'";""" ">« "oblemanat Capernaum "be Zt h", ,'" ■"'""' '"'"**•" S"«ly there fa noth™. like mfant baptism in any of these households, and Dr fehev The. B"uf r:":^"" ""r"'"" ^Oin-Zvisionfo seeU J them. But he affirms that in all his intercourse with B-in homehZ^ A^T J^'^-'-'^yono time, baptized an%„lire aBaDtktVnint ■' lu"' ■"""'■ ^"■•Pri^d. as there is scarcely who ha noTr;? '^«<""'"fy »f "^ny years experience, wno nas not baptized one or more. Indeed it wim m» hoid ISy."" '"'""■ ^^- R-hey, to baptize an 'e,;'ti;rhou"^ frie"nds-a?,dTr' ^T"'""'} '"' ""« "'"eh our Pcedobaptist 1 lends— and among them Dr. Kichey— conceive to be the .tronge.t argument for infant bap.ism if this : BapltmmX m 48 im old unde; t e Cf ;■'" "T ^■•^'"cised at eight under the ^osnc! Km If ' °''^"''^'"" "'^^ ''^ l«'P"^«'' tl.at this arCment i, h , , T""^" " """"'""■ ^™ ^hall see just eonsidefer eIJI ''s untenable as any of those I have sound reSL ifi T^ ™« knows that in every proeess of A sound eoS:i"''''"PT'''"' '" '"^ '^""•" sound premises. Now in th s «Vc Zi^ "■'" "P"" "" ""^°""'I premise, are two fallacies the nrl-f";'"i f"' '"'''"" baptism , here 'l.eJewirhchu'c''d'T-V'''"' !""'';• '^'"^ «'^' '^ "">' Gen xH rs"' "f,' ">" ^o^^"''"' of promise mentioned in obviouslythe- rctttresame'tv.t """' ""> ^'" or the covenant of .vrnl „ ^ •' ^ "'.'= covenant of promise, was made thefalfof thl i''/Tr'™'' "=''"'^''' Abraham of o.Vcumci io S rltn^e on,v tr ?"' Jh-L^venant Abraham, and those noM,t„n • ^ " ^^^ '"^""^ offspring of covenant if " rat 'ndthe?. i '"""T"'';'"' '""' "'^'" The fore as far apa^as the'trrthl°l:;:r"'^'™" "'' ''"•"■ ii^«-itute; Christianffv 1^ • 'M"<^aism was a national Jewswe;e anSr^deatwhh'"^"'^"^^ ^^^^^^"^- ^he from other nations ohrSLr f r'"'^' ''^"^ separated na-ions ana inhVisSr. .Trirn^h'ef ^^rn^!^ .0 tS ;:rlr."^ ^" ^^-^-'^ se1d,r; Heirs ^L^i^^ -er this dispe,5£^ltir,^^^^^ The testimony of scripture goes rather to prove the con- 49 trarj Besides circumcision was practiced by the Jewish Christians along tazth baptism for a considerable 1^6 When Paul opposed the circumcisiom of GentHe Christians' t wWth'^f /'^-^ '^^^'^"^ ^^^^ "« place In fact h^ei ile C iH-istians t?;"^ ''''^'''' '' ^"^^^^^^ ^'^«^^«'^ the Gen- Jei-usalem with the offerings of the Gentile!, he 4? LK t^ntt^^^Z^T'^'^'f '^' '^^" circulated to his d" mment among the behevmg Jews, namely, that - he tauaht he Jews among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, sayinrtha they ought not to circumcise their children" TMs Ino^ was treated as a slander. Paul never oppos'ed tl ci cu^ brent le.. As touching the Gentiles which believed *' the apos^^^^^^^ wrote and concluded that ''they observe no such wouW "nll'^J ^'"'^ ^'"i" '", '^^' '"^"^ «*' "rcumcision, Peter Td rl •? u""^ declined, for a time, to eat Avith baptiz' ed Gentiles, because they were uncircumcised. Moreover Paul circumcised Timothy who was a son of a certain "1.4 Greek? "" '' """"^ ^'^^''■"^' ^"* ^^'^ *'«^^^«^ ^^as a If circumcision had been abolished among the believin- Jews to give place to baptism, can we suppole for a mZnt tlZt rf\^'''\''''''^'''''^ a christian who had doubtless already been baptized ? Certainly not. Circum- c^ion held the place in the Apostle's day ^hich it had ev"r . Baptism could not therefore be said to take the place of circumcision, if circumcision did not yield its p?ace to babtisra, but went along with it. ^ " rdlT '! f f ^''^ "If "^ '^'^ ^^°"* " ^'^^^'-^l holiness," and Covenant holiness," and the Covenant of circumcision, and the " Abrahamic Covenant," but the argument lor infant baptism derived from it all amounts to just no^hin" Cii cumcision was no part of the covenant of grace. Abraham himself was a sharer of grace before he was circumcised, or while in uncircumcision. Enoch, Noah, and no doubt thous- ands of other., though uncircumcised, enjoyed the blessedness of the covenant of grace before Abraham was born. And this being the case, it follows that circumcision cannot be a 4 30 seal of the covenant of grace, as the Wcslministei- As.em- % „; ,he,r catechism say. In fact, nowhere in tl^e ,ro;d rf God ,s ,t denommated a seal of grace, however often we tr* diLrrr? """■ ""^ ^'"■"-'™'> ^ « --'of seaV^as sucf fn"„^r'T'"! <"^l«>«-'"«" l«lieversare not "Grt enotMrilf^J'''P'T'' '^"' ^^ ""= "oiy Spirit a typc'rit,?"!*'!™:''''': ^•^'"^''•-Of what is circumcision he is no, Vt„ I •''^ circumcision of ihe lieart, " For who is one inwardly; an,I circumciS ' i. t aTonirhet" me 'bT; o ' God """o" „"" l"^','^'' '' -'">"' <'■"'- ^^ ™' «' of;i=,^sa^;Sf:sr:^:;!,;!^ By the AposS f1 I "I'l; r/"^" ^-''---Jf Ignatius, Poiyearp, and He ij. Of I C ;tua„^''T"'' who succeeded these, TertuUia.i s thcr , "'""'' infant baptism and\l,e by w X"'^^^^ «-l,„ mentions wasn PresbvttTofihp n..... I '."'™;'''''/7 U. J(rtu!Iiaii He di,.d Sua U, 220 ^"'"'"''"' '" ^''"■"' ^'«™- grown About the middle of the 3rd ccMiturv inr«nf i,n, *- i , own into a practice in No- .i? Af • ^' ] J '^aptisni had 51 chain ends. From that point— say A. D., 200 to the time of the apostles, all the intellio;ible testimonies and allusions recognise only the baptism of persons who avowed in baptism a personal reception of the Christian religion. From A. D. 200 and onward, th'e error that baptism was necessary to salvation spread more and more and hence infant bap- tism from that period became more and more prevalent but as I have already said, it was by immersion. The mode was right, but the subjects wrong. And infant baptism did not come alone, other errors accompanied it, and the stream of corruption in the following ages became wider and wider. At first Tertullian lifts up his voice against it, but in a few years, Origen, Cyprian, and Augus- tine endeavour to defend it. But my esteemed friend Dr. Richey sought to show from Justin Martyr and Irenaeus tliat infant baptism existed even before Tertullian. But I beg most respectfully to question the proof. The passage he quoted from Justin Martyr reads thus : " There are persons among us, both males and females, sixty, seventy years old, who from children were ■discipk^ to Christ." You will observe that baptism is not mentioned in this quotation, and that the term " dimpled,'^ implies conscious, intelligent beings and not infants. The expression " from children" must therefore be under- stood as equivalent in meaning to " in early life," when, as we know, many become disciples of Jesus. In the quotation from Irenajus also