,v^.. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 11.25 l^m |Z5 |5o ■^■» RBH *^ 1^ 12.2 1.4 I 1.6 V] 71 ^1 '/ y^ Riotographic Sciences Corporation L17 V ^ .V :\ \ '"is ?0 >:v^ o^ 23 WfST MAIN SfREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Note* techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pelliculAe Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartas gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ RelJi avec d'autres documents D D D Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, ihese have been omitted from filming/ II SB peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutAes lors dune restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires: L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a At« possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproriuite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-deasous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies Pages restored and/oi Pages restauries et/ou pellicul^es Pages discoloured, stained or foxe< Pages dicolordes, tacheties ou piqu^es Pages detached/ Pages ditachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible \ I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ rr> Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ n~\ Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ ( t t 8 C f s i s T vt IV d ei b ri rf □ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film6es d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Cft document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X y 12X 16X 20X 26X 30X 24X 28X ] 32X e itails 8 du modifier r und Image The copy filmed here has been reproduced thank* to the generosity of: Milli Memorial Library McMastar Univariity The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in Iceeping 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 anding 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 cornar. left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grAce A la g6n*rositA de: MMii Memorial Library McMattar Univareity Les images suivantes ont «t« reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu He la condition et de la nettet« de l'exemplaire f ilm«. et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier eat imprimie aont filmAa en commen^ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Toua les autrea exemplairea originaux aont filmto en commandant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniire page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un dea symboles suivanta apparaltra sur la derniire image de cheque microfiche, aolon le cas: le symbols — »> signifie "A SUIVRE". le symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, pianchea, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre film«s A des taux de reduction diffArenta. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clich«, 11 est film* A partir de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, er> prenant le nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivanta illustrent la mAthode. irrata to pelure, nd D 32X 1 p. 3 t 2 3 i • • 6 A DISCUSSION ON BAPTISM-WHAT IS IT? nETWKKN H. McDIARMID, A.M., Editor of the Chrintian Sentnui, TOKON'TO, CANADA. Ay 1 1 L. D. WATSON. D.D., LL.D.. Pautorofthe MethodUt Episcopal Vhur eh, Tonawanda, N.Y., HEI-D IS THE DISCIPLES' CHAPEL, TONAWANDA, N.Y. Begiunino the iJth ami cloning the 21st ying four hours — and that the second speaker fol- lowed witli two replies occupying equal time This was followed by six half- hour addresses on each side. It is thought that the reader will not be disappointed if he hopes to find in this volume a pretty full as well as a very interesting and gentlemanly discussion of the question in controversy. h'EroHTHIi'S i 'HUT I VWA TIC. i This is to certify that I have carefully and impartially re^ ported and revised sixteen addresses, ei^'lit l)y Mr. H. McDiariuid, and eight by Dr. L. D. Watson, which were deliv- ered in the Christian Chapel, Tonawanda, N.Y., and which are now printed in this volume, together with an addresH deliveret* by Mr. McDiarmid on the first evening; but which last speech referred to, was neither reported uor revised by me. The above-mentioned revision heing merely an effort to insure verbal correctness, and a clear and concise rendering of the addresses, without in the least changing the sense or sub- stance of the same. I do hereby aflirm that the book, so far as the sixteen addresses are concerned, will give the reader a full and complete report of the discussion. Gkuruk B. Hastinqs. Tonawanda, N. Y. [The reporter was not empl<)yed till the sei'ond night. The first wldress is therefore printed from the speaker's own manu- script.] Buffalo, August '24th, 1882. Mr. Geo. B. Hastings is an unusually good reporter, and comes nearer to rerhal airiirdcy than any oth«r that 1 have ever known. 1 shall endeavour to secure his services whenever I have an important address to make without a manuscript be- fore me. A. Cleveland Coxe, Bishop, &c. Statk of New Yohk Senate Chamrer, Albany, August 'iHth, 1882. I have known George B. Hastings a number of years as an accomplished and reliable stenographer. I have the utmost confidence in his integrity and ability. Hudson 0. Tanner. Stenographer to the N. Y. State Senate. ( The testimonif of the Episcopal Bishop of Vfestern New York and that of the latdhnj nportir in the State, will leave no doubt in the mind^ of the readers as to the accuracif of the report of the dscussioH printed in this book.) 4 V. CORRESPONDENCE 1U:T\VKKN \i. Uhi'.oKNK, IVvSToU (>!• TIIK ('ill HCIIOI I )|S(II>I.KS, T(>NAWAM»A, N.Y., AM) Uu. WaTSoN, PasIOK mF TIIK M. E. CllUUC H, T()NAWAM»A. To fhi KtUtnis of the Hirahl : It is a tiict well known to tlie public that nc'^otiatiuns have been pondini? between Dr. WiitKon, of th«' M. K. Church, and Ehler Osborne, of tho Discii)le (!hurch, in this phice, in refer- ence to an oral debate on tiie (luestion of biipfisni. The public, therefoie, are entitled to know what progress has been made, and whether tlie discussion is to take place or not, and if it fails who is to blame for the failure. Attention is threfore cal- led to the following communications, which explain themselves: Tonawanda, Marcli 21, 1882. /)r. fVatsun : Dear Sis: Since the introduction of the subject of baptism by you at the first liible Headings at your church, much in- (juiry as to its object, moNAWANi»A, March '1\K 1MH2. Vv.nu Sik: Your favor of to-«lay received, hi reply, we would Hay that wo couhl not diHcuKK the Huhject with the re* Rtrictioiis yon name. Arc you willing; to diHcuHs the prupoRition a^'reed upon hetwcen uh with the Kia^ JamoH version of the Hd)le and all other authorities aw to the meaning' oftiie Hebrew and Greek textH, the Hebrew and the Greek textH to be the ultimate authority? Very truly yours, L. OSROKNB. TuNAWANDA, March HO, 1H82. Dkau J^KoiiiKii OsKOKNK : lu re^'ard to your Communication of yesterday I hiive to say: According to your proposition the meaning of all the Greek words you name i?, to be ascertained where they occur in the New 'iVHtament only. Now, as the w.irds in every hook uiust be interpreted in the light of its own contents, and as the M. I*!. Cimrch reciogniseK no "authorities " but the Hible upon this subject ; and as you claim with us that the hible iw the only rule ot laith and practice in regard to all religious matters: and as you have declined to decide this (piestion by the Hible, we must, with more reason, we think, respectfully decline to decide it by the "creeds" atul "tradi- tions of men.'' Fraternally, L. D. Watson. ToNAWANDA, Afarch 80, 1882. Di. Watson : Dkak Sir: Not being nble to join issue in the discussion ol any of the propositions olTered, you will at least have our sym- pathy in what may be your new-born crusade against "creeds" and " traditions of men." It really seems to us like a new de- parture to be confined to the books in which words occur in order to find their definitions ! We had always supposed that some previous knowledge of the meaning of the words was n( cessary to the understanding of any book in which they are used. If it is true, as you say, that '* the words in every book must be int preted in the light of its own contents," then a gn at deal of unnecessary primary work has been performed in order to get at their true meaning. As we cannot all read our Bibles in the original Hebrew and Greek, some one must tell us the meaning of the terras used, and in selecting teachers to interpret the original texts we hope our right of choice will com- mend itself to your better judgment. We shall be happy to notify yon of the time of the commence- ment of our " discussion," and it shall not be our fault if it prove to be all on one side. Very truly yours, L. OSUOUNK. MR. McDIARMID'S FIRST ADDRESS. f First yii/litj. PRnpnSITION. — CHRIST COMMANDED IMMERSIOX. J^ro. Chainiian owl Christum Frinuh, — It was tlioii;,'lif, ns yon arc aware, that a public disenRsion toucliinj» i\\c tidiin niul tivl'jcrts of Baj^ii-m, would bo liokl in your town, but ns all (ffoits iu tbi.s diicction liavo failed, I nm liero by invitation (o deliver a series of lectures upon the subject. To you who linvo read tlio cones|HU)dei)co published in one of your papers, it is only necossaiy lo say tliat wo were not willinj^ to enter into a discussion as to tlic nirnniiip of a Greek word, Imptizo, pled^'od to qiiofo no book but tlic Bible— the final a[)penl to bo to tlio FJul'rrw and Orcrk texts. Tliif, as any one inny see, wouKl not only allow the speakers to atsfrt what they pleased about the meaning: of tho Hebrew and Grec k words in dispute, but it would luevcnt them from jnorinf/ anything' \)y an ai pral to the Lexicons or Dictionaiics of these lan^Mia.ujes. Such a shuttin;:: out of li;;ht, as to the meaniuf,' of words, is not to bo tolerated by ouo who seeks the li«,'ht of unchanging truth. Under such a limitation, the spenkers would bo compelled to set themselves up as tho final authority, as to the meaning of the words that mijlit bo brought into the discussion. It will be time enou«,'h for us to assume such wisdom as to the Hebrew and Greek languages when we fiud tliat the scholarship of the ages is against us. 10 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT? Our Saviour gave a commission for all times and all climes — to be obeyed by all who should believe on Him, whether wise or unwise, young or old. Such a commission outjht to be easily understood. Prophecies may not give up their hidden moaning even to the wisest of men ; but commands to be obeyed by all, must not be " hard to be understc 1." ilvery word in the commission easily dis- closes its meaning, as it ought, to the earnest seeker after truth, whose mind has not been confused by words without knowledge. Let us give the commission as in Matt, xxviii. 19 : Grkkk. — ruiiittlnntti Dint tiKithccteu'iufe jxinta ta cthiiee bap- tizo)it>is antous ets to onoina toil Patrut> kal ton Jtnioukai ton hagiou PufAimatos. "Go ye therefore) and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them nto the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." — Jiecised Va\sion. There is as great necessity for translating bajitizo into the English and the other languages of modern times, as there is for translating poymtln'iites, the first word, "^o." Why not leave (dl the commission in Greek ? Every word in the commission, or in the whole Greek New Testament as to that, has as much rigl^t to keep its meaning under cover, as has baptizo. The meaning of none of them is more readily discovered. If it were my business to prevent people from under- standing the words of the commission, I would treat each word it contains just as hapdzo is treated by those teachers of men who clamor for modes of baptism. In that case I would say, and say truthfully, too, that jiorenth enters does not necessarily always mean "//''."' It sometimes means pass^ die; also, lice. Therefore, I would say, were I dark- ening matters, no man can tell what it means iu the In BAPTISM — WHAT IR IT ? 11 commission ! or anywhere elfec ! In the snme way, mathecteusate would bo treated ; it means tcaeli, or make disciples, but then it mIso aonuthucs means hnn. How dark the commission is getting under tliis stvle of treat- ment. Then ctJuwe, wiiilo it nieniis itatious frequently, it sometimes mean^: jMit/ttus ns distinguished from civilized people ; thus the commission may not embrace ns I Also the word onoma, name, sometimes means fmttmr, as well as half a dozen othe.' things. So a mist could also be thrown around y>^///v>6', Father, hHlos^^SonJuu/ios, Holy, and thicuma^ Spirit. ILdjios means pure as well as holy ; jnicunia means air, wind, as well as " Spirit." This would give us jnire air instead of "Holy Sj/irit ' in the commission ! This is exactly the way haptizo is treated, and its meaning hidden from the people. It /.s latvlessncsn. Nearly every word has a variety of meanings or definitions. Nearly every word is used soinelinu's in an unnsmil sense ; but he who on this account seeks to throw doubt over a woid in its hundred occu)-rences in the ]^>ible, might he more profitably engaged. If all the other words of tlie Bible were treated as haptizo is treated, we would have no liible iu our own tongue worth mentionmg. We claim that hajdizo means iimncrse, and ought to be so translated in the New Testament, as it is iu other books. When we say imineiHf, it is to be understood that dip, plunge, overwhelm, wash, and such ^\ords, may be used instead, sometimes, as a matter of taste or fitness. Immersionists are frequently charged with being unchar- itable because they practise immersion oni.v, and those w^ho allow the candidates tlie choice between sprinkling, pouring, and immersion, are held up as charitable by way of contrast. As some are misled by this claim, kt mo read some extracts from these charitable people. Rev. John Wood, Congre- gatioualist, iu his book on Baptism, p. 24, says : 12 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT? "Affusion is the Scriptural mode." Rev. T. Witherow, Piesbyterian, in *• Scriptural Bap- tism," p. 23, says : "Immersion lias no footing in the Bible." "In the whole word of God there is no command to dip." Rev. D. D. Currie, Methodist, in "Catechism of Bap- tism," p. 41, says : " Tlie testimony in favor of sprinkling is clear and irrefutable. It is the Bible mode." Rev. Cameron, Presbyterian, in his tract, p. 8, says : " Immersion is in opposition to the word of God." These statements are as positive and direct against immersion, and in favor of sprinkling, as statements could well be made ; but if they are true, tlicy arc not made too positively. With no more positivencss — and pcihaps no less — do immersionists claim immersion as tlie act ordained by the Saviour, and declare that spriukliwi "is in opposition to the Bible." But unlike their more charitable bretlnen, they will not depart from what they consider the Lord's commandment, and practise what they liavo just declared to be in opposition to the Bible — for the sake of gratifying themselves or their converts, Is it chai ity to do in the name of the Lord what we have just declared the Lord never commanded ^ Let those who beast of such charity make answer. A minister in your town — Dr. Watnon, who is here to-night — recently printed, over his own name, in the I/erakly what I shall now quote : " There are no instances in the Bible wbere Baptism means to immerse, but, on the contrary, there are cases where it means to sprinkle and pour We b.-xptize by sprinkling and pouring because they are revealed in the Bible, and immerse b* cause it is not prohibited." This is the way to be charitable, I suppoae — Immerse BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? 18 ig becansc it is not proliibitccl ! In tlio Lord's name ? By Ilis authority, or whose ? Such charity, such Hberty or lawlessness might equally well administer extreme unction to the dying and effect dehverauce from hades for the spirits of the wicked dead, if they could he reached, in the name of the Lord by the prayers of the saints. Our question is : What did the Lord command when he said : " hupttzlnj them " ? What does the Greek word hajifizo mean ? We have no concern about *' mo'/a of baptism." This is a phiase, of which the Bible knows nothing. It is an invention, among the many inventions, of men who succeed in preventing people from learning wliat buptlan itaelf is. Jesus never commanded ''modes of baptism," lie ordained bajiliain itself. J.ct this not bej'onjoifcn. What in haiiti.sni ? Let us first appeal to the Grcak Lexicons or Dictionaries, as we would appeal to Webster or Worcester or Walker as to the meaning of a disputed English word. To the Greek Lexicons we go for the mean- ing of Greek words. Suppose now wo read Mathew iii., 1 : " lu tliose days came John the Buptist." John, the who ? The Greek word is Baptistees. Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon of 18G9 says : " Baptistees, one that dips, a baptizer." Dunbar's Greek Lexicon of IS-iO says : " Baptititees, He who dips or immerses a baptizer, a Baptista.'' Donnegan's Greek Lexicon says : '• Bapiiste^s, One who immerses or submerges, one who confers baptism." Pickering's Greek Lexicon says : u BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? (. w i ' *♦ Bapt'iKtees, IIo who dips, a tl^'cr, a baptizer, the Baptist." Scliicvi'lliiis in liis Grcik Lexicon, 183G, says: «' liiiptistecs, llo who dips or immerses, a baptizer, baptist." I mij^'ht add other Lexical testimony as to the meaning? of JiifptifttPCH, showinjrr that John the Baptist was one who immersed the people who came to him ; but this is suffi- cient. The Lexicons from which I have quoted, and from which I will hereafter (jtiote, were made by members of churches which practise sprinkling. Lot not this bo for- gotten. As scliohirs and candid mon tlioy could <];ive no other testimony — though it was contrary to their practice. Let us now read Matthew iii., G. : " And they wore biiptized of liim in Jordan." Having already learned tliat H'l/distrr.'i means, " ho who iiviiit'r.'ifs or confers baptism,'' it is hardly needful to quote authorities as to the meaning of the verb Impfizo liere used. But we will quote, nevertheless, a few Greek Lexicons as to its meaning. Tiian Grimm's Lexicon (»f the New Testament there is no higher uuthoritiv. Here is what this Lexicon testifies. '■^ Bnptizo — L — First, properly I iinjni.rso repeatedly, I im- merse, I submerge ; by immc'rsini» or snbmerjjinfj, I cleanse, wash, purify with water, equivalent to iahal (Heb. for dip. H. Ki. v., U.) II. — In the New Testament it is used especially of the rite of holy washing, established first by John the Baptist, after this through the command of Christ, received hy Christians and conformed to the nature and iiuport of their religion. Tliis is immersion into water, wrought for the purpose that it might be a sign of faults and crimes wiped away ; uudertakeu by those who, led by a desire for salvation, wished to be admitted to the privileges of the Messianic Kingdom." IJAI'TISM WHAT IS IT'? ir, Let ns qnoto from Walil's Grork Lexicon, 1820. I have it here in Englisli and Latin whicli I copied directly from the work itself in the University of Toronto. ^^liiiptizo — {From Iii>ptn, (]]]) fivqtipnth', in tlio Now Toatu- ment.) I innnorse ; proixnly and truly con('«rnin{? tiic sacred immersion Passivo and niidtllo si;,'iii(i('uti(ni, I snfTer mysolf to be immersed, I receive the K.icrfd wasliint;. Matt, iii., 155, Luke iii. 7, 12, vii. 21), :3(», Acts ii., 11, viii., 12, i;}, ;W}, ix., 18, xvi,33." In view of this testimony in rej^ard to which all stand- ard Greek Lexicons a}i;reo, what mnst lionest men think of the candor of liev. W. A. ]\IcKay of Woodstock and Rev. T. Gallaher, D.D., of Laj^ranj^o, Mo., andotheis who declare that, No first class Greek Lexicon gives immerse as a meaning of hajitizo in the New Testament. Mr. McKay offered a reward for such a Lexicon and when I confronted him with the Lexicon in hand, he would not look into it, but would ^-efer it to men more than a hundred miles distant, and thus he made good a very narrow escape. Now let us read Matthew iii., 7 : " But when La saw many of the Pharisees and Sadduces come to his baptism " — Greek hapilsma. Let us see what the Lexicons sav about the Greek word haptisma to which we have now^ come in reading our New Testament. Dunbar's Lexicon says : — '* Baptisma, Immersion, dipping, plunging, — Metaphori- cal, misery, calamity, that is, with which one is over- whelmed (Math. XX., 22.) " Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon, 18G0, gives : •* BapHsma — Dipping in water, baptizing, in the New Testament." Hedericus Greek Lexicon gives : -— lit 16 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? i •• JjnptLsmri, Immersion, dippiag (ivimcrsi), intinctio.) Wiibl's Greek Lexicon says : ♦• Ji'iptismd, Immersion ; it is nscd concerning: the sacred immoibion of John, then of that which Christ appoiutctl, &c.'* But do not the Greek Lexicons, or some of them, also give sprinkle or pour as moauiugs as well as immerse, pcr- ha])s you will ask ? We will now give y:>n a little testimony on this point. A letter was recently written to several Professors of the Greek lan^^niaf^e in the best American cjllogca asking the following question. *' Dear Sir, — Will j'on plpaso writo to mo tlsp nnmn find pnb- lislitr if at least one standard GrtMk-Engrsh Lexicon that pivcs fitlier ^prihkJc. or 2^onr as oiio of the n»pp.tjini.'s of the Gre(k wnnl baptize i If thero is no such standard Le:;icon state the fact." Prof. W. S. Tyler of Amherst College, Massachusetts, in reply says — "I do not know of any good L'^xicon wliicb gives spriiikJe ns a rondering for ba})tizo. Li»Mell & Scott, wliich i« now the standard L'^xic;)n lor classic Gr. ek, gives ponr upon as one of the meanin frfqucutly, rcspectiii*^ tlio tliiily events of hfe. I liave his works iicrc, tiaiishiteil hy \N'ilhaui Wiiiston, A.M., Professor in the Uiiivor.sity of ('ainhriil<,'c. Ou paije 84 ho translates it "clip[)in,L,'," i»a;,'o 004 "dipiied," ajjd paj^e 435 "dipped." 0.1 i)av,'es 199 and 498, when it is cLar the objects — ships — could not i-isc or hi taken out, ho trans- lates it well cuon;^di, "drowned," which, liowover, is rather what followed the b;i}>tiziiig. Wiiy cannot hitpttzo in the Now T^'.stfunont bo translated iiito Eii;^'lish as well ns in the works of Jj.se[dnis ? The vai ioty of practices iu the churches prevents it. 7'A/s' <)i(;j/it not su to he. Let us now open four /Ublcs; tho insj)ired Hebrew ; the Greek, translated by the Seventy ; the German, translated by Luther ; and the English, translated under King James. Turning to II. Kings v., 14, we read that " ^stinmamlijjped him.self seven times in the Jordan." The Hebrew word in this passage for illi>jif,(l is tnhalf the Greek word is baptuOf the Gorman word is tanfcn. Christ and his Apostles read the Greek Bible, and the New Testament writers generally quote from it. Christ, in ordaining the ordinance which we call baptism, selected the word iMtjdizo, which tells us that Naamau dipped him- self. If baptizo in II. Kings v., 14 means dlp^ as it does, according to the Hebrew, English and German Bibles, how happens it that it does not mean the same in the New Testament? Martin Luther in his translation of the Bible, which I have here, uses taufen {dip) when telling what Naaman did to himself iu the Jordan, and like a DAPTiroI — WHAT 19 IT ? 21 consistent translator, when he comes to tho passngo in Matthew wliich says John hniitizel in tho Jordan, lie trans- lates it tdufm {
  • ) also. Lnther explains thiit by tanfea ho means dip. It matters not wiiat tuitfrn has since come to mean by a practice contrary to its meaning in Luther's time. In Luther's translation it means dip. Battizo. TAurnN. Dn». Tliis diagram will exluhit in one view this argument from these three transalations. Tdhid, in the centre, is the inspired word. The three translations, (ii)ti::(> in the Bible mciuis dip or immerse. This itself, is enongh. An effort is often made — it was made recently in the Tonawanda papers — to prove that Naiiman did not dip him- self, that Iio must have been sprinkled according to the law of Moses for the cleansing of lepers mentioned in Lev. xiv., 7. D. D. Cnrrie in his book, page 15, says, "It is evident he mast have pprinklfMl liiin.=elf sovon times. Naiiman was a k^per. The loprosy w;is iiionrald^ by human means. God had provided a way hy which a cure mifj;l)t surely be effected. There was no other xvny but God's way. That way is defined in Leviticus xiv., 7, ' and he shall spriuUe npon him that is to be cleansed fr( m the 1 iirosy seven times, and Bhall pronounce him clean.' Through this Kpriiiklinfj there was to be cleansing . , . What did the prophet tell him ? As a faithful prophet ho must not make a law of his own, but trll him to keep God's law. • Go and waeh — that is, sprinkle — 22 Baptihm— what ih it ? ^ i Beven timeH ' . . . Naiiraan wont nnd baptized himself seven times. He did not iiuiuorso liiinsclf." Thus by a little HopluHtry this MothodiMt minister leads himself along till he directly contradicts the Bible, wliieb says, •• Naamiiu j)ring lor those who had hecn /it'((/c or rotai' (Inirn, (Irsrrnd ] II. To fjo (lotrn ov dc(litie\ HE. '/o Jl'nr, run duwn, as tho eye with tears ; IV. To he citst (limn, Id fall.'' This is a curious cqnivaloiit for immerse, most men will think. Ill no Ciisc is its meanin;^ immerse. It is found in tlie foUowin;^' sentences and in scores of similar sentences in the Lihle — •• Abram n-nti dawn (i/arati) into Ep:yi)t" (Gen. xii., 10. " She unit (loivn (i/anid) unto the well," (Gen. xxiv., 45.) "Moses iirnt d()irii(//ar>id) from the monnt" (Ex. xix., 14.) Is not i/nr((d latlier a curious equivalent for immerse ? Did Ahrnni i III III rise down into ]ji,'yj)t ? Or did llubccca iinmrrai' hcrsi-U" iu tlio wdl bil'oro diawiupf the water for Abram's seivaiit ? Would it not bo better to let the Biblo speak for itself- It snys "Xaaman dljtpo.il himself" — using tho word tdJu'i in llehrjw, and hijilhi in Gieelv. 'J ahal means dip or inniicr.^n. Neither fs'iJnl nor yarnd means immerse. Soini'thin,L,' i-i wi-od^j: wirh tho theory that rc- quiies a man to i( jict tlio fe-^tiuiony of tlio Lexicons as well as tho testimony of the Bible touching the meaning of its words. Let inc i^liice bof )ro you now, in tlio form of a dinp^ram of eight points the testimony of cljht translations of the New Testanu nt. This diagiam exhibits tho fact that Latm scholars in the second century translated h iptizo hi their New Testa- ment by the Latin woid timjiK by which they meant dip or iiiininsn, as can bo proved beyond a doubt by an appeal to the writers of tho third century So tho Syiiae Fcholnrs of tho second century translated haptizo into their New Testament by (/nainailh, a word that means liAl'TlSM WHAT IK IT ? 25 immerse, and is so delined by the Syrinc Lexicons, as I stand plodgod to show if it in qnostioned. So tl}o Gothic translation made in the fourth contin-y, tlie Anglo- Saxon version made in tiio fiinhih centuly, the Lower Saxon made in the jiftend/, century, the German made in the sixteenth ccutury, and the Dutch made in tlie seventtenth century, translate hy words that mean dij) or immerse, namely, Datiijon, JJippan, Doepe,:, Tanj'm and Doopen. You need not go farther than VVeb.ster's Un- abridged to learn that these words iiiea»i I'KV- Lower Saxon, l..itli Century. In a transhition of the New Testament, made for the Jews, into the Hel>row language, in the sixteenth century, baptize is translated (abal ushig the very word that for over three thousand years has been telling the Jews that Naaman dipped himself in tiie Jordan. It does not require divine wisdom to sec now why an effort was made to allow no translation of the Bible to appear in this discussion except that of King James. The translations of the New Testament to which I have made reference, and many others, to which I might refer, express i X ! i 2(; HAPTISM — WHAT tS IT ? tlio scliolai'Bhip of tlic aj^cs from Iho second century down to the present time. With united hrcatli and one soul they declare that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ com- manded immersion. A gentleman in Toronto, J. D. Henderson — oeing inter- ested on the question of baptism, and having groat confi- dence in the learning of Professor Blalkie, of the University of Edinburgh, made inquiry of him as to the meaning of the word in the Greek language. He received the foliow- ing reply : — Edinburgh, Dec. 25, 1878. Dear Sir, — There cannot be the slightest doubt that Baptizu both in classical and ecclesiastical Greek signifies _ Prof. Blaikie should have said no more. The moment he leaves the nieanintj oi the word and says — "Practically, however, it is of no consequence,"- -he does no credit to bis station, and becomes wiser than Jesus. Practically, and critically, and really, Jesus says — "He that believetli and is dipped (or immersed) shall be saved." BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? 27 LSb com* Who has the riglit to say tliat it is of no consequence wJiethcr wo do just what Cliiist commanded or do Kome- tliiiif,' confessedly " quite dilTereiit " ? Indeed, Prof, lilaikie intimates tliat it is better to do something di()f;fnit^ as "the letter kills"! That is it. First learn just what the word means, and then go right off and do something " quite different, " so as to avoid being killed by the latter of Christ's words ! If lie had commanded us to be sprinkled {lUdno), then to avoid the letter that kills, and get hold of the spirit that gives life, wo of course, in t/mt cuhc, should go and be immersed at all hazards ! 13ut since he has commanded us to be immersed, let us be sprinkled or poured upon to escape "the letter " and be made alive by the spirit I According to this new philosophy, would it not be better in the Supper not to cat the bread, nor drink tlie wine ? As there is no virtue in the elements them- selves, as they are only signs of the Lord's body and blood, they might simply be looked at, and thus we would again escape the letter tliut kills ! Since it is practically of no consequence, would it not be more spiritual just to gaze at the bread and wine ? Christ said, lat and drink —but then that is " the letter tliat kills I" When the Lord commanded His people of old to offer a lamb of one year old, neither bhad nor lamo, they, we sup- pose, to avoid being kilkd by the letter of the command, brought to the altar both blind and lame of all ages. They knew as well as Prof. Blaikie that there was no virtue in the blood, that, like the water, it was only a sign of in- ternal purity, and that it was equally a sign whether it came from the sort of lamb specified in the law or some other sort, or even from a goat 1 They were after the spirit of the command, not the letter ; therefore they brought the lame and the blind ! The Lord being exceedingly i i ■ I ! ! I > il 28 liAt>TISAl WHAT IS IT ? displeased with their spiritual service spoke to them in the foliowiug words : " If ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil ? and if ye offer the lame and sick is it not evil ? Offer it now unto thy Governor, will he be pleased wilh thee, or accept tby person, saith the Lord of Hosts." (Mul. i., 8). If Prof. Blaikie had beeu present he could have pleaded their cause very nicely. He could have told the Lord that these brethren were exceedingly anxious to escape the con- demnation of the letter that kills, and that therefore they were careful to do something " quite different," and that as there was no virtue in the blood, it was " practically of no consequence ;" and that really the Lord ought to be highly pleased with them, as they were worshipping Him in spirit, and not in the oklness of the letter. But they having no such advocate as Prof. Blaikie the Lord seemed to look at the matter in a u-ay " quite different." Seriously, Prof. Blaikie makes three assumptions. 1. That the water in baptism is a sujn of internal purity. 2. That this sign is the only important thing about it. 8. That therefore the use of water in any way is suffi- cient. Now, there is not a scrap of Scripture, either in letter or spirit, that makes tlie water in baptism " a sign of in- ternal purity." This assumption is pure fiction. The baptism in water symbolizes a burial and a resurrection. With this Scriptural view o^' the matter before a God-fear- ing person, he would prefer to be immersed in sand or straw for baptism than to be sprinkled with water. He would thus keep nearer the spirit of the institution and no farther from the letter. But it is the privilege and duty of all to be buried in water (immersed), and thus obey the BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? 29 Saviour in spirit and in truth. Or shall we do something *' quite different ?" "Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you." This chanrfinrj of tlie Saviour's commands is infidcUty pure and simple, and every man that fears God should speak right out against it. Let us now open a ten cent Testament without note or comment, and read something of haptism and its surround- ings. " In those days came Jolin the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea." Matt. iii. 1. As we have seen the word Baptist, Baptistees, means " he who immerses S' " Then went out to him Jerusalem aiid all .Tiulea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." Matthew iii,, 5-G. Sprinkling is utterly incompetent to explain the fact of tiieir all going into or being ** in the Jordan " — " in the rive} of Jordan," as Mark has it, hut immersion makes their entrance into the water appear sensible as well as necessary. " I indeed baptize yon with wator (en hiiAati, in waf'tr), but he shall baptize yon with the Holy Spirit " (en pneumatl hagio, in the Holy Spirit) Mark i. 8. The Greek word eji here translated with is the usual Greek word for in. It is found in the phrases, '• in those days," "i/i the wilderness," " m Jordan,'' **i/j Bethlehem," and in hundreds of similar phrases in the New Testament. The American new Revipion gives tlie passage just quoted, " in water" and "in the Holy Spirit;" and the new English Revision places it so in the margin as being what the Greek asserts, 3 80 BAPTISM — WHAT !S IT ? The great Lutheran commentator Lange, says, touching Matthew iii. 11. " I indeed baptize yon in {en) water, immersing you in the element of water, unto repentance." Thus Lange, though a Lutheran, docs not hesitate to translate Jinpfizo, immerse. Few scholars of modern ^i^jes are superior to him. J3iit we will read on. *• And it carao t^ pass in thos'^ days that Jesiis came and was baptized of John in Jordan, and strait^'htwi/ comi.ii; up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened." Mark i. 9-10. The phrases " in water," '* in Jordan," " up out of the water," are in perfect harmony with the act of immersion and express circumstances naturally and necessarily con- nected with it. B".t you may search Greek litciature in vain to find such phrases connected with the sprinklings under the law.s of Jews or heathens. Such phrases have no kinship with the words .s/;/-t/i'./t' in E iglisli or vdiiio in Greek. We sprinkle water itjm.i men, hut we immeii?o or baptize men in wat r. "Water for sprinkling is taken to the people usually and put ujton tlicui ; in New Testament times» the people came to the water and went into it for baptism. In every case in which the New Testament writers inform us how the water and the candidates came together, you will find that the people — not the water — was moved. This is a volume in itself. The volume of water required it. " And John was baptizing in ^Enon near to Salem, because there was much water there : and they came, and were bap- tized." John iii. 23. Here the people ^'came'' to "much water." It was easier to move " much people " than •' much water " or '* many waters." Some, in their utter distress, have tried to connect the water here with the thirst of the people and their drome" BAPTI-M — WHAT IS IT ? 