IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /y %^ 1.0 mm m m |22 1.1 : la 110 u& 1'-'' Iij4 1^ ^ ■ 6" ^ Photographic Sdmces Corporation -^G" :\ 23 WIST MAM STRH1 WnSTM,N.Y. 14SM (7U)t73-4S03 '^^^l! ^ ^^^ ^^^ I CiHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Inttituta for Historical IMicroraproductions / Institut Canadian da microraproductions historiquas Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa 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 eny of the images in the reproduction, or which may significaritiy change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D D D D D Couverture endommagAe Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurAe et/ou pelliculAe □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques en couleur Coloured inic (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ ReiiA avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches aJoutAes lors d'une restauration apparaissant dans le texta, mais. lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6x6 filmAes. Additional comments:/ Commentairea supplAm«:«taires: L'Institut a microfilmA le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a AtA possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mAthoda normale de filmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. r~7\ Coloured pages/ D This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de rMuction indiqu* ci-deaaous. 10X 14X 1SX 22X Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagtes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurAas et/ou pelliculAes Pages discoloured, stained or foxet Pages dAcolories. tachetAes ou piquAes Pages detached/ Pages dAtachtes 8howthrough> Transparence Quality of prin Quality inAgala de I'impression Includes supplementary matarii Comprend du matAriai suppMmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible I — I Pages damaged/ I — I Pages restored and/or laminated/ I I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ I I Showthrough/ |~~| Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ r~n Only edition available/ Th to Th po of fill Or be th •U ot fir Sifl or Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc.. have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. une pelure, etc., ont M filmdes A nouveau de fafon A obtenir la meilleure image possible. Th sh< Til wt Ml dif em bai rigl ran ms 2SX aox y 12X 16X 20X a4X 2SX 32X ir« JAtail* es du modifier er une Pilmage Th« copy filmod horo Hm boon roproducod thanks to tha ganaroaity of: Library of tha Public Archivas of Canada Tha imagaa appearing hara ara tha iiast quality possibia conaidaring tha condition and laglbility of tha original copy and In kaaping with tha filming contract tpaciflcations. Original copias In printed paper covera ara filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illuatrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. Ail other original copias are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illuatrated Impres- sion, and ending on the iaat page with a printed or illustrated impreasion. as L'axempiaira film* fut reproduit grAce A la gAniroaitA da: La bIbliothAque des Archives pubiiques du Canada Las images suivantes ont At* raproduites avac la plus grand soin, compta tenu de la condition at da la nettetA de i'exemplaira fllmA, et en conformitA avac las conditions du contrat da filmage. Les exemplairas originaux dont la couvarture an papier eat ImprimAe sont fiimAs an commen^ant par la premier plat at en terminant solt par la dernlAre page qui comporta una empreinte d'impreasion ou d'iliustration, solt par la second plat, salon la cas. Tous las autras exemplairas originaux sont fiimAs an commenpant par la pramlAre page qui comporta une empreinte d'impreasion ou d'iliustration et en terminant par la dernlAre page qui comporta una telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shaH contain tha symbol — »- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol ▼ (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboies suivants apparaftra sur la dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, seion le cas: la symbols — ► signifie "A SUiVRE ", le symbols ▼ signifie "FIN". Maps, platea, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too lerge to be entirely included In one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hend corner, left to right and top to bottom, aa many frames aa required. The following diagrams Illustrate the method: Les cartas, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre fiimAs A des taux da rAduction diff Arents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atra reproduit en un seul clichA, 11 est fllmA A partir de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant la nombre d'images nAcessaira. Las diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. errata to pelure, >n A 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 i o I o o n a ^ ^^M S! r s ' 3 ■r turf ,; < H Hi o E I s- 3 « 5' I- 3 I PETITION. To the Honorable the Legislative Council of the ProYince of Canada, in Parliament assemWed. The Petition of Adolphe de Puibusque and Elizabeth Taylor» his wife, of No. 40, Kue de Bourgogne, Faubourg Saint Germain, in the City of Pai-ia, in the Empire of France ; and of Frances Phillips Dawn, of No. 7, Malborough Buildings, within the Borough of Bath, in that part of Great Britain called England, late Frances Phillips Taylor. llK8PKCTl'Urj.Y 8HKWETII : — THAT your Petitionera are Plaintiffs in an action against the Principal Officers of Her Majesty's Ordnance, now pending in the Superior Court for I^ower Canada. That in this action your Petitioners seek to recover (with damages) from the said Principal Officers a tract of upwards of seventy acres of highly valuable land, forming the fronts on the River Ottawa, of Lots numbers one, two, three, four and five in the first Range ot the Township of Grenville. That the said land was taken from your Petitioners, without their con- sent, by the said Principal Officers, professedly for purposes of military defence, to wit : for the Grenville Canal, but without the observance of any of the formalities required by law, and without indemnity. That your Petitioners have laid their damages in the said action, at Twenty Thousand Pounds, Currency. That your Petitioners have taken cognizance of the Bill, (No. 544.) " for transferring to one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State " the powers and estates and property therein described, now vested in " the Principal Officers of Her Majesty's Ordnance, and for vesting " other parts of the Ordnance Estates and Property therein described " in Her Majesty the Queen, for the benefit, use, and purposes of " this Province"— lately brought in to the Legislative Assembly, by ^e Honorable Mr. MoitL^ou. /fa ■That the Property taken from your Petitionei-s ia by the said Bill pro- posvil t«» Ih) vested in Her Majesty, for tlie lieneflt, nie and purposea of this Province ; and that the CoriK>rutiun of the Principal Officers of Her Miyesty'rt Ordnance, with whom yoiir I'etitioners are in litigation, re- specting it as aforesaid, is thereby propotted to be abolished, and replaced by a high Officer of Government. That the operation of the said Bill, if it becomes law in its present shape, will be virtually to determine the said snit adversely to yoar Petitioners, anm's.r any Hkcness between carrying young children to Christ to be blest, and carrying them to a minister to be baptised ? The Saviour