there is no mentioii of baptism. He speaks of Christ's coming " to save all who are regenerated to God, in'Hnts and little ones, and children, find youths, and elder persons, therefore he came through the several ages, ai:d for infants was made an infant, sancti- fying infants ; among little ones, a little one, sanctifying those •of that age ; among youths, a youth" &c. I observe here that many emient critics regard this passage us spurious : but admitting it to be genuine, it simply conveys the idea that Christ espoused our nature so compbtly, that ■all classes of the human family might be saved. In this opinion agree the best authorities. The learned Scmisch — a Picdobaptist — observes of Justin Martyr that of " in- fant baptism he knew nothing." In fact — by — tiri ablest and most reliable Church historians the point is now given up) Hiid it i:i ulmual universaily Admitted that no trace of 52 infant baptism can be found for 200 years after Christ, ^ut even admitting— what is not true-that all the early Fathers sanctioned it, as well as the later, we must yet take the Bible as our only guide. To leave the Bible and go to the Fathers, or Councils, or tradition, is to go straight to Rome. ^ It is worthy of remark here— to quote a few names among many-that Ephrem of Edesse, Gregory Nazianzen Basilof Caisarea, andChrysostom, allofwhom had Chris- tian parents were not baptized till manhood, and they all lived m the 4th century. How, the question arises was their baptism delayed till manhood, if infant baptism was the custom of the time. Were it necessary, 1 might quote a great many eminent authorities- P^dobaptists too-to show that infant baptism was unknown in the apostolic age, and sprang up with other corruptions, m later times. r o r Says Luther : « It cannot be proved by the sacred scrip- ture that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the Apostles." Says Neander : " Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for not der- iving infant baptism from apostolic institution." Says D'Aubigne-the historian of the Reformation: However decided I may be for the baptism of infants, I must nevertheless acknowledge that the express order ' bap- tize infants, is found in no part of the gospel " Says the North British Review-Presbyterian : "Thc baptismal service is founded on scripture ; but its application to an unconscious infant is destitute of any express scrip- tural warrant. J i ^ 'i There is absolutely not a single trace of it to be found in the JNew lestaraent." Says Prot. Jacobi : "Infant baptism was established nei- tUer by Christ nor his apostles." Says DeWette :» Infant baptism had not come into use prior to the time of Tertullian." Says Dr. Hodge : "In no part of the New Testament is any other condition of membership in the Church prescribed than that cotitained in the answer of Philip to the Eunuch who desired baptism: ' If thou believest with all th^ taou ill ayest* heart 53 I Says Prof. Lange : " Would the Protestant Church fulfil and attain to its final destiny, the baptism of infants must of necessity be abolished." But Dr. Ilichey would remind us that this is a spiritual dispensation, and that it is not well to be laying too much stress on ordinances. Very well. But do not Baptists ad- mit the present to be a spiritual dispensation? Has it not ever been their aim to maintain and advance a spiritual Cliristianity ? Can any one speak the truth and say that Baptists have not from the first been most zealous m defendj in^ Christianity from all mere externalism and ceremonialism .^ And can it be fairly alleged that the Baptists make too much of baptism by attaching any saving efficacy to it whatever .•' Is it not well known that we never baptize any person who does not profess to be a christian before baptism, and surely if he is a christian before baptism, baptism does not make him a christian. If he is a christian before baptism, he is surely a christian without baptism. But baptism is a positive institution, enforced by a positive command. It is the sub- lime method of initiation into the church of thrist. It is the way in which Christ would have his followers publicly profess him. He requires this of them. The command and the ordinance which it enforces are as defimte as language can make them, and Baptists prefer to adhere to the com- mand, and carry out the command as the Master requires. They hold that to change the scriptural mode of baptism, and the scriptural subjects, changes baptism itself into some- thin- else. For surely when both mode and subjects are -one, all is gone, and such a change or modification oi this positive ordinance cannot be deemed proper obedience to Christ. In all sincerity and kindness I do not think that Baptists are not so justly chargeable with attaching undue importance to baptism as some others. The Komish Church says that, " Baptism is essential to salvation." ,, , ^- ^ „^« The Church of England says :-" By baptism we are made members of Christ and children of Gon rimnrd baDtism as a Willi ine vongrcjjauun;wi=i3 1).- ^\ti'>^ ; - o — -tffSS!^» 54 Chnst, of regeneration, of remission of sins." ° Mr. Wesley, the founder of Methodism says, - By ban- ant confessions of faith, with LutTer C^^^^^^^^ great Pa^dobaptist Reformers and diVine s ' « W " Tf without lmv,ng been baptized. But are the e renresei^te apostle. It /ir^oiibii'rsho'wXs:;' "^ '"* Prof. Moses Stuart explains its origin in tE words • ' T''f e «?'™«i' np, in the bosom of a church suDer,tiZ,;fv devoted to ancient rites and forms, a conviction that therodo of baptism was one of the adiap/,ora of rehVion i e Z. thing unessential to the rite itself, and wCh mH t bl modified by t,me and place without any encroachment un^n he command ,tself to baptize. Grad/al/y d^TcZ'^c^Z Mm.„«, uni.l the whole Roman Catholic Church tnt„f Milan only excepted, admitted it. By far tlie Jr^atcr 1« t^^^at Pu8ey.,.,n, Popery, and other antichristian erfo'sibS when Protestant christians who profess to ta e .« Bibu a tl«e.r puide, neverfhelesa so far dipart from as o f v ,) ^ an unconscious infant is a proper ^.biect rf 11 ? ^ ^ " cannot be saved without it. ^ ^ of baptism, and 1 am sure my heart is full of kindnos.^ to tp« p.^^..,...