31 daries ! It is enough to say that the passage mentions neither thirst nor dromedaries. It connects tlie water with the baptizing and with nothing else. What God has joined let ns not put asunder, with a view of supporting a human invention. " And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water . . . and thoy went down both into the water, hoth Philip and the eunuch ; and he baptized him." Acts viii., 3G 33. Some have sought to malve it appear that this passage should read that they went down to the water. Scholars do not make such a translation. I liave examined about twelve English translations of the New Testament, nil of which tianslatc it ** into the water " as we have it in our common veision. It cannot be otherwise, because you will notice they first " came unto a certain water," and then did something more, ♦' went down into it," after which the baptism was conveniently attended to, as before *' in the Kiver Jordan." After which they both " cama up out of the water." The man who imagines that such sur- roundings and phrases are the proper companions of sprinkling, is beyond the reach of reason or revelation. The circumstances alone would decide the matter, were there nothing else. Triflers have said that if going into the water is immer- sion they both were immersed, for they both went into it. Just so. But who ever said that going into the water is the immersion ? Luke tells us of the baptism or immer- sion taking place aftnr the going into the water. The im- mersion accounts for the necessity of 'heir both going into the water, that one of them might be afterwards immersed by the other. This is the argument that cannot bo met by a little nonsense, and worse, about both being baptized. " We were buried therefore with him through baptism into I I I I 82 I5APTISM WHAT IS IT ? death, tlsiit like as Clirigt was raised from the dead through the f,'lory of tho Father, so we also inijjLt walk in newness of life." (lloin. vi, 4.) " Having boon buried with him in baptism wherein ye were also raised with him throuj^h faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead." Col. ii., 12. The scholars in all ages have seen in these passages a di- rect allusion to immersion in the word "buried." The denial of this allusion is a modern invention, suggested in the hour of need. Conybeare and Howson, of the Church of England, two among the most eminent critics of modern times, say — '* With him therefore we were buried by bap- tism wherein we shared his death, when we sank beneath the waters." To which thev add this note — V " This clause wliicli is here left elliptical is fully expressed in Col. ii., 12. Tins passage cannot be understood unless it be borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion." — Life and Epistles ot Paul, page oil. On page 815 of same work, after speaking of " the con- vert being plunged beneath the surface of the water to represent his death to the life of sin and then raised from this momentary burial to rejiresent his resurrection to the life of righteousness," they add, — *' It must be a subject of rpgret that the general discontinu- ance of this original form (though perhaps necessary in our northern climates) has rendered obscure to popular apprehen- sion some very important passages of Scripture." This is a fair specimen of tlie testimony of scholars in the various Pedo baptist Churches. Modern tract writers and special pleaders for sprinkling as something divine, of course, refuse to see it thus. The circumstantial evidence contained in the passages I BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? 88 which we have quoted from the New Testament is snflB- cicnt of itself — even if we had no Lexicons to define the word — to settle it forever tliat baptism is immersion. While one incident looking in a certain direction will not settle a question, a comhiiKdinn of circumstances, nil point- ing one way is not to bo gainsayed except by one who shuts his eyes to the light. Let us illustrate the over- whelming nature of the evidence of a series of incidents. A man is found in the morning dead. His tliroat is cut from side to side. Suspicion is fixed upon his youngest son. It is found : — 1. Tiiat the father had proposed to chawje his will to the injury of the youngest son. 2. That the son had in haste said that he wished his father might (He first. 8. Tliat the son had been seen going towards his father's house the night of the deed — at 12 o'clock. 4. That the son's knife was picked up on the road near the house and that it had human blood on its blade. 5. That there was none wlio knew where the youth slept on the night of the tragedy. These facts are brought before the jury. The lawyer for the defence declares that a son might wish his father's death and yet not kill him, which is true enough. He further declares that a son might go towards his father's house late the night of the murder and yet not be the murderer. True enough, too. He also insists that another may have borrowed the son's knife and used it with a view of leading suspicion from himself. This mit/ht be so also. He also tells the jury that the son might have lodged in some barn, the night being warm — as is some- times done. Each excuse taken singly might be the truth. But when you have all these circumstances point' 84 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? > I I! ing in nnc direction, tho cviilonco is simply overwhelming that tho murderer is the son. The tiling would bo a moral certainty owing to tho c.nmhination nf the CKcutH — fill (KP'eeinti in one. Tlio spocial pleading of a lawyer in such a case would not nvnil hcforo an intelligent jury. So when special i>lc'adors attack one by one the incidents connected with baptism with a view of explaining tJicm away, it will only avail with those who do not see tho force of a Cfunbinalion of incidents. For example, they say a man miiht take another into tho water and vot not immerse liim. True enough. John miiJit have taken tho thousands into tho river Jordan and then only sprinkled them. So he might iC he and they were 1 )sing tlieir reason — so as to foolishly entnr tlic water when nothing req'iired it. Tlicy further insist that the "much water" vivfit be intended f»»r diinking, not for baptism. Well, thi.^ might bo so if Jtihn had not connected it with tho baptism — " hn/Uizinrj in JEnon bcratisi there was much water there." This makes good sensp witliont dragging in something that tho inspired writer says nothing about. Then we are told that the phraso •'buried with him in baptism" might be used figuratively in reference to the burial of tlio old man ; or it might refer to the baptism of the Holy S[>iiit. Well, suppose it might, still it is a Inirial in haiilimn. and shor,-s that h'lptinni has some rcsemblaiice to a burial followed by a resurrection. Saying that it is the baptism of the Spirit does not affect our argument in tho least — It is a burial still. It is the meaning of the word baptism that we are seeking, not tho interpretation of the passage. Suppose each incident could be explained away — and you can explain anything away — still when you array tho phrases — " in water '' " into the water," " up out of the water," "much water" "bmied with him in baptism," "wherein also ye are risen," DAPTISM — TfHAT IS IT? 85 "born of water " — I say when yon array tlicso phrases you have a knot of cvidonco in favor of immnrsion tliat hu- man inj^cnnity cannot nntie. Add to tliis tho tcstunony of tho Lexicons, as well as the cxtiacts f,Mvon from Greek writers and the evidence is simply overwhelming, that hf WHAT 18 IT ? I ■'1 ! ( law of Christ, in its letter, to rIiow an obedient spirit; but not till a thousand years had passed away, after it began, was this flubstitution allowed for those in health. It was called clinic or .sick baptism. That these statements are in accordance with the facts of history, I will sh'^v bv a direct nppoal to Church Histor- ians, on demand. I will now quote two or tiiroc extra'jts from Church History as a specimen of what can bo ])ro- duced. Mosheim Ec. Hist. 1-87, says; — "In this (the first) contury baptism was administered incon- venient places, without the pubhc assemblies, and by immers- ing the candidate wholly in water." In tStfinlfiffs Ili.storij of the Eti1 li i 1 sprinkling and seeks to make it a matter of no import- ance, lie says : — " But whether the person who is baptized be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, or whether water bo only poured or sprinkled pou him, is of no importance : Churches ought to be left at liberty, in this respect, to act according to the difference of cowdries. The very word baptize, however, signi- fies to immerse ; and it is certain that immersion was the prac- tice of the ancient Church.*' — (Jhristlxn Institutes, chap. xv. Martin Luther makes a similar confession against the practice of his own Church and people. He says : — •' First, the name baptism is Greek ; in Latin it can be rendered immersion, when we immerse any thing into water, that it may bo all covered with water. And althor.gh that custom has now grown out of ut^e with most persons (nor do they wholly sub- merge children, but only pour on a little water), yet they ought to be entirely immersed, and immeJiatel}' drawn out. For this the etymology of the word seems to demand." — Luther on the Sacrament of Baptism. When leading men in the Churches that practise sprink- ling thus confess that they have changed this ordinance of our Lord, what need liave we of further witnesses ? Even theR)min Catholic Bishops and Cardinals confess that they have changed this institution. In the Douay Bible — with ILiydock's notes — specially approved by Pius IX., and various Archbishops, we have this confession : — ^^ Baptized. — The word baptism signifies a washing, particu- larly when it is done by immersion or by dipping or plunging a thing inider water, which was formerly the ordinary way of admiuist'^ring the sacrament of baptism. But the Church, which can not change the least article of tha Christian faith, is not tied up in matters of discipline and ceremouies. Not only the Catholic Chi rch, but also the jvxtendel Reformed ChurcJies, have altered this primitive custom in giving the sacra- BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT? 3f no import- oily immersed, 6 only poured lurches ought ordiiig to the Dwever, signi- was the prac- chap. XV. against the iays :— .n be rendered r, that it may ■item has now y wholly sub- et they ought ut. For this Luther on the 3tise sprink- )i(linaiice of 5G3 ? Even 3onfess that ►onay Ijihle y Puis IX., ju : — ng, particu- r plunging a lary way of bie Church, stiau faith, ouips. Not ' Reformed : the sacra- 89 ment of baptism, and now allow of baptism by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person baptized." So that we may baldly say that Historians and Scholars whether Protestant or Catholic, Baptist or Pedobaptist are compelled to speak a common language when called npon to testify as to the question H'Aai w htjttisin / With tho opinion held by some of them tliat sprinkling will answer every purpose, we have nothing to do. Tlieir opinion is an untaught speculation- based upon nothing but their thoughts and wishes. Our question everlastingly is, 7vhat hath the Lord snid? Tiiis we shall seek to know. This shall we do. Blessed are they that do His commandments. Shall we not be able, in the love of truth and in devotion to Him whom angels worship r.nd Seraphs adore, to rise above party churches and party creeds and human inven- tions, and learn and do the will of Him who is now enthroned Lord of all ? This is our privilege and should be our highest pleasure and crowning ambition. (At the close of this lecture Mr. McDiarmid announced that he would devote the following evening to answering any question that might bo handed in before to-morrow at noon. Dr. Blighton of tho M. E. Chuich then walked forward liauding in a paper containing nineteen questions.) ■^ ! i ME. McDIARMID'S SECOND ADDRESS. (Second Nhjht.) Brother Chairman and Christian Friends, — I have the appoiutmeut this evening, especially to make reply to certain questions that were handed in last even- ing. For the sake of those who are here to-night, who were not in last evening, it would, perhaps, be well to say a few words before beginning to answer the questions presented. We are here to see if we can understand what the Saviour meant, when he said, "Baptizing them," and we have, therefore, simply one question before our minds, which is : What does this Greek word baptizo mean ? What did it mean in the days of our Saviour/ It is this we are trying to understand and know, and every question that does not bear upon this one issue, is not appropriate to the occasion and should not occupy our time at present. You are well aware that in these days some ministers will put a person under the water and say, "T baptize thee "; others, equally devout and God-fea)ing aIU iprinkle a few drops of water upon the candidate's brux/, and use the same words, "I baptize thee"; and still others will /war water upon the head and say the same words, I ** baptize thee." As the three classes do precisely three different acts, while using precisely the same words, is it not just a little strange ? Now, if the Saviour used a word that meant these three things at once, we ought to do the whole three to one person. It becomes us then to ask the ques- HAPTISM — WHAT IS IT 9 41 [lEiSb. ally to make in last even- ,0-night, who e well to say he questions id what the im," and we our minds, ptizo mean ? It is this we ery question appropriate e at present, ninisters will iptize thee "; prinkle a few i,nd use the rs will ^wur I ** baptize ree different s it not just a word that do the whole ,sk the ques- if tion : Which of these three things did Jesus command, immersion, pouring or sprinkling ? He could not com- maucl the whole three with one word — all to bo obeyed — at the same time. And even if we should sii[)])ose that the word sometimes meant the one, and sometimes the other, yet we ought to ask the question : What did it mean as used in the commission of our Redeemer '? Some pains were taken last night to read from Greek writers who lived about the time of our Saviour — before and after — to see what the Greeks of that time meant by it. I read from Strabo, Diodorus, Polybius, .Josei)hus, and others, to show that it meant to immerse at that time. To refresh your memories, and bring it before those who are here for the lirst time this c\euing, an example or two from Greek writers of that age will now be given. Strabo, a Greek writer, born GO years J>. C, speaking of a certain lake — Sirbouis — that is full of asphalt, and in which the water is therefore very strong, says : — "Then floating' at tlie top on account of the nature of the water, by virtue cf wliicli, we saul, there is no need of being a swimmer, and ht who enters in is not haijtized (Greek, oaptizo), but is lifted out." He says the water is so strong of asphalt, that when you enter it, though you cannot swim, you are not baptized. What does that mean ? It simply means, not inunemed. If a man goes into that lake to swim, the larger part of him is under the water, but still he is not immersed — not baptized ; does this mean not sprinkled, not wet ? This is merely one case. I can produce nearly three hundred examples from Greek writers where the word means the same thing. I will give one more example from Diodorus, who wrote about 50 years B. C. Concerning the Carthaginian army's loss in the Crimissis, in Sicily, he says : — irTr I' i ;<^ I I I ' III 42 BAPTISM WHAT IS IT "The river rushing down, with the current increased in violence, iinmersod [baptizo) manj' and tlestroyed them attempt- ing to swim through with their armor." The men tried to swim, and while they swam they were not baptized — that is, not immersed. Their heads were above the water, but afterwards being weighed down by their armor, they were bajdized — immersed, submerged — and there being none to help, they perished. I can give you case after case, but cannot take the time now, as there is other work on hand. It was also said last evening, that for about 1300 years after Christ, immersion was the rule in all the Churches, and that sprinkling was the exception, beginning about 250 A. D., allowed in cases of sickness, or approaching death, under a cogent necessity, and by a suj)posed special indulgence of God. Perhaps you would like some proof of this. Let us read from Dean Stanley, the historian. He says : — "We now pass to the change in the form itself. For the first thirteen centuries the almost universal practice of baptism was that of whi^h we read in the New Testament, and which is the very meaning of the word ' baptize ' — that those who were baptized were plunged, submerged, immersed into the water. That practice is still, as we have seen, continued in the Eastern Churches. In the Western Church it still lingers — amongst Roman Catholics in the solitary instance of the cathedral of Milan, amongst Protestants in the austere sect of the Baptists. It lasted long into the Middle Ages. Even the Icelanders, who at first shrank from the water of their freezing lakes, were reconciled when they found (hat they could use the warm water of the Geysers. And the cold climate of Russia has not been found an obstacle to its continuance throughout that vast Em- pire. Even in the Church of England it is still observed in theory. Elizabeth and Edward the Sixth were both immersed. The rubric in the Public Baptism for Infants enjoins that, un- bAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? 48 2rea8e(l in a attempt- they were 2ads were down by merged — e the time L300 years Churches, ling about jproaching sed special ne proof of 3rian. He f. For the of baptism |nd which is who were the water. Itho Eastern Is — amongst athedral of e Baptists, nders, who lakes, were Iwarm water ,8 not been ,t vast Em- observed in immersed. s that, un- « less for special cases, they are to be dipped, not sprinkled. But in practice it gave way since the begiuuing of the seventeenth century." Thus Dean Stanley, while asserting truthfully that Christ commanded immersion and His Apostles practised it, approves of the change to sprinkling, because he be- lieves it is in the power of men rightfully to change the rites and ceremonies of the New Testament ; and to-day the Churches are practising chawjed ordinances, having modified the appointments of Heaven to suit human taste and the convenience of modern civilization ! These things were brought before the audience last night, and I had expected that the questions asked would bear upon my statements. It was expected that the questions would touch directly on the issues raised in the lecture, but some of them, at least, do not. Some are appropriate ; some are not. Two or three of them remind me of the storv Prof. Blaikie, of Edinburgh, tells of himself, when a young man. He says he preached a sermon from a certain text, and after finishing, asked an old sister of intelligence what she thought of the sermon. She said : •* Well, I think if your text had the small-pox, the sermon wouldn't catch it, you see, they were so far apart." And so I would say of my lecture last night ; if it had the small-pox, some of the questions would be in no danger of the contagion, their distance is so very respect- ful. The questions in the main, however, are tolerably well to the point. Wishing to be courteous, as well as just, it is proper to say this much. Being in the country where they say the Yankees live, numerous questions were to be expected. I have over thirty here — nineteen on one paper ! This is all well and proper, as questions were invited and desired. It was an oversight on my part that r (^ —. 44 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? !■ I I' ! the privilege of askiug the qucstuuers a question for every one asked by them, was not demanded, but as this was forgotten, it will not be pressed now. 1st Question. — What woulJ be your definition of baptisma ? This was given last night several times — immnmion^ dipi)in(jy plungiiuj^ submersion, wliehniug, icashinij hij immer- sion. But then mt/ definition is not of much account. It is better to give you directly what the Lexicons say. I do not make dictionaries. I accept them as they are made by Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Lutherans, and Episcopalians. I do not go back on the authorities. I do not set up my wisdom here, against Greek scholars who have studied Greek all their lives. All books which I quote from here, whether Lexicons, Histories, or Com- mentaries, are by Pedo-Baptist authors, from beginning to end. Prof. Grimm, in his Greek Lexicon of the New Testa- ment, says : ^'Baptisma, a word peculiar to the Now Testament and the Church (it is not found in the classics at all,H. M.), immersion ; submersion. It is first used figuratively, of disasters, and dis- tresses, with which one is from all sides overwhelmed ; second, of the baptism of John ; third, of Christian baptism ; but this, according to the apostolic idea, is the rite of holy submersion commanded by Christ. " The men who practise sprinkling reject their own authorities and their own Greek dictionaries, and want nothing but the Bible, and that is against them, as we saw and shall see again, I read last night the testimony of Professor Humphrey, a Methodist, Professor of Greek in Vanderbilt University, in Tennessee. He says that — " No standard Greek-English Lexicon ever gives 'sprinkle ' or • pour,' as meanings of baptizo. " BAPTISM WHAT IS IT 1 45 )n for 13 this otisma ? immer- nt. It say. I ley are bhcrans, liorities. scholars wliicli I or Com- .nning to ^ Testa- and the iinemon ; and dis- ; second, but this, ibmersion leir own Ind want jts we saw limony of 1 Greek in lat — Unkle' or Prof. Tyler, of Amherst College, Prof. Packhard, of Yale College, and Prof. Flagg, of Cornell University of this State (N. Y.), unite in giving similar testimony. As to the meaning of this word; I of course accept the testimony of sucli men as are heads of colleges and Pro- fessors, and members in the different churclies in the land, except Baptists. I do not quote Baptist testimony for very good re isons. They would not be considered impartial by those for whom I am speaking. 2nd Question. — Does baptizu mean the same in classic and New Testament Greek ? " Well, it matters not about that exactly, so long as it means itauierse in New Testament Greek, and not sprinkle. There may be some shade of difference, but I have here classic Greek Lexicons, and also Greek Lexicons of the New Testament, and they all agree in saying that haptizo means immerse, dip, plunge, submerge, and not one of them says sprinkle or pour. This is enough. The fact is, ministers are practising to-day exactly what the Lexicons do not say, and what Christ never commanded, and what they confess themselves has been substituted for baptism by a change to suit the times and the climate. 3rd Question. — When, in classic Greek, the term baptize meant immerse, did it also always mean emerse ? JE'merse — that is to come out. I do not know that it ever means emerse. The emersion — the coming out — is to be gathered from the connection. The word haptizo, like the word immerse, does not mean to come out. The com- ing out is something that depends upon the object you have in view. If you want the candidate to die, keep him in. If you desire him to live a new life in the Church of Christ on the earth, take him out. The word haptizo — im- aierse-^ — alone does not take him out ; the word submerge II .;! I' 46 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? does not take him out ; the word dip does not take him out, and there is no word that puts a man in and takes him out. Tliat is only impHed in the connection. Such a question is simply trifling about a word concerning which there ought to he no controversy, and there is no contro- versy among eminent scholars to-day as to uhat the word meiins. 4th Question. — Is there any evidence that the Hellenistic use of baptizo is different from the classic use ? There is no evidence of a difference that would affect in the least the question before us. I am aware that the Hellenistic Greek was written by Jews who learned Greek after they grew up, and they therefore did not have it quite 80 well. The classical Greek was written by men who were born Greeks, and could write better Greek than the Hellen- ists, just as Washington Irving could write better EngUsh than could some German who might come over here and learn our language. So the Hellenistic Greek is not so perfect or complete as the classic : but you will find their Diction- aries or Lexicons make the word baptizo mean the same thing, immerse, and I go by their united testimony. When 1 find Professors in Colleges, members in Episcopal, Congrega- tional, Lutheran, and Presbyterian Churches, agreeing that baptizo in classic Greek, and in the New Testament or Hellen- istic Greek, means immerse, I subside and say Amen ; and when they say it never means sprinkle, I yield to their united wisdom, and especially as they are Pedo-Baptist scholars — compelled, in the light of their scholarship, to testify contrary to their practice. 6th Question. — As to meaning, what relation does baptizo have to bapto ? As to the relation of baptizo to bapto, one is the father, and the other the son ; the one is the root, the other the HAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? 47 :e him i takes Such y which contro- he ii'ord lUenistic i affect that the d Greek 3 it quite srho were ) Hellen- EngUsh ere and perfect Diction- e thing, Ifind longrega- leing that ir Hellen- en; and to their ■Baptist ship, to 38 haptizo le father, lother the branch. Baptn, the olclor, sometimes means a little more than tlio younger — having some extra tlefiuitiouH, not given to haptizo. But then Christ never used hapto in con- nection witli the ordiuiinco, and hence it has no business in the controversy. Yuu will find hitpto occurs in the Bible quite frequently, v/hore the word lUp occurs in Euglish. Indeed, whenever dip occurs in our Euglish Bible, bapto or haptizo will be found in the Greek — with, perhaps, one ex- ception. Bapto is found some thirteen or fourteen times in the Greek of the Old Testament, where dip is found in the English Bible, and ./ire times in the Greek New Testa- ment, where dip is found in the I'jnglish version. And again let it bo said, I stand by the iiur.horities. But Jiapto is not necessarily mvolved in the quostiou. It is iiaptizo with which we have to do. Bapto means sometimes to dye, color f and haptizo never does. 15 ut this is neither here nor there — as hapto is not the word in dispute. 6th Question. — What would be yom- definition of [these two Greek terms {Bapto and Baptizo) ? It has been read from the Greek Lexicons. What do Presbyterian and other Pedo -Baptist scholars and Profes- sors in their institutions of learning say ? I submit tho question to them, and accept their definition ; and they say that haptizo and hapto mean dip, immerse, plunge, sub- merge, and to wash by immersion, and that the lattor sometimes means to dye, color, or stain — and the Lexicons frequently explain that it means to dye by dipping. 7th Question. — What would be your definition oiBaptismoSf and how does it differ from Baptisma ? Baptism a is applied to the ordinance ; Baptismos is not so used. It means just about the same thing as haptisma, however ; but what we want to know is, what does haptisma mean ? — the word which the Saviour and the Apostles 48 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? H 'J used as the name of the ordinance. I will quote here again — *' Bapt'mma — iraraersinn, the holy submersion commanded by Chriht." — Grimm's Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. As I am not authorized nor competent to make defini- tions to suit a theory, those that are given by the world's best scholarship are accepted just as they stand. 8th Question. — Why are not the terms immerse and im- mersion found in the King James' translation of the Bible ? Well, the word dip occurs about twenty times in the Bible, and by turning to Webster, you will find that dip means immerse, and immerse meann dip, and they both mean plunge. Therefore, in effect, the word immerse does occur in the Bible ; dip occurs, which is the same thing ; still, I know there are men who are in their own estima- tion wiser than Webster, who have sprung into notice within the last twenty years, and who say that dip does not mean immerse, and that immerse does not mean dip. These men — I mean Bale, Merrill, Gallaher, McKay and others — have no use for the scholarship of the ages. They w^ant no authorities brought to them ; but for what reason ? Why, the authorities are against them. Pos- sibly it is so much the worse for the authorities, but I think it is so much the worse for them. I am a Scotchman, and speak somewhat dogmatically. It is a peculiarity of my countrymen, perhaps, but you will take it all as honest, earnest work. I intend to be courteous in every respect, though I fail sometimes. 9th Question. — By what method were the first Hebrew and Greek Lpxicons made ? They were made just like our own Lexicons. The Hebrew Lexicons were made by examining all the Hebrew litera- ture of the times, the Jewisii Talmud and other Jewish BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT? 49 e here □aanded oaent. defini- world's and im- Bible 1 \ in the :hat dip ley hoth jrse does ) thing ; I estima- ;o notice I dip does lean dip. Kay and They •what Pos- I think nan, and ty of my s honest, respect, brew and 3 Hebrew jw Utera- Jewish 3r n. writings, and the Old Testament Hebrew ; and so the Greek Lexicons were made after examining tbo Greek writings of the Fathers, and the classic* (rie«k' as well as the Greek of the New Testament. All Lexicons are formed just in this way. In a case of doubtful meaning, where the Lexicons dilTer, it is proper to appeal directly to the literature of the language. This was done last evening to vindicate the correctness of all the Lexicons in giving immerse as the meaning of haptizo. 10th Qukstion. — What does Paul mean by one baptism ? One immersion, just as the dictionaries say, certainly. 11th Question. — If John wanted much water for baptism, wliy did he If ave the River Jordan ? John wanted peoj^le as well as water for baptism. It was not meet that he should confine his labors in preach- ing to the people living near the Jordan. Others must hear. If he was over here in Tonawanda preaching, he would likely baptize in Niagara River. He was not neces- sarily confined to one place. He moved up and down the Jordan, and then departed and baptized in another place. I have baptized in Lake Ontario sometimes, also in Lake Erie, as well as in several rivers and pools and baptisteries, *' because there was much water there." But at a meeting I held recently in Williamsville, nine were baptized in the mill-race. Preachers go from place to place now, like John the Baptist, not because water has become scarce, but because they seek for souls. What a question this is, as if nobody lived anywhere else than around the Jordan ! I suppose John should have brought the people to Jordan for baptism from the extreme sides of Palestine, notwith- standing he found " much water " elsewhere ! 12th Question. — In the Greek Testament, is the term bapti- tioon anywhere defined by another Greek word ? I i I V;' i (ll; 60 n\PTIS.M WHAT IH IT ? Not that I know of. If any person prcsont kuowR of Bucli an iijstaiicc, it will bu iu order to muko it kuown riglit now. 13x11 QuKSTi N. — Are thoro any instancoR in the New Testa- ment where the term hdntizD oxprf^sscs nuitiun, ; if so, where ? Well, if it means si)rinkle, it expresses motion. What does this question want a man to say ? Wliat does its author desire ? If it means to sprinkle or pour or immerse, it lias motion about it, and I ratiior jnd<^c that when Philip went down into tiie water with the iLunuch, and baptized him, there was some motion ahout it. No matter whether haptizo means sprinkle or immerse, there is motion some- where, lying about loose. I would not wonder if this question was put to get us away from the real issue. W/uit about motion ? Did I eperk of ;/iotto7i last night '? The definitions of the Lexi cons were given, — immersion, sul 'sion, plunging and dipping, and nothing was said abo.. ^otion. 14th Question. — " What is the prevailing meaning of eis, «fe, eso and ekso ]" Here are four questions in one. The prevailing meaning of eis is into ; the prevailing meaning of ek is out of; the prevailing meaning of eso is withiny and the prevailing meaning of ekso is without. Look at the dictionary : the proof is right here. This word ek tolls us of the Man who came out of Heaven, and of men coming out of their graves : and this word eis tells of men going into the tomb, and of John being cast i7ito prison. It is competent to take a man into the water as well. *• They went down both into (eis) the water." 15th Question. — Does eis ever mean into after a verb, ex- cept for the purpose of expressing locality .?" Well, perhaps not. Not likely very often. Certainly PAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? 61 30WS of known w Tcata- rhere ? What does its nimcrse, ni Philip baptized whether [)ri some- o get lis ? Did I ihe Lexi oiag and of eis, «fc, (revailing of eso is it. Look word fk and of s tells of to prison, rell. verb, ex- Oertainly not wlien tlio name of n plar.e is its object. John was cast infi) {t'is] prison. Tliiit was a hirn/iti/. Into the prison is not outside tlio walls. It is inside. Tlie key is tnrned, and the man is within. That is the word eis. Is it not a curions thin^ that these men want to teacli that cis means tn or close by, and tliat " into the water " means to the water ? eis took John into prison, and cis takes men into tlie grave, and fix takes sinners into liell, and m takes saints into lieaven, bnt cia cannot take a believer down into the water! No! its power must die upon tlie shore ! I sometimes think of those preachers who have been preaching around here, in New York and Canada, telling people that eis does not mean intit necessarily, but that it may mean rt^ nedr, or close In/, and I make a supposition touching them. I suppose that when they arrive at the .Tuilgment, the b'ossod Master shall say to them, '* Enter into {eis) the kingdom." And as tijey walk up in haste and much delight to enter through the gate, Gabriel cries out, '* Hold! do not go in there!" " But why not ?" they say ; " did the Judge not say enter into (eis) the kingdom ?" " Oh yes, but do you not know you used to preach, when on the earth, that eis meant near, or close hi/ ? it means just the same 7ww. ^You will kindly stay just outside of the king- dom — about as near it as you would allow Philip and the Eunuch to come to the water ! " How would that do ? How would you like that, gentlemen ? The word eis takes men into heaven at last. It took John into prison. It takes our frail bodies into the ground, and it will take saints into the kingdom. Let us be careful how we make that word stop at the shore, in a case of baptism, lest it might stop at the heavenly gate, — outside I But it is said, is not eis rendered sometimes to 1 Yes, certainly. " He went up to Jerusalem." Yes, there i» Il 'I i I '.: ^;i si 52 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? eis ; but in going to Jerusalem, did the traveller stay out- side the walls ? When men come to America, do they stay just at the edge of our country, on the water ? It in- volves the coming into the country. ** Where are you go- ing ?" You answer, "I am going to Scotland." Are you going to stay on the water near the shore, or are you go- ing into the country ? Going into the country, certainly. So even to {eis) in these cases involves the idea of entrance Into the country, or town c city, as the case may be. And so with 'o?7i heaven, or " wait for His Son /Vow heaven." It is ek here. Will He come just from the outside edge of heaven, or will He come from witJm. ? An answer is need- less. There are, however, a few exceptions, where eu does not iiivo' ve entrance, and where ek does not mean actually out of. But the prevailing meaning is into^ and out of. 16th Question. — Does eis alone, after a verb, ever express the thought of concealment by an entire enclosure, as in immer- sion ? Never, never, never more ; and no man of sense ever said it did. But yet, when John was cast into prison, he had an enclosure. The eis does not mean that, but the prison enclosed him all the same. While the word eis does not mean enclosure, when we go down (eis) into the grave we are enclosed, I judge ; but not by the word eis. Uis, assisted by a verb of motion, simply takes us down into the cavity, where we are to be enclosed by burial within the tomb ; or into the water, to be buried with the Lord in baptism. ]7th Question. — Is there a difference betw^een hudati and en hudati 1 Hudati means in or with water. Some scholars say there is a slight difference ; some say there is not, In the BAPTISM — What is it ? 