does not sa}% of ihem, but of such is the kingd(jm of heaven, implying retemblance not identity. We learn from this passage, not that ('hrist baptised children„but that he blessed children without baptising them. A glorious truth ! But does Mr. R receive infants indiscriminately to baptism. Not he ! Millions of little children are not suffered to come into the " covenant," according to his theory, simply because they have the misfortune to be the children of unconverted parents ! Now, I ask, if, because of the want of faith on the part of their par- ents, suclx children be excluded from baptism, must they not, accord- ing to Mr. K's logic, also, be excluded trom heaven ? W'here does Mr. R. find a place for such little ones when they die ? Does he send them to the limbus puerorum of Popery ; or straight to perdition ? Surely, he does neither ! If, then, he will inform us how he gets those rejected children into heaven, I will endeavour to put those whom we request, in at the same door. " The Apostles," says Mr. R., " regarded children, one only of whose parents were believere, as " holy," or set apart and admissible to the house and presence of God, in distinction from the children of other or unbelieving parties, who were declared to be " unclean, &c." Mr. R. mistakes the meaning of this passage altogether. It is against his practice. Let us look at it. The question before the Apostle was, as to whether under the gospel, believers might lawfully live together with unbelievers. This involved a no less serious matter, than the separa- tion of believing husbands or wives from unbelieving wives or husbands, and, as Paul intimates, of helicoing parents from their children. Mr. R-'s grand mistake here, consists in regarding the phrase " your chil- dren" as referring to the children of the mixed marriage parties ; whereas the Apostle refers to the children of the church members in- discriminately. Had the Apostle designed to speak of those children only, who had one parent a believer, and the other an unbeliever, he would have said their children, instead of your children. In address- ing the church, and in giving general precepts, he uses the pronouns ye and you. (See proceeding chap, throughout, and verses 1 and 5 of this chapter.) But in verse 8, when he gives directions applicable to particular cases, although he introduces the phrase, " I say to the un- married and widows," he makes reference to these p.ersons, not by the pronoun you, but them : " It is good for them to abide even as I." The same mode of speaking he continues to use as far down as to the verse • in question : " let thftn marry, — let him not put her away — let her not leave him." After the same manner he would have said, "else were their children unclean," had he intended only the children of t-iP": ■f ' li I 14 ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAF's such mixed cases of marriage as are referred to in the preceding part of the verse ; but his language is, else where your children. Paul's Reasoning then, which a Pedobaptist gloss strips of its force, is simply this : the believing husband, and the believing wife, may dwellt together ; the heathen husband is holy in regard to the marriage relation, not unclean (as Judaising teachers would represent) The heathen hus- bands and wives, because they are unbelieving and out of the church, are not unclean on this account, — else were your children unclean, for a similar reason. Or, take Mr. Dagg's paraphrase, thus, — "The unbelieving husband is not unclean, so that his wife may not lawfully dwell with him. The unbelieving wife is not unclean, so that het hus- band may not lawfully dwell ivith her. Jf they are unclean, then your children are unclean, and not one parent in the whole church must dwell with, or touch his children until God shall convert them.'* The argument, then, of the Apostle in this place, h fatal to infant church- membership. His argument implies that all the children of the Co- rinthian Chriptians, had no nearer relation to the church, than the unbelievino- husband of a believinrj wife. • He declares that their cases are parallel, and that rules of intercourse which would require the believing husband to separate from his unbelieving wife, would require believing parents to separate from their children. But there is no conclusiveness in this argument, if the children had been conse- crated to God in baptism, and brought within the pale of the church, for then the children would stand in a very different relation to the church, and to their parents from that of the unbelieving husband or wife. Now, if infant baptism and infant church-membership were things unknown in Corinth and to Paul, ought they to be things known in Toronto and to brethren here ? " Positive proof," in the wrong direction. In closing his arguments, Mr. R. comes back to the Abrahnraic covenant. He quotes a part of the covenant of circumcision. Genesis, xvii : 7., and says, " Spiritual blessings were thus se- cured to the family ;" I reply, 1. God was the God of the Jews in national relationship. He is three times called the God of the wor- shippers of the golden calf. 2. Whatever spiritual blessings were con- ferred in the covenant of circumcision regeneration was not one of them. The chief blessing from this source was, that " to them were committed the oracles of God," Rom. iii : 1, 2. 3. Under Christ, the old economy, with its ordinances, was annulled, Heb. vii: 18., and a " better covenant established on better promises " introduced Heb. viii : 6, 13. In opposition to this, Mr. R. quotes Gal. iii: 16, 17: •' Now, to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as o£ one, and to thy seed which is Christ And this, I say, the covenant which was conlirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of non- effect" Now, I ask in all earnestness, what has this promise, con- cerning the one seed, to do with the covenant of circumcitimil This I ing part Paul's i simply )gether; ion, not len hu»- church, unclean, lawfully : hei hua- hen your rch must m." The t church- the Co than the ,hat their id require ife, would But there >en conse- le church, ion to the lusband or ship were be things 3f," in the Vbraharaic cumcision, thus se- he Jews in f the wor- 3 were con- not one of them were Christ, the 18., and a duced Heb. ii: 16, 17: He saith seed which •med before thirty years ise of non- romise, con- j/(Mi? Thi* 8ERM0N8 OK BAPTISM. 