^.: . I 55 " friends when I say that I am glad that infant baptism is rapidly on the decline. Every year the conviction widens and deepens in the mind of the christian world that the baptized person should come into the church on his oivn faith, and not on the faith of another. Among Pocdobaptist churches, as appears from their own reports, The proportion of child baptisms to adult, grows every year less and less. . Hear the following testimony from the Princeton Review, an able Presbyterian Quarterly. The writer says ; " We must confess that the more we have considered the subject, and the more facts we have been able to obtain, we have been so much the more satisfied, not only that there is increasing disregawl for the baptism of children, in our sister churches, but also, that throughout the whole of our own church there is an increasing neglect of this blessed ordi- nance. *' * * Two thirds of the children of our church mibaptized ! Tlie very statement startles us. Indeed we hesitate in making it, and would fain^hope we are mistaken. But we fear it is sober, solemn truth." Again it is affirmed that " in the Congregational churches of New England, infant baptism is beyond a doubt dying out. In Vermont [in ^855] we have but 7 baptisms to every thousand communicants ; in New Hampshire but 14 ; in Maine 16 ; and in all the other associations but 19 ; the averaf'e being only 10 to the thousand!'* A leadincr Methodist Journal complains of the " retreat ot intant baptism into a corner," and another accuses - even ministers of Hurrying over it as if it were a thing ot no con- sequence." ,. . Thus TiiK TRUTH frccd more and more from the traditions nnd superstitions with which it has been fettered, is laying its mighty grasp upon this main pillar of the Ptedobaptist temple, and dragging it to the ground. ^ I might here observe tliat not only is infant baptism on the doi'line among Paulobaptists, but many ol them are taking the Baptist Hide of the question by rejecting as bap- tism every thing but immersion on a profession ot faith. Hundreds and thousands are uniting with 1 a'dobaptist churches by immersion Many Pa-dobaptist churches have baptisteries in their places of worship to meet this growing demand. And there are thousands of persons m ra uubup- 56 ti ken down, h will be necessary for them to show that the spunk- ling of infants is christian baptism. They say we can all ^ unUcd when the Baptists invite them to the iable, the Baptists reply, we can all be united, when they practice a scrintiiral bantisra. , , _^_ "Who then, 'I ask aga-ii. has put up the bar,tho.e who na.c 58 departed from the scriptural rule, or those who adhere to it * Besides, all our Pjedobaptist friends admit that the immer- sion of believers is christian baptism. Why then, we ask, do they not practice it, since they are so anxious for com- munion vyith all branches of the church ? Why do they not practice it, since in doing so, they give up no conscientious conviction, instead of asking the Baptists to throw away their consciences altogether in the matter? Why do they not practice what they admit to be right, instead of asking us to practice what we consider a wrono-? But it is not a question of charity at all. If it were, it might be shown that our opponents are more justly chargeable with a lack of charity than ourselves. For when they refuse to commune with Roman Catholics, for instance, they refuse to commune with those among whom there are doubt- less christians. They cannot plead that these Catholics have not been baptized, for they practice the same baptism with themselves. Why then do they exclude them from the table ? Evidently because they consider that they are not christians. In this way, Prtxlobaptists take it upon themselves to decide who are christians,^ and who are not. But Baptists take no such ground. They unchristianize none. They rejoice wherever christians are found, even though it be among the Roman Catholics. The question with Baptists is, What is baptism ? and, Who have been baptized? Baptists would not commune with Quakers, because they have not been baptized— for they reject loater bai)tism altogether. Presbyterians and Episco- palians would not commune with Quakers for the same reason. There are many excellent christians among the Quakers, but because they have not been baptized, therefore neither Baptists nor Presbyterians nor Episcopalians can commune with them. In this then the Baptists and Picdobaptists agree :— they require baptism to precede the Lord's supper. And because Baptists do not recognize the baptism of infants and unbelievers as baptism at all — in other words, as they are not prepared to admit that their Pa^dobaptist friends have ever been baptized, for this reason they cannot consistently commune A\ith them. Ba[)tists do not take the ground that members of other denominations are not ehrist?ans, but as baptism is the only proper door to the church, they hold that all who Jiave been sprinkled are not baptized, and have not consequently, come into the church in the regular way. i 1 59 The mc>st candid of Pocdobaptists admit that Baptists are €onsistent in taking this position. Indeed, in our opinion, they are far more consistent than Paidobaptists. For while the latter say that baptism is the door to the church, and call the sprinkling of infants baptism, they yet exclude from the Lord's table many members of their own church, since their baptized infants are necessarily in the church. If they are in the church— in other words, if they are members of the church, why not treat them as such by admitting them to the supper ? If they are mi in the church, why baptize them, since, according to their own admission, baptism is the scriptural door to the church. The Greek church is consistent at least in admitting its infant membership to the Lord's table. But plainly our Pa^dobaptist friends are quite inconsistent in receiving infants into the church, and then treating them as though they were not in. When we are told it is the Lord's table, and are asked why we keep the Lord's children away ; we reply, because it is the Lord's table, and not ours, therefore we prefer to follow the Lord's rules concerning it. It is quite illogical for Dr. Richey or others who hold that baptism is a prerequisite to communion, to quote Robert Hall or Mr. Spuvgeon. since they do not make it a prere- quisite. While they rest the proper qualification on another basis, they stoutly deny that infant baptism is scriptural or christian. I have thus, my friends, endeavored to show what is scriptural baptism both as regards the mode and the proper subjects. I can truly say that, as Bapsists, we have