50 lay out- do they ? Itin- I you go- Are you you go- iertainly. entrance r be. He sent heaven." e edge of V is need- re eis does a actually ut of. er express in iuimer- )nse ever prison, he but the rd eis does the grave \eis, Eis^ Idown into lal within Lord in \udati and lolars say In the American revision, of winch Piiiiip iSoiiaii' is one of the chief men, they render both forms in the same way, " in water," The English scholars translate them both, "with water," and pUice "in water" in the margin. You can use either in or icith, just as you please. I will not set my- self up as a judge between thece men. If I should be allowed to give my opinion, I would translate those pas- sages where the hiuhiti stands alone, *• with water," and where the en occurs, I would say "in water." A great many unwise things are written about that "in water," and "with water," and many argue that because it is "with water," it involves sprinkling, or pouring. You ask a woman, "Do you wash your children's garments with soft or with hard water?" "I wash them with soft water," she replies. Does she mean that she sprinkles them because she uses the word u'itL / Suppose you ask her whether she washes her dishes in hot or in cold water, and she will reply, "In hot water." It makes not the slif?htest difference whether in or ivith is used. The dry CD %f goods and the china go into the water all the same. But in the Greek, where the preposition is used — en hudati — where the en occurs J woulc^ translate it "in water" every time, but where en dotti not occur, I would say "with water" — at least usually — though the American revisers quite correctly translate hudati "in water," as well as en hudati. 18th Question. — What is the proximate object of repentance and faith ? This is one of the questions that would not catch the measles, if the subject had it. I have not spoken about repentance or faith. The question before us is — What does Baptism mean ? I am asked what is the proximate object of repentance and faith. In itself this question is Uli ^' J .:i 64 BAt>TISM — WHAT IS IT proper enough. I answer, it is life; '• repentance unto life.'* And so of faith, '* that behaving ye might have life through His name." This is the chief object, — spiritual, divine, eternal life. But this is away about a thousand miles from the ques- tion before us. There are some very important questions asked, but the last on this paper, and the least, is a matter of some surprise. Here it is : — 19th Question. — Who baptized St. Paul? I do not know. Do you ? Possibly it might have been Ananias, or if his wife had been along, it nii[iht have been her ; it might have been Paul himself. But what has this to do with the question — what is baptism ? There were nine persons immersed at Williamsville about a month ago ; now, who baptized them ? This gentleman or my- self ? (Referring to Mr. Pardee, the pastor, who was pre- sent.) It makes nojb a particle of difference. The immer- sion took place none the less certainly ; and whether An- anias, or Ananias' wife baptized Paul, or Paul baptized himself, the thing was done, and it was done according to the meaning of the word baptizo, which is to immerse. This last question is not exactly to the point ; but if any- one would like to make it known for a certainty who bap- tized Paul, I will give him the floor and let it be told. Here are other questions received to-day. Here is one, which I think a very proper question : 20th Question. — If Jesus was not ordained a priest at His baptism, when and how did He enter into his priestly oflfice ? Perhaps some who are not acquainted with this issue will not see where the point lies. The author of this ques- tion, of course, would, no doubt, convey the impression that at the baptism of Jesus He was ordained according to the Levitical law, a priest, and was therefore sprinkled. I BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT '? 65 to life** ;lirough divine, he aues- ue&tion8 a matter lave been lave been ,t has this here were , a month an or my- o was pre- Mie immer- liether An- . baptized ccordiug to ) immerse, but if any- y who bap- le told, ere is one, )rie8t at His ;tly office ? this issue of this ques- impression according to sprinkled. I am told that in this town this question was raised, and it was said that Christ was consecrated, or appointed a priest at His baptism, and since the Levitical law required that the Levites be sprinkled, He, therefore, must have been sprinkled ! I will read from D. D. Currie, of the conference of East- ern British America, a passage bearing on the question. On pages 24 and 25 of his dttechisni of Baptism he says : — " With what baptism was our Lord baptized ? It was not John's baptism, for He had no need of repentance, which that baptism imphed. It was not Christian baptism, for that was not instituted until several years after He had been baptized. . . . He was baptized ' to fulfil all righteousness,' that is, all the requirements of the law. He came among men that He might become a minister of the gospel, and our Great High Priest, and He had to fulfil all thr requirements of the law appertaining to those offices. " What did the law require of our Lord as a minister and a priest ? "The Mosaic ritual required that He would not begin to preach till He should be thirty years of age, and not then without being sprinkled with water. Numbers viii. 5-7, ' And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Take tlie Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them : Sprinkle water of purifying upon them.' ^ '* How, does it appear that these laws applied to Jesus ? , " They were parts of the established ritual, and were binding ■ upon every one who entered upon the office of the ministry and the priesthood, from Aaron down to Christ." If this is not wisdom, where can wisdom be found? That is, the Levites, according to the law of this priestly I tribe, were sprinkled, therefore Christ was sprinkled ! Did I Christ belong to the tribe of Levi ? And was He a priest I according to the Lentical law ? He was not a priest at all I while on earth, neither was He a Levite. 'H 11 ?' ! ft 56 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? I will read in the Bible the law concerning Levites, which Mr. Carrie partially quotes, Numbers viii. 5-7, just to show what monstrous theology is taught nowadays : — " And the Lord spake unto Moaes, saying,', Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleause them. And thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them : Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean." Was Christ an unclean Levite ? Did John wash Christ's clothes and shave His llesh, and sprinkle water of purifyiny upon Him ? According to the law of the Levitical priesthood, this and more must be done. But let us now read on : — " Then let them take a young bullock with his meat offering, even tine flour mingled with oil, and another young bullock shalt thou take for a sin oiferiug. And thou shalt bring the Levites betore the tabernacle of the congregation : and thou shalt gather the whole assembly if the children of Israel to- gether." Was this done by John at Christ's baptism in consecrat- ing Him to His supposed priestly office ? The priesthood is changed. Beii^g changed, why do these men go back to the old Lecitiad law, and apply that to this new and better priesthood ? I read from Paul, Heb. vii. 11, 12 : — '* If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron ? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." They do not know of this change. Actually half of the ministers do not know that they are not under the law, but under grace. Perhaps they have not yet been transferred ! !■ BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? 67 Levites, 5-7, just ays :— le Levites And thus ) water of sb, and let Jan. )hn wash e water of e Levitical let us now eat offering, ung bullock It bring the a: and thou of Israel to- il consecrat- priesthood is go hack to IS new and priesthood, further need tbe order of Aaron? For of necessity a ly half of the r the law, hut transferred ! They have not karued how to come out from under the law of tlu' caiuai commandment into the power of new covenant life ; and liuuce they even seek to put the Blessed Redeemer bade under the law of the Levitia.d priesthood, though He helomjeA to another irihc ! But I read on : — " For lie of whom these thinj^s are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man f^'ave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord spranj^ out of JuiJah ; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." " Take the Levites," saith the law. But Tliis Man " per- tains to another tribe." So that the law for consecrating Levitrs does not touch His consecration. " It is evident that our Lord sprnng out of Judah.' You see, these men do not read the Bible at all, seemingly. They want Bible authority. Here it is. Our Lord sprang out of another tribe, belongs to another ])riesthood, was made priest by another law, anointed by the Holy Spirit and appointed to office by God's own oath, another consecration ; not by a slain bullock and meat ofri3ring and shaving the flesh, and sprinkling blood or water of purifying, but by God's immutable oath, — thus He teas made priest. These men do not know this, or certainly they would not print such books, and, in them, put the Saviour, who belonged to the tribe of Judah, back ur.der the law for Levites, that re- quired the shaving of the whole person, and the washing of the clothes, and the offering of sacrifice, with meat- otferings as well as the sprinkling of purifying water — that is, water mingled with ashes. But let us read on. Paul's words ought forever to silence this untaught clamor about Christ's consecration to I the priestly office by the authority of the Levitical law : — 68 BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? "And it is yet far more evident : for that after the similitude of Mflcliisedfc there ariseth another priest, Wlio is made, not after the hiw of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifi* th, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec. For there is verily a disaniiuUin',' of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothinf? perfect, but the bringing in of a bett«r hope did; by the which we draw nij,'h unto God. And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest : (For those priests were made without an oath ; but this with an oath hv him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, TUou art a priest forever after the order of Melchis- edec :) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament." After the similitude of Melchisedec, not after the like- ness of the Levite.s ; after the power of an endless life, not after the law of a carnal commandment, was Jesus made the Great High Priest of our profession. Neither His baptism nor priesthood was of Moses. " He was made the SURETY OF A BETTER TESTAMENT." He was not a priest upon earth at all. His priesthood began in tlie skies, when He appeared for us, in the presence of His Father, with His own blood ; not in temples made with hands, not even in earth's holiest place, was His blood presented, but in the presence of God, when as our Mediator in the heavens He appeared. Paul says : " Were he on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing there are priests who offer gifts according to the law." This priest offers gifts according to the power of an end- less life, being made priest by the unchangeable oath of God. He was haiAized^ immersed, and there was no sprink- ling in the case. If there was, why did not Matthew just BAPTISM WHAT IS IT 59 iimilituJe andment, le order of aent going ing in of a 3d. e 'priest : it this with bre and will of Melcbis- testament." 3r the like- iS3 hfe, not esus made either His S MADE THE priesthood le presence uples made e, was His rhen as our seeing there ir of an end- ible oath of s no sprink- latthew just I say He was sprinkled ? The Lcvitical law had nothing to do with the case — neither had sprinkUng. When the Bible writers say " sprinkle," they use rantizo or ntino, or some such word. In tlie New Testament, — *' sprinkling the unclean" (Heb. ix. 18-21), and "sprinkled with blood," — rantizo is the word used. The two forms, raino and rantizo, are used for "sprinkle" in the Old Testament. If Christ was sprinkled, why nuc use this word ? Baptism is never spoken of as sprinkling in the book of God. Historians agree in saying that for thirteen hun- dred years immersion was tlie rule, but that sprinkling was allowed in cases of sickness or approaching death, after the middle of the third century, by a supposed indul- gence of God. It is a kind of sick baptism of which the Bible knows nothing. The Bible, the Lexicons, and His- tory agree, together with all the circumstances, in testify- ing to the fact that we sliould be buried in the likeness of the Saviour's death, and raised in the likeness of His resurrection, — born of water and of the Spirit. Jesus is called the " first-born from the dead ; " why ? He was in the tomb, in the womb of mother earth, was born out of the grave, and is called " the first born." When we, in the likeness of that burial and resurrection, go into the water and come out, we are said to be hum of water and of the Spirit, having been first heyutten of the Spirit to a new life. Having died to sin, we are buried in the likeness o*" the Saviour's death, and are raised in the likeness of His resurrection from the dead. This is the "form of doctrine '* to which Paul refers, Rom. vi. 17. But perhaps some one will say just here, as has often been said — " Christ was not buried at all." I will quote the words of Christ : — " As Jonah was ... so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." !i ' 60 BAPTISM WHAT IB IT ? Paul says : — ♦* He was buried according to the Scriptures. " I read from Dean Stanley : — ** With the few exceptions just mentioned, the whole of the Western churchos have now substituted for the ancient bath, the ceremony of sprinkling a few drops of water on the face. The reason of the channfe is obvious. The practice of immer- Biou, apostolic and primitive as it was, was peculiarly suitable to the Southern and Eastern countries for which it was designed, and peculiarly unsuitable to the tastes, the conve- nience, and the feelings of the countries of the North and West." Here the Dean not only admits the apostolic character of immersion, but confesses also that the chunge to sprink- ling was by the authority of human tastes and conve- nience. It was not very convenient or pleasant to go down into the grave. The Son of God went down. He suffered it all— died and was buried. And shall we talk about our tastes, and our convenience, and our cold countries, as an apology for chanr/iiKj this commandment of our Saviour, which symbolizes the foundation facts of our redemption — the Saviour in and out of deatlis embrace ? Think of changing Heaven's appointments to suit our tastes ! Just listen to his words again : — "The practice of immersion, apostollic as it was, was peculiarly suitable to the Southern and Eastern countries for which it was designeu, and peculiarly unsuitable to the tastes and convenience and the feelings of the countries of the Nortn and West. Not by any decree of Council or Parliament, but by the general sentiment of Christian liberty, this great change was effected. Not beginning till the thirteenth century, it has gradually driven the ancient Catholic usage out of the whole of Europe. There is no one who would now wish to go back to the old practice. It had, no doubt, the sanction of the Apostles BAPTIftM WHAT IS IT ? 61 ie of the nt batb, the face. ■ immer- f suitable a it was le conve- id West." 3haracter sprink- d conve- own into uffered it bout our Qtries, as Saviour, LQptiou — suit our was, was antries for the tastes the Nortn ,ment, but at change iiry, it has e whole of go back to e Apostles and of their Master. It had the sanction of the venerable Churches of the early ages, and of the sacred countries of the East. Baptism by sprinkling was rejected by the whole ancient Church (except in the rare case of death-beds or extreme neces- sity) as no baptism at all. Almost the first exception was the heretic Novatian. It still has tlie sanction of the powerful religious community which numbers amongst its members such noble characters as John Bunyan, Robert Hall, and Ilavelock. In a version of the Bible which the Baptist Church has com- piled for its own use in America, where it exceeds in numbers all but the Methodists, it is thought necessary, and on philological grounds it is quite correct, to translate John the Baptist by John the Immerser. It has even been defended on sanitary grounds. Sir John Floyer dated the prevalence of consumption to the discontinuance of baptism by immersion. But, speaking generally, the Christian civilized world has decided against it. It is a striking example of the triumph of common sense and convenience over the bondage of form and custom. Perhaps no greater change has ever taken place in the outward form of Christian ceremony with such general agreement. It is a greater change even than that which the Roman Catholic Church has made in administering the sacra- ment of the Lord's Supper in the bread without the wine. For that was a change which did not affect the thing that was signified ; whereas the change from immersion to sprinkling has set aside the larger part of apostolic language regarding baptism, and has altered the very meaning of the word." This is the testimony of Dean Stanley, the historian, who was minister to the Queen till his death. Almost the first exception was the heretic Novatian, who was scared, think- ing he was going to die, and they poured water on him in bed, as the best thing that could be done, by what they called an indulgence of God, under special necessity; and thus sprinkling began and continued to grow and spread, as an exception to the rule. It spread until it was all over 612 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT.'' > Europe, and became the rule about the close of the dark ages. Yes, the dai-k ai^en nearly obUterr ted immersion. 21aT QUKBTioN. — Will you j,'ivo some y)roof from the Bible that tahal means " dip " or " immerse ?" What proof does the querist seek ? I have the Bible here in Hebrew, in Enj^Hsh, in German, and in Greek. This word talml occurs fit'teen times in the Hebrew ; and in the En^jflish it is rendered ilip fourteen times, and once it is rendereJ phuKje. Yet our catechist would like to make out that tahal means sprinkle! 22nd Question. — The Hebrew word tahal is found in Leviticus xiv. 6, 51. How could a bird, cedar woo 1, and a bunch of hyssop be dipped in the blood of a bird ? I can dip an elephant in the blood of a bird — a whole live elephant ! This may seem stiange. You ask me how ? I will do it just as the Bible explains it should be done in the case of the bird and cedar wood. What autho- rity do these men desire ? The Biule aflirms that the things mentioned were (lipped, but I am asked to show it possible I Let us turn to the ])lace, Leviticus, xiv. 51. Take a ves- sel of water, living running water, fill tlie vessel half full, or two-thirds full, and then kill your bird over the vessel, letting the blood go down into the vessel that has the water in it, and then dip your bird and wood and hyssop into the vessel containing the blood and the water. But you say, is that the way it is directed to be done ? It is just exactly the way. Let us read the passage : " And he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water : and he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bii J., and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, imd in the running water." The same dip, you see, puts them into the blood, and into the water, and then the house is sprinkled with both. BAPTISM WFI\T IS IT/ ^) le dark ion. le Bible le Bible Greek, w ; and ,nd once to make Leviticus of hyssop -a whole ask me hould be at autho- he things possible ! ke a ves- half full, le vessel, the water ) into the you say, It is just ;hen vessel wood, and ip them in )lood, and Nith. both. Now, I can immerse the elopliant in the blood of a bird just in tliat way. Tlie men who want to po back on our B'lhlo would do well to bo careful how tliey {,'0 back to the Hebrew, and toll that certain words mean thus, and so. That does not pay expensos. Vou see the liiblo, as well as all the authorities, are against these men, for wherever you find ttihul in all the book of God, it is rendered (li}> or jihoiffe. In the adjcctirc form it is translated '///<''/, once ; but the word talxil is dip and plunge, in all the Bible. Just mix enough water with the bird's blood, according to the Bible, and the dipping is easy. 23rd Qukstion. — " IIow could .Joseph's coat bo dipped or immersed in a kid's blood ? Have any of you an ordinary coat, that you would like to have it tried upon ? If you have, and if I do not dip and cover over your entire undercoat in a kid's blood, I will pay two prices for the coat. In the Eastern countries, where it is warm, they did not wear buffalo hides for coats, they wore thin coats. I can dip half a dozen such coats in the blood of a kid, and wet them all The Bihio says they dipped Joseph's coat ; and the word tubal, here used, means dip, and is so translated. But our opponents say tahal does not mean to dip. I ask how do they know it does not mean to dip ? They just sni/ it does not. The Hebrew dictionaries are against them. " Oh, but you must not quote dictionaries," they say. " The dictionaries are human." So is our translation of the Bible human He who says the coat was not dipped, rejecting the testimony of our Bible, is also human, is he nf)t ? y4TH Question. — Is not bajAo found in Daniel iv. 3B, where it is said, " His body was wet with the dew of heaven" ? Yes, hupto is found there. But Christ did not use hapto when speaking of the ordinance. But even were haptizo r 04 HAPTISM — WHAT IS IT? ! M J I II I used here, it would only he hke clip, iu the saying of Mil- ton, the poet, when lie siiy.s : " Tlio cold, shivering,' dew dips mo nil over." You should know that the dow fills the heavens just like smoke — thou^'h unseen. It is all ahouL uh, lloating in siiace, forty-five miles hij^'h, ])crhai)H more. It settles around us on all sides, and a man is really immersed in the dew. But hto is not the word Christ used. He used hoptho. No one is said to have he(!n Ixiptized iu the dew of heaven. I have a conundrum now, for a little relief. It is earnest work, and I want rest. A theolo^nan of this town, who is present to-night, states in the Herald^ that the Hebrew equivalent for " immeise " is nanid. And we find upon opening the Bible, that ijarod occurs about two hundred times, and it is generally translated to brinif down, to deuce lid, to tjo iloini — as ^'- hrlmi my son duicn" or ** bnng down 3'our brother " ((run. xliii. 7). It means to yo down. It may be to go down the river, or to go down or descend a hill. And we read in the Old Testament, that Jacob saw a ladder reaching up to heaven, and the angels of God ascending and descend imj ; and ijarad is the word here translates. ^^ ciescciuUn;/.'' Now, if angels could immerse themselves on the rounds of a ladder, could not a man be immersed almost anywhere '? And if this word i/arad means immerse, the dcscendim/ of the angels is a clear case of immersion. But it is never translated immerse in all the Bible. It is translated once, out of 200 times, sink; in this instance it leaves men under. It is intended to keep them at the bottom. " They sank into the bottom like a stone" (Ex. xv. 5).- Literally, "they went down to the bottom as a stone." The same gentleman tells us that buthizo is the word for immerse. (See Herald.) If Christ had used that term, we would give the Methodists and BAPTISM WHAT Ifl IT ? 66 Preabvteriana no trouble nt all. We woultl be all drowned, aun/c, by Divine command. Hero ia the word [huthizo) that the Lord ouj^ht to have used to mean immerse I Here is a New Testament Greek Fjcxicon, by liobinson, of the Episcopal Church. He dcfnics />/^^/TlSM WHAT 19 IT ? 67 Qode by ial force ising up Q. vi. 4. of (livers jyere by iulilings id meats 3ats and He does ,he kind, rs immer- or three an heifer the flesh, the blood '.led blood ;on made the un- ntain the jailed the washing 1 through usually 4 involved immersion. But you want authority. I quote in regard to Jewisli washings, Dr. Lightfoot, as quoted by Adam Clark. Ho says : — "The baptism o^ Jobn was by plunging the body, after the same manner as the wasbinj^ of unclean persons, and the bap- tism of proselj'tes. " J)r. Liglitfoot, a Presbyterian, president of the West- minster Assembly, and quoted with approval on this point by Adam Clark, says that the washing of uncle? ii r :\'8ons was by immersion ; and Paul refers to these i ?im«^rjion8 when he speaks of " divers immersions " under the law. But you say, perhaps there was no immersion under the law. We will see about that. Dr. Lightfoot says, as we read, that — " The washing of uuclean persons and the baptism of prose- lytes was by plunging the whole body. " Sp'^jiJdug of certain unclean things the Bible says, **they must be put into water. " I quote now from Leviticus xi. 32, to show that certain things unclean in those days were put into water, or through it : — "And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean ; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be p\it i)iio vrnter.'' To the same effect we read in Numbers xxxi. 28 : "AD that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water. " Thus yon have immersion by putting anytliing into or througlj the water. If it be a garment, it must be trashed in Hitter or put throuijh the water. So we have now "the divers imm^^r^ions " of Hebrews identified with th^ immer- sions of the Old Testament. There is no sprir.kling in the case. ■I J i II fill. 68 BAPTISM— WHAT IS IT? I have other questions to answer, l)iit to-morrow night I will answer these. I will especially discuss to-morrow evening the suhjectof the " baptism in the Holy Spirit and in fire," and also answer the remainder of the questions, and any others that may come in. I was rather surprised that no questions were handed in touching the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is the stronghold of those who sprinkle, and yet not a single question touching it has been received. To-morrow evening this will be my theme, and any questions may be asked then ; and if any person desires to occupy half the time, and expose my sophistries, if they exist, I will be very glad to let him do so. Thi- house is as free and open as a hall. It is not our fault that one side only is heard. It is free and welcome to all. I tliank you for your presence and attention to-night, and I nope that all will look upon this matter kindly, and with tnitli-loving hearts, and endeavor to separate the chaff from the wheat. Vvlth devout, faithful, truth-seek- ing souls, ask, "What does our Lord say?" Be not frightened by coldness of water, or by mockery and sneer- ing ; but come riglit out before men, confess our Saviour's name, and obey the form of doctrine delivered us, and be buried witli Him in baptism. Do what the Church of the ages past has done. Do what the Apostles did, and do what the Saviour appointed, unchanged, the same, always the same. flili [69] MR. McDIAR]\IID'S THIRD ADDRESS. {Third Xujht.) nd any desires , if they not our welcome :o-night, ily, and rate the ith-seek- Be not d sneer- iavioiir's and be lurch of id, and , always Brother Chairman and Christian Friends, — I will read as a text the first eight verses of the Acts : — *' The former treatise have I made, Theophilus, of all that .lesuR betjan both to do and teach, 2. Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he thronf,di the H'ly Gliost had given commandments unto the apostles whom lie had chosen : 3. To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, beinj^ seen of them forty daj's, and speak- ing of the thinfifs perfuiniiig to the kingdom of God : 4. And, beitjfi; asp^unbled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from .Ternsalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5. For John truly baptized with water ; but ye shall be bap- tized with the Holy Gh( St not many days henoe. 6 Wben they therefore were come together, they asked of him ''aying. Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the king- dom I ' ra> 1 ? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon y^n ; an 1 ye shall be witnesses iinto me both in Jerusalem, and in Ul Tudea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of thp earth." In tht Nif'w R v.-ion, American edition, verse C is correctly translated uaus : — I II h 70 BAPTISM WHAT IS IT V '• For John indeed baptized in water, but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. " I also read from the last chapter of Luke : — ''And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you, but tarry yo in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." Revised version — "clothed with power from on high. " As announced last evening, I am to speak to you to- night upon the subject of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, with a few remarks upon the baptism in fire. J shall not deliver such a discourse as I would if I were preaching a sermon on the subject. In that case I would say some- thing about the object of this baptism, and would discuss the question whether it is now in existence or not. But to-night I have no concern about the object of it, or about its continuance, but simply what is it, or what was it ? I mean to discuss it in relation to the great question which has been before us the past evenings, — the meaning of the wof'i baptism. I might s-ay that this is the last refuge in the discussion for those who practise sprinkling. When every plank of their vessel is gone, they appeal in the last hour to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and say here is the proof that pouring is baptism. Therefore I have thought it well to make this one question the subject of a single lecture. They tell you that the Spirit was poured out, and so the Bible reads. If I would reason like our opponents in their little books on baptism, I would say you cannot prove there is any pouring in tlie Bible — of oil, water. Spirit, or any- thing else. You say, that is curious ; does not the Bible say jjour ? Oh yes, but the word ekcheo, translated pour, means many other things besides pour. If I wanted to act as the BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT 71 ciptized m you, 3d with \i power you to- Spirit, lall not cbing a y some- discuss )t. But )r about 8 it? I n which ig of the iscussion plank of ir to the L-oof that t well to ture. nd so the ,s in their ■ove there t, or Kny- bhe Bible r, means act as the authors of these books on baptism do, I would say ekcheo may mean to pour ; it sometimes means that and other things too ! It also means '* to grant abundantly." It is so defined in the Lexicons sometimes. If I desired to be very cai)tious, I would say this; but I accept it just as it is given in our version : " I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." Of course, literally, the Spirit of God cannot be poured. The Spirit of God is not a liquid. The Spirit of God is a person — Divine, and cannot be literally poured. Yet, the Bible says poured, and I accept it. Here, they say, is a case of pouring. Yes, here is pouring, but the pouring is not called baptism. I have wondered sometimes that the advocates of affusion selected the word pour here to show what baptism is. Does not the Lord say : " Receive ye the Holy Spirit." And do we not read — " We were all made to drink of one Spirit." "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit." Is not baptism, therefore, a drinking or Jillin;/ /" Over in Canada, there is, or ought to be, a body of peo- ple — I use this by way of illustration — who baptize by giving their candidates a '* drink." They have them drink till they are "filled." Their proof for this mode of bap- tism, as they call it, is drawn from the baptism of the Holy Spirit. They quote the verses : " For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body. . . . and were all made to drink of one Spirit" (1 Cor. xii. 13). " And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit " (Acts ii. 4). This is fully equal to the argument in favor of pouring. How could they make answer, who take the word " pour " as expressing the baptism ? I would like to know why the '{ 72 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? argument is not as sound when it is said that the word baptize means to drink — '* drink of one Spirit." If not, why not ? Then again, we are told "The Holy Spirit fell on them." Does baptizo mean to fall ? The Spirit was " shed abun- dantly," our version says (Titus iii. C). Does baptize mean to shed abundantly ? " They were filled with the Holy Spirit." Does baptize mean to fill ? Does it mean to send? for God "sent the Holy Spirit" down. Why do not Pedo-Baptists use drinky .semi, Jill, fail, and receive, a,6 well SLB pour, to express the mode of Spirit baptism? "Why pick on the word pour ? Do you know why ? Be- cause this word suits the practice ; and that is the only reason under the starry heavens why they take the word pour, and do not take the other words. The fact is this, the pouring is not the baptism, the sending down is not the baptism, the shedding is not tlie baptism, the fall- ing of the Spirit is not the baptism, and the drinking is not the baptism. The coming down of the Spirit is not any more the baptism than is the coming down of the rain that fills the baptistery. The Spirit had to come in some way from heaven, or men must he taken up to heaven, that the baptism in the Spirit might be possible. The Spirit came down, but this is not baptism. This simply brings the Spirit and man together. Soinethuu/ icas accompHshed after the Spirit came down, and that somethinr/ is the baptism. We will see b^ -and-by just what the baptism in the Holy Spirit is. But first, I desire to read to you what is said by some of these men in their little books on baptism. I refer to none but those in the books. I do not now speak about men who have not written. I do not know men's thoughts. I read now from D. D. Currie, a Methodist preacher of the nAPTiSM — WHAT 19 IT ? 73 le word If not, 1 them." d abun- baptize with the it mean 1. Why id receive J baptism? ly ? Be- the only the word ;t is this, down is I, the fall- dng is not 5 not any ' the rain ) in some aven, that he Spirit iply brings 'compHshed he baptism. the Holy 3y some of fer to none Lbout men loughts. I Iher of the '■a la M Conference of Eastern British America. On page 19 he says : " Whatever may have been its primary meaning," that is baptizo, " we learn its meaning when used in a Christian sense. The Bible is its own Dictionary." Of course he rejects all dictionaries. Tell me what word is defined in all the Bible. It defines faith, and the names of some places and persons, 'tis true ; but " the Bible is its own Dictionary !" Who ever heard of thai before ? I read on : " The Spirit is bis own interpreter." And now let us have the Bible definition of baptism. Let us hear just what the baptism of the Spirit is : •'The thing has been made so visible, that wo may see it. God Himself has given a definition of the word in question." This is surely coming to the point ; I declare we are going to have it now. " He poured out upon his S^n, visibly and really, it was pour- injj, and not immersion, and He called it baptism. The Holy Ghost descended upon the disciples, and sat upon, them ; and this He — God — calls baptism. " Let us try this definition in the commission and see if it is divine. " Go teach all nations, baptizing them " ; that is, dm-endini/, and sittim/ upon them ! Tliat is God's defini- tion ! ! How long shall we sit upon them ? And all this is done to keep men out of the water. Jacob Ditzler, D.D., a Methodist divine of Kentucky, who has debated with John Sweeney, and L. B. Wilkes, and has met five or six others in debates lasting ten or twelve days, has, in connection with L. B. Wilkes, pub- lished a large book — also a separate book on baptism. I f r liiji , : i; '■I iiP: 74 13APTISM- -WHAT IS IT? will read to you what he says ahout the word that means immerse. "The words immerse, aink, dip, often occur in the Greek of the 01(1 Testament, nnd New Teptnm« ut, and Apocrypha, e.g. enduo, pontizo, hvthizo^ dnpto, kaiapoidhny katachio. Had the sacred writers intended immersion or dipping, it would have been expressed by one or more of these words." According Lo this great debater of the present day, what is tiie word ? It is enduo that heads the list of his words for immerse. This is just the word that Jesus uses to express the baptism in the Holy Spirit, "Tarry ye in Jerusalem till ye be endued. " This is the very word, or one of them, that is used in the Old find New Testaments, and in the Apocrypha, for immerse, according to Jacob Ditzler. Jesus said : " And behold I send the promise of my Father upon you, but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem till ye be endued (enduo) with power from on high" — "clothed with power " — Revised version. — Luke, xxiv. 49. 