15 covenant was confirmed, not in Abraham's natural seed, but "IN CHRIST." The covenant of circumcision was confirmed in Abraham and his natural descendants. This covenant looked to all the families of the earth. The covenant of circumcision looked only to Abraham's family. This covenant was given 430 years prior to the law. The covenant of circumcision was jiven 406 years prior. This covenant secured a way of salvation to Jew and Greek. The covenant of cir- cumcision had no redemption in it. Paul says, (in the 19th verse of the chap, just quoted,) "the law was added because of transgressions^ until the seed should come to whom the promise was made." Now, at the giving of the law, there stood before Horeb, hundreds of thou- sands of the legitimate subjects of circumcision, and yet the "seed t» to come, to whom this promise was made." It is painful to notice such comments on the word of God. Pedobaptists loose sight of the fact . that Abraham was in two different senses a father, and that he had two kinds of children. He was a father of flesh and blood ; he was also, " the father of the faithful." These two discriptions of children ex- isted together under the ancient economy, but now, the natural brandies are broken off, and Abraham's children stand by faith. Abraham has ceased in this covenant to be a father after the flesh, and is now only the " father of the faithful. " It is only in this character, that he is known in the gospel dispensation. The Jews claimed, in the presence of Christ, to be the children of Abraham; but our Lord denied their claim, and informed them, that the devil was their father. They were certainly the children of Abraham according to the flesh, but not the children of the father of the faithful. Tiie Baptist, is the only denomination that acknowledges Abraham in this light ; all others make him a carnal, as well as a believing father. We claim Abraham, in the latter sense, as father; nol^|)eing Jews, we cannot in the former. There are only two senses m which any one can be a child of Abraham ; he must either possess his faith or his blood The child of a Gentile possesses neither the on^ nor the other, conse- quently cannot be entitled to any promise given to his seed. We say with Paul, " if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise ;" but our brethren must read it thus,— if your father or your mother be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise I I can not subscribe to such doctrine. • With me, Abraham's children are believing children — Christ's house, a spiritual house composed of living stones. To be born of the flesh, gave a title to all the privileges of the " common- wealth of Israel." To be born of the Spirit, alone, gives a title to any and all of the privileges of a gospel church. Mr. R asks several questions which I will now answer. 1. Was the covenant (of circumcision) made with Abraham, made in Christ ? I answer, it was not 2. Did it involve a spiritual relation between God and believers ? Ans. It did not 3. Did it bear as its sign or seal, the rite of circumcision ? An& Cii'cumcisioQ was attached to that covenant 16 AKIMADVBRSIOKS UPON MR. ROAF'S i I A. Was this seal put upon the infants of bcHevers ? Ans. It was put upon the male infants and slaves of the descendants of Abraham, whether their parents were believers or not 6. Was this covenant confirmed at Christ's appearance in the flesh ? Ans, No. It was confirmed ages before, and if it still has force, the Jews will go back to Canaan ; but in this, Gentiles are not at all interested. What then becomes of the "clear right of believer's children to a church standing," as infered from such data ? Mr. R assumes just such premises as he needs ; this may satisfy tome of his readers — but the intelligent and honest in(iuirer, will demand joroo/" instead of assumption. He assumes, that baptism has taken the place of circumcision. I could admit this, were it a fact, (for it would be enough for me to know that disciples or Lrlietiersvf ere now its subjects, and not male infants eiglit days old, and slaves young and old,) but it is not a fact. Where is the proof? lie assumes, that baptism is a seal Where, in the word of God, docs he learn this? I say that it is not a seal — if it is, let us have the proof. Mr. R speaks of infants having a church standhvj. Have infants and young children a church-standing in Adelaide Street ? Are the children of the flesh, and the children of the spirit, there mingled together in church relationship? This, from a Protestant minister of the nineteenth century ! Mr. R. calls circumcision "the badge of faih !" Where does he learn that it was in any way connected with faith ? Abraham received the siun of circumcision as a seal of tile righteousness of the faith which he had ; but from that hour it became the badge of blood and property. Surely every reader of the Old Testament is acquaint- ed with this fact ! Mr. R. says, " when Christ sent out his Apostles to baptise, he placed no restriction upon their practice ! !" How covld Mr R., with God's lA-uth before him, say this? No restriction! — Christ commanded the baptism of disciples or believers. Did he ever enjoin the baptism of any other class ? What stronger restriction, I ask again, guards the Lord's table ? I have now examined Mr. R's. positive proofs, and what are they ? Has he in command, or example, or inference, found one case of infant baptism in that Book, by which he and I will soon be judged? In full view of my responsibility, I aflirra, that his argument is a mere dream, which can only 6er\-e to lead God's people to substitute for a plain law of Christ, a human invention. - . Mr. R next speaks of the import of baptism, when applied to child- ren, and gives us five specifications. Those who invent ordinances, must also furnish them with an import ; but the import will usually be as unscriptural as the invention. Mr. R may have hit the import of infant baptism — of this I am not prepared to speak, for my Bible is silent on the subject ; but one thing I can say, that the import of Bible baptism is not found in one, or all of his specifications. How obvious that, Bible baptism, and infant baptism, are two things. Mr. R calls his ceremony "an act of dedication." Here he abandons even the law of circumcision. He must know, that, after that rite was performed, the mother and the child were unclean for three and I. It was ibraham, i in the still has 3 are not believer's y satisfy ircr, will tism has it a fact, vers were rcs young assumes, earn this? Mr. R nd young liildren of )gcther in incteenth Where Abraham ess of the c of blood acquaint- Apostles low could ictionf — d he ever triction, I d Mr. R's. r example, by which isibility, I sene to a human 1 to child- rdinances, ill usually le import my Bible import of ns. How iigs. Mr. abandons that rite three and SBRMONS ON BAPTISM. ff thirty days, and that the ceremony of dedication (by appointed sacri<- fices) was a totally different trtinsaction. Baptists bring their children morning and evening, to the (jreat sacrifice offered for sin, and thus never feel the want of a baptismal "legacy." I have thus followed Mr. K., step by step, through his discourse, and with kindness in ray heart towards him, and those who think with hini on this subject, 1 have faithfully, according to my ability, exposed the fallacy of his reasoning. I regret to find such principles of inter- pretation avowed by Protestants, as tire some of tho-ie relied on in this work, to bolster up this human tradition. Concede the correctness of such principles to Papists and Puseyiles, and you may as well think to arrest the surge of tiie ocean by logic and eloquence, as think to resist with ellect, tlie rapid march of these soul-destroying systems. May Ood soon lead his people buck to the sinplicity of the Bible. • SERMON II. In this discourse, Mr. li's. motto is " Si'RINklino, a proper mode of Bai'tism." In reading a discussion of an afHrniative proposition like the above, one would naturally ex[)i!ct to lind a direct appeal to ^^su;/e, in estab- lishing the mijciiiing of the word in (juesLion. This course, however, so iitJ'iipeusuhl;/ necessart/ to the establishment of his premises, Mr. 11. declines pursuing, and seeks to pntve that sprinkling is baptism, by throwing dilhculties in the way of immersion! But will this serve his cause ? By the same process, 1 will undertake to upset the entire canon of inspiration. If I could not, at this period of time, solve one of the dilliculties which Mr. 11. suggests, it would not iofulidatc the testimony of God's