no un- kindly feelings against those who differ from us, but we must ask to be permitted to follow what we believe to.be the teachmgsof the Word of God. I thank you for the patience with which you have listened to me, and beg to assure you that none of my words have been spokjn with any desire to wound or offend. m. MR. IIIIIIIID'S KCTORL This lecture, or rather such part of it as did not consist of invective against Baptists in general, and against myself in particular, was entirely devoted to a consideration of the mode of baptism. For the present I pass by the invective, and deal with what, by a charitable construction, may be called Mr. Annand's arguments. As most of these arguments are already disposed of in the foregoing sermon, those which remain may be noticed in a brief space. Those who listened to Mr. Annand will remember that his principal endeavor from beginning to end was simply to weaken my arguments in favor of immersion as the only scriptural mode of baptism. He would have nis hearers believe that immersion is not the only baptism recognized in the New Testament, and was not the only baptism practiced in the apostolic time. That immersion is scriptural baptism he would freely admit, but would deny that it is the only scriptural mode. He would take the ground that there are several modes, among which sprinkling and pouring, as well as immersion, fill a legitimate place. Now it would sound very strange to speak of different modes of the Lord's supper — to say that it might be cele- brated not only with bread and wine, but also with bread and milk, or with bread and water, as though either of these last methods as well as the first would be obedience to our Lord's command. But his command to baptize is as positive and definite as that to observe his commemorative supp-r ; and it is just as appropriate in the light of scripture and common sense to speak of dif!erent modes of the Eucharist as of different modes of baptism. ^ But while Mr. Annand felt compelled to admit that immer- sion is a valid mode of baptism, he seemed nevertheless disposed to exclude it ahogether from the numerous cases of ( 61 baptism mentioned in the New Testament. The baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, John's baptizing in the wilderness, the baptism on the day of Pentecost,— all these, in his opmion were performed by sprinkling or pouring. One should suppose he would have given to immersion some place in these instances. But his endeavor to exclude immersion from the New Testament would have been excusable had he not gone further. To do this, and then to throw contempt upon it— and that too, after admitting it to be christian baptism, was not only very inconsistent, but certainly highly improper in a christian minister. ^^ * i One of tlie presumptive proofs adduced by Mr. Annand af^ainst immersion as the only scriptural mode of baptism was that baptizo has other meanings than immerse— that words continually change in their meaning— that immersion would not be suitable to all climates, and to the infirm and sickly— and that God would not, at any rate, tie up this ordinance to the meaning of a single word. But God's revealed will has been expressed m human language. To know what that will is we have simply to ascertain the meaning of the words— the Hebrew and Greek words— employed by those holy men who " spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." If the words they uttered have changed in their signification since the time they spoke them, we have simply to learn their meaning iy/ie« they spoke them. To interpret the words of the English language by their present import would be, in some instances, lo make our language contradict itself. So, if the original words ot scripture have changed in signification, to read them in the light of their present meaning, might be to make the mindot G"od different from what it was formerly. Now I am free to admit that certain Greek words m the New Testament have a different meaning from what they had in Classic Greek. Such, for instance, are the words pneuma Ispirit], sarx [flesh], ouranos [heaven], pistis tfaithl and many others. But the sacred writers, it must be borne in mind, gave to these words the import they bear m the New Testament, because they were the best words tor this purpose. In their heathen classic sense they have one meaning, and in their christian sacred sense another, am the same is not true of the word bapi.o. Its classic and sacred meaning are both immerse. So ihe Saviour and his .hZ^^^ 0"^ Lord woiikl instruct his apostles to immerse W T ^'7 '^"^^^ ^^'^'P^^' ^« ^^d b"t to use the word baptzzo which the Pagan Greeks always used in that sense, l-rot. btuart says the churches of Christ construed it to mean immersion in the New Testament as well as in class- ica usages Again, - That the Greek fathers, and the Latin ones who were familiar with the Greek, understood oaLhl? r ?P"?„'^ ^'^" ^^'^^^ ^^^'^*^^' ^^o^ld hardly seem capable ot denial. "^ It avails then nothing for Mr. Annand to say that words change m meaning until he proves that the meanin- of baptize has changed, or that we must not be guided by' its signification as used by our Loi-d and his inspired apostles, liut It IS very well known that baptize has not chanrred in signification. It means in modern Greek precisely what it meant in ancient Greek. When Mr. Annand says that modern Greek bears no nearer resemblance to ancient Greek not"correcT" '^'''' ^"^ ''"'''^"* ^^^'"' '^^ ''''^^' '^^^^^ ^' We have plainly nothing to do with what God would or would not enjoin in a certain word. We know that he has fZl" 1 ^believers, and not unconscious infants, be wh^f' ' /'"? '' '' ""^' P^^^^ '^ " «b«^^'^« '-^H things rvhatsoever he has commanded." As Baptists, we have no desire to improve on the divine original, nor to assume that Ood would have acted more wisely had he allowed us greater liberty m carrying out his commands. As to immersion being unsuited to cold climates, experience has proved the contrary. If we believed baptism to be essential to salvation, there would bo some force in the objection that the extremely sick could not be immersed. Ihe quotations made from classic Greek by Mr. Annand Zn!f'' f / ^'^'^'^ ^^^' °**^'^ '"^^""'^^ than immerse, IrM '" c ' ^'^V^^^^-'^'T- The great P^dobaptist scho- iar Moses btuart has shown most conclusively that literally and figurativdy baptizo means to overwhelm. Thus the tide o..r>.,,,<; the