2'/(isis the immersion. This is the word Paul used, when he spoke of " being clothed " with his house from heaven. He would not be unclothed — cxduo — but clothed — enduo — or clothed upon — epi, upon. This is the word that explains the baptism in the Holy Spirit. So, God is His own interpreter, and He will make it plain. How much better this is than to have the descendimj, and sitting upon, called the baptism. The spirits of the Apostles — their souls — were clothed in the power of the Holj^ Spirit. This ovenvhelmimj influence is the baptism. I feel now that nothing more need be said on this ques- tion, — positively nothing more. But, you saj, is that according to the best authorities ? Yes, sir, according to the best authorities, and according to the Fathers, and BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? 75 I means 3reek of pba, e. g. Had the •uld bave ay, what is words uses to ry ye in word, or itaments, to Jacob upon you, :ed {enduo) — Revised Bed, when heaven. ed — enduo iTord that od is His ow much ting upon, les — their rit. This bhis ques- is that I according thers, and according to the scholars of modern times. And it is the truth. I will go back a little, and bring to your minds what we have been trying to do here. I could huij, Ixtptizo means to kill, to swim, to fly, or to sprinkle, but who would bfiieve it ? I do not come here to tell people what I think it means, or what I would like to have it mean. I come to back up my statements like a lawyer would with his law books, and my law books are the Greek Lexicons, for words. The Greek Lexicons are the law books of the Greek language as to the meaning of its words. There is not a man, perhaps, in this house, who can sit down and translate a single chapter in the Old Testament from the Hebrew, unless he has his Dictionary by his side. The same may be said of the New Testament, perhaps. The men who translate have Lexicons about them on every side. In the past evenings I have been trying to show that the word hajdizo means immerse, and if this be true, the question is settled. I will now give two examples from Greek usage, just as a reminder. I give this example from Strabo, who wrote just before the birth of Christ : " Then floating at the top, on account of the nature of the water, by virtue of which, we said, there is no need of being a swimmer, and he who enters is not baptized, but is lifted out." He does not go under. It is a clear case either of im- mersion or no immersion. When the swimmer is not under the water wholly, he is not baptized, according to Strabo. There is another use of the word. Baptism in the classics, and in the BiMe, is not used always just in the same sense, and the Lexicons say so. When Diodorus, speaking of the inundation of the Kiver Nile, cays — " Most of the wild 70 BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? I !!i land animals arc surrounded by the stream and perish, being Imjttizcd,'' he uses the word not exactly according to its literal use in the Bible. There the water moves and the animals do not move. They are ba/i(izrd, inimemd, by tlie water lising about them. It is much more con- venient to baptize a man — to immerse him — by putting him into the water, tlian by raising the water up around him, yet it is callud baptism in classic Greek — and in Bible Greek it might be used so too — when the element rises around about tiie objects huptizfd till they arc immersed in it. The word immerse is used in the same w«i/. Have you not read in the papers lately about the "immersed districts" in the South? IL w were they immersed ? Did somebody come along, pick them up, and put them down into the water ? No, the rain came down from heaven, and water was poured out upon them, and it raise . up over the land till the papers said "immersed," or "submerged districts." Does Immerse or submerge, therefore, mean to pour, to rain, or to sprinkle/ Hardly. I put a marble into a glass of water. I immerse the marble. Suppose I jirsf place the marble in the glass, then fill the glass with water, the marble is immersed, baptized all the same, according to the Uiu/lish language, and Greek too. So when the watei- rises around a man till he is immersed he is baptized. Bdptixo is thus used like the English word immerse, in " immersed districts ;" and if baptize were not so used it would not be the equivalent of immerse. I am trying to show you that, in the Greek language, haptizo is used as immerse is in the English. If a person desiring that kind of baptism will lie down in an empty baptistery until I cover him with water, I will accept it, if he lives through it. This, however, would be f UAPTISM — WHAT is IT? 77 perish, cording ves and ire con- putting around in Bible 3nt rises icrsod in bout the ere thoy hem up, lin came on them, pera said iimerse or n all flosli," says the great I'^atlier. It comes down in great abundance, and tiie sound tluif it makes in the room fills the whole house, and tbey are ^'f)i(lii('({ — clothed — with ]>o\ver from on high." This was the promise of the Father, this was the baptism in tlie Holy Spirit. It is the enroloinnenl , the enclosure, the (irerirhehni)!;/ of the soul by the power of the Holy S]Uiit. r»nt, you say, how could a man be in the Spirit"? Well, how can (lod be in man ? Tell me that. It is said God dwells in us, and we in Him. J)o not press these questions too close, or you may make infidels. God dwells in us, and yet God is in heaven ; and we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us, says the Ajiostle ; but do not take these things too literalh/, my friends. Be cautious. When speaking about God and the Holy Spirit, do not press language materiallij. Eead it in the light of the glorious figures of speech in which the Scriptures abound, ^^ clothed'' or ''endued," or " haptized in the Holy Spirit'' — the thought is the same. Now, you ask perhaps, is this according to the authorities ? Yes, sir. I go back to the days of Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, who was born about 300 years after Christ. Cyril writes thus : — " For the Lord said, ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days after this. Not in part the ^race ; but all RufBcing the power! for as he who sinks down into the waters, and is baptized (immersed), is surrounded on all sides by the 78 BAPTISM — WHAT 18 IT ? waters, so also they were completely baptized by the Holy Spirit." Thus speak ancient and motlern critics and commen- tators. One thing more. Do you know this — that in the Greek and Enj^lish languapies, ant/ miijhtu ivjluence upon the sohI.s of mm is called a baptism or an immersion ? I desire to prove that hd/itko and immerse mean the same thing, and are nsed alike in this respect. Here is an extract from Tennyson : •* The Queen immersed in such a trance." The Queen was not literally taken up and put into a box, into some trance which the box contained. Of course not. Yet we say figuratively, ** The Queen immersed in such a trance." Says Atterbury : " It is impossible to have a lively hope in another life, and yet be deeply immersed in the enjoyment of this." -^ — We read of men being immersed in grief, in sin, and in the cares of the world. We speak m this way, and the Greeks spoke in the same way about men being baptized in destruction, in corruption, in sleep, in darkness, and in drunkenness. We say a man has "gone under" when he is drunk — a crude, rough phrase, it is true, but it expresses the idea of a soul over- whelmed with the power of spirits. While the cultivated Greeks would say "he is baptized with wine," we would say " he has gone under." Just so with the baptism in the Spirit. A mighty influence or power from on high comes down, and the sound fills the house, and they are clothed upon or clothed in the mighty power — overwhelmed, immersed, baptized. I read in the papers of Cincinnati, not long ago, a report of a camp meeting, written by one of the actors in HAPTIS.M — WHAT IS IT ? 70 the scene. lie wiih HpLiilxiii.v' Jil)i)ut th«* baptism of tlio Holy Bpiiit. He WHS not debatinj^, lie was writing,' udfiinillif, writing,' like a Christian gentleman and a scholar, and iin said tlicy had " a glorious outpouring of the Spirit, and it secnied that waves of supernatural^ power rolled over the assembly, and they were, as it were, submerged in it." Thib is tlie English of it, and the Greek too, and no man should raise a dust over these intangible, figurative expressions that we all use. Do we not sing — " Plunged in a gull of dark despair ?" Think of a man saying plunge docs not mean plunge or immerse there, because there is no real gulf into which we went down. Then, again, we sing — *' There is a fountain filled with blood, Drawn from Imnianuel's veins ; And sinnerB plunj^ed beneath that flood Lose all their guilty stains." A man is not taken and put down into the fountain of the Saviour's blood realb/. Why, the fountain of Christ's blood was the blood of one man only. It is all figurative. It is a glorious figure. Men who cannot comprehend this have no wings, no imagination ; they cannot fly. You want wings to read the Bible — wings of angels — to catch the glorious figures of God's word. You must mount up ! I have in my hand here a book by J. W. Dale, D.D., on baptism. This book has changed the whole course of Pedo- Baptist arguments. There is not a man to-day, on the opposite side, who is posted, but follows Dr. Dale pretty much. T. Gallaher, D.D., stole his book — its arguments — from this book. W. A. McKay, of Woodstock, obtained his arguments from Gallaher' s book, and I can find you scores of little books all taken from this book of Dale's, ■ '111 • 'Hi lU . I .1 S 'i I :! < 1 ' ■ 1 . : ■ 1 ■ j i i ' 1 1 ^ kl'' 1 1 80 BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? eitlier first or second-haud. Dr. Dale admits that baptism firstly, involves literal immersion ; and secondly, it involves immersion by some itlral surroundinjTf or covering, such as sorrow, or sin, or pleasure. lie is right, so far, in tlicse two admissions ; but thiirlly, according to liim, it involves a chamjed condition, without any enclosure, real or su})]iosed. This is his whole book in a nutshell. This last state- ment of his is just what is not true. It all breaks down on the last part. He takes hnthizo and iiojtti^o as mean- ing down into — the former as taking its object down into an abi/ss, or the deep. He says : " Kahfklu~(>, hiithi::o, like hapVc.o, demand ininsposition for their objects." TnfUF means iritliin, hence intnsposilion means position within. He says i'luther : " They do not take out what they put in, and therefore all such objects are of necessity exposed to the full inllueuco of the investing clement.''^ — Patridic Baptism, p. 478. This is true as the gospel. Yet this book is written for the fell purx)ose of proving that Clod never demanded iutns- position or ininicrsion ! I say, God does give men over sometimes. There is not a more perverse book that has ever appeared on earth than this book. It is an able book, by a man of might and scholarship, and of splendid talents ; but he uses those talents to pervert the word of the living God. He goes on to say tliat haptizo means some- thing else. He says it means " a changed condition, with- out regard to enveloprient ;" this he says, after saying it "demands intusposition !" Some Baptists, I think, have made a mistake, and Dis- ciples too. I have heard some say that the Spirit filled the house on Pentecost. The Book does not sav so, ,,i» ISAPIMSM WIIA r IS II' ? HI *' Thore camo n souiid liko tho rushing «if a iniglity wind, and it filled the house." I do not know l)ut tlio Spirit lil^ iininonsiiy ; f]i(> Sj)irit is (lod, oi' hiviiic, and (iini is ('vci-ywhcn' ; hut to iinMj^Miie tliiit th< house was full of the Spiiii. niid that the h(>(li(s of the men were haj)tized in the Spirit, is eriuh'. It is tlie.s/i/V/V of man that is hapti/ed in th(> Holy Spirit. It, is the sotils of luoii. ^'ou hapti/.e tlie boihes of nu n in mateiial watei-, Ij. th it of ( at( d (1 it le ^^[)ll•lt oi uoii js uiimatenal, and spii unal, and il is the hnman sj)irit tiiat is cloilwd, hapli/e(l in the Spirit of (iod. Ti'.e Apostles went out in tlie powei- of the Holy Spirit i)ii(s{i'tl, cih/itrd, chitlwd with j>ower from on iiiuh. This is the inimcrHioji th(> baptism. ^J'lie pouiiii^' out of the S])irit briiif!:s the S]iiritdow). ; but this is no iuoic t,iie baptism, than the iiiii uji of the jueii woukl have been, if (iod liad taken them u[) to receive tlie ba])tism of the Spirit. 'rh(> bajttism is the i'luhdn;/, or clol/iinii, with the Spirit's power. Says Christ, in Acts i. 5 : " I'^or John truly baptized with water; l»ut yo shall he l)ap- tized with (<;>t. In) the Holy Hpirit not many days hence." " Yo shall receive power after that the Holy Spirit is corno ui)oii you." — Acts i. 8. He also says: " Tarry yo in the city of .Torusalem until ye bo ondnod — (•hjfhed — with power from on high.'' '* I send the promise of my Father upon you."- Luke xxiv. 40. Now we have it. The proiniso of tho Father is tlie Tfoly Spirit, to invest, and clothe with power and aiithority, the Apostles of the Lord. Is this some new heresy ? Or the simple truth of Heaven ? Archbishoi) Tillotson, of the Church of England, says:— ii I i r ^ f 82 BAPTISAI — WHAT IK IT ? "It filled all the house ; that is what our Saviour called baptizing with the Holy Ghost ; so that thej' who sat in the house were, as it were, immersed in the Holy Ghost, as they who were buried in water, were overwhelmed, and covered all over with water, which is the proper notion of baptism." Of course he refers to their souls. Possibly not. A word in rei^ard to tlie bti])ti8m in fire. I have heard men pray for this baptism, and I trembled. I have heard men say, " Send it down througli the roof! " May God save^us from the baptism in fire, is my earnest prayer. Nobody living to-day ever saw such a baptism. The bap- tism of fire is for the chaff, — the ungodly, in tlie last great day. If you carefully read the New Testament, you will find that every time the baptism in lire is mentioned, it is in connection with the vipers ; and every evangelist that does not speak of the vipers, does not speak of the baptism in fire. 'J^he fire, and the vipers, and the chalf, go together in the Dook of God. Wiiere Luke speaks in the 1st chapter of the Acts, of Christ's promise to the Apostles, we read : '* Ye shall be baptized with {en, in) the Holy Spirit not many days hence." No baptism in fire here. No vipers are here. Mark represents John as saying to his disciples : "He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit. (Mark i. 8.) No vipers here — no fire. And Matthew represents John as saying to the Pharisees and Sadducees who came and were present with his dis- ciples : ** generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? every tree thatbriugeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." (Mat. iii. 7, 10.) Then in verses 11 and 12 the baptism in the Holy Ii BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? 83 Spirit and in the fire is mentioned in connection with the uheat end the chaf : "The chaff he will burn ii'^ with unquenchable fire." Is not this the baptism in fire ? That is the word of John. 1 do not believe in literal fire, not a word of it. May God save us from the baptism in fire whatever it is, and give ns only, if it be His will, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, if it exists to-day. We would do well to go through the water trusting in Jesus, — also through that fountain filled with blood, poured from Immanuel's veins — and obey the Gospel, trusting in the Lamb of God, wliose blood can cleanse all our sins away, and make us whiter than the snow. Somebody has said that the search for the truth is even more valuable than the truth itself. Lot us seek for it as for hidden treasure. Truth is golden. If God had de- sired to say sprinkle or pour, he would have used the words that meant that. He used them, ehrhco and raino, in regard to pouring oil, and sprinkling water of purifica- tion ; but when ho comes to baptism, it is another word altogethej , from the beginning to the end. Here is a little new authority as to the meaning of words. I quote from Hermann Cremer, D.D., Professor of Theology in the University of Griswold, in his Lexicon of the New Testament, (Greek.) This is the Hellenistic Greek : ^^Baptizo — To immerse ; to submerge. The peculiar New Testament and Christian use of the word, to denote immersion, submersion, for religious purposes, may be pretty clearly traced back to the Levitical washings." I have quoted from all these great writers, and they all say dip, plunge, immerse. And yet some of your teachers Bay there is no immersion for baptism in the Bible. I do ■ i BAPTISM ^"IIAT IS IT? not wonder that scholars are at a discount. I close for to-night. [At the close of this address it was finnoiinced flmt Dr. Watson would occupy the stand the two follow- ing evenings (March 14th and IHtli), jiiu! tliat on tlie fol- lowing Monday and several evenings tiiejcal'ter there would be four half-hour speeches, each speaker occupying half the time. JUit Dr. Watson desiring more time for preparation, it was finally arranged that he begin his re- plies on Monday, the 17th March — which he did.] 11 '' Mi} : :85] mi. WATSON'S FIRST REPLY. {Iu)iirl/i Nit/IU.) Ladies and Gentlemen, — llaviii;^ been very kindly invited to speak to yon in this house, wo propose to address you this evening upon tho subject of religious authorities, especially in reference to the subject of baptism. I do not propose to speak to you this evening upon baptism. We will take up that subject on to-morrow evening, and tell you something about these modes. Our friend on the other side of this question has occupied three evenings, of about one hour and a lialf each, making about four hours and a half altogether. W^e are coniincd to two evenings ourself, so if we should want about two iiours each evening, that will give us but four hours alto- gether, and then we would be lip.lf an hour in time behind our opponent. I do not think I will want that much time, perhaps about half that ; still, if I should be full, and want to go on, I hope you will be patient for about two hours each evening. You are all aware, I suppose, that I have hesitated in regard to entering into the discussion of this subject ; at least people say I have hesitatv^d, and I am inclined to think so myself. I find two motives have been assigned for my bashfulness and backwardness in regard to this matter. Some have thought this hesitancy was born of wisdom, and that I hesitated because you were all in peace, and did not like to disturb the quietude of our village. r 8G BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? ' 11 !!;:! Well, I am iuclined to symp; 'hize with that motive myself; and yet I find that some pci laps have thought that this motive was born of weakness, and that I was a little bit afraid to enter upon the discussion, because I might not be able to sustain tlie position wJiich we claim. Well, perhaps tliat motive will appear further on in the dis- cussion. As Paul says, " I tliink myself happy" to meet face to face with my distinguished brother from beyond the lake. J3efore his coming to our town, common fame had it — reported by his friends — that he was a very scholarly gentle- man, that he was well posted in the Greek and Hebrew languages ; peifectly familiar with tlie Greek Testament ; per- fectly conversant with the Hebrew Testament"; that he was one of the most distinguished in the denomination which he represents ; and I am so glad to hear that. I do not like to meet a small man ; I do not like to meet an ignorant man ; but I like to meet a man who knows what he is talking about, and who is responsible for what he says. So we are happy in this relation. I look upon him as a great scholar, and thoroughly ])osted on this subject. Then, again, it has been reported in this town that he is a great debater, a famous debater, one of the best in the whole denomination with which he is associated. I think some of his friends told a friend of mine that " he had used up tbe whole of Canada on this subject," as the term was ; and they told that he had done it so thoroughly, that he had overdone it, and that instead of people believing as he believed, why, they had so much sympathy with his op- ponents, they all went over to the other side. It is pos- sible that may bo the case here. We can tell better, per- haps, by-and-by. He has debated very largely in the Western States, and BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT 87 yself; ; this le bit it not Well, e dis- ) meet jeyond adit — gentle- lebrew Qt;per- , he was rhich he (t hke to at man ; talking we are scholar, t he is a le whole ik some used up •m was ; that he aving as his op- t is pos- ter, per- ites, and '♦swept the board" there. Well, I am very happy to make the acquaintance of such a distinguished debater, as well as of such a renowned scholar. Of course you must see, that as he is a debater, and has spent so much time in it, and has a whole trunk full of dictionaries here, witli liis books all marked, and every- thing cut and dried and laid out, everything at tongue's end, — you must see he has a great advantage over me. I believe I have only preached two sermons on baptism in my life, in a ministry of twenty years or more. I fear I have neglected my duty in that line. I have never had a debate on the subject of baptism, so that you see I appear at great disadvantage, having notliing prepared, while this gentleman is thoroughly prepared, and I know you sym- pathize with me. I think I can see in your faces that you J eally feel sorry for me and pity me — pity the David who has to meet such a Goliath ; yet I have a sling here with a few little pebbles in it, that I shall toss around by-and-by in the evening. That is pretty dry, but it is just enough to spice up. I shall not, perhaps, provoke you to very much laughter. Still, though laboring under this great disad- vantage, I feel happy to appear here to-night. Well, I have been here three long evenings, sat down quietly, paid close attention, and kept in my mind pretty much what was said, and, I presume, you say now to me, what do you think '? What is your impression of those three evenings ? 1 think I can express it all in about three words — weak, but gentlemanly ; weak, but gentlemanly. I presume some of you say I ought not to use one of those words, and some will say I ought not to use the other word, but that is honestly my impression. Of course, the first will appear by-and-by, if it has not already appeared, and the other is evident. I am really pleased with the 88 BAPTISM -—WHAT IS IT ? courtesy and tho goiitlcinanly spirit shown by our dear brother from Canada. ]}ut I will tell you how I felt after the three discourses : that if my hrotli(!r i)elieved in the position, from the evidence that he [)rop()sed, I would say that I have not seen so fjreat faitli, no, not in Tonawanda, if he is really convinced with the evidence that he has pro- duced to sustain that claim. It reminded me very much of the time, I tiiiiik I was about twenty yr ars old, when I liad heard so much about Thomas Paine's .b/r of Itenson — heai'd that it swept everything. Thinks I, " that is a won- derful book, 1 must read it." And I got that Afie of Rt'ason, and read it through. When I had read it through, I tliought, " Well it certainly requires more faith to believe in infidelity than it does to believe in Christianity," for 1 thought the weakness of the book was tlie very best proof of the truth of Christianity. I felt somewhat as the young lady did when Mr. Ingersoli delivered his great lecture at the female college in Poughkeepsie. After he was through, one young lady got up and moved a vote of thanks to the Colonel fur his groat proof of the divinity of Cinistianity. They seconded the motion, and gave him a grand vote of thanks. Sometimes I think the weakness of arguments will estal)lish the opposite ])Osition. I want to correct one little impression that perhaps ought not to have been made. At the close, 1 think, of the lecture, the brother made some statements, and said that I had sent him written ])ropositions to discuss this question with him. That is true. It, is not the whole truth. The brother first sent me written propositions to discuss the question with him, and this was a reply to his. He told the truth. This \h the whole truth. Of course my dear brother did not intcii/l to make the impression that T had made the first proj)ositio//, but I thought some might think se. UAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? 89 r dear t after . in th(3 lid say Aviuula, las pvo- y much when I a a won- '■ Hcttson, •ougli, I lelicvG in rr for 1 3st proof he yonn^' cctnre at through, ks to the istiaiiity. 1(1 vote of nontswill 1^, perliaps thill U, of aud siiicl jcusr. tliis [,hc whole )siiion3 to )ly to his. Of course mpression Intrht souie Unless I may 1><; misunderstood, my position is tliis, — that as ^F('tlllKii^t^, wo sprinkle, and pour and immerse, be- ciMis"' Wi tliiiik that sprinklin;^ and pouring are Scriptural, cl( Mil.v : Mild whiic we do not think that immersion is Scriptural, in the .sense of being proven by Scripture, yet it is not forbidden. I do not tiiink it is a sin at all, and when anyone desires to be immersed, we immerse them. In my practice, J have never [)ressed anyl)ody at all. I say, " How do you wish to be baptized ?" and if they say, sprinkled, poured, or immersed, 1 say, " Very wtdl, if that suits your conscience, all right." So I administer it in that way. I profess to represent the Methodist t^piscopal Church, whose inembtTshi}) numbers about '2,()()0,(H)U. Only about one in twenty of these members, lias been immc^rsed. I make that as an ajjproximate statement. I do not know the exact relation, but I think about tiiat. Tlie query to me is, whether one person kuows more than nineteen persons about this matter ? All things being ecpial in knowledge, etc., what is the rational presumption ? Tliat where you find one Methodist Church member, he knows more than any nineteen you can get? Of course that is possible, but is it not the presumption, that the nineteen would know more than the one every time, throughout the whole 2, 000, 000 ? The })resumption is that the nine- teen would know ihs tnuch ; I do not claim any more. I think that throughout the whole Christian world, only about one in every fifty has been immersed. Now, it has been a query to me whether throughout the whole world, other things being equal, whenever you find forty-nine Christians, there will be one Christian who will know more than the forty-nine? Of course, that might be at one 7 ri ^ ff !! I i M ii no BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? time, but I uican at any time, throiijj^liout tli< whole world. It wonlil bo stmu^'o, would it not "? Now the (|uostion in, how do we know what in truth ? How do wo know what is liiblo truth '? How do we kuow what is baptism ? Wo claim that wo know by tlie liible, and by the l^iblo only. Our friends on tho other side claim that tiioy know it by the liible, and by authorities beside the Bible. Bo that I may not be misunderstood, 1 will read a little correspondence in tho Herald. It has been read hciotofore : ToNAWANDA, Miircli 29, 1882. Dear Brother Oshorne : Ilavinfj accepted the followiiij]; proposition from you : ReHolicil, That " luiptizo," " baptisma," and " baptismos," wherever thoy occur in tho New Testament, always involve submersion, and tliut sprinkling and pourinj^, as modes of bap- tism, are unscriptiual, you afiirming : I accept it on the condition that the discussion be wholly confined to the Bible, as translated by King James, together withthe original Hebrew and Greek, the latter texts being the ultimate authority. Fraternally, L. D. Watson. ToNAWANDA, March 29, 1882. Dr. JFdtson : Dear Sir : Your favor of to-day received. In reply, we would say that we could not discuss the subject witli the re- strictions you name. Are you willing to discuss the proposition agreed upon between us with the King James version of the Bible and all other authorities as to the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek texts, the meaning of the Hebrew and the Greek texts to be the ultimate authority ? Very truly yours, L. Osborne. ToNAWANDA, March 30, 1882. Dear Brother Osborne : In regard to your communication of yesterday 1 have to say : According to your proposition the HAPTISM WHAT IS IT/ 01 niraninf,' of all tlio Oroek words yon namo is to be h8C( rtainod where iliey occur iti thfi New Testiuiieiit only. N<>\v. us tjie words Ml every hook must he inlcrjirctcd in the h'/ht ul its own contents, (iiid as the M. K. ('hurcii rt'cu-^aiiscis no " uutli"riti< s" hilt the iJihie upon this suhjoct ; and as you (daini witii us that the JUhle is th(! only rule (jf faith and jiractitM' in r* j,Miil lo all relit,'iotis niatferf-; ; and as you have ileeliued lo dn-ide this qties- ticiu hy the JJihle, we niUHt, with more reason, we think, respect- fully decline to decid' it by the "ci't'eds" and '* traditions of men. Fraternally L. I>. Watson. Authorities ! What does the <,'eiitk'man mean by iiuthori- tics ? Dictiouai ies, histories, creeds, aiiythiiit^ of human ori{.,'in tliat may bear upon tlic questiuw. Tliis discussion so far hits revealed one reniarkalde fact. I htid always understood, in this town and elsewhere, that the denomina- tion represented by our dear brother liolds the position that the Bible only is their creed. They look upon the Methodists, and Presbyteritms, and liaptists, and Kpisco- puhans, and other denominations, as having creeds. If you will turn to the recent Ijife of President Garfield, on pa'j'e 20, I think, you will find that they selected a i\[r. Seark's, a prominent minister in Chicago, to write up some- tliing of the religious faith of his denomination. I intended to bring the hook along. Am sorry I forgot it, but you will iind there a creed of ten or eleven Articles ; the last one of which bays, "the Bible is our only creed." That is exactly what we say. 1 look back there, and I findjten, I think, Articles of faith. They say, "Yes, but you have your creed written in Disciplines, and you have it written in Confessions of Faith, and you have it written in Catechisms. We do not have our creed written. It is lying around loose in our minds." So much the worse for the creed. Why ? Why, because if you do ■li:' ^% ^, v^^^o. ^....w. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) o // % .^. :/. #-^° I/.. V 1.0 b^lTB |25 ^ lU |2.2 I.I r*^ i^ = MM U 11.6 11.25 6" ^ •% a^ w. -> '/ Photographic Sciences Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER. NY. 14580 (71A) S72-4503 .^ 6^ ^ 92 BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? • V . not have something that will give homogeneity, which will hold them somewhere near the line, it seems to me their doctrines will lie around kind of loosely. A man may hold the doctrine that when he dies, he has no soul — that that is the end of aim until the resurrection ; or he may hold that the wicked will be annihilated ; or he may hold that there is no hell, or almost any- thing that might lie around loose in his mind. They say they have got no creed at all. They take the Bible as a whole, but have no creed ; so a man cau be a bundle of heterodoxy, and odds and ends of faith, and yet be a mem- ber right along. Do you not lemember that that is the very trouble that Jesus liad with the Jews ? They had a written law, which was all right, but they had a great amount of unwritten tradition, and they were always hold- ing to that, and talking about it, and Christ rebuked them. He told th<}m that was the very reason they could not get to Him, because they had so much of this loose traditional creed lying around. You know very well that that is one of the troubles with the Roman Catholic Church to-day. They hold the Bible in a kind of a way, as a rule, but they say the Church is infallible; that the Bible is true, just as the Church says it is true ; and they have a large amount of tradition, which they must bring in. You know very well that the Roman Catholic Church does not hold that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice ; it is the infallible Church, and it is the vast amount of tradition that must be brought in to interpret the Bible. We, as Methodist Episcopal minis- ters of the Church, believe that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice, absolutely the only rule of faith and practice, and that is the only thing that is binding upon our oonscienccs, and upon our lives, and upon our characters. BAPTISM WHAT 19 IT ? 93 " But," yon say to us, " Why do you object ? We offer- ed to debate this question with you, and take the authori- ties. Why do you object ?" We object to it for two reasons. 