Spirit. If that Spirit has employed {(perni intliis case, which always, in literature, svicred, and profane, means literally to immerse, and if Mr. K. proves that immersion in many cases was impossible; he does not thereby prove that baptism means sprinkling, but simply that the Bible is false. A dilhculty can never be lawfully urged to set aside a positive dciclaration, but must be solved in har- mony with such declaration. Mr. U's. ditticulties are imaginary, but were they real they could not serve his purpose. Mr. U. regards, " the mode of administering an ordinance," as of small importance. In this I agree with him; but it is not about the mode of an ordinance that I contend, but about the commanded action. The rites instituted by Jehovah, which required spr nkling, pouring, washing or bathing, could only be performed by strict attention in each oase to the prescribed form, to neglect the form, was to neglect the rite, to substitute another form for the one commanded, was rebeUion, and it is so still. Mr. R. says, "the Lord's Supper cssewfiW/y requires that we discern the Lord's body." This is not accurate. It essentially requires that XfQ eat bread and drink wine, in remembrance ot Christ, while in " the «!: i\ 18 'ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAF S 'I! breaking of bread»' wo are required to "discern the Lord's body," He continues, "it (the Lord's Supper) dues not depend essentially on the part of the day in which it is admini^stered," «fec. So baptism is "the answer of a good conscience toward (lod;" and that answer or response to the gospel promise (what pniniise?) may be truly mudf, whether its utterer stand to receive water from above, or be plunged backwards into water beneath. AVhichover be the form employed, there is baptism when this answer is sincerely made; and tliere is not baptism when this answer is not intended. On this I remark: 1. The answer of a good conscience has nothing more to do with the action of baptism, tlian discerning the Lord's body has to do with the eating and drinking in the supper. A man might look at the bread and wine, and claim that he thus discerned the Lord's body. Woxdd Mr. 11. think that he had obeyed the command to eat and drink ? 2. But what is here said to bo '• the answer f)f a good conscience ?" The Bible says baptism, not pouring, or sprinkling, or any thing that human caprice may suggest, but baitism. This, and this ak>ne, is f.aid to be the answer of a good conscience. Now we can only learn what baptism is by a refei-ence to the imifie of the language. 3. Where, in the word of God, is it ever intimated that one human being's good conscience, can stand for the conscience of another human being? As well might we affirm, that a parent "discerns the Lord's body" for a child; and thus constitutes it a proper suliject of the Lord's table, as to affirm that his good conscience prepares it for baptism. Infants then cannot "intend this atiswer," conseijuently on Mr. R's. premises, it is simply impossiUc for them to be baptised. The first proposition which Mr. 11. discusses, is, "the validity of baptism d(||s hot depend upon the form in which it is administered " He says^ifp. 18.) " baptism is a spiritual act." If I believed this, I should go over to the Quakers. Baptism, with me, is a phjsical act, to be attended to only by disciples or believers. Is the spriidiling (jf an infant a spiritual act ? Mr. R. says, "Christian baptism is wetting or washing for religious purification." Supposing we try this delinition on our author's text: "I indeed wet or wash yon with water unto repentance" — he shall wet or wash you with the Holy (r^.ost and \\\\\\Jire! What sort of a wetting or washing would that be ? Baptism is no where said to be for religious puriiication, and if it were, the question would still come up: what is the divinely appointed action or actions to be per- formed in order to such a result ? Mr. R. says, wetting or washing by any means. This I deny. He offers, in proof of his definition, Heb. ix. 10: "we read of divers washings, or divers baptisms, as it is in the original." Well, divers does not indicate a variety of actions, but various repetitions of the same action in different cases. Divers flocks of sheep, would not indicate that some of the flocks were goats, the term sheep would define the character of ecah flock. So in this case, the term baptisms confines us to immersions. body." essentially >o baptism , answer or uly made, )e plunged employed, here is not irk: to do with to do with hok at the «-d's body. ,o eat and nscience?" thing that lis alone, is only learn 0. one human of another Jiscerns the r subject of pares it for juently on xptisod. validity of ninistered " ieved this, T kt/sical act, prinkling- of "or religious ithor's text : -he shall ^'hat sort of icre said to would still to be per- or washing definition, ims, as it is of actions, ^es. Divers were goats, So in this SERMONS OK BAPTISM. 19 Mr. R continues, "thesq baptisms were employed upon onps and pots," &c. If Mr. 11. will produce one instance from the Bible or the classics, where water, or blood, or any thing else is said to be baptised upon any object, he will do more for the cause of sprinkling and pour- ing, thtin all his predecessors put together have accomplished. But I dety him, with all the lejvrning of Toronto at his back, to produce ONE such instance. We iind upon, following sprinkle or pour, but never baptise. Now if baptism meant to pour, or to sprinkle, it would cer- Udnlij be followed in some cases at le.wt by this prejiofiition. An object sprinkled or poured, is always governed by a preposition ex- pressed or uiultirstood, — an object baptised, never. Mr. R. continues, " the administrator used a portable vessel of brass, which stood on one foot. Did he, suppose ye, immerse the tables, or couches, or beds, in the vessel, or did he, with the bunch of hysop, sprinkle them?" 1. Here is ati attempt to establish the meaning of a word, by sup- jiosbuj a difficultij. I wisli the leader to notice, as we proceed, the k'uid of proof otfered in behalf of sprinkling. 2. When Mr. R. spoke of a "portable vessel," he surely must have forgotten, that for the purposes of puritication, the Jews had in the Temple, ten lavers, and a sea for the priests to bathe in, out of the Temple they had water pots of stone, baths and pools. In lliose the divers immersions were performed 3. The o)ic- tooted vessel, referred to by Mr. R., was simply for the washing of the hands and feet of Aaron and his sons. (See Exodus XXX. 18. 21.) 4. Of the purifications under the law, we read. Lev. xi. 32, that, " any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack; whatsoever vessel it be wherein any w«>rk is done, it must be put into tvater, (in the origi-. nal baptised) and it shall be luiclean until the even," e, they are dared to come and be immersed." Is all tliis just.'^ Is it kind? Is it true.^ Such charges bruugiit against a people who, repudiatiny; the dogma of a baptismal "legacy," earnestly contend for the doctrine of justification by faith uloiie, without the deeds of the law, cannot injure them on eiU'th or in heaven. Mr. 11. comes to tlie sul>ject, and says, " there is not an inetanco yet produced, where tlie word " biipiise," in chit-.'^icul authors, means the act peilornu'd in imnn'r^io:!." Thi.