shore" [Aristotle], " Alexander over^ with Tl '^'r ' TT ^^"*«^' " '^'^'''^'^^t overwhelming with sleep [ lehodorus], &c., cited by Mr. Annand are fine examples of this use of the word. c i 63 • One of the brightest critical discoveries of the age was probably that made by Mr. Annand when he detected a discrepancy between the definitions of baptize given respec- tively by the Baptist Drs. Conant, Carson, and Fuller. Sorely perplexed by the Paedobaptist authorities wliich I had quoted to sustain the Baptist view of the question, Mr. Annand would meet me by showing that these eminent Baptist divines, by contradicting each other, have really supported the Paidobaptist side. And in this way. Dr. Carson pays baptize means to dip ; Dr. Conant says it means io immerse ; and Dr. Fuller says it means to plunge, " Now see," exclaims Mr. Annand " how these great Baptist cham- pions disagree among themselves. One says dip, another immerse, and yet another plunge. Was ever any thing more inconsistent and absurd !'* Now verily this instance of perspicacity in Mr. Annand is marvelous. Such acuteness of vision would pierce a rock. To put his brilliant discovery into a simpler form it amounts to about this :— '' Dr. Carson says two and and two are four ; No, says Dr. Conant, three and one are tour, 'i^ou are both wrong, chimes in Dr. Fuller, for one and three are four." But Mr. Annand was quite sure that John the Baptist could not have immersed the multitudes that went out to him in the wilderness. He did not tell his hearers what John did to them if he did not immerse them, though he would have them believe of course that he sprinkled them. His argument seemed to be this : not less than a million went ou°t to John, he could not have immersed so many during his six months ministry ; therefore he must have sprinkled them. But the question arises, how could he have sprinkled so many ? For if we understand the words literally that Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about the Jordan went out to him— and this is the way Mr. Annand understands them— then the number that went out must have been nearer three millions than one. Now it he had sprinkled five every minute, and worked ten hours a day, it would have taken him neariy three years to sprinkle the whole number. And if he had given each one time to confess his sins, the time must have been extended to htteen or twenty years. If, to expedite the business, he had caused them to stand in rows or groups on the bank ot the river, and with a bush, which he first dipped in the nver, had 64 sprinkled fifty or a hundred at a time, then some drops might, by chance, have fallen on the impenitent. Some quaint old Poet has met the matter in this way :— " The Jews in Jordan were baptized ; JErgo, ingenious John devised A scoop, or squirt, or some such thing, With which some water he might fling Upon the long extended rank Of candidates that lined the bank ; Be careful, John, some drops may fall From your rare instrument on ail ; lUit point your engine ne'ertheless To those who first their sins confess : Let no revilers in the crowd The holy sprinkling be allowed, The Baptist had not time, we dream, To dip the people in the stream." But are we to suppose Mr. Annand so ignorant of the correct rules ot scripture interpretation as to think that the words " Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region round about Jordan," should be taken in their literal sense ? Has lie passed through a course of Tiieological insiruction, and not yet learned that if the word ^'all" were taken in its widest sense, many passages in which it occurs would be reduced to absurdity ? It is said, for instance, that all mm mused in their hearts concerning John. Does this mean the whole human racer' It is said of Jesus. ''The same baptizeth, and a?/ men come to him." Did the entire popalation of the globe go to him ? Does not Mr. Annand know that the sacred writers often adopt thvi popular forms of speech ? And that accordingly "Jerusalem, and all Judea &c., simply means a great many ? Just as we say, "All Windsor went out to the Picnic," When it is very well known that the majority of the people remained at home. Of course Mr. Annand knows all this. Why then does he so jtian he met in England — even this good man Mr. Annand considered guilty of the same thing, because in his work on baptism, he has cited Pajdobaptist names in favor of the original mode. Now I declare in all sincerity that 1 did not wish to mis- represent any of the PsBdobaptist authors whom I quoted. In every instance, I believe, I have given their own words. I did not, indeed, stop to explain to my auditory, that these great Paedobaptist divines, while they admit immersion to be the only scriptural mode of baptism, yet practice sprinkling, and endeavor to justify it in various ways. I supposed my hearers knew this. But this is the question I would put to Mr. Annand : Who are guilty of the greater dishonesty. Baptists who say that the scriptures teach immersion, and who accordingly practice immersion ; or Paidobaptists who say that the Scriptures teach immersion, and who practice something else ? Mr. Annand took strong exception to my statement con- cerning King James and his translators. He considered it a frrave offence in me to intimate that King James interfered with the liberty of his translators, and that our Bible is not a correct and faiihful rendering of the divine originals. But again I distinctly atifirm that King James did hamper by unfair and illiberal rules those whom he chose to translate the Scriptures — that our authorized version is not strictly speaking a translation, but only a revision — and that it fails in numerous passages correctly to express the mind of the Spirit as contained in the original Hebrew and Greek. We have only to know King James' character to infer that he would not scruple to hamper the freedom of his translators, if such suited his purpose. He was capable of doing even mean and contemptible things. In religious matters he possessed a wonderhiUy elastic conscience. He felt no pangs, accordingly, in giving up Presbyterianism and adopting Episcopacy, though he had been educated in the former faith, and had publicly subscribed with his own hand the Solemn League and Covenant. In the General Assembly at Edin- burgh, in 1590, with unbonneted head, and hand raised to heaven, " he praised God that he was born in the timolol the light