1st. It is a waste of time. Tliere are volumes and libra- ries on the subject of baptism, written for the last thousand years, and we might take five years with baptismal authori- ties — five years — and would rot be at the end of them then. They would all contradict each other, and hence it is a waste of time, because they would not prove anything when you get through them. That is the reason why we do not take them. We have a question to ask : I say, why do you refuse to debate the subject taking the Bible alone ? I have given the reason why we do not take the authorities. Now, why won't you debate the subject taking the Bible alone ? •* Oh I we can't read it ! We can't read It !" I under- stood this gentleman was a Greek scholar, a Hebrew scholar. Can't read it ; can't understand it ; can't comprehend it. Isn't that a marvel ? I tell you, gentlemen, I have more faith in his scholarship than that. I believe him to be a Greek and Hebrew scholar. I believe he can read that Bible. I believe he can understand it, that is, to some extent — enough to talk about it. Oh yes, I have a high opinion of that gentle- man, who cannot read the Bible. That is the reason he gives, understand. But there is a different reason. There is a deeper reason. There is a more cogent reason. That reason is, because he cannot sustain his claim from the Bible alone. That will appear. Well, the gentleman says we take the Bible for the doc- trine, but the dictionary is the ultimate authority for words. He has very well stated there was a time when ;.l,; : '!;■ 94 BAPTISM — WHAT lb IT ? there were no dictionaries ; and there was a time when there were no f^nammars. There was a time when there was only spoken lauj^'iuige, tlien it was written, then printed, lint there was ii time when men where reading, studying, when tliere was not a grammar on the face of tho oarth. Wliat made tlie grammars ? I can tell yoii very easily. They studied the words to find out their relations to each other — the relations of words, that is grapr.mar; and when they found out their relations, they sat down, and set it on paper. They knew it first, before they wrote it, and they made one without a grammar. Tliere was no Lexicon. How are you going to get a Lexicon ? They could not find a Lexicon. There was nojie lying around there. They hunted for Lexicons, and they could not find any. '* We must dig it out," they say, " there are no Lexicons." And so they studied words, and found out their meaning. They must have found it out, or else they could not have made one. In other words, I think that every blacksmith knows how to shoe a horse before he shoes one ; I think every carpenter knows how to build a house before he builds one. Why, of course thev must have these things in their mind. a/ \LJ They must know them, and then they project them from what they know in their mind. How are they going to find out these words ? They find out their meanings by the contents of the book in which the words appear. Words often mean one thing in one book and another thiug in another book. I suppose my brother from college remembers how we used to pore over Homer, the first Greek poet, and he knows that there are words in Homer that have a certain meaning ; and when the next man came along he Ucied the word with a different meaning al- together. So to save time they made a Homeric Lexicon P.APTISM WHAT IS IT \> 1)5 itself, just for tlie one book. So it is ; a book written in one age will have words in it that mean different from tliose in another ago, or different institutions. The words have to be understood by the light of civilization and the contents of the book. You say " Are Lexicons good for anything, then ?" In one Hcnse, I say yes. They are only good for one thing, and no- thing more, and that is to save time. Just one function — to save time, not to give the meaning. If a man had time enough, he could go and find the meaning of every word witliout a Lexicon ; so men devote a great many years to these things in getting the meanings and putting them in. If we are in a hurry to get the meaning of a word, we go to the Lexicon and find it, and it will do; it may be right or it may be wrong. If the Lexicon precisely rejn-esents the usage of the words in that book, then it is correct and authoritative. I say if it does ; and I suppose if men were without prejudice thei/ would, perhaps. I do not know as they would then, be- cause different men will make different things out of the same passage. But you know we all have predilections and prejudices, and when one man sits down to make a Lexicon he will be governed somewhat by his prejudice. Suppose Brother McDiarmid and I should attempt to make a New Testament Lexicon, and on coming to the word haptizo, he would just as like as not say that the defi- nition was to put in ; I would have fspnu/de the first thing ; I am prejudiced on the other side. Do you not see that men will, perhaps imperceptibly, make a Lexicon accord- ing to their previously conceived ideas and prejudices and feelings? There will be just as much difference between a Baptist Dictionary and a Methodist Dictionary as could be — all honest though, perfectly honest. If all he Lexi- r I ill I i UAPTISM WHAT 18 IT ? cons absolutely represented the usage of the language, and were all alike, all right ; but that is the very thing we deny. We say that the Lexicons do not represent the usage of language. The dctiiiition of a word may be cor- rect in the Lexicon and it may not bo correct, and when that is the fact in the case we cannot take it for authority. How can we ? The Bible is the supremo authority for the signification of its words, — its own words, and its own doctrines — because they are to be interpreted by its pecu- liar civilization, and its peculiar institutions and doctrines and religious ideas. That is the v>'ay to argue. I am going to show you how to make a Lexicon. There are no Lexicons, and I am going to make one right here before you. There is, let us say, nothing but the old, plain Greek Testament. Suppose I open that Testament and read. I hold that any man can learn the Greek lan- guage ; never having heard the letters ; shut up in a room ; never having seen a Greek book or letter. He could make the grammar and the Dictionary, and he could read the Testament without a teacher. I have done that now, suppose. I read along, and finally come to the word bapto. I wonder what that means. Well, I find it first in Matthew xxvi. 23 : "He that dippeth his baud with me in the dish." Dippeth, that looks like dipping; "His hand," — and "in the dish." I think it does. It looks very much like it to me. I will write it down in my Lexicon as dip. Going along a little farther, I come to the word again in Mark xiv. 20, " One of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish. " That sounds a good deal like the other passage ; it must be the same thing. 80 I put it down as a proof text, under the other. I now have two. In John xiii. 2G : *' When he had dipped the sop." "^fe.?* BAPTISM — WHA"^ IS IT ? 07 That sounds very much like the two others. I think that must mean dip. I put that Greek word hapto down on my white paper, dip. I come to emhajito. What does that mean ? That must mean something different. So I liud it, first, in John xiii. 26 : '• I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it." That is very much like the others. I guosss it means the same thing. I will put it down so, anyway. So I have got down dip under ewhaptit, and have given the proof text. I find it again in Luke xvi. 24 : " That he may dip the tip of his finger in water." Tip — what does that mean ? Tip ! tip ! tip ! I con- clude, from the looks of it, it means the end of the finger, — ^just the surface. You dip that ; that is to say, you have water here, and put that finger down until just one drop hangs to it at once, — not under the water, just enough to touch it. I will put it down just — touch. I give that as a proof text. I now have two proof texts, for (lip and touch. I look along, and find that it occurs again in Revelation xix. 13 : "Clothed with a vestme dipped in blood." Vesture — what does that mean ? Clothod in a vesture ; that looks as though it was the picture of a warrior riding out of a battle field, and had his garments stained with blood, — stained. The picture seems to be, there was a pretty hard fight, and there was blood splashing around, — sprinkled and spattered about ; so I conclude from tlie picture that it means spattered. I might have said sprinkled, or smeared, but I think I will use the word spattered. I have got those three words — dip, touchy and spatter — and I have got one toxt for each one, to prove it. Some one will say, that cannot be the etymology of it, hi I (t i vw \" I ifi 1: iili iiii, ,1- 98 nxl'TlSM — WHAT IS it'? because *V» " means in. Well, Dr. Carson says, — I do not quote this now for my own beuelit, but for my brother's : I do not believe in autliorities, but lie is death on authorities, — Dr. Carson says, " Ktyniology is no authority at all " Well, J do not care about etymolop;y, but it is the use of the word in i\ud text, so 1 put it down spattered. There 1 have another word made for my Lexicon. Study the text, write the meanin*,' of it down, and by-and-by you have a Lexico . It is simple euouj^h ; anybody can make a Ijexicou. I want to tear this little Testament up, speaking figu- ratively. I have here Greenfield's Greek Testament, with a Lexicon at the end. It says, '* Ixi/ttho — imnwrsi', mmn\ suhtner(/t\ sink;'' but does not give a scrap of a pin for proof. Do you suppose I am going to swallow that without a single passage of Scripture ? Then he goes along here further, and talking around a while, he says, immerse^ and then gives a passage, " John was baptizing in Uie wilderness," — that means immerse. Now, suppose I have been writing this book, and setting down sprinkle, give as proof text, " John was baptizing in the wilderness." Greenfield assumes that he was immersing in the wilder- ness. It means hnth of them. He has assumed one thing, and I another. Take that text out of the Bible, and what does it mean ? You have not found here what it means. This is good for nothing. This Scripture is now relegated back to the Bible. Tear the Lexicon all up and throw it away, that's the amount of it. I tell you there is a better rule than that. I am going to give Paul's rule. You will find Paul was down on dictionaries. He believed in understanding the Bible from itself. I am going to refer to one passage of Scripture found in Romans xii. 6. We have here the Divine rule for the interpretation of the Scriptures : I llAPTiaM — WHAT IS IT ? 00 5'».C ■ ''Let us propliesy according to the proportion of faith." I'liitli there, yon will see, means doctriue. The word propi.'csy means preaching, or delivering the truth, and that ^ve are to deliver, or preach, or dispense that, accord- ing to the proi)ortion of faith. Paul means we are to preiic'.i according to the comparison of words. That is, compiire one with anotlier. I will read you a little from authority, not for my own hcnelit, but for somebody else's, on this wonderful passage : " The knowledge of taith is the correfipondenco of the several parts of the Divine revelation, with one consistent whole, which use was pointed out by the Apostle in his directions, Romans xii. n. His rule, of course, extends to all interpretations of Scripture ; the parts of the Scripture must be explained accord- infj to the tenor of the whole, and in order to do this, the reader must understand find examine the whole. If he do not, he will be continually liable to fall into error. The prejudices and leaninj^s of our own thoughts dispose us to render particular parts of the Word of God according to the analogy of our own systems, rather than according to the Divine word." As an analogy for following the rule of faith, we want the simple love of truth itself. Some, while they search the Scriptures to find the testi- mony of Christ, receive also testimony from other quarters. This was the very source of the blindness of the Jews in our Saviours time. Christ says, ** Search the Scriptures,'' not search dictionaries. The student must put word to word, sentence by sentence, chapter by chapter, book by book, Testament by Testament, until he has the whole analyzed, then he will know what the Scriptures mean, even on the subject of baptism. Wo are not come to com- pare Dictionary with Scripture ; but to compare Scripture with Scripture. But here we have had Dictionary, Dic- tionary all the time ; Dictionary n the right of us. Diction - (■: m ■ u (f ■•tf'S i\J ii! ^ I I I ' ( h •: |-;;;i I J.. 100 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? ary on the left of us, Dictionary behind us, Liotionary in front of uh, and Dictionary outside and inside of us, until I am full of Dictionary. In listening to these three lectures^, I probably have had what I might call an Allopathic dose of Dictionary, and a Homoeopathic dose of Scripture, or perhaps an immersion of Dictionary, and a sprrnklimj of Scripture. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I am going to show you that the dictionaries are not all on one side. I am not go- ing to quote a single Dictionary for my own benefit, but for my friend's benefit. I am going to quote from Passow's Greek Lexicon. It is in the German, — the Greek ex- plained by the Gorman. I used to read German a little, but I do not know as I can pronounce it now. Passow gives six definitions of the word baptism. It means, oft und wiederlmlt cintaiichm. What does that mean ? To dip often, and draw out. Not dip once, and draw out, but dip often. Tliey won't take that, of course. What is the second ? Vntertauchen ; what does that mean ? Dip under. They say, *' That will do," but it means dip under, to stay. That will drown us. Oh ! we will take them out for mercy's sake. Benetzen, to wet. How will that answer ? That will do for us to sprinkle ; to wet them. I cannot take that ; that is wet too little. Very well, another, ** anfeuchten,'' to wet a little, to moisten. That won't do; very well, I will give you another one. Begiesen, that means to water. How much? Well, how does a lady water her plants ? Suppose she has five or six nice plants in her parlcr, she takes them right down to the river and puts them under ; that is the way to water plants I No, pour' it right on and let it rur. down ; that is the word begiesen. It won't do — can't take that. But we have one more here : Uehertrinken ; to over-drink ; to drink full, and nAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? 101 let it flow out of your mouth. It in the German, T believe, for getting drunk. I do not know us tluit would uuswur. I think we do over-drink someiiincH, but I do not believe that that will answer. Now, those dcfmitions are from one of the most sciiolarly and abh^st dictionaries in the civiUzed world. Think of that, {^(sntK laen ; six deliuitious ! and I do not believe I would take one of them. I find WaheuH* standard ])icti(mary, and StephanuH, and Vossius, and Bretschneidor, all aL'roe with those dolinitions. I believe I will give you Dr. Carson on Lexicons. You know that he is the standard authority on the opposite side of this question — Alexander Carson, LL.l). He will know something about baptism. I am so glad there is at least one. He says, *' All the Lcxicony are a<^ainst us, as to a secondary meaning." What docs that mean '? In this discussion, the action of the verb hufdi-.o is the primary meaning, they say, and the result of that action, or the state afterwards, is the secondary meaning, a kind of con- dition. The effect, — that is the secondaiy meaning. Now, Dr. Carson says that while the Lexicons will favor our first, the motion itself, the baptism, they are all against us as to a secondary meaning. He is the highest authority in the Baptist Church, — a grand man. Let me give you now Dr. Campbell, the father of the Disciple Church. In his debate with Mr. Hice, years ago, in the West, when this Mr. Rice seemed to have been quoting, and to have thought that the Dictionaries were on his side, Mr. Campbell said this — *' No learned man will ever rest his faith upon Dictionaries." No learned man will do it, and my brother does. What is the logical con- clusion? I will not draw it, though it is strong in my mind. I am going to give another quotation from Dr. Camp- J* ( ! <-£'■'. < ■k 1:-' T II 1(V2 HArriSM WHAT IH !r boll: " So Hiiy nil |^llilMlM>»iH^^^ hikI on! ic i nf riniiu'in'«' " Aloxinulor ('ainplK'H whh li srlioliir ; lie wus ti |tri»riniii liiicw tliiil. iliOHC |)iotiiuinii«>s \vtM(> uiuvMltiiii inul iiiir('liii.l>li>. I loir waw Mr. \l\Ci\ liinisrH' a r*>I), iiikI ('iniiplMll liad io sav, " I liavo no I'aitli in llinii, and ho Hiiyali pliiln l«>giHiM arid orilics »»f nninoncc." Ilt«r«« Im l.liin ^mlK-maii coming an>uiul lioro at this laic day, aiu' iv'i'i;^ liavK In UicfioiuirioM. What would Mr. ('anipltcll liavr tlii)ii;.;li{ iho hiHt ilii'(M> ni^lits, to lia.V(> liad flu- hictionarics pdiirt'd down for fonr hours '.* I want you lo |iul, anollicr |tiii down ihoro. 1 think ihoy say, that all tlu> historians up io tho iliii to'Miih C(M»iury doolaro thai iiuiMoisitui was ilio only niodr in iho oarly I'huich. but iho brother nnnh' Iho siairin<'iil, wiihoui quoting iho historians, oxcoptiii}^, 1 bcliovo, hcaii Sianloy. Ilo bolon^ctl io ihc Hroad ('huicli of I'hii^land. Ilo could n«>i sian 1 iho 'locirino of ih(> real Anj^dican Churcli. llo sustains tho relation it) tlu^ An«^'li(Min ('huicli — iho Church of l''njj;land which Henry Ward Hc'ccher Hustains to the Conj^iej^ational Church : niillv and water, boll or boavon, or anythiiifj: else; one (biy one thinjj:, and one day anotlicr; and when he <[Uoted Dean Stanley, lie did not give the evidence thai Dean Stanley had for his conviction. Suppose a thousand Dean Stanleys should write a thousand books, and say that all the historians believed tiiat immersion was the mode up to the thirteenth century, — would I take it? 1 would say, "No, sir." I would say, / am an historian, / am a lexicographei-. Give me your proof. The gentleman did not give us the proof. I think he quoted Neander. Neander says in his History, page 197, — " Many superstitious persons imagined, IIM'IIHM \M1\I I.H II Mi:t fiiiiti iilliM'liiiij/ too imicli impdilnniMi to oxtfifial't, tlirif, hiii'liHin liy H|)i iiiUitiK whh not, viilid." hi. S('lmH»HMVH, '• ln«'H|m(',t,ivr (.1 OMirr cnhMidfiiitiMriM, tlir miiIihIiIiiIioii III IIm' oiir-Hidcfl mimI sotiit t<'iin iiiiiiiir- moll, l'»i loiptiMiii, woiild i^ivi! M iiHii'ly iirLfiitivc vh-vv of lilt' MlU'llllllCllt.. Tilr KIICriMllCIlt lloCH ll'll. l|t'|l"|ii| |||.(i|| tlio i|iiiiiitity or <|iiiiltty ol' tli«' wuicr, iioi it|i(tii tli< inodi ol' iIh M|i|'ln'iiti(»ii." Tluit Ih S(linl1». We Imvc in kmiiiiiI uiiMio- iily.iiH liiKtorir iiutJioriiy, lor Uwi f^rrnl. (i,iilii(inty of K|»riril(- liti<^'. ill tlir riuly (lliiiicii, i\H Die oUm^i- Midi; ; Init, hh lift doi'H iiol, i.^iv \t(^ Impli/od Ih to l»»! wliojjy iuimfrsfid, Htid wlu'llicr (»n(!<) or tlirirr, or wlM'tlur Im ih only t(» be spriiildiid, JH not of the loitKt (;onH('(|untif wordH— (inek, (lormiin mid ll(;l)n!W -tlio oUior iiij^'lit, iirid I tliinl(li(! Imd Liitlior lurayod on tlio inunorHion .sido, and Hiiid Ito liad " taufon " tlioro, ono of tlio words tliat. meant InunrirHJon. I tiiouf^lit tlnit wan very Htran^'o. I had Htudiod (iorman considorably, and, tliinkK I, wlion I i^o homo \ will f^o to my old (lorman volume; and look it up. 1 took tho New Trstamont, and J looked all throiif^h it for the word bap- tize, and in every place where I found the word haptho, lanfm was UHcd. I think it was used every time ; and he say.s that tau/rn means immerse, and therefore so does ha/itizo. I had an old Lexicon I had been using awhile, and, thinks 1, what is tan fen ? what does it mean ? The Lexicon is nothing to me ; but it will be conclusive to the brother, perfectly so ; so I thought I would see just what i:)t mai'Uhm wiiai im it ? \ it nuMiiii. l''iiMl., ii» liM|iti/t«; moomimI, (o rlniMltMi. hid Y(Mi (U<<|- Ikmii i). Ilii|)|u(t< or i>iM(M|tl\M'oii. I liiivo ^ol. jiimI. ;>imi didiiiilKHi lt<|pi/r. Ltd, iiio lixdt ad iiii lUiM'Hr. ()r«MMiiM(<, \( liiiiftn IX iiiiiiiorii(<, iiiiiiirnti^ io Utuf'rn. IniiiiiMMr, liidiitclhii, Mint, im iilwiiyH iiiiinorMP in t,lit« ( )oi - iiuin, lull, ..iiiii'ii \w iinv(« II lidpr(H«onlrd. hud. iiImhiI, one litdl' tw Miiid hn.;i l»iMtn told, juhI onoii^rii (,() «MiiM- liiiir. I will li^ud Miiii liiilt'. Mr. \V(^sU>y vivyn : " nivpliMin iM iMtilurnuul Uy wiihIiiii^', (li|i|)in^r, or Hpriiikliii|{ llio person." I sn,y liy WMHiiinir, dippiiif^', or Hprinklinf% Ikhmmihi^ it. in ind. d(d(>vininod in tli(> Sci iptnitt in wliicli of Miimo wayn it< Hlumid Ih> dom\ noillior liy cxpioHH prrot'pl., Iiy oxaniplc!, or by (ho wt>rd l»upii/o. Now yon nvo iliiit. {^ri^at hoIioIiii-h on ilio mio itido and on iho otIuM' tuo iirrayriiikliti|r I HO il. in ) wiiyM il, oxaiiipiiv tN I, I, I, iiii|'lv tlif iiiiiiinri', liiil llin «'HVc,t iiol, llifi iii'whi of u* iliii>', I'll! Ill) ('iiimIiIioii , lliiil, iii, not. Mir f'iri'.l, \inii\n,ty lilt(llilM(', I II' ImIi'I', lull. 1.1(1' l;ccoMi,r," he iiiiv'i, "wo finrMMidnr Uio ooiil,i(»v«'i 'ly." Pl«»l, AllM»lii Mu; rno'il, '•inin»-iif, llajiMHt, divmo now livini^ luiysi, " l')i,))li/,'' moan'i f.o jr»if/i»!rH«i, l,o imirKiifM', i<> hiiImiioi/m', I,o d'|», l.o i»liinjj(!, t,o wJMdrri, to mmIhiMm'," all I.Im'Mo Miiii/^fi, IhiI, Miry n.ll tiMii.ti | iiM.inr^ mi - !.hr act, iiol, Mio ooiidiMon afl.or Mo! lud,. I iiko l,o (|tiol,i; Mi('H«! iiajiliid, aiiMirfrfi. Il, iaf, roiiifurt to mo. I>r. (Uuhdii nay."., " l'»(i,i>t,mrri inoan-; to do a dcrmito act, v.x\)t('.HH\ii^ hhmIo, and noMuoj^ l>iit inodr;; and nioaiiH t)ironj,;li idl (li(!ol( lil.." 'i'lKiH) in tlio f^roat I>r. (!)i,r.4on lie, HavK that thron^jh tlio whoio (inick iitoratnro, hapti.srn rnoanH tlio act tlio j)riniaiy incaninj^ of Mirj woni not tho roHiilt of tlio action at all. What liavo I ^ot ? Iforo in \)r. ('ore, who fiayH tho rcHult, and ho dooM \)r. Moroll. I'rof. Arnold nayH it inc'RHM thf! act ; Dr. Fiillor, tho ronuit; I>r. Cona «♦, tho Ect; Dr. CarHon, tho act. (Jf all ttiono throat authors, half Hay it mcanH tho firHt- -nicaning tlio actr^ tho othorH, thn 100 BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? i 1i i result of the act. The immersionists have killed tliem- Relves, because they have oue half of the autlioiity on tiie one side, and one half on the other. I am going to make the sprinklers kill thenisolvcs. Mr. McDiarmid says (I will make this short), " Those sprinklers, when they made dictionaries, always said that the word means immerse, but when they go to practise it, then they all sprinkle;" that is to say, their practice con- tradicts their tiieory. Suppose a man comes into court, and gives a testimony of ten uiiMutes right along, good and square, and then turns ri,ii;]it around, and gives a testimony directly oppo- site, won id not the Judge say that that testimony was good for nothing ? Because the man must '^ot contradict himself; he must be consistent. But here are scholars on both sides positively contradicting themselves. The immersionists positively contradict themselves, and the sprinklers positively contradict themselves. Who are to say which is the right way ? We are out at sea now ; we are nowhere. You will just have to anchor to the Bible, gentlemen. Dictionaries contradict themselves ; histories contradict themselves ; great scholars contradict themselves ; immer- sionists contradict themselves; sprinklers contradict them- selves. Where are they ? Out at sea. They must anchor to the Bible. I am commg to something rich. I said that the reason why these gentlemen would not take the Bible alone, was because they could not sustain their claim by the Bible alone. I am going to bring some- thing out you nover heard before. Mormonism has been looming up lately as a great national question. The core of Mormonism is the Mormon B ble, and the core of the Mormon Bible is polygamy. BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? 107 You have read all about Mormonism, — the teachings and history of it. A certain man, named Joe Smitli, had used the old Bible for a good many years. He looked thiou^'h it, and saw it said that some peo|ile had a good many wives, and so on, etc. But it was never commanded, and Joe Smith searched the Bible thoroughly to find polygamy in it. He says we must find it ; we will hunt around and find a Bible. So he figured around, and somebody wrote one. I prcsutnp it was Joe Smith. Just about the time he got this infernal idea of polygamy in his mind, he wrote a liible in which the Lord said it was right ! He went down here to Canan- daigna, dug a hole, put it in and left it there until it got mouldy, so that the people would think it might have been there for years. After a certain length of time he dragged it out, and it was " the Bible." Anything different in it ? Oh yes ! polygamy was in it. Ah ! A revelation right from heaven ! He could not find that doctrine in the old one, BO he made a new one, and caught people fools enough to believe it was a new one — a divine revelation. He fooled so many that the National Government has to take hold of it now. It is an ugly illustration ; but it brings out the thought I have in my mind : that these exclusive im- mersionists, studying the old Bible over and over, found that they could not sustain immersion, unless they made a new one. And I will show you how they made a new one — how, when and where they made it. In 1816, the American Bible Society was established. This Society embraced all denominations — Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and all — and they said : ** Now we will take up collections for that Bible Society, and we will appropriate money where it is needed." They drew up a constitution, formed a Board of Man- 108 BAPTISM WHAT IS IT 7 i agers, and appointed committees, and they said that one of the rules of the constitution was tliat, in the Enghsh- speaking countries, they would have the King James trans- lation alone, without note or comment, and that if it were translated into any foreign tongue, they were to translate it into words equivalent to the words in the original Hebrew and Greek, so that all denominations would receive it the same, and not be able to put in a peculiar word for baptize or the like. That was in the constitution, and distinctly understood. Our exclusive immersionists away out in Burmah, India, looked over the thing, and found tliat the old King James Bible had been used for so many years, and they had ^got only about one immersiouist in fifty, in Europe and this country. They said : " What i.s the use of circulating such a thing as that ? We will never succeed with that ; we can't do it." So they went to work and translated this word, going against their constitution, and against their own rela- tions to the Society. The American Board gave them money to publish it, and they supposed it was all right when it was first pub- lished. This feeling was so strong with them, so fascinating, and so powerful, that they said we will not take a word that means " baptize," and so many things, but one that just means "immerse." I do not know exactly what the word is. It is a Burmese word. I have heard that the word means "to soak," and wherever the word baptho occurred, they put in that word " soak." It was a long time before the American Board found out what was done, but just as soon as they did they said to those gentlemen : " We will cut off your supplies. You have broken your BAPTISM WHAT IS IT 109 I going contract, and under tho constitutioL we cannot give you any more money for publishing such a book as this. You have deceived these Burmese too long." So they cut all the supplies off, which of course raised a little fuss ; but the majority of the Baptist Church said : "The gentlemen are not right. They should not have done that. They should have done accordhig to the constitution and con- tract, and translated the Bible as they agreed to." So the great majority of the Baptist Church never would go with them. They then formed a new Society at Philadelphia, in 1837, known as the American and Foreign Bible Society, and thov said : "Now, we will keep on soaking these fel- lows. We will let that stand. We won't change the King James translation ; that will do for the English-speaking people ; but for the other languages, we will let that word 'immerse' be in." Running along a little while, some one said : " You ha\e one Bible for the heathen, and one for us. You cannot have two Bibles ; that is not right ; let us change this word "baptize," in this translation, and make them all "immerse" — Foreign, and Home too." Some said that that would not do ; that it would not look well ; and others said " \ye must go under, we will change this King James translation." So they split off, and a Society was formed, called the American Bible Union, of which Dr. Conant, the great American Baptist divine, was the head ; and they said: "Now we are going to have one Bible; it will be a new one — 'immerse' all the time — in the English, Japan- ese and all other tongues." So they went to work and made it. I will read you just a little, I have their Testament here. It is " The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour 110 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT? !ll Jesus Christ — the common English version, corrected by the Final C6mmittee of the American Bible Union." Sui^pose we turn to Matthew xx. 22, 23: '* But Jesu3 answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I drink of?" Is tliere anything more in your Bibles ? '* And be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ?" They left that out. That is too much baptism, so they took it out. In the next verse : " Ye shall drink indeed of my cup." Anything else there ? I think it reads in the King James translation : "And be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with." Th'tt is tal-cii out. There are two whole verses taken out of the New Testament, called here, " Corrected by the Final Committee of the American Bible Union." "Cor- rected!" I may say corrupted. Why may we not say mutilated ? Turning to Luke xii. 50, you find : "But I have an immersion to undergo." I think it reads in the King James translation : " I have a baptism to be baptized with." Now, immersion doesn't mean baptism ; that is another word. Thank the Lord, I have got it. Immerse is one, and undergo is the second. We have got two now, accord- ing to their own Testament. Let us look at Mark x. 38, 39 : "Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink, or to endure the immersion which I endure? And they said to him. We are able. And Jesus said to them. Ye ^:4 iUPTISM — WHAT IS IT 111 slmll indeed drink the cup that I drink, and endure the irnraer- siou which I endure." Endure. There is a new word. Immerse, eudure and undergo — there are three words. But, ladies and gentlemen, I would say, what do yon tliiuk of a claim, or rather a creed, so narrow and so ex- chisive that when they cannot twist the screws to suit themselves they take from ? And they did take it out. Is that fair ? I was going to say, is it honest ? But I will let you answer. "Oh! yes," but you say, "that is the Baptist book. We Disciples would not do that." I have here Alexander Campbell's Bible. Let us see wliat Alexander Campbell says. Miittliew XX., 22, 23, King James' Bible, " Are ye able to drink of the cnp that I shall drink of, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ?" Says Campbell, " We will put the screw on that, and see if we cannot twist in some other word. I read that it means * plunged from Heaven.' Try plunge on that text. ' Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink oi, and be plunged with the plunging that I am plunged with ? ' * People will laugh at us ; we will put the thumb- screw on and give her another twist. We will put in dip, and see if we cannot twist dip in there.' 'Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and be dipped with t'le dipping that I am dipped with ? ' ' That is about as ridiculous as the other. We will put the screw on again and give her a little twiet.' ' Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and be immersed with the im- mersion that I am immersed with ? " Some say immerse means the act. Then one act is immersed into another act. That means the result, or condition. Then a condi- tion is immersed into a condition. That won't do ; give her another twist : out it goes. ■■ V t ■ I: 1 1. I 1: "1 ' . ^11 ■ 1 112 BAPTISM — WIJAT IS IT ? Ladies and gentlemen, I liavo Alexander Campbeirs great Testament in my hands. Now turn to Matthew xx. 22, 23 : •* He replying said, You know not what you ask. Can you drink such a cup as I must drink/ They sai.l to him, We can. He answered, You shall indeed drink such a cup." That is all, and two verses are out — four baptizos, and two haptismas — two nouns, and four verbs. You cannot say the Baptists took those verses out of their Testament, for here Alexander Campbell, the father of the Disciple Church, put his screws on, and tiied to screw on other words ; not succeeding, he screwed the text out. What do you think of such a theory as that, that will twist a whole text right out of the Bible ? I have something to read here from Revelation, last chapter : ** And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." They say, *• That means Eevelation. This is taken out of Matthew. This prophecy means from Revelation. You can take just as much as you have a mind to out of any other book." Great God ! There is no language to describe such a thing. In Luke xii. 50, — you have heard that he would not give any quarter ; I will take his plan ; I like such a man as that; I give no quarter and ask none, — let us take Luke xii. 50 : " I came to throw fire upon the earth. And what would I but that it were kindled ? I have an immersion to undergo." Thank the Lord I I thought, perhaps the Baptists had put that definition in, ** undergo," and it would not have BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? 113 been supported. But here is Alexander Campbell, who says it don't moan to be bfi^tizcd, but to undergo. Take Mark x. 88, 39, Alexander Campbell's Testament : " Can you tlriuk kucIi a cup as I am to drink, and umlergo an immersion like that which I must untlert,'o ? They answered, We can. He said to them, You Khali indeed tlrink such a cup as I am to drink, and undergo an immersion like that which I must undergo." It is undergo all along there. We find that in ^[atthew xx. 22, 23, he has left out four baptizos — four of the oriofiual Greek words — and two baptu- mas, the nouns. Six words left out. In Mark x. 38, 3!), ho renders baptisma by undergo four times. We have at least three definitions given by the immr r- sionists themselves, viz. : endure, undergo, and immerse. I want to say here, it is possible that some of these critics may say, Well, we guess these texts in Matthew were bor- rowed from Mark, and so they can be left out. But how could Matthew borrow any from Mark, when his was written long after Matthew ? Ilow do you know it was borrowed ? Because some old manuscripts simj)ly said it was doubtful. » I will take the New Revision. The New Revision is just out, and the civilized world have examined the manuscripts from beginning to end — the whole of them. Now, ladies and gentlemen, you will find that in the Revised New Testament those words are all left in there, showing that they were all in the manuscripts. What do you think of a theory that is pressed so sorely, it causes a man to say, I must take out something from the Bible if it don't suit my theory ! We have here, then, in the result of these Bibles, three if ii 114 Baptism — what is it *? definitions : Endure, undergo and immerse. Suppose I 8a>y> you can take immerse, auU I will take undergo. Can you undergo sprinkling ? I guess so. / have undergone it. It did not kill me. Can you endure pouring ? T guess you can. A good many have endured it, and have not died through it. I am very thankful for your long patience. To-morrow evening I shall lecture on baptism — I won't say mode or modes. I think we will make it comfortably warm. I hope to see you all to-morrow. I enjoy this first-rate. I am glad at the way things come out. ^1 ^t' suppose I go. Cjin ludergonc nug ? 1 and have o-morrow J mode or warm. I t-rate. 1 [116] DR. WATSON'S SECOND RErLY, {Fifth Niifht.) Ladies and Gentlemen^ — I liope you will be patient with mc to-night. I shall not keep you any longer, perhaps, than last night. I have arranged my best thoughts with which to close the lecture, and I hope you will hear me through. I read the commis- sion, Matthew xxviii. 1{): "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." I think it was advertised that I would lecture on the mode of baptism. Perhaps I had better say modes of baptism. Baptizontes, baptizing them ; the thought is in the word "baptizing," and especially in the two words, "baptizing them." I take it that this word expresses action^ and only action. If it puts a person into a condition, we have nothing to do with that. If it kills anybody, we have nothing to do with that. Ve have to do with the simple command to perform the action. This term " baptizing " is a generic and' not a specific term. It simply means action, but does not express the mode or modes of action. Baptizing is acting, and bap- tism is action. This action is action with water, called baptism. Suppose I illustrate what 1 mean. Suppose we take the word motion. That includes every motion possi- ble, every kind of motion, every mode of motion. That is M 110 UAPTISM — WHAT IS IT? \ to say, motion is a generic term, anil then if there is any particular motion, that is cxproKsod by another word. So I think, as I said some time ago, that bai)tizing 13 not sprinkling, baptizing is not pouring, baptizing is not im- mersing ; it is ba])tiziiig. In other words, it is performiuj,' an action. It may be sprinkhng, it may bo pouring, it may be immersing; it may be one of tiiese, it may be all of these. From tho commandn.ent, or commission here, it is impossible to tell what the motion is — wliat kind of motion it is. It is absolutely impossible. There is not a man living or dead that ean tell, that I know of. You know I shall notquote any authorities for my own benefit, but I will quote for my brother occasionally. Let me quote a remark or two, as I did last night, from Prof. Arnold. He says : " Baptize moans literally, and only, to plunge." That is, it is only an action. " But it is a specific term," you say. It may mean that ; it may not ; but he is right in saying it means an action. Take Dr. Conant. He says : *' Baptize means to immorsp, immerge, submerge, dip, plunge, whelm, and to embatho." Every one of those words express action, and Dr. Conant is right in saying that this word means action, and only action. Dr. Carson savs : *• Bapt'ze means to do a definite act, expressing mode and nothing but mode, and means to dip, and nothing but dip." I think Dr. Carson, the great critic, is absolutely riglit in saying that the word itself means motion and nothing else ; but I will say that by-and-bye, when he comes to apply that motion, he is altogether incorrect, whatever may be the motion meant. nAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? 