--. is n piliful evasjitiu ! The act perfornitrd in innner'<;;)r.," is irnmer ion itsfU'. JJare Mr. R deny that scores of instances have been produced, where the word means to di]), to plunge, to inimcrse ? lie contiiuus, "There is not an instance in the llul if Scriptures, wliere the word necessarily means that act." Wliatiict? We gather Mr. K's. meanini'' from the folluwiii"'- assertion: — " We are told that to baptise means to plunge under auvl raise up another from the water there is no known inslance of the word denotini"' that ud at all." True, the word .simply does not denote these acts. And, [ must bo excused for a.Tirming, that no man on earth, or now under the earth, ever told Mr. R. tliat it did. 'J'ha word means to dip, to plnnge, to immerse, the risimj (r/'t!ii, is known 'oy p','rl'ect!y independent evi- dence. Still, as an appropriated term, as we shall see shortly, it indicates both biu'ial and resurrection. Circumcision means to cut arouitd, and never appears (literally) without this meaiMng ; yet the word alone, is put for the whole rile, ^\'llut, therefore, Mr. R. calls his " strong assertions " on this point, are utterly without value. H« is fiujhlinn' a lin'meiit of his own creation. He conlinue-s, " In the classical authors, the word often means to sub- merge and keep down a person or thing under the water." This is n(jt correct. The word never has such a signification in classical usage. It means to submerge, but whether the pcTson or thing submerged goes to the bottom or comes to the top; wdu.'ther the person or thing be purilied or defiled, washed or polluted, drowned or sunken, must be learned from the circumstances in each particular case. The word itself has neither washing, nor wetting, nor sinking,, nor drowning in it. Indeed, it has no reference to water at all. It expresses a specific action, namely, dipping, but whether this action takes place in water or oil, in mud or in wa.v, the word testifieth not. When, then, Mr. R. represents us as saying that the loord itself means both puttinj* under and raising up again, he errs. We prove that the word means to dip, or plunge, or immerse. And we prove that by ellipsis and appropriation, in classical and scriptural usage, the idea of rising a;j;ain was understood, and thus, in familiar circumstaaceay formed a t immerBion liun is para< te lecipient, ig to be im- ,o cumc and rue? Such dogma of a jubtitication ue thum on un inetanco hole, lueunb 1 ! The (id Ar. K deny jjd raeauB to t Scriptures, We <>ather told that to ni the water g that ad at And, [ must w under the ip, to plunge, pendent evi- e shortly, it neans to cut ng ; yet tiie Mr. R. calls value. U« leans to sub- ir." This is issical usage, submerged ■son or thing ken, must be The word drowning in ses a specific ace in water n, then, Mr. both putting it the word at by ellipsis idea of rising ea* forix|^d a BERMOKB Oir BAPTISM. #1 part of its meaning. One or two examples will illustrate and establish this fact Homer says : •' As when' a smith to harden an iron hatchet, or polc-ax dipt it in cold water." Here the circumstances of the case are so familiar, that the word in- dicates both immersion and emersion. Again, Plutarch quotes a Sybilline verse, thus: " Thou mayest be dipped, O hlnddcr ! but thou art not fated to sink." Hero it will be seen, that hajitiHuvj and sinking are contrasted ; and that rising to the top is implied in the word baptise. In the Hible, the primary word is frequently employed in connection with ritual purilication, and in all such cases it denotes, the lifting up from the element, the thing ba[)tised, as truly as it does its dipping, .see Exodus, xii: 22. Lev. iv: <>, 17; ix: 0; xiv: 10,51, itc. We do not find it said in these and similar cases, that the hyssop, or priest's finger, was first dipped into and then drawn out of the blood, water, or oil in order to tlie performance of the act or nets of purification. The baptism in every case denotis both the immersion and emersion. Again, Naanian dipped (baptised) himself seven times in the Jordan. Now, if baptism did not imply, raising from the Avater, how could Naaman have been said to have baptised himself sei^en times? The first baptism would have settled his account on earth. In the New Testament the word is employed in the same manner, " dip the tip of his finger in water, — he to wiiom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it, — a gaiment dipjted in blood." In all these cnsea the word brings the subject from underneath the element into the open air. Hero, then, we have .specimens of both classical and Bible usage before us. I have stated facts, and not fancies, given strong proofs, and not made " strong assertions." If such evidence is not conclusive, wliere, on any subject, shall wc find conclusive evidence? Mr. 11. sUys, " There is no example in the Holy Scriptures of bap- tism meaning the dipping of another in water." Does Mr. R., or any other sane man expect to find the word, cither in or out of the Scrip- tures, denoting the administrator, the subject, the action, and the water ! ! To express what Mr. R. demands, we have the words — John, and Christ, and immersed in the river Jordan. Every baptism of the New Testament is an example. Mr. R. says, (p. 20,) " It would only be to ascribe to you a famili- arity with the Greek language which even classical scholars will not pretend to, were I to read out passages from this pulpit ; I will go with you to the Bible where we can stand upon a level." On this I remark : 1. Mr.R here assumes his ability " to read out passages " from the classics to sustain his practice of sprinkling. He must excuse me for affirming it to be my conviction, that the true reason ;of his having declined to " read out passages," is to be found in the withering fact, that he could not, because no such passages as he would need exist. I ' f '■ i n ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAl'S 2. If an English uudience cannot be mtide to understand ilic teach* ings of the Greeks, because they wrote in Greek, how cun they Im made to understand the Apostles who wrote in the same language 1 If the common people can occupy u conwnun level >viih Mr. ri on 'u translation of the Bible, why may they not also occupy a common level with him on a translation of tlu; classics? 'Ihis looks like evasion. 3. The masses both can and .''ironc a little way into it, (Iht labu- lous river of Hell,) iis baptised up to the head.'' Here, again, the subject of this baptism is not said to be baptised, but only baptised as far as he is immersed, " up to tlu head." Slrabo, Geog. page 809, speaks of a riv(T, whose waters are so buoyant, that if an arrow be thrown in, it would scarcely be immersed, (baptised). He mentions, also, a lake, page 1108, on the top of which bitumen floats in which " a man cannot be baptised, but is forcibly kept above." Now, is there a man w cunu's it that tiiis same word, all at once, by scnne ui) ^terious |i»ot-i *» assumes a new meaning in ' the conunission of ( 'hrifti? A fri-'auing too, which subverts its estab- lished spccilic cluinn r. How . .in. s it, that liie. word, witliuu* cavil, dipped Naaniun seven times in the Jordan, and yet, with the wtmo syntax, refuses tu dip Christ in the same rivcf? Do not ,nen forget, thui there is at hand a resurrection morning, and a judgment day ! Mr. li proceeds and asks, " T«> what methods of applying water dues the term baptise refer," 1 reply, that it refers tc no methods whatever of "applying water;" but to a nietliud ofajiplydig asubject. It, is always the subject tiiat is said to be baptised— nwer ihe water. Mr. ll's. first proof that immersion is not essential to baptism is given in the following quotation from scripture, "And he commanded tJie chariot to stand still: and they went down both into tlie water, both Phillip and the Euimch; and he baptised him. And when tiiey were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord ciui;;ht away I'hillip." What think you, reader, of such evidence. J'' li. toils hard to get out of the grasp uf this plain piussagc. He si aggies hard to tiilence its honest testimony; but in vain. This passiii^e is of itself suUicient io settle the dispute. Look at its various pan — 1. They came to (epi) a certain water. 