of the Gospel, and in such a place as to be King of such a Church, the sincerest (purest) kirk in the world. The Church of Geneva," said he, " keep Pasche and Yule ; what 68 have they for them ? They have no institution. As for our neighbor Kirk of England, it is an evil-said Mass in EnHish ; they want nothing of the Mass but the liftings. I Aar-e you my good ministers, doctors, elders, nobles, gentlemen, and barons, to stand to vour purity, and to exhort the people to do the same ; and I, forsooth, as long as I brook my life,' shall mamtain the same." Yet, being in his own opinion, the greatest master of king-craft that ever lived, he adopted J^4)iscopaoy, and supported Episcopacy, because it was best calculated to support his crown. Macaulay says of him : " Of all the enemies of liberty whom Britain has produced, he was at once the most harm- less and the most provoking. His office resembled that of the man who in a Spanish bull-fight, goads the torpid savage to fury by shakmg a red rag in the air, and now and th?n throwmg a dart, sharp enough to sting, but too small to injure. Ihe policy of wise tyrants has always been to cover their yiole.it acts with popular forms. James was always obtruding his despotic theories on his subject.s without the slightest necessity. * * * * The ignominious fondness 01 the king for his minions, the perjuries, the sorceries, the poisonings, which his chief favorites had planned, within the w-alls of his own palace, the pardon which, in direct violation ot hiM duty, and of his word, he had granted to the myste- rious threats of a murderer, made him an object of loathinir to many of his subjects. * * * This was not all. The most ridiculous weaknesses seemed to meet in the wretched Solomon of Whitehall ; pedantry, buffoonery, garrulity, low curiosity, the most contemptible cowardice. Nature and education had done their best to produce a finished specimen of all that a king ought not to be." Yet tliis is the king who was quite incapable, so Mr. Annand and some others think, of interfering with the liberty of those who had the translation of the Bible in charge. But we are not left to inference to judge how far ho would restrict his translators, if so disposed ; the rules he actually imposed on them show how far he did restrict them. Such, for example, was the third rule: *' The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, namely, as the word church not to 1)6 translated congregation," &c. And when it is remembered that the fortyseven translators, witti one ) ft9 \ exception, were Episcopalians, and piinc' pally represented the same relij^ioiis views, we should not be surprised at their readiness to favor the prejudices of the king. His prejudices were in fact theirs. Hence the '' great hopes" which tbey expre>s in their address to him, " that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby," that is, by their work. Indeed they must have been only too willing to be shakled by his rules, f)r they would not have addressed him in the language of fulsome flattery— language in fact, more appro- l)riate to a demigod than to a man. That King .lames' version is not more entitled to b(> called a translation'" tl-.an a Revision is plain from \\\q first and fourteenth of the rules according to which the work was performed. They read as follows: [I] "The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishop's Bible, to be followed and as little altered as the original will permit." [14] " These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible ; namely, Tyndale's.Matthew's,Coverdales Whitchurch's, [Oranmer's], the Genevan." AVe have but to compare the authorized version with these, to see how faithfully the translators carried out the King's instructions in following them. On the title page of our Bibles, the --«fo»' Kn^H. T vT'"' '" '■<'-l™"»late or revise, lint tl,e Kugl,8l laugnage did not exist when the holy men "f o I »l«ke tlie words of God under ihe influence o/his .i ,i" t tni h°t'ed""wi" "'T',"-'' ^"'"•''" '■' '"'l^- ""^'Heis. l-„ot r, iislated. ■^Vhy si o„ld ,i ,„,t be translated ? Wh- shonh "IS «oid really docs mean in Knglish ? Sc' ' ,r, of « .^nir it, rii:;\j;;.,r- s^^'t /-;/'— I 71 immerse, let them render it immerse. Why should any bt more anxious to uphold their denomination than to follow the teachings of the Spirit ? Plainly we ought to be willing to follow the Bible. The remaining points which Mr. Annand alluded to in his lecture, as the baptism on the day of Pentecost, the baptism of the Spirit, the testimony of the early fathers, the West- minster confession of faith, &c., are all met and disposed of in my reply to Dr. Richey, and I need not, therefore, now consider them further. Those who were sufficiently divested of prejudice, impar- tially to weigh Mr. Annand's arguments, must have seen that he failed altosether to prove sprinkling or disprove immersion as the scriptural mode of baptism. What he would have done with the— to him— more difficult subject of w/«**' baptism had he entered upon it, may be inferred from the manner in which he dealt with the mode. If there is not a shadow of argument in the Bible for sprmJcling, there is not the shade of a shadow for the application of water in any way to infants and unbelievers. Mr. Annand's lecture on the mode of baptism was delivered on the evening of May the 11th. On the following Saturday I addressed to hira this note : — Windsor, May 14, 1870. Rev. E. Annand. Dear Sir,— I am sorry that in replying to my sermon on baptism last Wednesday evening, you could not so far restrain your spirit as to dispense witli sneers and personal invective. Had your arguments been sound they would not have re<^ discus- sonally, howeverwrnrht InH P^''?^"' treatment of eacl, other per- that you wUllZZr ^ • ^"^ ^'^^'^ "^'^^^ » arguments. Hoping the iC:;- ant;,VT;ir^^^^^^^ '^'-•^^p^ ^'^^ ^^•^p-'^-"' -^-£"1 Yours very truly, rr .. ^^ M- Welton. lo this note I received the following reply ._ Rev. D. M. Wkltox. ^''''''''^' ^^^' ^''^'' ^S^^" beft";say';;;L''d\X:t;1cS '" .^^P'^^"^ «t«-e spirit otrragYr^osrSen'ttof '^^'^'"'•^^'^ "^^»>^ eustomsand lamity to repfoduir '-°"*""'*°"« ^"^ bitterness it would be a ca- P"tlicX'rthemot;Is"?SspLml^^^ I" ^^^^^ -' '^- past profession of iTeZVn^Z^)^^^^^^ '"^« hypocrisy all our a hollow farce. unity , and make the week of united prayer Will p.