117 In tliia commaiul. tlio motion is in tlio clement ; it moves towaiil the subject. Tiiat is inipuitaut. Kemember that. This is clear from tlic words, " baptizin*,' them." Do voii sec ? It is not they goiu^ toward tiio baittism ; it is the motion of tlie ehiucnt ^oiu'r^ to\s»ud the Hubject. Do you understand '? I think you do. Of course, this abso- hitely excludes immersion as practised, as the subject is applied to the element in immersion. I know my brother said that if a person would risk it, aiMl lie down, he would ponr water on him till it covered liiui. In that case, ho would a[)ply the water to the sub- ject, and come within the definition, but 1 would not prac- tise it that \\iVj\ I never saw anybody do that ; they always move the subject toward the element, instead of the element toward tlie subject ; that is fundamental. Now, it is a {j;eneral law that God moves all His blessings towards the subject. It is an absolute law, I believe, ex- cepting this practice of immersion that moves the receiver towards the blessing. It is a little sinvjular now that God makes that universal rule, and in this particular case makes the exception. It is a little singular. I have some princi[iles which I think will bo profitable, and I hope you will take them down. This baptismal action is either literal or metaphorical. The literal has two parts — the real and the symbolic ; the real is always internal, and the symbolic action always external. The metaphorical action is either motion down or pres- sure ; neither has a water symbol. Those govern me a great deal. I wish you would retain them as far as you can. ** One baptism," — this unity consists in motion, though there may be different kinds of motion. The unity is in I \l i > t li -lit 11 i"m m 'i,': W^ 118 HAPTIHM WHAT IH IT ? tho generic motion. You romcmbor that my brother, when asked thin qnestion, said tliat "oue baptism meant one inunerHion." Now, if we Kuecccd in sliowing — and I think we will that there is no immersion in the Spirit, then liis definition is defective. This one baptism or ono action covers the literal, both real and symbolic. Thoso are fundament:il principles. 1 do not know whether yon get them in your hend or not. I think perhaps you do. I come to what 1 call real baptism or s[)iritual baptism. I call that real or spiritual action. It is tho spiritual ac- tion called baptizing, or baptism. It is found in many places. I will give just one. Matthew iii. 11 : " He Hhall baptize you with tho Holy Ghost, and witli fire." Tlicre is a spiritual motion called baptizing. It is the mode of spiritual action, or baptism. What is it ? Trom the Scriptures, I take it, it is pouring ; spiritual baptism iH pouring. We read in Joel ii. 2H, 20 : " It shall come to puHs afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh ; and yonr sons and your dau<,'htBrH shall prophesy; your old men shall dream dreams, and your youiifj men shall see visions. And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in tiiose days will I pour out my Spirit." Acts 2nd chapter, commencing the Ist verse : " And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, tJiey were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the houHe where they were sitting. And there appeared uiito them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each c-f them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." That seems to be certainly the fulfilment of the promise in Joel. Then there are passages in the New Testament i\ IJAPTIHM — WHAT IS IT '> 119 r brother, ^m meant ig — and I ho Spirit, im or oiu; c. ThoHo letlicr yoii vou do. [ baptism, iritual uc- ill maiiv witli fire." It Ib the t ? Trom baptism in our out my iterH Hball ^rour young H and upon rit." And whon 11 with one sound froiu 11 the houHe them cloven hena. And an to sptak ice. he r)romiKe Testament that sl«ow tliat tliiH outpourinpj of tlio Spirit was called hfii>tiziiig, or baptism. You will observe that the element moves towards the subject, not the subject towards the element. You see that law holds here. Jhit my brother will say: " I ^iw do you know what ' poiirinf,' ' is ? You have to ^o to tin; Dictionary." Well, I liavc an idea that (;verybody knows what pouring is. If we had time to look through further, and compare, I think we could determine that it was something — some liquid, or kind of subntanee, that is coming down. if you see some one pouring out water, yon say, " What are you doing?" They answer, "I am pouring out water." I suppose somebody in the first place said pour- ing. If they had said "throwing" water, or "tossing" water, or "drinking" water, or anything of that kind, it would have been just as well. The namo does not amount to anything. It is the thing. But I think that my brother will not endeavor to expose his position by calling up the fact that he don't know what is meant by pouring. In this case, the Spirit came down upon the person. The question is, whether it was an immersion, or whether tlie Spirit was poured : in other words, whether the Spirit was moved towards the subject, or whether the subject was moved towards the Spirit, and immersed in it. You remember the effort that my friend made to try to sliow that instead of its being the element poured out — moving towards the subject- it wa*? an immersion by the subject being moved toward the element. I thought it was a complete failure at the time ; I think so now. Now, what in regard to the first promise in the New Testament about that baptism ? It is in Luke xxiv. 49 : "And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you ; but turry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." ;^ I'i Inn • ' SI !|! '■X If }■, f-i 12D Baptism — what is it ? I was rather attracted wlieii the brotiier read that prom- ise. He paused and made an emphasis on endued, repeated it several times, so as to have you ]>articularly notice. And then you remember tliat lie said that endue meant to enclose, to surround, to envelope, to immerse. I thought it strange at tlie time, and I thought, is it possible that endue, the Greek word cnduo^ means to en- close, to surround, to immerse ? I thought as the gentle- man had consulted Dictionaries so much, he certainly must be correct, but looking in my little Greek Lexicon — Greenfield's — the first definition I found was to enter. I next turned to Eobinson, the book which my brother quoted from here, one which is used in all the Pedo- Baptist seminaries and elsewhere, and a very able work, I think. I turned to that, and found that the first defini- tion given was to go i^i ; second, to enter in. That is just what we say, exactly. Now, understand that I would not give a row of pins fo'- that book ; I would not give the flip of a penny for it. Tins is my book — pointing to the Bible — but I just wanted to show you that his own author- ity is against him. You say, " How do you know that that word there — ewbio — means to (jo in, without a Diction- ary ? How could you tell it by the Scripture ?" I will turn over to where the promise was realized, on the day of Pentecost, and it says there that " they were all filled with the Holy Ghost." The promise was that the Holy Ghost should go into them — enter in. And when the promise was realized, it was said "they were all filled with the Holy Ghost." The simple question is, how do you fill anything ? I was really glad that my brother said one thing, for it is 80 true. The way he tried to get out of that was this, and instead of getting out of it, he got into it all the worse. He said that the word *' they " there does not refer to the bodies of those men ; that " they "means the souls. BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? 121 lat prom- , repeated ly notice, ue meant iglit, is it us to en- lio gentle- certainly lexicon — nter. y brother the Pedo- ,blo work, rst defini- lat is just would not pt give the ng to tlio vn author- iuow that a Dictiou- I will the day of illed with ly Gho.4 e promise 1 the Holy mything ? for it is this, and he worse, 'er to the Is. i I Suppose you take the bodies off now, and have tlie rouIh themselves, and suppose the souls were filled. liow do vou fill a soul -on the outside, or on the inside ■' 1 am I'oiutr to sliow vou how the brother would fill a soul. Imagine I have a jug here, with an a])ertnre in the top. This is a physical and that is a meta-ph.ysical illustration, but I will give you the idea from a physical. This jug he is going to fill with molasses, say. Well, ho takes up something and commences pouring, attemi)ting to fill it, but pouring on the outside of the jug down the side. He pours for an liour, and keeps on i)ouring, and might stand there and pour all day and there would not be anything inside. IJut just as soon as lie commences to pour into that aperture he fills the jug, by pouring inside and not outside. He said that the Holy Spirit filled the soul by coming on the outside and enveloping it. J think that the idea is, whether it was the body or the soul — whatever it was — it went inside and not on the outside. I think that is settled once and forever. The worst is to come yet. To prove that it meant outside, he said that it was the same word that was used in 2nd Corinthians v. 2, where Paul says, " To be clothed upon." You know how a per- son is clothed upon. The clothes are put on the outside, and he says this enduo is the same word that is used in that text. If it is, of course he has the anjruuent. Thinks I, is that so ? I sat there cogitating and won- dering if I had read that for twenty-five years and never understood it before. So when I went home, I went into my study and took my old Greek Testament, looked, and what do you think ? My dear brother stated here, that it was the same word used in tiiat text. Well, now, it is not. I was really sad; I was sorry. There is just this about u 122 DAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? i .! ; '4 that matter — only two tlimgs : That my dear brother either kuew that the word was not there, or he knew it was there. If ho didn't know it was there, what did he say so for ? A distinguished scholar, coming all the way from the city of Toronto to teach us Greek, makes that statement, and did not know the word was there then. " Well," he says, " I plead guilty of igno- rance." By Mr. McDiarmid — It is there. Dr. Watson — I will explam this, my dear brother. I am going to tell the whole truth. You told a part. He either did know it was there or he did not. If he did not know it was there, I do not think he should have gotten up and said it was. I think a man had better know a thing is there before he savs so. If he knew it was nut there, then what ? I won't say what. I will let you say what. Now, I tell you it is there in one way. The word there is ^^ cpi-enduo,'" made up of epi, i\\Q preposition — which means upon, around, or on — and cnduo, and they being put together, of course will make the thing come on you, and then the epi will make the thing go around you. It is a different word, you see. The brother said that that word was there, and it is there, but it is only half of the word. It is a compound, which means a very diiTerent thing. I suppose the brother must have known just what it was. He said it was there, and by telling half of the truth perverted the whole truth. He is not the first gentle- man who has done that kind of thing. By Mr. McDiarmid — Will you read that to the audience ? (Offering Dr. Watson the Greek Testament, open at the place.) Dr. Watson — I will read it just when you don't want m BAPTISM WHAT IS IT '? 123 me to. I have seen steel traps set for rata before. Tlioro was an old gentleman some years ago who hatl a wife, and i'u happened that f lie was, I tliink, his half sister. Her name was Sarah ; she was Abraham's wife. And when they were going down into Egypt he said to her, " I will say you are my sister." Well, she was his sister, but ho meant by saying *' She is my sister," " She is not my wife." He told just half the truth, and perverted the whole truth. Now, cmliio is one thing, meaning to 70 intu, aud epi-'jhduo is another thing, to put on and (irouiul. I feel sad. I am sorry to have to say that, but never- theless it is so. By Mr. McDiAUMiD — Enduu is there without the cpl. Dr. Watson — Just wait a moment. I tell you what I will do, ladies and gentlemen. If that is a mistake, I will say so before this audience when I see it. By Mr. McDiarmid — Will you look at it now ? (Offering him the Greek Testament.) Dr. Watson — No, not no v. I tell you, ladies and gen- tlemen, I v.'ill be most happy to confess my error, if it is an error, before this audience on to-morrow evening, when I have looked at it. By Mr. McDiarmid — That will do. Dr. Watson — It is just possible that his Testament may have the word in it, and mine be without it. It is possible the Greek Testaments may differ, but I looked in my Testament, and that is what I saw. If it is an error I will confess it, and beg pardon for the error. Let us turn to that fire baptism. It is in Matthew iii. 11 : "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." You know my brother does not like fire very well. He likes water. We Methodists like fire. I have been always trying to hold that fire on to the people, and not so much r f I i (^ i' J fe 'M 124 BAPTISM WHAT IS IT '? water. I have understood that matter entirely different, and I am going to show you lie is mistaken and I am correct. Brother McDiarmid lias stated that all through tlio Bible lire was a svmhol of destruction. I think it is in many places, hut I think in many cases it is a symbol of purification. Let me quote : *' And he shall sit as a refiner iviid purifier of silver, and ho shall purify the sons of Levi, and ptir^e them as jifold and silv- ., that they may offer uuto the Lord an otTcritifj; in rif^hteousness. " Now, the brother said that this fire was put upon the wicked to destroy them ; and when John said, '* He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire," that lie meant he would baptize the ones that had repented witli the Holy Ghost, but that ho ?/ould baptize those who had not repented with fire and destroy them. That is an old idea of many years ago, and it is not founded at all in truth. I will tell you why. Imagine a large platform divided into two sections. Now, you know, there were two classes that came to John's baptism — those that repented and believed in the coming of the Messiah, who came down to be baptized, and another class that came down and did not repent, were skeptical, and did not believe in the coming of the Messiah. He said to them on the one hand, " generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for iepentance. " He would not baptize them. Now, here were these classes that he had baptized, and over here I will say were the classes he had not baptized. The way he explains it was this. He said to them, " I baptize you with water ; He will baptize you with the Holy BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? 125 [liiforent, iiud I am ough tlio ik it is in ymbol of r, and ho uid silvr., eoiisness." upon tlio ' He sluill ' tliat ho itcd with who had it is not !magiuo a oil know, im — those Messiah, chiss that id did not them oil flee from meet for fere these 1 say were them, " I the Holy Ghost, and He will baptize you with fire." Now, I say tl)e fact is here. The senteuoo shows that tlio same per- sons that had repented ho baptized with water, and the same persons he baptized with water, why Christ would bii]itize with the Holy (Ihost; and the same persons that were baptized with the Holy (Ihost, would be baptized with fire, which is shown by tlie Greek word hii, so that this fire sentence is directed to the same persons baptized with the Holy Ghost that he baptized witli water. And the sentence about the cliatT after that ; that is disconnected. He then turned his attention to them oil this side, saying that they should be burned up as chair. In looking tlirongh several authors, I find that tliei:e would have been an insuperable difficulty to have confined fire to the unbelievers there. So that we hold it clear — and it is clear from that conjunction — that the fire is to be with the Spirit, and both upon the class that he baptized with water. What is the simple thing symbolized here ? Take Cor- nelius, Acts X. 45-48 : " And they of the circumcision which believed were aston- ished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gen- tiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter : ' ' Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? i\nd he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." I have heard it said that some people did not think it hardly right to pray that they might be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Here they had prayed, and they had received also the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 1 * i ^ ' i t i ; ' i ?r \ i| 12G BAPTISM WTTAT IS IT? Wo find then tliat tins is a clear case. "When thev were baptized witli the Siuiit, tlicy were immediately baptized witli water, which symbolizinl externally what had been done internally. So we hold the water symbolizes tao work of the Spirit. This brinf,'.s ns now to a new idea, viz. : the symbolic action of water baptism. We said Christian baptism is a symbolic act. We now want a term to express not only the act, but the quality of the act. Evei'y act with water is not baptism. Suppose I go along a river, and toss a stone into the water, and it goes down. That is not ba[)tism ; it is an action. Though tlieie is water connected with it, and aiound it, it is not baptism, because it lacks the quaUty of the action that cotistitutes baptism, and that quality is expressed by the term "purifying." Now, we want a term to express that. I remember somebody asked 13ro. McDiarmid the question whether the word l>((])tizoov, in the New Testament, was ever defined by another Greek word — a synonym, au:l he did not know of any such instance. I knew of one. That you will find iu John iii. 22-2G, and this is a very important point right here. " Affor these tbinf:;s camo Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judopa ; and there he tarried with thera, and baptized." He had been up in Galilee, and now he came down into Judea. " And John wa^ also baptizing in iEnon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison. Then thera arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto .lohn, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him." The picture was this : Jesus was at iEnon, or near T HAPTrsM WHAT IH IT '? 127 tlierc, baptiziup:, and John was tliere baptizinpr, and the most of the people were going to Jesus and were being baptized, and that seemed to create a curiosity in the minds of the Jews; so some of them came down there and spoke to John's disciples, and they got into a controversy about purifying. Tiiey were talking about baptism, but hithorizi), meaning to purify, is a synonym of Ixiptizn — a Greek synonym — and it is the only definition of haptizo in the New Testament that I know of. 1 do not think there is another one. So this is a Bible definition, that haptizinrj was pun'/i/iiir/ — a symbolic purifying. I will read another verse or two from tho Bible. John i. 19-25 : " And this is the record of John, when tlie Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou ? And he confessed and denied not ; hut eo;ifesRed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then ? Art thou Elias ? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that pro[)het ? And he answered. No. Then said they unto him, Who art thou ? that we may },'ive an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wildrrness. Make straJL'ht the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. And they which were sent were of the Pbari- Bees. And they asked hiri, and said unto him. Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet ]" You know it had been prophesied that the Messiah would come, and would anoint, and do a good many other things, and thev were looking for Elijah to do it, or for Christ to do it; but they saw John purifying — baptizing — and tl.ey said, What are you performing this office for? Are you Christ? No, he said. Are you Elijah? No. What are you baptizing for? — showing that they were looking for this Messiah to come and do this purifying Himself. That showed it was a purification. lit ii' i I f i. I 5 1^ 111 128 HAPTIHM- WHAT IS IT In rof^artl to tliat word i/ meant exactly what hapto did, consequently put it dip ; and you will i'lnd that fahul, hapto and dip all moan U) (jo daicn and romc up ; they aro all three equivalents. Let me give you an illustration ; " And a clean in'rs) occurs twice ill the Apocryplin. I have both sentences from the Apocrypha here, but I see it is warm in lioro, find I would d«,'tain you too long, so I think I will not read them. So in all these cases whore hniitizo occurs, it means purifi- cation or cleansing. The question is, did the inspired writers of tin; Now Testament use the word Imjitizo iu the sense of cleansing and purifying ? I think they did. Let us look at Maik vii. 4 : '•And when thry come from the market, except lliey wash, thoy eat not Anil many other thing's tlu ro be, which they huvG received to hold, as the washing — [that is, baptUiiig] — of cupp, and pots, brazen vessels, and ot tabids." There were pDts and brazen vessels and cups, and the translation says tables. I think it had better be rendered couches. It is either couches or tables. It is a conun- drum. The question is, of course, the purification, llow did they do it ? Some would say that these were seats that they laid down on, six or eight feet long, and that they were fastened around to the walls. I see Dr. Carson is inclined to admit that. 13ut what do you think Dr. Car- son said in explanation of bathing those tables ? lie did not say they were baptized in a dish-pan, but he might as well have said it. He said very likely these seats were put together in such a way that they could be taken apart ' 'i* li 'I i- ■ ■r.i 182 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? without much trouhlc, and then immersed, piece by piece, after whicli they were all put tof^cthcr again. Three times a day they took them apart, and put tliom together, and sat down to cat. It would need a lot of carpenters stand- ing there all the time, with hammers and saws and chisels, to take them down and j)ut them up. It seems to me that a claim must be hard pressed, for a man like Dr. Car- son to say that they would take those seats down three times a day, and put them together again, just for the purpose of immersing them i)iece by piece. I think they just sprinkled them. They would have been fearfully wet to sit down on tliree times a day if they were immersed. I want to show tliat Paul used the word in the same way. Hebrews ix. 0-13 : "Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both ^^ifts and sacrificeH, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience ; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of re- formation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to saj', not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth tothe purifying of the flesh " — You will see that Paul recognized the fact that these were ceremonial purifications, by s))rinkling. He said they were purified by sprinkling. I do not think you will dispute that. I think that is a demonstration of the case. Now, the question is, did the writers that wrote the gospels select this word haptizo irom the Septuagint, or from the classic Greek ? ! BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT? 1»3 good J, not You koow they did not like tlie heathen, and would not have anything to do with them if they could help it. They were perfectly familiar with this word haptizo in the old Septuagint version; and it is certainly a fact, that all the quotations made in the New Testament were made from the Greek Septuagiut, and not from the Hebrew, which shows that these New Testament writers were read- ing the Septuagint, and quoted from that every time, and not from the Hebrew. They would not go out into the classic Greek, among those heathen, and get all con- taminated with them, as they supposed. Now the question is, what about this clean water in the Old Testament ? I know my brother said that there was not a case in the Bible where clean, pure water was used for sprinkling; it was always mixed with ashes, blood, or somf; thing else ; and he is right. If that is a fact, how art you going to account for the pure water that was to be sprinkled on somebody ? It was not under the old dis- pensation ; he admits that. Ezekiel xxxvi. 25-28 : " Then will I sprinkle clean waier upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filtbiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A now heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you ; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to v/alk in my statutes, ai^d ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers ; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God." There he says, '* I will sprinkle clean water upon you." It was not under the old dispensation. Is it done now ? If it has not been done in this dispensation, when is it going to be done ? In the next ? There ia no next. So that this prophecy and this pure water must refer to bap- 184 BAPTISM — Wn\T IS IT ? \i tism. There is nothing else that I can possibly see ; it is by sprinkling ; here is tiie declaration and there is the mode, away bask in Ezckiol. Ezekiel was a Pedo-Baptist, or he would have been if he lived in these days. Isaiah, 44tli chapter : " I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground ; I will pour my spirit upon tby ^eod, and my blessing upon thine olTi-ipring. And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses." He says, " I will pour clean water upon you." If it was not for purifying, what was it done for ? I will come to the classic Greek ; I say that in the classic Greek haptizo does not mean immerse in every case. I will give one or two examples. Fi'om Plutarch : " The wounded soldier baptized his hand in the blood, and wrote upon the trophy." He baptized liis finger and wrote. He did not baptize the whole hand in the blood. It is clear that he dii3ped his finger into the blood and wrote. I will give you one more case : " A bladder thou mayest baptize, but there is no decree for it to sink." That is, an inflated bladder on the water, swimming around, was baptized ; but there was no decree for i: to sink. I would like to see you sink an inflated bladder rn the surface of the water. I am not paticular about that. I am willing to say that v\ classic Greek it does mean frequently to immerse. Now, it is a fact, in every case where haptizo is used in classic Greek, meaning to (j*t into water, it goes in tostai/in, every time. Somebody asked the brother here whether baptizo in the classic Greek, and Hellenistic Greek, meant I BAPTISM WHAT IS IT '? 135 the same thing, and he said it did. If it does, then baptizo iu the New Testament means to ii ^ 1 1 i Ml -WHAT IS IT ? What about these prepositions, eia, and ek, and ^>i ^ I think somebody asked the brother the question, What was the prevaiHng meaning of this eis / and lie said the pre- vaihng meaning was into. I will show you whether it is or not. The prevailing meaning is to — nnto. I will tell you the reason why. From use in practical life we go to a thing more frequently than we go into a thing ; consequently the prevailing meaning is to. You will find that this pre- position eis is rendered to five hundred and twenty-eight times in the New Testament, and a great many times by other words — not into. I will give you the Lexicon now ; that settles the whole question. I read from Passow's great Greek Dictionary. What does he say ? He says the first meaning of et'sis direction towards ; the second meaning is motion to ; the third meaning, motion on; the fourth, motion into. You know very well — or I suppose you do — that the prevailing meaning is always put first in the definition ; the second, less prevailing ; the third, less prevailing ; and the fourth, never prevailing. These Lexicons are not worth a flip to me, but they are the end of controversy with him, 80 far as the meaning of v/ords are concerned, because they are in the Dictionary. Matthew xii. 18 : "Behold my servant, into whom I am well pleased." — Eis. Matthew xii. 41 : "Because they repented into the preaching of Jonas.'* Matthew xv. 24 : " I am not sent, but into the lost sheep." Pity the sheep, and somebody else — ** into the sheep." Matthew xviii. 29 : *• And his fellow-servant fell down into his feet." Alexander Campbell — I like to bring him in, because !« » ill BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? 137 -Eis. ep. everybody thinks so much of him — in his Bible, 1st Cor- inthians X. 2, says, *' Immersed into Moses." There were three million Isniehtes, and they were all " Immersed in^o Moses.'' This word cii. '•They that take the sword, (shall perish in the sword.'" It would be a hard death to perish in a sword. *• There was in the Synagogue a man in an unclean spirit." We read a good deal about having unclean spirits in a man, but never before did I read about a man's being inside of an unclean spirit. About this word apo. It is the word by which Christ came up out of the river — up out of the water. What does this apo mean ? *• Let him come down out of the cross." " Shake the very dust out of your feet." Suppose we take ek. '• For the tree is known out of its fruit." •' He agreed with the laborers oiit of a penny a day." " The baptism of John, whence was it — out of heaven or out of men ? " So much for that. The brother was right in saying that eso is u'ithin, and ekso is without. We have an idiom in the Greek. I will show you how it is in the English: — "He came into the water." {Goinq to the hlackboard and ivritinct.) $■; 188 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT You will observe tbat this "into" is a double prepo- sition. The idiom of this Anglo-Saxon is, that you have two prepositions : — to, tiiat would lead him to the water ; and the in liere, puts him in. Now, I will show you here the same idiom in the Greek form. The idiom in the Greek Testament is this,— and it is so in the classic Greek also — that when you have a verb of motion, the verb to come, for instance, you liave this m, being the same thing as our to, which brings you into relation with. The eis would bring this man here, but now, if he wanted to go inside, to be enclosed, there must be another preposition on this end of the V3rb. So that this is a general law in the New Testament Greek, when you have a verb of motion, simply expressing locality, one preposition is used, eis, which brings you up to a tiling ; but when the idea of going into — being enclosed — is desired to be expressed, you al- ways have another preposition on this end of the verb. That is true, without a single exception in the Greek Testament. In the case of baptism, you find only the one preposition which brl..gs you to the water. If you had a preposition on this end of the verb, it would take you into the water, and cover you up, but you never have. " Well done, good aud faithful servant, enter into the joy of thy Lord " There is a double eis here. I do not think my brother looked at that. By Mr. MoDiarmid : — Yes, he did. Dr. Watson : — The one eis takes him up to heaven, and he says we will leave him there ; but the other eis takes him in. We are going in. He will stay out, if he has only the one eis. I want to read one passage that the brother commented H 1 i" ■ .1 ! ■) il , i . "\C. BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? 