2. They went both down into (eis) the water. 3. The Eunuch is baptised. 4. They come up out of (ek) the water. Did Mr. II. ever imitate this example in his life. This is Baptist practice precisely ; and no man, woman, or child, who ever witnessed the immersion of a believer, can fail to perceive the res«>mblance. But Mr. 11. is certain that the going down into, and comii g up out of the water, did not plunge the Eunuch. If Mr. K. supposes that we understand the prepositions to mean immerse, and rise again, he errs, «nd ought better to inform himself. I go down into the water with a subject, and we both come up out of the water; but I do something more than this, I do what Philip did to the Eunuch, I baptise the subject "But why," asks Mr. R, " did they go down into the water and come up out of it, unless for immersion ?" And I repeat the question emphatically. Common sense will never be able to discover another reason ? Mr. II. is aware of this, hence he tries another tack. He wiys, " It is not said in the orignal, that they went into the water and came up out of it, it is only said that they went unto, and came from iu" Oo this, I remark : L Mr. R. )|fM here abandoned his common level ; left the English || 1 ;< ■MX t 24 ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAF'S Bible, and dipped into the Greek, and has after all misrepresented its teaching. Had he said as some Pedobaptists have said before him, that eis, and ek; have sometimes the meanings for which he con- tends, and therefore, prove nothing, I would not have been surprised, but to affirm without qualification, that the prepositions do not express into, and out of, but unto, and from, is sheer misrepresentation. 2. The primaiy and ordinary meanings of these prepositions are into, and out of Like most other Avords, they have secondary mean- ings; but no critic or translator is at liberty to employ the secondaiy meaning of these or other terms at random. He is bound to give them their primary or ordinary signification, in every instance when circumstances do not demand a secondary meaning. For example, I nn prove that the word Go(f, in the orignal language, has a second- c ' 7 meaning, and refers to finite objects, but am I at liberty in read- ing the Bible to take at random the meaning that suits me? Unitarians do so, and thus rob Christ of his glory. Everlvsting has a secondary meaning, and Universalists, seize it lawlessly and get rid of everlasting punishment. In the same lawless manner, I might say, cis, signifies against, and quote in proof, "if thy brother sin [eis), against thee," — I might tlien affirm that ek means through, and quote as proof, 2 Corinthians, xiii: 4; Having tluis established my premises as righteously ns Mr. II. has done his, 1 might read the j)assagt' thus: " they went down arjainst the water and came up ihrovfjh it." Adopting this lawless mode of procedure, I might prove, that God never put the man info the (Jarden of Eden, only to it; and that he nevor drove him ont of it, but onlj' from it, I might prove, that Daniel Avas not cast into the den of lions, but only to its edge, and that he did not come out o/'the den, but only from it. That Joseph was not cast into a pit, nor taken out again ; that the wicked do not oo into hell, nor the righteous into heaven. The word of God miu'ht be reduced to chaos on such principles. 3. What other prepositions Avould, or co?/W the inspired penman have employed to indicate into and oxt of, than eis, followed by ek? Can an example be pi()duc(Hl where thes(j prepositions ever mean any thino- else than into and ont of when thus situated ? 4. This first preposition takes men into gardens, seas, pits, dens, fiery-furnaces ; into fields, countries, villages, cities, synagogues,, temples, houses, heaven, and hell, ', U-. ■■.,.. • ,_ ,1^,- f.^y/f SERMOXS ON BAPTISM. . '27 A writer in the Dublin Ufdversity Magazine, as quoted by the Globe, November 23rd, 1850, says, (speaking of a certain point in the river) : " Nor is it improbable that here John the Baptist was baptising, and that here our blessed Lord, as he came up out of the waters, received the public seal ol' his ministry, Avhen the Holy txhost came upon him," ike. He represents the stream as rapid, but " shallow near the bank." Here men and women can bathe without difficulty. W liy, I ask, did Mr. R. in this case, omit an important part of tlie truth ? He obvi- ously felt tlie need of a difficult;/ to silence the testimony ol' the Jordan. I quote one more author on this ]iniiit, and leave it; Mark says, "they were all baptised of him in the river of Jordan." But Mr. il. hiis yet more difficulties. The people had no changes of raiment. He says, " they came out to hear, and not expecting to be baptised." Who told Mr. K. this? Matthetv says, "but when he saw many of the Pliarisees and Sadducees, come to his baptism." Now these classes came for the same purpose that others did, and they came to his baptism. Mr. R. .' 'I 2. Two tbings are affirmed in relation to John's candidates: first, tbcy cun/esned their .sinn; second, they were baptised. !Now, how cwuid men confess their sins at the rate of eighteen a minute 1 It was " physically impnssible." Mr. ll's. calculation, then, reduces the •ciipture rccoid of liie fact, to a falsehood. Can a just cause demaud tliis \ 3. Mr. R. makes the phraseology, "Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all tlie roiiion rcniul about Jordan," to mean all the inhabitants of these places. Tills is erroneous — for if John bajjtised all the inhabitants in Jordan, why in the name of common sense was he shoitly afterwards baptising large numbers at Enon? Besides, all that came to his bap- tism were not received. Certain classes rejected the council of (jrod against themselves, nut being baptised with the baj)tism of John. Ilis business was to prepare a people for the Lord. And to assume tliat he baptised any but those who confessed their sins, is to contra- dict the liihle. Tluis sinli, one after another, oni- author's fearfid dilficulties. IJut su[)posing we try Mi. ll's. mode of reasoning for a moment, on another subject. How could Abraham "in tiie self-same day," Oen. xvii. 