„ba\,, „„ ti,e?amtr,' tn ?,,rp:,,r "^„-X°'''" """^' would cerlainl^ Uo mucif hS„,"'"°'' '""''' "" "" P°'»""e good-a„d I am in haste, Sincerely yours ^ K. Annano. llie remaining part of the promised reply was as follows :- 46 Cogswell St., Halifax, May 27. 1870. «Ev. D. M. Wklton'. ii 73 i You expect th.Tt we Jire all sorry for the words spoken. Speakint: for myself, I may sac that I have not experienced very deep contrition yet. As for others I can only answer this far, that I have had the opinion of intelligent men from the Methodist, Episcopal, and Presbyterian churclies, and all agree that the language used was not too severe but justified by the circumstances. You add that you have said nothing which was disrespectful of nie or my people. Well, I never heard of your singling out myself or congregation as a special object of attack. Hut if you mean to sr.y that you have not said any thing disrespectful of the general class to which I belong, then you are certainly tlie most belied and misrepresented of men. But believing that the air in your church conveys sounds to the ear as correctly as elsewliere, I must hold that you have used language which in my opinion is more discourteous and offensive to your opponents than any terms employed by me. That you should answer ray lecture is nothing more than I had a right to expect. But having done so, I implore you for yonr own sake, for the sake of the community, for peace' sake, and for God's sake, to drop the matter and let the town and distracted cause of God in Windsor have rest and be again refreshed. Wishing you much success in winning souls to Christ, I remain, sincerely yours, E. Ankand. On receiving the above, I wrote the following : — Windsor, .Tune 6th, 1 70. Hkv. E. Annand, Dear Sir, — I beg to assure you that I have no desire unnecessarily to prolong tills correspondence, but I hardly feel that I would be justified in dismissing the matter without saying a few words more. 1 exceedingly regret that it did not suit your convenience publicly to discuss with me the question at issue. I fail entirely to compre- hend how the cause of Jesus could suffer from the discussion, in a kindly and christian spirit, of the character and design of that ordinance, to which Christ himself has assigned so prominent and important a place in his religion. Those who have not the truth might suffer, but the truth itselt cannot suffer from any scrutiny, however severe, to which its claims may be subjected. The Bereans were commended for searching the scriptures; and Timotliy was exhorted to give heed to himself and to the teaching, that he might save himselt and them that heard him. Far be it from me to question your honesty as you have mine, but on the ground mat you are sincere, you must believe that I and my people are in error. How do you make it appear that an endeavor on your part to show us the truth would be injurious to the cause of truth ? Do you believe it is better for persons to remain in error than by discussioit to show them their error ? You seem, however, to assume thatth!'3 (•iscussion, if engaged in, would be biller. But why so' Why should not two Christian ministers be able to discuss the subject of baptism or any other subject in a friendly and christian way '^. Why -should they reproduce tiie "contentions and bitterness" of a past 74 age \ 1 am obliged to conclude my dear brother, that your appre- hensions have been r;iJt>;<), ..Itogether from your own stand point— from the bitter spirit whieh, I am sorry to say, did manifestly con- trol you in the ue'ivery oj jour lecture. I must confess that had we niet m this spirit on the public platform, the discussion would have done no good but much harm. But you will see that the exclusion ol tins spirit was carefully specified in the conditions which I proposed. I do not know what you mean when vou argue that a public discussion would "tumour past oioi'ssjOxi of love and unity into hyprocrisy, and make the week of united prayer a farce," unless it be that you have supposed that the Baptist part of the community have gone into the union meetings with the understanding that they w^onld conform their religious views to those of the Presbyterians and Methodists. If you mean tiny thing, you mean this, or else— what I do not believe— that the Presbyterians and Methodists have joitied in the union meetings on the condition of believinf-: in every respect as the Baptists believe. Every one knows that neither Presbyterians nor Methodists have ever thought of giving up or holding more loosely their religious sentiments in order to the union meetings. Where then is the liberty that denies the same privileffe to Baptists ? You assunie that union meetings are a proof of " love and unity." Where then is your consistency in charging Baptists with violating that love and unity when they go into the union meeting on precisely the same conditions with yourself? The truth is, my brother, when you argue thus, you furnish ground for the suspicion that you are not yourself quite as far advanced in the principles of soul liberty as you might be. In my humble opinion it would have been more creditable to your head and heart to have declined a public discussion simply for the ,first reason named — the reason, namely, of incom-o.nience. The other reasons you assign seem plausible, but they mainly rest on the assumption that I would be as acrimonious in a discussion as you have shown yourself to be. Let me say, however, that whenever you think jou can so control your feelings as to debate this question in a courteous and gentlemanly way, I shall be most happy to meet you. I had charitably hoped that before writing your second note, you would have become so regretful over the harsh and hasty language you employed in your lecture, as at loast to have admitted the fact. This would have been only Christian. But instead of this you not only say y:m have felt no contrition, but actually endeavor to justify yourself, and that too, on the principle of retaliation. If you suffered, as you affirm, under a " sore provocation," why did you not return good for evil ? Why did you not speak " the truth in love ?" Why did you at the beginning of the controversy call out \'oT patce, and then at its conclusion refuse yourself to obey the call ? I am sorry for the sake of the ministerial profession that you could not control yourself, for every one expect this of ministers. Your sneers and invective were quite inconsistent with the kind and forgiving spirit with which you had asserted you