139 joy of L-other }aven, takes ie has lented on. I think he made a fjrcat ml^>tHke, aiul that is in the case of PhiHp and the eunuch. You will romembcr that the brother said here, tliat we saitl this "is took them to the water. They drove alorig and came up to the water; and he said, now, if they are up t) tlie water, how could they go down to the water after that, unless tliev backed awav, and went lip to it the second time '? He says he looked at i*^, but I looked at it too. This is the fact in the case. " They came unto a certain water." That " unto " is notm, it is nd — that is, in the neighbour- hood of it, towards it ; and the eunuch did not s",y, "here is water ;" he said, *' see water ; " they were not up to it yet. You will find several intervening verses there, and after that they had the examination. They went on per- haps a quarter of a mile from the time they first saw the water, and then it says : " He commanded the chariot to stand still, and they both went down." Katahoino eis. There is one word there for " went down," not two w^ords, as in our translation. Kahdndno — Kata^ which means down, is connected with l/oino, to go. It shows the origin of the motion was up in the chariot ; the kaia took them out of the chariot, the haino going down, and the eis into the water. There have been years of controversy over that little eis right there, and if they wanted them put into the water, why didn't they say cso ? It would have stopped hundreds of years of controversy. The fact is, if the writers had tried their best to keep a man out of the water, they could not have succeeded better. They had plenty of ways to have put them right in there, so there would not have been the slightest question. There is just one other case I wish to call your attention m 'H ' ?: ! i tl 1 '" ii MO BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? to, and tlmt is in regard to the baptism of Cornelius. You will remember that it wan said, " Who shall forbid water ?" What does that mean ? Did he say, who shall forbid taking these persons to the water, or who shall forbid the water ? Koluo is the word Jesus used when He said : "Suffer little children to come unto me, imd forbid ihem not." He meant you must not forbid the children coming to Him. The disciples objected to it, but Ho said, " forbid them not," and they brought them. This is the same word that was used when the children were to be brought to Him, conse- quently this water was brought there. Do you suppose they went down there and brought up the river Jordan ; or do you suppose they went over there and brought the springs of /Enon ? Whatever they did, they brought the water to them, right on the spot ; and if my dear brother can show me from tlie New Testament that there was one single instance of a person being taken into the water and immersed, on next Friday, at 10 o'clock, I will ask him to take me over to the river and immerse me, and I will give him ^25 for his trouble. There is not a man who can do it. It is not there. I should like to talk upon the subject of Infant Baptism, and also upon the Design of Baptism, we having had now five nights or more, and I hope my brother and I shall have these subjects to present hereafter. [141] ME. McDIAHMID'S FJliST HALF-HOUR ADDRESS. {Fifth Xviht.) Brother Chairinmiy and Christum i'rii'wls, — I trust that as wo are all here this evening in the provi- dence of our kind Father, wlio ever watches over us and catches the falHug sparrow, that we are here desiring to know His truth, and His trutli only. I must necessarily be very brief on each point, as I have to reply to two speeches of two hours each in the first half-hour of this evening. Of course, it is very flattering and very pleasant to me to hear a Doctor of Divinity represent me as coming from Canada — a very Goliath of Gatli, who " had swept the board" in the Dominion of the Queen — md I believe even some! of the Western States had to go from the board — and who is now here in New York State, to go through the East and South, I presume ! Of course, such a represen- tation is very flattering to me, but I have heard it so often, it is becoming slightly stale. The first man whom I met in discussion, in Canada, told the same tale, that I was a Goliath — a Goliath tliat would be slain with that same pebble from the sling of David. I still live, however. I fear that their slings need some readjusting, or that they themselves require more practice, before they are worthy to be calling themselves the " David coming in the name of the Lord." I shall seek, so far as I can, to treat the whole question seriously and courteously ; and as my friend gave me ere- 11 ' I 1'^ 3 I 142 ilAPTlSM — WHAT IS IT V dit for beiiif^ " f^cntlemaiily," though "weak," I must be ad gentlcmuuly as possible, and as strong as may be conveni- ent. 1 sliall not oven toll him that his speeches are weak but gentlemanly, lor it would not bo true, and perhaps it would not be gentlemanly. The distinguished speaker, on the first evening, seemed anxious to run off into a discussion of the quarrel between the Baptists and the Jiible Society. I am not here in de- fence of tlu) r>aj)tist Church or of the Bible Society, but I would just tell him that ho did not give a correct account of that mutter. Hois }iot posted on the (piestion. If he will lead the Jmlepenilrnt — ii Presbyterian paper of New York — he will find that the editor of that paper charged the Bible Society with the most outrageous obscuring of the Word of God ; but I leave that question with the Inde- pcnilmt and the Baptists. Again : my friend sought to beget some prejudices against me, by first linking me with Alexander CampbelL and then taking Alexander Campbell to task in a very severe spirit, to say the least, charging liim with leaving out that verse from the Gospel of Matthew, where we read in our New Testament the words of our Saviour : *' I have a baptism to be baptized with." (Matt. xx. 22,28.) He charged him with corrujdlnij the Word of God, and then applied to him that passage in Eevclation : '• If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life." I was not sure but he was going to keep Mr. Campbell in purgatory for some time to come, he seemed so deter- mined about it. I asked for five minutes to get him out, but he answered saying, *'Not a word." Now, however, I have the floor and the power to get him out, and I will do so without money and without price. • i'.APTISM — WHAT IS IT? lia pbell leter- but Ihave lo so He told yon, too, that in the Revised Version the passage referred to (Matt. xx. 22, 28 ) was left in, and that therefore Mr. Campbell, in Icavin*,' it out, had mutilated the word of God. He actually took up the Now Version, and opening it said, ^* There it is." Now, I say, in the Now Version, THERE IT IS NOT. lu the Gospcl of Mattliew, where Alex- ander Campbell left it out, the Neir Vrraiun has left if out too. In Mark, where Alexander Campbell left it in, the New Version has left it in too. And ho you will find it all through. In this Greek text, edited by Westcntt, D.D,, and John Anthony llort, D.I). , with an appendix by Philip Sohaff, D.D., a divine of the Presbyterian Church, it is left out. So Alexander Cam})beirs Version is but the harbinger of the New and better Version. I believe there was only one Baptist on the New Revi- sion Committee. Tliat one Baptist must have been a mighty power, if he caused the English and the American Committees to leave it out, to copy the example of Alex- ander Campbell. They did leave if out — I say this with the New Version before my eyes — and they left it out because it is not found in the oldest and best Greek manu- scripts. But here is a person in Tonawanda, Dr. Watson, who will open up the New Version right here before you, and turning to Matthew xx. 22, 23, say: " They have left it in," where Campbell left it out. They did nothing of the KIND. I will not be too hard on my brother for this, as he is young in this matter of discussion. Now, I want to press these questions kindly. I have my reputation at stake, and I tell my friend, that in Matthew, where Mr. Campbell left the words out, the New Version does the same, and he will not say no. I think t r J I f n ■ * I d 144 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT 9 he said it iguorantly and in unbelief in the matter. I do not think that Dr. Watson would intentionally say it was found in Matthew, in the New Version, knowing it was left out. Surely he would not. I think he opened by mis- take in Mark, instead of Matthew, not seeing the differ- ence, and therefore made that statement. I apologize for him in this way. I think him an honest man. At least, I will say so as far and as long as I possibly can. Ho next said that in II. Corinthians, 5th chapter, where we have the phrase *• being clothed," I told you it is the word emluo, the same word that is found in the last part of Luke, •' Ye shall be endued with power from on high" — in the New Version translated clothed — and so I did tell you that, and now repeat the statement. He tells you distinctly that it is not endiio ; that it is epi-enduo. Well, epi-enduo is in the chapter, but enduo simply and purely alone, witho'.t the epi, is found in that c) >ter in the phrase '* being clothed." So this is another mistake of my distinguished friend's. You will remember how he was pressing me, saying, "Did he know ? If he didn't know, what ? And if he did, what ?| I will leave you to say. If he didn't know he was igno - rant, and if he did know and told it so, then what ?" Thus he went on and tried to crush me down, when it was his own mistake I I have put on this board the three words, epi-enduo, enduo, and ekduo. They occur, II. Cor. v. 2, 3, 4. Here is the place. He looked, and he found epi-enduo in verse two ; he saw ekduo and epi-enduo in verse four ; but there is enduo, purely and alone, in verse three. He did not see that, and therefore charged me with perverting the word of God. The fact is, he is not posted in the Greek or Hebrew much. It is not worth while ; I would not laugh. I am BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT '? 145 nd'8. •Did hat?) no- hus his \duo, re is terse :e is see ^dof )rew am sorry I made that remark. I do not like to say those things, but he pressed that question, and I just hold up to you the truth in the matter. Again, he tells you that he sprinkles and pours because it is scriptural, and immerses because it is not forbidden. Think of it I A minister of the gospel going out and im- mersing the people in the name of Jesus, because He has not forbidden it. He sprinkles and pours, because it is authorized; but at the wish of some candidate, he goes down and immerses him in the name of Heaven, because it is not forbidden ! The counting of beads is not forbidden. The ceasing to eat meat is not forbidden. The use of honey and salt and the sign of the cross in connection with baptism is not for- bidden. Why does he not apply these things to the people, if they ask for them, since they are not forbidden in the word of God ? Think of an ambassador of the Queen, sent to do busi- ness in America, saying, *' I have a commission to do cer- tain things — three or four things I am told to do, but here is a fifth thing the Queen said nothing about, and since she did not forbid me, I will do it in her name." — That is where he stands precisely. I do not believe in a human being doing in Heaven's name what Heaven never com- manded. Then again, " Only one in twenty in the Methodist Church have been immersed," he tells us. Very likely the one knows mere than the twenty. Among the Baptists they are ail immersed — perhaps 07ie sprinkled, say in two millions. Does this one know more than all the other Baptists ? This is, at least, equal to his argument from the few immersed Methodists. He pointed to a lawyer and said, " Weigh my arguments," i ;i^ KBI 146 haMIsm — What is tt 9 when he was talking about numbers. If the lawyer is present he can attend to the figures. I beheve, to-day, the Roman CathoUc Church outnum- bers the Protestant Church. Are the Cathohcs right because tliey are more numerous '? I think Dr. Watson came here to rcaaoa with me. Now, lie wants to vote with me to vote us down. I presume he could, in this country ; but I tell him that, if history is worth anything, the major- ity of i\\0:>Q who have professed the name of the Redeemer since Christ died upon Calvary have been immersed. The whole Greek Church, numbering from sixty to ninety milli ons, have been immersed. The Roman Catholic Church, with its two hundred millions, while they sprinkle, confess that they have changed from immersion to sprinkling ; and the leading men ol tli ) Church of England and of the Presby- terian Church too, have confessed that immersion was the rule for 1,800 ^'Cars, and that sprinkling was only per- mitted as an exception, in cases of sickness and approaching death. So it will not pay, Dr. Watson, to vote on this question. Then, again, he says he has no use for authorities, ** would not give a flip for tliem," and then quotes a Dictionary! They are nothing to him. He does not need Dictionaries. He says he " can make a Dictionary." I will tell you a secret. Do not tell it in the Doctor's presence. I would not have it get out for anything. I will agree to give the Doctor a Hebrew Bible — the in- spired Book of God — and I will mark a chapter for him in that Bible, and diut him up in this room for twenty-four hours, and he cannot translate into English ten verses without a Hebrew Dictionary. I will give him the best Hebrew Bible in Buffalo if he succeeds. This offer is made to the man who makes Dictionaries. Of course I BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT '? 147 could not translate the ten verses without a Dictionary. I rely upon Dictionaries, lie does not. He thinks we need nothing but the Scriptures in the t>riginal. •' Why," he says, '* we interpret the words of a book by the contents of the book." How are you going to get hold of the contents, until you know tlie meaning of the words ? I have to get the meaning of the words before I can get the contents. Jfe gets the contents /u-.s-f, and then finds out the meaning of the words ! He has a short cut to the con- tents of a book ! He says again, " We object to authorities, because it is a waste of time. It is a waste of time to study them.'' And then before moving from his tracks, he said, " Are Lexicons good for any tiling ? Yes ; good to save time." A man who would say all this in the same speech, is a little — well, immersed in trouble. Then he says, he would '' make a Lexicon right now." In the Greek Testament, he comes to " dip the sop." How does he know that that word in the Greek means *' sop " if he has not ha i a Dictionary ? If he has not learned Greek from the Dictionaries, he does not know that psomion means sop. He / then can he infer that bapto means dip / Then he turns to *' dip the hand," and then to " dip the tip of his finger," — bapto. Wesley puts (//^> there; the New Revision does the same. But he says, " / will put it touch.'' He would correct the New Revision from dip to touchy and correct John Wesley as well. In Revelation, he finds "garments dipped in blood." ♦* Well," said he, " I would say 's/)>(tts>'.' " Yes, but the New Version does not say spatter, neither does the Old, nor any other. Now, in that Rook of Revelation, in the Greek New Testament revised, the word bapto is not there at all. I ■ hi ' i IV - '1 ii Si ^\ i it '■ V! '■I -I '. i I 148 fiAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? He has been having a long sleep, like Mr. Eip Van Winkle, and he is bohind the times. That passage that Mr. Campbell left out, *' I have a baptism to be baptized with," in Adam Clarke's Commen- tary, is marked spurious. *' It is not a part of the word of God," he says ; so Adam Clarke came before Alexander Campbell on this point. Then turning to Lange, the German commentator, we find it is marked as being left out of the oldest and best manuscripts. The New Version leaves it out, and my fiicnd did not see it when he, with so much assurance, declared it was there. He would in((ke Lexicons. If he was making a Lexicon, he told you he *' would put sprinkle in the first thing, for baptizo." Of course he would ; but in doing so he would do what no first-class lexicographer ever did before, since time began. Yes, he would make a Dictionary un- like anything in heaven or on earth. His practice needs such a Lexicon. He should make one such to supply a long-felt want. Prof. Humphrey, of the Methodist College of Nashville, says that **No standard Greek Lexicon ever gives sprinkle as a meaning of baptiw." My friend says he will make a Lexicon. He needs one. The Lexicons we have suit me as they are. I will not go back on the scholarship of the ages. • I submit to it. All I know of the original Scriptures depends upon it. He says that "the Lexicons do not represent the words correctly. Lexicons are not authority." Suppose your neighbour's son meets your boy some day, and says, "Mr. Jones is solvent." Your boy replies, " So Jones is dead broke ?" Your neighbour's boy says, " No, he can pay his debts; that is what solvent means." " No," your boy re- plies, " it means that he is not able to pay." Says the n BAPTISM WHAT IS IT 149 first boy, '* We will see Webster's Dictionary, and Worces- ter's, and Johnson's, and settle it." "But," your son answers in view of the coming authorities, " I am sick of Dictionaries, I have had an Allopathic dose of them. They have been on the right and the left of me. I don't care for Webster, or for any other Dictionary under the heavens. Solvent means, he is broke." You can make the applica- tion. Then my friend turns to Greenfield, and perhaps there has no better scholar lived since Christ's time. His name is known where the Greek language is read to-day. Green- field was not an immersionist by practice. He turns to his Lexicon and finds that baptizo means immerse, and he says, " Tear it all to pieces." I would if I were in his con- dition. He, Dr. Watson, is superior to Greenfield, or Robinson, or Liddell and Scott, or any Lexicoa under the heavens. The fact is, he wants you in Tonawanda to take him as the authority in place of the Dictionaries. He wants himself to come to the front, and tell you, by the grace of God, what this word baptizo means, without regard to the scho- larship of the past ages. I am too modest for that. I tell you I do not know much about Greek. I could not make a Dictionary, but I can read a little Greek, and can take what the Diction- aries say. He is beyond this, far. He still says '• yarad is the equivalent of the word immerse." And he told us that yarad is found — and it is — in the verse that speaks of a ladder, and *' the angels of God ascending and descending upon it." That is, they were immersing themselves on the ladder by descending upon it 1 It means to yo doun, to descend — not to immerse. Is every going down an immersion ? Please tell us. If 11 I iJ i 3;i » .' S H liK: 150 BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? SO, Philip and the eunuch were both immersed, for they both ivent down — to the water, at least. In the Herald he says '* ts(tl((l is the equivalent of the word immerse." We find tmlal in Hab. iii. 16. " My lips quiverd " — trembled — that is the meaning of tsalal, as was shown in my first address. If Christ had only used that word, which tells of a man's lips ([uireriufi, that would be immersion certain. But haptizo does not mean anything like immersion ! It means " a mode of motion !" Does not this surprise the natives of Tonawanda ? The other word, yarad, that is the equivalent of " immerse " according to the Doctor, is found about two hundred times in the Bible, and is never rendered im- merse once ! There is something wiong. It is rendered descend perhaps twenty times, and (jo down about one hundred and fifty times, also to hrinfi down. " Went down into Egypt," — " Brimj my father down,' — " Bring my son down,'' — " Brinfj down my grey hairs to the grave." That is j/nnid. If i/oin;/ down to the grave or into Egypt means immersion, what does the (/oinfi down to the water before the baptism mean ? This would give the eunuch an immersion hcfore he reached the water. Then he quotes uehcrfrinken as meaning overdrink, and with a smile says, " I think persons do overdrink " when they immerse, as a joke on some person who catches his breath in the water ! I suggest to him, if the next young lady whom he immerses in the water should catch her breath, after bai)tizing her in the name of the Tri-unity of our God, let him say uehertrinhen — the word that is used for overdrinking — and mock a little ! But the saddest thing of all is yet to be mentioned. You were, no doubt, amazed at the ruthless manner in which he made sport with the most sacred words that BAPTISM WHAT IS IT? 151 and ^ben his ung her [ty of lused Idest |er in that dropped from the suffering Saviour's lips — *' I have a bap- tism to be baptized with " — words wrung from the Man of Sorrows when in sight of the coming gloom that was casting its shadow before. These are hallowed words — words most sacred. Once I laid a little girl — ours — away in the ground when her last sufferings were over forever. The spot where her ashes lie is sacred ground. But it is not so sacred as the spot on the page that tells of the Saviour's baptism of suffering for a luined world. But he walks up to that sacred text, to which a man should come with his shoes off his feet — it is holy ground — where the Saviour said, " I have a baptism to be baptized with ;" when with the dark garden before Him, and the overwhelming sea of affliction rising in His vision ; as in David, His soul said, "I come into deep waters, and the floods go over my soul." I call that a baptism to be baptized with ; but he comes up to that passage with his shoes both on, and with a smile says, "I have a iduiu/hifj to be plunged with ! " Sup- pose it is. Is he not a scholar ? Has he not read in Shakespeare of that " Fearful pluntfe of sorrow ?" Did he never read " Pluiujed in a gulf of dark despair ?" Did he never sing : " There is a fountain filleu with blood Drawn from Immaimel s veins ; And sinnerp, plunged beneath that flood, Lose all their guilty stains ?" The highest music of our souls is borne aloft on the wings of angels to heaven as we sing it. But he comes up with a smile and says " pliuKje,'" and tries to make it ridiculous. If I must mock at things sacred, I will leave that word, and will mock at some word on my child's grave sooner. I will go where a mother lies in the II !r 162 BAPTISM — WHAT 18 IT ? country burying-ground, and trifle with the words on her tombstone, for practice, first. I would not go to that garden and mock at the expression, ♦* I have a plunging to be plunged with." It was *« the fearful plunge of sorrow." "I am sinking," He cries, overwhehnedy in this great agony of affliction. The scholarship of the ages, Presbyterian, Episcopal and Baptist, tells the same story. " Calamity, wherewith one is overwhelmed," is the meaning of the word in this passage, according to their Dictionaries. He will make light of it still, no doubt. He should make a new book to suit the times and his fancies, with new definitions adapted to every emergency. ii nr r\ ill y ■'if; [153] DR. WATSON'S FIRST HALF-HOUR REPLY. {Fifth iXhjht.) ^ i Ladies and Genthwen, — My brother was veiy f^'ciitlcmanly, and I will try and be so. I think it is an iLn})roveinent to be a little more careful in our expiessions, perhaps. I v/ant to say, in regard to the manufacturing of that new Bible in Burmali, my authority is Strong's Fincycloptedia of ten largo volumes, recently published — one of the standards in the world — and I gave the history as in that. It has never been contradicted. I would like to see the brother contradict it by authority, not by assertion. The brother said that passage in Matthew, 20th chapter, 22nd and 23id verses, was left out of the New Revision. You read the King James translation, and I will read the New Version : " But Jesus answered and saiJ, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with tiie baptism that I am baptized with \ They say unto him. We are able. And he saitli unto them. Ye ehall indeed drink of iry cup, and be baptized with the baptifem that I am baptized wiih." That is the New Revision. The brother said it was left out of the New Revision. Now, it is one of the most pain- ful things I have to do to-night, and I am sorry to have it to do, but I will do it kindly. I will take up part of my time with it ; I feel sad. I will give a history of this matter. I have said that the Baptists have altered the 11 154 BAt>TISM — WHAT IS IT ? I li m I f New Testament away in Burmah, to get immersion into it ; ■which is so, according to the record. I said Alexander Campbell had taken parts of these two verses out, also. Now, he says that they are taken out of the New Kevision. I will tell you they are not taken out, but they are out of the version he has — the Disciple version. That is the painful point. When the Bevision was all completed, some of the American revisers thought that the English revisers did not do quite the right thing, and they suggested some changes. The English Committee said that they would allow those suggestions to be printed on the margin, but would not allow them to go into the text. So our Com- mittee allowed them to go on the margin, and took the Revision as it was left by the whole Committee. But our Baptist friends — and, I should judge, our near Disciple friends — found this phrase, *' Baptize with water," and thought it might be put "in water," and they were so delighted with that they could not leave it on the margin, but they said, " Put that in the text right away." So after this New Version was all out, and published with the authority and the names of the whole Committee, a few Baptists, who could not stand it, got together in New York — with, I presume, a few of our Disciple friends — and said, " We will make a new Testament; we will change this thing ourselves." So they went to work and made a New Version themselves out of it, and, if I remember, after putting this in they said, " I guess we had better leave out those verses that Campbell left out; he must be correct; so they left that out. Then, if I remember, they offered it to the American Bible Society of New York for publication. But they said, •' No, gentlemen, we cannot publish that. That is a special Baptist version, and we did not leave it that .11 BAPTISM— WHAT 19 IT ? 166 into ,nder also. sioD. »ut of is the f the 8 did some vould I, but Com- 3k the at our isciple " and re so argin, dished littee, New and Ihange iade a after Ive out 3ct; so , to the . But That that way." They were not satisfied with that, so they went on and pubhshed an imperfect version to suit themselves. Now, I charged that upon the Baptists in Biumah, and this other one upon Mr. Campbell ; now I liave to cliargo this upon these. I am very sorry to do it. I feel just hke pitching in ; I won't do it, though. It is painful enough without commenting on it at all. I do feel like exhorting. Oh 1 it is awful. I presume he wishes he had not brought it, now ; wishes he had left it at home. It would have been better for him and his cause, I think. I tell you, gentlemen, I do not say things very often that I have not looked up, and know something about, you may depend upon that. I am responsible for what I say. About this enduo. The cnduo is exactly as I said last night. The first night the gentleman said that this enduo was the same as in the expression of Paul in Corinthians, ** Clothed upon." I turned to the place, — ii. Corinthians V. 2, — it was not enduo. It was epi-enduo. So I just printed it down here, and stuck it in my Bible, and it is just as I said last night. 1 have it written, ii. Corinthians, 6th chapter, 2nd verae : ** Earnestly desiring to be clothed upon, with our house which is from heaven." That is a different word in that 2ud verse. He has enduo down here in the 3rd verse. I did not say anything about the 8rd verse. He said it was the same word as the word " clothed upon." It is not the same word as " clothed upon." I will say that I presume the brother had his mind on the 8rd verse, because the Words are the same ; so if I was correct, I do not believe the brother intended to mis- represent. I believe it is well to be generous when you can. In regard to this baptizing persons by immersion, I do not think it is scholarly or in the Bible. :i ' 160 C\PTlSM — WHAT IS n\> I know that our Disciple friends say to persons, '• Oh, yon must be immersed, you must come under the water;" and they tease liim when, perJiaps, they don't want to. I do just hke tliis : wlieu a person wants to become a Christian and wants baptism, I say, '"How do you want to be baptized ? ' "1 want to be spriulded." " All right." " I want to he immersed." '• All right." " I want to bo poured." "All right." You read the Bible the best you can. It is not very clear. Read it tlie best you can. Peter says, '• It is not the purifying of the fle.sh, it is the answering a good conscience" If immersion answers to a good conscience, why not answer it ? Suppose sprink- ling answers a person's conscience best, and if you choked your conscience down, would not that violate Peter's com- mand ? I respect people's consciences and their judgments. I do not know everything. My dear brother does not know everything. The people may be nearer to it than we are. How do we know ? Why then force them to be baptized in one way when they think another ? I do not think it is right. The brother said that while the number of persons sprinkled in the world, counting the Catholics, would, perhaps, outnumber those immersed, he said " they them- selves say that the mode has been changed." I can hardly take that without proof. I will say it kindly. Dean Stanley says that over and over, I believe, that they changed it, but he does not give a particle of proof when, how and where it was changed. My mind is so constructed that I cannot believe a thing without some evidence. ^11 the people might say it is so, but I want to know why it is so. History. History is not all on one side. Let me read a little history. I will read from Ambrose, who was born BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? 167 Uem- :dly )ean iged and latl the V it read Iborn in 8-40 A.D. I believe tlioy do not f^o back any fnrtlior than the third century. The imraorsiou is over beyond that. In expounding Psalm li. 7, Aiiihrosc says : "Sprinkle me with hyssop, luul I sliiiU bo clean. Tie who wished to be clcansod by typiciil biijitisni was Bprinkhnl with the blood of the Lamb, with a buticli of hysHop." Cyril, in the fourth century, sjivr : "They are nboiit to be t-pT'inklpd with hyssop, and to be puri- fied by the spiritual hyssoji, by the power of Christ, who drank on the cross of the hyssop arxl the reed." Jerome says, referring to Kzekiel xxxvi. 25 : " I will pour out, or sprinkle, eloan water upon you. I will pour out the pure water of the saving baptism." I might go on here for half an hour with the historians. They arc not much to uie. I quote these for his beneiit. If he has any history opposed to tliis, then the historians contradict themselves. What are thoy good for, then ? About this reading Hebrew. The brother has made a confession that he cannot read Hebrew. That is enough for us to know. I will not tell you that I cannot. I have read a good deal of Hebrew, and I may read some just when he does not want me to. He says we must get the meaning of words befovc we can get the meaning of the con- tents. How are you going to get the meaning ? He says : We all know there was a time when there were no Dictionaries or grammars. Somehow^ they got the mean- ing of words, because they could not have the Dictionaries before they got the meaning of words. I told you the other night how they got them. You have got to get the meaning of the words from the contents. There is no other way that I know of. If the brother will tell us how they get them, without the ideas in the books — without the contents — I will certainly deem it a matter of great information. ni H 53 1% 168 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? I want to correct the brother, because I write in my book wliat I Kay. I will not nay tliat lie tells wiuit I did not say ; but Kiuiply that ho made a mistake. 1 said the only function of Dictionaries is to save time. I did not say they were a waste of time at all. I said that if the Dictionaries rcprosonted the use of lanpua^e, it would be well enouj^h ; we mi|.^lit uso them for practical purposes. They may be true, and they may not ; and, of cimrse, wo cannot sit down and read a whole book through before we can lind the meaning of a word. When you come to the analysis of the question, you will lind that the only func- tion of Dictionaries is practically to save time. If we all had time enough, we could do without Dictionaries. We could find the meaning the same as we did before there were Dictionaries. Only a few men gave their whole life to it. You found the meaning of words before the Dictionaries were made. He speaks of the New Version. Which New Version does he mean ? You see we have two of them here to- night. The brother macT* a slight mistake. I did not say that l)(tpto was found in Mevelation at all. I said it was ^??i/;rtjt?^o that was found in Revelation. The v;oid bapto occurs three times in the New Testament, and the word embapto occurs three times — no more, no less. Now, in regard to that illustration with the boys and the Dictionaries, it was a kind of illustration hardly good enough to laugh at. It is just about time we had a little fun. A Frenchman came to this country to study the language, intending to use the Dictionaries, and he became pretty well acquainted with the gentleman he was studying with. As the Frenchman was about leaving, he asked what the lt\l»TIHM WHAT IS IT "? 1 TiO 'f my [did the I not [ the Id be OSes. 3, we re we ,0 the func- II had could were ! to it. oaries ersion re to- y that nhapto three occurs ^6 and 7 good Uttle juage, [pretty with. it the word '•preserve" meant. Why, to keep you, he was told — the Lord preserve you — the Lord keep you. He looked, and found that preserve meant pickle. He thought it was all alike, and so, when bidding the gentleman good-bye, he said, '* Good-bye, and may the Lord pickle you." If he had used a little common sense, and let the Dictionary alone, he would have said "the Lord preserve you, or bless you. " Now, about that ladder. Oh, well, what is the use ? He confirmed what I said, that ijamd means going down, and immerse means going down — only one motion, he said. That is what I say. Of course sometimes it is used figura- tively, as coming down a ladder. Ho says tbe baptism is coming up from the water, too. Of course, coming up is part of the baptism. You can come up just the same at; you go down. That was all settled the other night. In regard to immersing some. I have immersed a good many, and I declare I kind of dread it every time ; there are such scenes connected with it. I have some of the funniest stories of my experience in regard to immersion, but I will not tell them. You do not want to laugh, and it is not a thing to be laughed about ; but I tell you, I am not responsible for these things. If ladies would be sprinkled or poured, as we think the Bible teaches, all these ludicrous things would be avoided that I have seen occur. I could tell you one here that would keep you roaring, I do not know how long. But I will not do it. I think sprinkling is more elegant, genteel, and certainly more scriptural. Now, I want to say that the brother thought that I ought not to have quoted that solemn and sacred passage about the Master's great suffering. I tell you, I must say I am not responsible for that. The theory is responsible i ■«PIVP«I V. , 160 RAPTTSM — V'lTAT IS IT for that. I am not responBible for that kind of reading, because they have put it iu the book, and, of course, we have to read it so. There is no argument there. The fact is, tliey put it in themselves. I think there is nothing more to answer. By Dr. Blioii ;on : — Doctor, ho said that baptism was the state, not the act. By Dr. Watson : — I do not care about replying to that now. beeause I presume the brotlier is going into that. [161] ling, B, we The stlie that MR. McDIAEMID'S SECOND IIALF-HOUE ADDRESS. (Sixth Myht.) Jh'othtr President, and Christian Friends, — There is a verse that will do to be quoted here, " \\c rll must stand before the judgment neat ol'Clirist." I believe that statement. If I were at home, where I am ki'own, this discussion would close about this time; but I am not known here, and my woid, I suppose, has to be tested If I were where 1 am known, this controversy, in the present form, would not take place. I do not play Katy-did, and Katy-ditlii't,in regard to the matter of leaving out Scripture He tells you that this is a Disciple book, that leaves out those verses in IVIatthew. AYill he kindly tell us where the Disciples published their book that leaves it out, — in New York or in Philadelphia ? He says I have got such a book. The English Revised Version does not leave it out, so he tells yon. If he can tell me where the book of which he .speaks was published, I will tell him where this was publis)jed. This book which I hold in my hands, which leaves the j>a!