'j;j, circumcise more than tinee hundretl and eighteen individuals? It took longer lime to circumcise one, than to immerse six. W'iis not the thing "physicaily impossible ?" And then, not one word is said about flowing blood, or binding up of w\>unds, nor are the candidates said to have covered themselves afier the rite! The diificulty in the numbers, then, together with the absence of those circumstances y^hich health and decency would have demanded — the absence of those "great features" in every circumcision, prove, according to Mr. ii's. logic, that they were not circumcised. Abraham, perhaps, touched their forehciids with his finger, for it is not oven sjud that he had a knife ! I could upset revelation itself, on such principles ! But the p(;nple were baptised in the river Joi'dan, we are told. Not so, says Mr. 11., "it would bo as correct a reading of the original to read at Jordan, or with Jordan, for these r.re as ordinary meanings of the prepositions used by the Scripture historians, as in, or into." What will tlie reader think of such a statement, when he is informed, tliat by a careful examination, it has b(^^n ascertained that the pre- position (en) "/m" occurs in the New Testament 2'iOO times, and that out of this immense number of occurrences, it is translated "m"2045 times; ami amongst the remaining instances, in many cases, it should have been rendered " /u." In the original, it is said, I baptise you (en) "in," not with water. He shall baptise you (en) "in" not with the Holy Ghost. G. Campbell, (Principal of Marischal College, Aberdeen) says: " So inconsistent arc the interproters Inst mentioned, that none of them have Bcnipled to remler en to Jordanec, in Jordan; though nothini; can be plainer than that, if tliere bo any inconjjruity in llie e.xpres.sion in water, this in Jordan must be equally incongruous. But Ikty have seen, that the prepo^-ition in could not be avoided tnere, w'thout adopting circumlocution which w'ould have made this deviation from the text too glarina;. The. true partizan of mliatever denomination, always inclines to correct the diction of the Spirit by tliat of the party. ^* told. !"2045 slioultl BERMONS ON BAPTISM. 29 At water, and at the Holy Spirit, is inadmissible — while with the Jordan (seven feet deep and one hundred and titty wide,) is a super- lative absurdity. But Mr. R. asks, " what was the mode of baptising with the Holy Ghost and with tire, clearly by the descent of the Holy Ghost and cloven tongues of tire which sat upon them." On this I remark: 1. Tile descent of the Holy Gliost is nowhere called boptism. And a purtiiil application of divine influence, such as is set forth in the sprinkling of a babe, is a cruel mockery. On Pentecosi,,ahey were overwhelmed in divine intluence. Who doubts this? 2. The communication and reception of the influences of the Spirit, are represented by a variety of ligures. By the springing up of water: by blowing like the wind: by tlowing like a river: by the emis- sion of breatii: by the drinking of water; by the pouring out of water, and by baptism in water. IVow why is "j)ouring out" seizt'd, without a warrant, and applied to baptism, while the others are rejected? Is not llie reason tran.^parent '? Wliy, I as!;, are not !^pri^,ging• up, blowing, flowing, breathing, drinking, ttc, regarded as so many modes of baptism? Wliat claim has p'^uriny, that these have not J Why confound jiouring and baptism, any more than blowing and baptism, or pouring and drinking I The Spirit is never said to be haptiaed Ui'ON men. 3. On the day of Pentecost, wc are told, "there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and \i Jilted all the house where thei/ were s'dtiu'i, and tlieie appeared cloven tongues hke as of tire, and it sat on eacii of them. Here, we perceive, that the emblems of the Spirit were above and around them. They were enveloj)ed in those emblems, as tlu;y had been in water at their baptism. Mr. li. confounds what is perfectly distinct, the descent of the Spirit, Avith the baptism of the disciples. Previous Lo a baptism in our chapel, water is poured into the baptistry; this pouring is in order to iXm, baptism; but what would you think of the man who should make it the baptism itself? Not more incongruousl}'^ would such an one reason, than does the man who calls the descent of the Spirit the baptism of the disciples. 4. Tlie copiousness of the Spirit's gifts, is indicated by the baptism in the Spirit. Destroy this idea, so beautifully presented by the ligure of submerging into divine influence, and you dishonor the work of the Spirit. Mr. II. next says, " our Lord himself, received the baptism of John, to which I have just referred the descending of the element iipon him." With my views, I would not be the author of this assertion for the universe. Did John baptise the water upon Christ ? The Bible says : not merely that our Redeemer was baptised " in" the Jordan, but (eis) " into" the Jordan. It is just as certain that Christ was immersed into the Jordan, as it is that language has a meaning. The same pre- position wliich took him into houses, synagogues, temples, cities, villages, and ultimately into heaven itself, took him into the Jordan. 30 ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAF'S May the time soon arrive when ail wlio love Christ, shall be led to follow his example. To justify his assertion, that Christ might go into Jordan without being immersed: Mr. It. says, "in the Greek church, it has Leeti ciistomari/ for the recipients of baptism to kneel in a font, while a priest lifted u[) water and poured it on the head." I can only here save Mr. R's. houestif at tlie expense of his intelUgcnce, The Greeks 2)0Hr vjnni and call it baptism/ / / On the contrary, they liave from lirst to Id^U practised trine immersion, and that, too, in the coldest regions (111 the face of the earth. Can it be necessary to prove this? 1 will give one authority, which i\o Pedobaptist will accuse of unfairness, i moan Professor iStuart, of Andover, (a Presbyterian.) He says: " The mode of bl1l)li^?nl by immersion, llio oiii'iital cIiuitIi hiis iilways con- tinued topi osoiV(',c'V( iidowii to the jiivsoiit time. The nuiiiliers of tliis cliiireh ai« aceiistonied to rail the niemheis of the western eliuieh, sprinklal. C/iristiuns. \y )\\l[\\ii l)Ut vision by t l\t(l tilL' 41, which n beyond ess to rise •couitesy; ! not com- ing, with iu bale bfiptism, they are id to liis d Maria iness, the L.oril Christ iin be more rashness ol' s ascribed ifiliness. d his sons ;v. viii. 6.) It is with the above character, know, that examples of it, and thumb of SERMONS ON DABTI8M. 91 his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot." So it seems, smearing the lip of the ear, the thumb, and the great toe, is baptism!! What ishall we have ne.xt? 1 raise my humble protest aTjaiast such trifliiijj with God's word, and the consciences of dvin^ mortals. Mr. 11. next refers to the case of Cornelius ; " can any man Jorhid water." Now, t'uys Mr. U., "if any could forbid water, that water must have been wiiat could be moved to Cornelius." How, I ask, can this serve the causo of sprinkling? If Mr. It. can 'move' enough of water to till a cup, 1 can as righteoushj move enough tu fill a bath. If the Holy Spirit had intended to say, who can forbid a cup of water to be brought in for the piu'pose of sprinkling, he would have done so. But nothing of the kind is said. The phrase simj)ly implies, — can any object to the baptism oftlie.se persons? As a matter of fact, Avater was, and is brought in to till baths. I, myself, have had water brought into a private bath, aiul in it bsiptised with great ease, a jov- full disciple. Baptism and not sprinkling took place here. Mr. K. next comes to Haniaiia, and conjures up anolluT difficulty to establish the meaning of a plain word. He finds not one drop of water in Samaria, exvX'[)t in Jacob's well. Now, the truth is, Mr. R. knows nothing at all about the water resources of Samaria in those days. This, 1 again say, is an infidel argument. If Mr. R. may use it, so may Gibbon. But is it not marvellous, that Mr. R. can tiiid euowjh of water for purposes of refreshment and ablution for all the peoj)le ; enough of water for all their cattle, 365 days in