would deal with your opponents in the matter. I am especially gorry that you I 70 could allow yourself to speak of immersion in a disrespectful way, even turning it into ridicule, and hinting that the immersions which are celebrated in Windsor are offensive to good taste and decency ( Why did yoii do this, throwing the more irreligious part of your auditory into deri. " Jisrespectfully of the general class to wii.ch you belong." I am sorry you did not point out tJie in- stance in whK-h I ^ad done so. No one in the to-v„ of Windsor can say th.it 1 ever offensively introduced Baptist sentiments in tlie Lnion meetings. No one over heard me refer personally to you in niy mmistrations, or speak discourteously of any of my Pajdobap- ly amrm that infant baptism is unsupported by scripture precept or^x- ample. I did refer its origin to tlie Romish Church. I expressed my deep regre tha when the Presbyterians and Episcopalians came out ot- the Umrch of home they brought infant baptism with them; and 1 further stated that I was pained to see Christian ministers prav- sustaining it I did say this, and this I suppose was the great offence to which one " Charity," referred in the Windsor Mail iNow perhaps I should not have made use of this language. Most friend" ' ""* ^"*^"'^ ^"^ discourtesy towards my Pa^dobaptist And now, my brother, I put it to you, were these statements of mine true or false? Did infant baptism come originally from the Bible or from the Romish Church ? I said the latter, and the asser tioii was true or false. If false, you have simply to show it, and I vm take It back and humbly acknowledge my error. But if true why should I not be allowed to m>ike it. If true, why, with Paul siiould 1 be accounced " your enemy because I tell you the truth'" It true, why not abandon infant baptism ? Why should any of us adhere to our religious views if the Bible is against them? It IS hard indeed to break away from early religious attachments still no one can love Christ as he ought if, when called to choose between these attachments and the word of God, he prefers the loriner. 1 am sorry to see not a few indications that some have quite resolved to adhere to the peculiar tenets of their church and (lonomination, whether they auree with the scriptures or not i:>o not suppose, that I am particularly anxious simply to make iiaptists 1 have quite another conception of my mission: it is to win souls to Christ. When Christians follow the Bible I am satisfied by whatever name they are called. And if in following the Bible they become Baptists you sliould not complain iiie truth is, the experiment of deviating from the word ot God, even in small matters, is a most perilous one If there is any danger to which our common Christianity is now ex- posed, It IS that of an excessive latitudinarianism. Many persons arevirtualy saying, " it matters little what we believe as lonir as we are charitable; let us go in for union." But who does not know that a union on this basis is only a sham ? If dn^s matter very much what we heheve. The charity and unitv which the gospel approves and only approves, has its foundation in the truth 1 believe not only that infant baptism is not in the Bible, but that it> practice Iir^ been exceedingly hurtful to the interests of Christiuii i f i 77 ity. If you want the proof, let the Sti\te Churclies of Europe tell. Where, I ask, in these churches is the line which the New Testament lias drawn between the church and the world "» And sincerely be- lieving this, let me say further that I claim tlie liberty of saymg so. I hold it to be perfectly consistent with Christian love to say plainly what I believe is truth and what error. Believing infant baptism to be an error, a dangerous error, wlienever I come under any agreement with you or any of my Pdedobaptist friends to say that it is not an error, or, on the ground tl.at it is an error, that I will not seek in a proper way to overthrow it, then let my right hand be palsied and my tongue become dumb. I shall not indeed go out of my way to oppose it, nor in its consideration, treat those who differ Irom me with discourtesy; but when it does come in my way, I shall not walk aronnd it. Why, my dear brother, do you not know your.self that it has no sanction from ?cTipture,and that the very genius and spirit of scripture are against it ? Are you not aware yourself of its Romish origin ? I presume you know something of the history of your own Church, and if so, you know that in ordinary cases sprinkling was never practised in Scotland till after the Reformation. You know, or ought to know that it was imported into Scotland irom Geneva. The Scotchmen who fled from England to Geneva to escape the persecution of Mary, learned it there. When they returned with John Knox at their head, in 1559, they established sprinkling m Scotland. From Scotland it made its way into England in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not sanctioned by the Romish (";hurch. Surely yon know all this, and if so why not acknowledge it 7 How surprised would be the members of the Romish Council that deci- ded in 1311 tiiat sprinkling might be used in the church, if they g'lould CO ne out of their graves and hear you and some others con tending tliat it is taught in the Bible. They never thought of such a thing. Down to their time immersion had been the general prac- tice, and was universally admitted to be the BiWe mode. But these Roman Catholics decided on the authority of the Church— the Catholic Church, to tolerate sprinkling as ba^^tism. Now however, after having derived the practice in a direct line from this source, you repudiate tiie source by contending that it is scriptural. But this letter is already too long. The repreliensible character of your matter and manner in this controversy must be my apology for so far trespassing on your patience. I do beseech you, my dear brother, the very next time you have occasion to sprinkle an infant, to pause. Before you speak the name of the Trinity over an act which has no higher authority tha;i " the commandments of men," consider wliat you are doinjr. In the light of that book which brooks no addition to nor subtraction from its commands, and in the light of the judgment and eternity, seriously ponder the consequences in this world and the next and act accordingly. Wishing you abundant success in winning souls in your new field of labor, I am yours. Very truly D. M. Welton.