every yeai', aiul yet, on one joyous occasion, can find no water in which to baptise the happy disciples! A strange process this by which to evade tl*e established meaning of the word! If Samaria had water enough for the ordinary purposes of man and beast, it bad enough for baptism. Mr. R. next speaks of Paul's baptism, and we have more difficulties to establish the meaning of a word. He thinks " it is not likely " that immersion was here practised, — "not probable " that their baths were large enough. What, in the. name of reason has Mr. R's. " not likelies'* and " not probables'^ to do in a (piestion of this character? Is it not very "likely" that Paid obeyed God? But he was exhausted, we are informed, and Mr. R. says : Paul "arose" to be baptised; the act which he woidd have to perform, for receiving baptism from Ananias." IV/iy, I ask, was it necessary for an exhausted man to arise to be sprinkled? The commaiul to arise in ord(n' to immersion, was necessary, while * arise in order to be sprinkled \vas not neces- , sary. Such phraseology is frequently employed in scripture as an incitement to some course of conduct, as, Arise, go over this Jordan, — arise, shine ; arise, and stand upon thy feet, ttc. Besides Paul's baptism was an emblematic waJiiag, — sprinkling is never in figure or in fact a washing. Lastly, Paul himself tells us that he and others were buried in bajitism. The Jailor com(!s next, and Mr. R. says, " it cannot he supposed that he had a bath in a heathen prison." One thing is in evidence H 82 ANIMADVKR8I0NS UFON MR. ROAf's v.: ^ f -h rii { \ ho had a river close by, and the cloud of midnight was a sufficient fuard for him. Louk at the circumstances of this case. First, the ailor, with liis light in his hand, brings them out. Second, they preach to all in tlie house. Thifd, he takes them, (it does not men- tion where) the same hour of the night, washes ihfir stripes, and is baptised, he aiid his. Fourth, he bi ings tiiem into the house and sets mciit before them. Now, w/ii/ did they leave the house at itiidnight, unless for immersion? ]\Ir. R's. dillicultifS nut unrrcMjuently testify against him, and uiukr the rack of his torture cr} nut immcrnioii, Mr. K. next takes up the baptism of the y.OOO. The sum of his argument is, that twelve men could nut have accomplis.lied the work! Now, i should like to bo one of twelve who shuuld agnia have such a privilege. A lew years ago, i baptised (if) indi\iduals "(/tct ////// and in order" in just ;<0 miiuiLes. At this rate, fuur hours would have been amply siuiicient, in which to have baptised the whole Ji,OUU. But we leara from Acts, x: 48; that the Ajjijslks commanded assist- ance even on small Lapiisiiig ojcasions, ;'.nd v, hy not heie ? All will admit then, that the se\enty di.-ciples had a right U> I;apli.se. These added to tliL- \2, would gi\e us .^2 L^•l;)li^ers, and il:i;< i. umber v.uuld accomplish the w(jrk wilii ea>e in 4U minutes. Daplist ministers can- EOt fail to smile at such calculations. But we have still another dijficvllji. No water ! Ko water ! Alas for t)ie teeming ii;ha! iiants of Jerusalem ! Alas, for the p-ai'ched and tliirsty tiibesof l.-rael ! Alas, f<»rman and beast I DulfLoj) ! my com- miseration isnu;saj)plied> totally ! 'J iiere was enough ol v-aler lor all tlie ordinary pur])o>es of ihe tens of thousands of ni» n and beasts in the c^ty, enough for ox, en lugh fjr a^s, hut there was jioi enough in which to baptise iLose o,00u believers. iJesperate must be the cause that demands suvli a dei'enct;. We tind, However, that wati'r was not so scarce an article in Jerusalem in those days, as many seem to imagine. 'Jo say nothing of the numerous private baihs, and j)!aces in ihe Temple, (and the disciples had access to the Temple and " had favour with j'll the jx-ojile,") there was the jjool oi Siioum and lUt/usdu. This last joul, Maundrell makes 120 paces long, 40 broad, and 8 deep — "wliieh basin" says Calmet, "being deeper in some places than in others, uneven at the bottom, might be deej) enough to swim in in some iir.rts, while in others it might merely serve to wash the sheep." According to the dimensions given by Chateuuhriaud, it measures "150 feet long, and 40 wide, or tJSO feet around ! Now, takiiig this lowest mea- surement, 80 administrators of baptism might stand within its verge 4 feet apart, and, in 40 minutes or less, baptise the 3,000. ) notice these quibbles, not because 1 regard them as ailectingmy practice as a ]^aptist, that practice rests upon the Divine record. The word finds water enough in every instance, with as much certainty as the word circumcision finds a knife ; bul I notice them simply because many honest-hearted enquirers suppose them to have force. As to the hackneyed idea that the converts KRM0V8 OM BAPTISM. 83 Bcient it, the , they t men- and is nd hc'ts iduighl, tfslity u't'sion, n of his c \\v\\i\ nth/ ond lid luivo L! y,ouu. ;d assi^t- AU vill . TIUEC er v.uuld btcib can- r ! Alas iched and iiiy coin- tter lor all ;i!«lsin ihc t be tliC Jonisalcm „g of tlie ic di^ciijles • IiCt»|iU',") Miiundrell ■mu" ^ays .'ven at iho ts, Avhilein x'urding to feet long, nvcsi mea- lin its verge .1)00. Electing my .ne record. ,h as much 1 notice rs suppose ,he converts '1 had no changes of raiment, at a feast of the Jews, the assump- tion is most gratuitous. And again, I say, that there is just as much evidence to prove that they had common sense enough to decently take cnre of thenisi Ives, as there is to prove, that cir- cumcised |)ersons had to take care of themselves. We have next brought under our notice, Roman 'i : 4; and Collossian?, ii : 12, buried with Christ by baptism. These pas- ' sages, one would naturally suppose, place our practice beyond the reach of even cavil itself; but Mr. R. says, "there is nothing in immersion like burial !" I appeal to the common sense of every man, woman and child, who has eyes to see, or intelligence to discover the resemblance between an object and its well defined shadow. Surely, we bury our candidates in baptism. And surely, we raise them again ! But. says Mr. R., "when a body is buried it is not dipped and raised again, or rather, the feet and legs first placed in the ground, and the rest of the corpse plunged and raised Besides, if our Lord's burial is to be imitated, there must be a baptising horizontally, for the cave or tomb in which he was buried was in the side of a rock ; and bodies were putintoit laterally, and not by lowering or dipping." On this I remark : 1. Bodies are buried in the ground ; and my Bible teaches the sublime doctrine that they shall be raised again. 2. Christ was buried and rose again. These are facts ! 3. Mr. R. reasons here just as might a person totally ignorant of the nature of symbolical language. The mere circumstances con- nected with any transaction symbolized, are never in the symbol. Thus, the paschal lamb, was not crucified, yet it was a perfect sym- bol, it was a lamb slain. On the great day of atonement, the goat was not crucified, but its blood was spilt, and it was sacrificed. Now, as in these cases, had not the victims been put to death, they could not have symbolized the death of Christ; so, unless baptism be a burial in water aud a resurrection out of it, it is absurd to say, that " we are 6? Note.— A few unimportant typographical errors have been over- looked in the first part, such as— when, for where; these, for those; is, for are; and on page 11, eight lines from the bottom, received, for revealed. I i I. ■ ' tt f