^sage out, has this on its title page : This KdilUm is authorized hy the American Committee. PHILIP SCHAFF. President. OrX). E. DAY, Secretary. New York May20«j, i>»Hl, PUBLISHED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A., Cauibridge Warehouse, 17 Paternoster Row, Loudon HENRY FRO( 1>E. Oxt'ord Wurfjj iiH*", 7 PuteriiOstrr How, JiOUiU'n. THOMAS NKLSON & SONS, Oxford Hililf Warehouse, 42 ilevMcr Street, New York frinted for the T'niversitiea of Oxford and Cambridge. if ' :1 lii j 162 BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? This is the Camphellite book ! Dr. Watson has not a New Version, with that verse in, in his possession to- night. He has got, I presume, hold of a Comparative New Testament, in which the King James Version is on the one page and the New Version is on the other page; and of course it is in the King James Version. Of course it is. Likely he looked at the wrong column. There has heen no New Version pub- lished, either bv the American Committee or the English Committee, that has that verse in, tliat Mr. Campbell left out. If the Doctor is going to stick up for this thing, and say it is, and it is, I think this will turn into a kind of bur- lesque. I did not come here for that kind of thing. I trust the Doctor will say that he looked at the King James column by mistake. J trust he will, for his own peace. More than that, here is the Greek Testament, from which it is also left out, by Westcott, D.D., and Hort, D.D., with an introduction by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., the biggest man as a scholar, in the Presbyterian Church in America. It wais no part of Mr. Campbell's business to leave omt things from the Scriptures. Dr. Watson ought not to say so. It is not good for his soul. I shall lose interest in this discussion, and not have much heart to go on, unless we can meet face to face, to search for the truth as for hidden treasure. The Disciples had nothing under the heavens to do with this New Version ; there was not a Disciple connected with it. Yet, according to him, this is the Disciple Version which I hold in my hands, pubhahed in Oxford. I do not wonder that he was sad. I will not get off any joke. It is too solemn. If there is a man here that is responsible, nothing more need be said for his benefit. Dr. Watson can make history, and make facts, and contradict the Greek texs, with it before BAPTISM WHAT IS IT 168 tory, jfore his eyes, and the New Version hefore his eyes, and all to make out that I tell a story. Now, that is not good for the soul. It is had — very. I will prophesy now that Dr. Watson will not be called hack to this church in Tona- wanda at the next Conference. The people of Tonawanda do not like that kind of thing. He says he wants some history on this question. I do not make history ; if I did, I would tell you all about it. But I will read the history. Is Philip Behalf's History any good ? Philip Schaff, on page 5G8 of his Church History, says : " Finally, as to the aiode of admiiiiKteriug this ordinance, immersion, and not sprinkling;, won unquestionably the original normal form. This is shown by the very mi^aning of the Greek words haptizo, baptisnia, and baptlsmos, used to designate this rite Finally by the general usage of ecclesiastical antiquity, which was always immersion (as it is to this day in the Oriental and also in the Graecjo-Russian Churches), pouring and sprinkling being substituted only in cases of urgent necessity, such as sick- ness and approaching death." Philip Schaff would not make history for the world. He had not read Tom Paine. It is not good for certain men to read Tom Paine. I am afraid it is hurting my friend. Phili; Schaff says, further on : " Indeeu, some would not allow even this baptismus clini- corum, as it was called, to be valid baptism. And Cyprian himself, in the thirtl century, ventured to defend the asperbion, or sprinkling, only in case of a cogent necessity, and with re- ference to a special indulgence c : God." Thus they defeided it. The men who had it adminis- tered as sufficient in case of approaching death, did so, draw- ing upon the indu.sftnce of God. There is not a case of sprinkling 02. record in history, before the year 262, after Jesus Chribt was born. The first sprinkled 164 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT man was Novatian who was sprinkled, or rather poured, in bed, when he was about to die. Ho did not die — pity he didn't — he Uved, and turned out to be a very bad maii afterward. PhiUp Schaff quotes from Conybcarc and Howson, both of the Church of England : '' It is needless to add that baptism was, unless in exceptional cases, administered by immersion, the convert beiug plunged." These great men are not scared at plunging. Tyndall, the first man who gave us an English version from the Greek, said plunge, in talking about the bax^tism. But I read on : "The convert beinj? [)lunged bjmeath the surface of the water torepvepcnt his death to the life of sin, and then raised from his momentary burial to represent his resurrection to the light of righteousness. It must be a subject of regret that the general discontinuance (>( this original form of bnptism — though per- haps necessary in v)ur northern climates — has rendered obscure to thr popular apprehension some very important passages of Scripture, such as Rom. vi. 4, and Col. ii, 12." And Philip Schaff adds • "With this we entirely concur. It is well known that the Re- formers, Calvin nnd Luther, and several old Protestant litur- gies gave the preference tut he would tell you, "You arc baptized to stay baptized.' Does the vater which he sprinkles stdij on the candidate any lon^'er than the water used in immersion '? Why then does he say that to be outof i\iQi water is to be itiihiijitizi'd / This is the kind of a debate we are having ! We will meet you again to-morrow night, and 1 hope my brother will walk up to business, and not try anything more of this kind. If he does, I will telegraph Dr. Mitchell, of Buffalo, to come and settle about these books in reference to Matthew xx. 22 and 28. Note.- The three foregoing addresses, as well as the one foUov ing, were delivered on the Sixlh Night. By mistake, Fifth Night is placed over the tir«t two. any then \>'d ! 1^ will itber of [11, of ence placed [171] DR. WATSOxNS SKCONJJ HALF-HOUR REPLY. {Sicth Nhjht.) Ladies and Gentlemen :-- I will say that I hold in my hand the Revised edition of the New Testament. If I have been amiss, it is an error. I think it is due to say that. I picked up the llcvised edition in Buffalo, opened it, and just read it, and as it has alternate leaves I see that, as he says, I looked at the wrong side. It is a dead book, nevertheless. I will tell you why. I find that the common people have no sym- pathy with leaving out Sciipture and cutting it up ; con- sequently this book that our r>aptist friends manufactured is also a dead book, and the main body of the Baptist Church does not receive it because it is mutilattd. The same is true of Alexander Campbell's Bible. It is muti- lated too, and I must congratulate the Church of the Dis- ciples in this place, in having King James' Version upon this stand, and not that mutilated Bible. Now, this committee has left this out from the Revised Version, and it has fallen dead from the press, so that the civilized world, in Europe especially, have rejected it. Very able critics in London say there was no sufhcient authority for leaving it out. Seek the old manuscripts, and put it in again. It certainly will never be accepted by the civilized world until they have put it as it was. I have no sympathy with it. In regard to these modes of baptism, I held that, as you know, baptism was motion, and that motion is a generic !l 172 KAPTISM — WHAT 18 IT ? term. There are modes of motiou. You know very well that Dr. Tyndall, the great Bcientific man, speaks in a whole book on the mode of motion. lieat is a mode of motion ; electricity is a mode of motion ; hght is a mode of motion ; there may be a thousand modes of motion, and but one motion. Suppose I say "fishing," what does it mean ? I cannot say that it is catching iish with a net. I might have a hook and line, or I might be spearing them. Fishing is a generic term. It may mean spearing; ( it may mean catching with a hook and line ; it may be with a net ; it may be one of these, or all of these. Suppose I say, " Peter went fishing." How do I know how he was fishing ? He went to do an act, but what kind of an act ? We baptize, but what kind of a motion do we make ? Who Jniou's? Dr. Carson, and the very ablest authorities on the immersiouist side, tell us that it consists in motion, but what kind of motion they do not know. There may be a general motion, and various modes of it, and if it is sprink- ling, why that, of course, is a mode of motion — of baptism. If it is pouring, that is a mode of baptism. If it is im- mersion, that is a mode of baptism. I think it is pretty nearly transparent, that baptism is a general term, and may include various modes. He said that, of course, this word haptizo means to go under, and we must obey the command. Very well, obey the command. They are under ; they stay under ; and the gentleman confessed the other night that there was no provision made in the command to bring them out, and he said he would bring them out for mercy's sake. He is the gentleman that keeps the command I Every time a man immerses a candidate, he breaks the command, according to his own confession. We keep the command because we do not need to break it. Suppose my family is a little MAPTISM — WHAT Ifl IT ? 178 logo obey id the IS no I he lis the man ^rdiug Ise we Uttle hard up — needs somothiiig — and I just go to one of these stores, and I steal about fifteen dollars' worth, and go home with it. They say, '• It is an awful trick ; what did you steal for ?" It is breaking a command, but I did it for mercy's sake. Is it right to break a commind, especially a command which is the slicet anchor of every minister's commission ? I think not. In regard to John's purifi/inif Christ, he holds an entire- ly different theory from what I hold. I hold that Christ was never baptized. I hold He was ordained a minister of the gospel ; and in that long talk the other night to me, I looked it all over thorougiily, and I do not think He possibly could have been baptized. He could not be purified because He was pure ; but there was a per- son who asked, when was He consecrated to the minis- try, if not then ? He did not answer, but went on with a long discussion about Christ being a Priest, forget- ting the idea that Paul represents Christ as a High Priest ; and His High-Priesthood refers back to Melchisedec, but His main Priesthood was obtained through the Levitical rules. Was He not to be circumcised ? Was He not con- secrated in the temple ? Hid He not go to the Passovers ? Did He not obey all the Levitical ritual as a human Priest ? He came to fulfill. He fulfilled them all in Himself. He was the last one. John consecrated Him to the ministry, and did not baptize Him. He could not baptize Him. This coming to the Jordan. The gentleman says that the subject must come to the element, because Christ came to the Jordan. Ah ! let me see. Christ came to the Jor- dan to be baptized. He makes the coming to the Jordan the baptism. He says that Christ came to the Jordan, to the water ; consequently the subject came to the element, but the coming to the Jordan was not the baptism. He 174 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? rv <:% ih- was baptized after He got there. The record says He came to the Jordan to be baptized of John. The motion — the baptism — was performed after he got to the Jordan. That must be plain to yon, 1 tliiuk. He gave in ilhistration, his home. I did not really catch just the sentence, but I think he said home had been given to liim, or came to him. I hope he has a good one. He spoke about the home comiLg to him. By Mf,. McDiarmid — I did nothing of the kind. By Dk. Watson — Excuse me. He got his home in some way. I warned you that every time, in a case of the baptism of the Spirit, the element came to the subject. If you can find a case in wliich it is otherwise, I would like to see it. Now, about that enduo. I think it is very strange, to say the least, that when I was here the third night — and I have brethren hore that will say so with me — I certainly understood that the brother referred to the word as Paul referred to it — being clothed upon — because it struck me at once, and how could I have got the clothed upon, if he did not use the term, and the witnesses say he did ? Conse- quently that is found in the second and in the fourth verses. I want to go for that " clothed upon." I think it is a matter of some importance. You will find that if we can show that the application of the Spirit was baptism, and can show that they were not immersed in the Spirit, of course they have lost the whole case. Suppose enduo does occur in there, and means clothed as in connection with baptism in any way, shape or form, you will find the promise of Joel was, that God would "pour out His Spirit upon them." When we come to the promise — eiiduo — in Jerusalem, what does it mean ? The Lexicons say, to 'i Brother President, and Christian Friends : — By the kind providence of Him who is leading us through the wilderness, and giving us manna in the desert, and satisfying our thirsty souls with water from the riven rock, who has given us our Moses to teach us the law of the Lord and guide us to the Canaan of rest— I say, hy His providence, we have met to seek to understand what He hath spoken to us in these last days, by His Son, in regard to our duty ; to try if we can see in the desert His foot- prints, and hear the voice of His mouth, as He speaks to us with authority from heaven. Thus blessed as we are here, receiving, as it were, day after day, grapes from the land of Eshcol, to give us joy in our souls as we go on to ou: maan, we ought to be here searching for truth, listening for the Master's voice, and looking for His footsteps. I trust we are here for this purpose. Well, if we desire to learn what He has taught us, we must go to this old book. The Saviour left no written state- ments. The only thing He ever wrote, so far as I know, was in the sand ; and the only writing we have about Him was penned by those who were qualified by the Holy Spirit — " clothed with power from on high" — and we must therefore accept the testimony of His Apostles and Evangelists, I open the Gospel by Mark, and read : BAt>ttBM — WHAT IS IT ? 179 18, we state- |know, about by the Ind we J8 and "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Gahlee, and was baptized of John in Jordan ; and straightway coining up out of the water, he saw the hea- vens opened." (Mark i. 9, 10). Matthew and Luke testify to tlie same thing, that Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan. The Saviour said to John : "Thus it bccometh us to fullil all righteousness." It is becoming, and it is beautiful. But my friend, the Doctor, who has read Tom Paine in the past years of his life, tells you that he does not believe that Christ was ever baptized. Ho told us last niglit, three or four times, that he did not believe He was baptized at all ! I do not know but we could just about as soon believe that He was not horn, and did not dif', and was not crucijied ; for all these words, ** born," "die," and " cruciiied," are used Jifjiira- tively sometimes, you know. IHe does not mean always to die mortally ; neither do the words horn and crucify always refer to literal birth and literal crucifixion. So we can prove in the same way, tliat the Saviour was not really born, did not live, and did not die. The fact is, my friend has become so accustomed to re- jecting authorities, that he hesitates not to put himself on record as distinctly and squarely rejecting Matthew, Mark and Luke, when they record that '* Jesus was baptized." It does seem to me, my friends, that if it has come to this, we are out upon a troubled sea, having no guide, human or divine. He bfgan by rejecting human testimony, and closed by rejecting the testimony of men who were "clothed with power from on high," and who consequently " spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." And why does he do this ? I will tell you. He told you that the Bible clefinitiou of haptixo was to 180 BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? Ifit purify, and he must stick to that. I the heavens should drop down he must stand to his Bibie definition ! I in- formed him that it wouhl not do to say that " Christ was purijied in the Jordan." He then said He was not baptized at all ! And then, immediately after saying He was not baptized, he went on to show that after Christ came to the Jordan the water came upon him. Immediately he did this. Did he not ? It is on record. And then the next thing he did was to show it had to be so done, according to the law of the Levitical priesthood ; as if Christ was a Levite ! It says m my New Testament, in Hebrews vii. 14 : *' For it is evident tliat our Lord spranji; out of Judah — not Levi — of which tribe Moses spako nothing concerning priest- hood." He has, perhaps, unearthed some old Testament, like his Smith of the Mormons diJ, wliich says that Christ belonged to Levi's tribe and priesthood. It is strange. Children of ten years understand these things. Then we come to cih. I have made up my mind to avoid all wrangling. I feel just like simply rising above this little petty, back-and-forth controversy, and going forward in- dependently, giving our side of the question, passing by all his little trifling and useless unwisdom. I was asked by a member of his church, or a friend at least, the question, " What is the prevailing meaning of eis ?" And I answered frankly, ** into." That is the jjre- vailinu naeaning, but I also told him that it meant " to " sometimes. In the face of this he gets up here and talks as if I had said that eis always means into. And because he finds two or three or more places where it does not mean Into, therefore I am wrong ! I gave the previdliiuf meaning according to the question asked. He says it is not BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? 181 id at ig of pre- 'to" Italks pause not \ilin(/ is not the " prevailiug " meaning, and tells you that eis is ren- dered over five hundred times "to" in the New Testament. He did not tell you how often it is rendered "into," how- ever, did he ? Now, I took the trouble to count, and eis is rendered " into " oftener in the four Gospels than it is "to " in the whole New Testament. Besides, if he will turn to his Testament he will find : " We went up to — els, into — Jerusalem." Acts xxi. 15. "He went down to — ew, into — Capernaum." John ii. 12. " Committed them to — eis, into — prison." Acts viii. 3. So I can find you case after case where we have "to " in the English, when the fact is, " into " is required to make the sense complete. To, in such instances, involves entrance;. I am going to Scotland ; that means into Scot- land. I am going to my house ; am I going to stay outside? Even where eis is translated " to," it is nearly always into in sense ; yet there are a few cases where the eis does not take the person within. He says it always requires a double eis. Listen : he said " A double eis is required to take a man into a place, or anything tliat encloses him." Let us see. Eiseelthen eis ouranun. — Heb. ix. 24. " He entered into heaven." A double is found liere. But does it re([uire two of titese to take a man into heaven or any other place ? Let the following passages which contain only one eis testify: '* The angels were gune into heaven." "He was parted from tbem and carried up into heaven." " This same Jesus who is taken up into heaven," " Ye have seen Him go irito heaven." " The vessel was received up again into heaven." ** Jesus Christ, who is gone into Leaven." 182 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? There is no double eis in these passages, and yet the angels and the sheet as well as the Saviour were received up again into heaven. It may require a double eis to get Dr. Watson in if he is not careful. As to getting into other places with one eis, look at the following passages in Greek which I have placed on tliis large sheet of paper so that all can see them : EitiecUhen cis ton oikon. — Matt. xii. 4. Entered into the liouse. Eelthen cis teen .stuiaffogecn mitoon. — Matt. xii. 9. Went into the synagogue of them. Artiphoteroi eis hotltiDion pesonntai. Matt. xv. 14. Both into the ditch shall fall, Bleetheenai eis to pur to ai(>o;n"<>//.--Matt. xviii. 8. To be cast inti> the lire the eterual. Balein ai(ta cis ton Koihaua)i. — Matt, xxvii. G, To put thoiu into iht; tie.i.-^my. Alia halhiusiti oinon )ieii}i vis askous k((in(n(s. — Matt. ix. 17. lint they put wiiu^ ii<\v into Iti'fles new. Mee holon to soouni son hh cthcc eis (jeennan. — Matt. v. 29. Not whole the body ol' thee hi; cast into hell. A})elenso)ttai onfoi eis knlasi}t aioonion. — Matt. xxv. 46. Shall ^0 away these inte puinshiucut eternah Ifoi de dikaioi I'is r.'un-.cn aioonion. — ^la.it. xxv. 46. The but righteous into lite eternal. Jfo Kurios aneleejifhfe eis ton oi(ra}iou. — Mark xvi. 19. The Lord was received up into heaven. Katehecsan auiplioteroi eis to hndoor. — Acts viii. 38. They went down hoth into the water. All these passagos, except the iirst, Imve only one eis, yet the persons or things mentioned g/y into tJie places mentioned, whether heaven or gehcnna or th^ i/^^asury. KoTE. — The tvivuslation in iitod l»t't\vt'eii the lines of irxV on this pa^'e ^u>i aot iubcileil ou Uie i^aper plated before tlie Audieuo*. )t the jeived to get 5 into ges in [)er so 17. 29. le eis, I places iry. wrnk on BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT? 183 " And they both shall fall into — eis — the ditch." No ei.s before the verb there. And "to be cast into the fire eternal." There is no m before it. '* To cast the money i7ito the treasury." One eis only. One nis takes the money into the treasury ; one eis takes a man into the fire ; and one eis takes both the leader and the led into tlie ditch ; and yet he tells you that it is a general law, that it takes a double eis to take a man into heaven or any other place. Here is one more : " Than that thy body shall be cast into geheiiua." There is no double eis here. Now, why is it that one eis will take a man into heaven or its opposite, while it requires two to take him into the water ? He tries to fix the Word of God to suit his theory. I ask you to watch, and see if he overturns a single statement I make during this debate, f lUdckhoard was hrri' pnxhirt'd hi/ Mr. McDiartnyL I There is no such Greek under the heavens as that. That is enough to make Homer turn over in his grave. The Dictionaries do not contain it ; the Commentaries say it is not us ; Hellenistic Greek is silent about it, and the Classics are dumb as the grave concerning it. Such Greek is not found beneath the blue vault above us, and I doubt if it is known in the under woild. He meant to irrite l,r hi' iiii i 184 BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? eiaercliomai. He missed an R ( /i/w), and then [)iit in an (Omikron) where it ought not to be, and calls that Greek ! That is the man who corrects my pronunciation of Hebrew! He knows just the accent — whore to strike the last syllable of tahal ! 1 know where to strike too; and on that blackboard is the only place in the universe where the thing he has written is found. What I say is true, or it is not true. I have the books here — about fifty of them — and if he can produce his book of authority for such Greek, I want to see it. This is what comes from rejecting authorities ! He can make Dictionaries, and he can make Greek words, and he is doing all he can to keep penitent believers out of the water ; but you will find in this town of Tonawanda some whose hearts are breaking to follow the Master, and who can see in the desert His footsteps, and from the eternal shore hear His voice. They will say, " Let us go, we want to be buried in the likeness of my Saviour's burial, and emerge from the grave, after the example of Him, who was the first born from the dead." When I quoted Dr. Schaff's history, he asked, *' Who is Philip Schaff ?" It reminded me of the story I heard — I think Mark Twain tells it — of the Hoosier who went to Europe, when some one showed him the bust of Columbus. " This is the bust of Columbus," he was told. Said this man from the Hoosier State, "Columbus? Columbus? who is Columbus ?" Said the other, '• Why, sir, the great Christopher Columbus that discovered Anrfirica." "Why," eaid the Hoosier, " I came from America, but I have never heard of Mr. Columbus." So there are people away back in the north of Canada who have asked me, " Who is Garfield ?" But here is a man that takes the palm, and Asks "Who is Philip Schafi'?" Why, Philip Schaff is one it in s that iatiou strike 9 too; liverse say is It fifty ibority ae can s, and of the a some ad who eternal /e want 1, and ho was Who is iard — I rent to imbus. this ibus? great |Why," never back '^ho ia and lis cue IVVPTISM -WHAT IS IT ? iHr> of the thirteen men on the New Revision Committee, chosen from among tlie best and foremost scholiirs iu the United States, lie is a Presbyi rian. lie is President of the Committee. I would hkc to ask — wJio is Dr. Wiitsou '* I Jiad not heard of liim until I came over to New York State. His fame has not ^^one throughout the earth, nor his words to the end of tli' world, that T liave heard of. This is •* The llev. Philir Seliaff, D.U., LL.D., Professor of Sacred Ijiteraturc in the uion Theological Seminary." Here is a book— Lange's Commentary translated into the EngUsh from the (leruian by Pliilip SchalT; and a dozen vohimes of the same size came from the sam» hand. Now, about these washings. He told you the other evening that beds, couches, or tables were washed three times a day ; he said some thought that these were beds, and some thought they v ere seats, but he did not care whicii. Well, whatever they were, his story is just such another as I heard once belore in a dehate — that the beds were built in as a part of the house, and that they could not be taken up and put into the water without taking the house to pieces ! 1 asked the question then of the speaker, and I will ask it now — If that be so, did not that paralytic have quite a time, to whom Christ said, ** Take up thy bed and walk ?" I suppose the house stuck to the bed, so the poor old man went off with his house, as well as his bed, on his back ! How hard it is to get anything into the water ! To save your body and spirit, you cannot get a bed or couch (klinee) into the water ; the thing is impossible to Pedo-Baptism. Then he said, "If they immersed these beds or couches three times a day, wouldn't they be wet ""'" Yes, awfully wet ; but who ever said they were b; • d three times a day? Please read that from the I. i.estament, my 19 IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) :/. 1.0 I.I tiiii» 125 ■ 50 "^™ MlHI •ttUi. ill 1.8 1.25 1 1.4 1 1.6 „ 6" ► PV. /] V >^ /A V Photographic Sdences Corporation ^ k \ •<^ ^\ Cv 6^ ^:^ <^>^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 6^ ^ 186 lUPTISM — WHAT IS IT '? friend ; the Book of God knows nothing of baptizing these thiiii's, three times a year even. This "three times " is all put into tlie text for the sake of vuikinq a difficulty. Re- mt*mher, in Revelation, " He who adds to the sayings, etc." That is the text applied to Mr. Campbell the other nif»ht. I never in my life heard of couches, either Jewish or Gentile, that were " baptized three times a day." That is put in by Dr. Watson to hinder men from understanding the Word of God. Now lie wants some authority about this couch business. From McKnight, the great Presbyterian commentator, I will read about these washings. This Presbyterian trans- lates Hebrews ix. 10, ** Only with meats and drinks, and dixers immersions." He is not concerned about this sj))iiikling argument. With approval, Adam Clarke, the ^lethodist critic and Bcliolar, quotes Dr. liightfoot, the President of the West- minster Assembly — a Presbyterian, and one who favored sprinkling, too, very strongly, as saying that : " The baptism of John was by plunging the body, after the same manner as the washing of unclean persons, and the bap- tism of proselytes.' Adani Clarke himself says, speaking of Philip and the eunuch, that : '* Philip was instructing him. Ho professed his faith in Christ, and he probably plunged himself under the water, as this was the plan which appears to have been generally followed by the Jews in their baptisms." I quote this, not because I believe that the eunuch did that, but to show that Adam Clarke believes that the Jews immersed the people. That is all. Jewish immersions are not hard to find, answering to Hebrews ix. 10. Prof. Blackie, of the Presbyterian College, Edinburgh, says : BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? 187 these ' is all . Re- tyings. 3 other Jewish ' That anding isiuess. ator, I 1 trans- ks, and lit this itic and e West- favored iter the |the bap- land the faith in rater, as IfoUowed luch did le Jews lersious iburgh, " There cannot be the sHghtest doubt that baptizo^ both in classical and ecclesiastical Greek, si^^nifies dip, aud even to drown, sometimes. The word ' to sprinkle ' is quite different, viz., raino.'' This is from a man who practises spritikiing. They say it is a contradiction. No, sir. Ho thinks it docs not matter. Ue then says : *• Practically, however, this ia of no consequence, iis the wntsr has no virtue in itself, being only a hign of inlcnial purity ; and it Is equally a sign whether sprinkling or dipping be used." I accept Prof. Blackie's testimony, as a scholar, as to tho meaning of the word ; he knows the facts, and I accept him, beecause if he could say sprinkling he would. Ho says, '* It is true it means immerse, but jmicticaUy it makes no difference !" I do not accept him as to there being no practical difference. I do not see liow he knows that. He has not been taken into the secret counsel of Heaven. Who told him that a man need not keep the commandment of the Lord ? That is what 1 would like to know. I said the other evening, that Pedo-Baptist scholars generally have confessed that the Lord commanded im- mersion, hut that on account of the coldness of the climate it might be changed to sprinkling, as a matter of mercy or convenience. Here is a quotation from Calvin : "It is He — the Master — who makes us partake of his death, who demolishes the kingdom of Satan, who weakens the power of our corrupt propensities, who even makes us one with Himself, that being clothed with Him, we may be reckoned children of God ; and that He as truly and certainly performs these things internally on our souls, as we see that our bodies are externally washed, immersed, and enclosed in water." That is his opinion about what was done. But he con- tinues . *' Whether the person is baptized by being wholly immersed 188 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT? in water tbrice or once, or whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no importance." Does he mean to say that the Lord left it ir dispute or darkness ? No, He says : " Tho Churches ouf^ht to be left at liberty in this respect, tn act acforJinij to the difference, of conntries." It is not the Lord's will, but " the difference of coun- tries," that settles it. He adds: '' The very word Ixiptlzo, however, signifies to immerse, and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient Cburch." Such men as these, Calvin, Neander, Stanley and Luther — and I could read from scores besides — admit that the very word baptize means immerse, and that the apostles practised it, but claim it makes no difference, simply be- cause of the climate. It is rebellion against the Great King who sits on the throne, to change Heaven's appoint- ments. Climate ! I will change the water and make it warm, if necessary — put warm water into the font, to suit the delicate and the sick — but I will not change, if I know my heart to-day, the commandments of heaven's King, so long as I believe the New Testament. If I should happen to read Tom Paine, I might then. > ' )ure(l or [181)1 ipute or Rpect, to )f coun- jrse, and I ancieut 1 Luther that the apostles rnply be- 16 Great appoint- I make it bnt, to uge, if I leaven's I should DR. WATSON'S THIRD HALF-HOUR REPLY. {^eveiilli Niijht.) Ladies and Gentlemen : — I want to remark that I have seen about four or five gentlemen here, on the opposite side — the speaker, the pastor, and brother Pardee, the pastor at Williamsville — and all engaged, besides an eminent brother who uses the paper ; there seem to be four or live arrayed on that side, against one. I should think that if the brother had as m.uch modesty as myself, he would hardly have invited the ministers from out of town to help him ; at least I did not ask any one from out of town to help me. I am inclined to think it will take about that four, and ])erhap8 four more, to carry him. I would not be very particular, if they would only report what is true in the papers. I do not wonder, however, that my brother would like to have me leave Tonawanda. He will wish that I had left before he came, or that he had never come, perhaps, to speak for our Disciple friends. About this being baptized. Christ came to John to be baptized; he baptized Him "in Jordan." There is just one passage which I will call your attention to, that spoils that whole thing. I cannot quote it, but you can look at it. It says that Christ came to '• the place where John was baptizing, and abode there. " They say that John was baptizing in the water — "in the Jordan;" and as Christ came to " the place where John was baptizing, and abode there, " He must have lived there " in the water." 190 KAPTISM- WHAT 15 IT ? I' i Oil ! yos, iiiulor Mic wntor. Yon inif^ht. ^rraut t)mt TTo Vw'Vi] on fopof tijo waioi, wIumo IImm-o mi^Iit lio a boat ; hni no. ihov must sny Ho hxoil iniih'r flic iintrr. ('Inist cainu iluM'o, and liv<>il tluMo " in llu* ^Ijuv "- not on tlio l»ank, but ri^'lit in tlio walt'r " wIkmo .lohn was baptizing! " In r»'gnr«l (o tlioconsrcialion of ('hiist. I Raul tlnit I (lid not bolirv(> thiit (Mnist was baplizcd in tho saino siMiso tluit wo atv, l)Ut I took it to bo a conHocration to tlio niinistrv ; ard tlio brotlior tlio other ni^lit ilid not aimwor tlio (juostion ** Wlioro was Christ oonsocratod to tho tuin- istrv -tho juiosthood ? " — if that was not tho placo. Tliat was tho plaoo, from tho vory f»ict that Potor, in liis Hpoooh, said that whoii Christoanio out on the bank, I lo was anointed — tlio vory word that was used, when a priest was anointed for introduolion to tho ministry. He had boeu washed in the Jordan, or sprinkled on tho banks — no matt<'r what, the watt'r had been put upon lUm in somo way, and Wo was anointed, and wont out upon IIih work preaching, lie asks how are you fJ:oin}!; to make tiiat out from the word l»ipfi:<) ? Paul says they " wore all baptized unto Moses. " Vooh the word baptize there, mean the same thmp: that it does when wo have the ordinary ordin- ance performed*^ Not at all. It means thoy were all cou.socrated to Moses — to the doctrine of Moses. This word /'(?;»/ /CO moans sometimes to consecrate for other purposes — to dedicaio. It does, when it says that they " were baptized unto Moses." 1 want the brother to show where Christ was introduced into His ministry if not here — where He was consecrated, where He was anonited, and all that thing. In regard to this prevailing meaning of eis, I thought I bad settled tbnt once, at least ; if the Dictionary settles anything, I thought I had. lit ITo ,t ; but i camo > hank, ?!" that I 1 flamo { to the aiiHwer lio min- Thai HpOOCll, nointcd >st waH ad beeu iks — uo ,u BOino irt work liati out aptized an tlio ordin- eie all Tliis other t they loduoed ^crated, )ught I settles llM'll'^M WIIAI IH II 101 Iln Haid the jnrvniliiii^ iiuMiniii^,' of fin is /;//«». [, th<( liivit timo. 'IMiis is finm tlin I jcxicoii, iiikI I (Mill show V'H a ('hiiiit*'!- \vh«'i wliolo sixhM'ii tinuH. Winch is the prcvailiiif^' tlM^liltdciitimcMor tho onco ? This l.rothcu' Hays, why once, of coiiihi; I Ladies and ^Tiitlcmcii, which is tho most liftfcn or oik! ? Tlu^ Ij('xi(M>iis tell that inattiM", as well as tin; iiRai^<'. In rcf^ard to this preposition, W.s, \\v. misscil the point to- tally. The point is this — yon will liiid lliiit the one piopo- sition always takers you to a l(K;ality, tells you wleie ; und it is just barelyjpossihie that in f^'fiiiK into souk? piuce, into a house, where locality is the idea, the two picpositions may be used. I think that may ho so. I say this — that where there is tlK5 oik; prcjpoHition, it never expresses the one idea of (Mnicealment, as in the case of enclosure in water, or immeiHion. lie (;annot liud such a place in the DibU;, 1 think. I huve not found one. The two prepositions nniy at timcjH simply indicate locality in the hou.se, but that is not the point at all ; the point is, does the one preposition over indicate the idea of conceal- ment ? It docs not. Suppose that in thcHoutence *' He went into Jerusalem," there i.s one preposition — docs it not tell nhere He went ? It does not ,mean that He went into Jerusalem to hide. You will not liud a single instance in the Jiible, that I know of, whore a single preposition is used to convey the idea of concealment, as enclosure. You take tho double preposition, and the idea of concealment alone is intended — as, where Christ exhorted to go into the closet and pray. 1!)2 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? ! i rr TIuj j'ointirt liot nki-re to ^o, but the idea is Hecrory, cou- cealiiitat — to bo surrouuJod. shut iu. You will tiud the double piei)osition is not used in a single case iu connec- tion with baptism. When they write about going into the water to bo baptized, it is always a siugle preposition, which merely takes them to it. Every one of these single preposition.!, so %r as I can see, refers simply to the locality, or the where. The single ein never tells you the hon\ I would like to see that passage. I have not seen it. We must see it to have it proven. I deny it. In regard to that mutilated sentence on the board, the brother wanted to know about that spelling. I do not be- lieve very much in preaching written sermons, but I find it is a good thing to preserve them, when you have them written. I do not like to put the brother in an awkward position, but it is necessary for me to do it. I just happened — fortune favors the brave — to write down a sentencv* in Oreek in my note book here, and you remember that . i. I gave my example, I held the book up, and copied . .s out of it; and when I saw this muti- lated passage here, I looked around to see how it was. I held my book up, and copied it out on the blackboard, word for word, letter for letter, accent for accent — all cor- rect. By Mr. McDiarmid : — Who wrote that ? By Dr. Watson : — I will attend to that ; I will attend to that. By Mr. McDiarmid : — You gave the impression that I wrote it. By \)b.. Watson : — I wrote that myself, as you all know, but this brother has had this blackboard in his possession for two nights and two days, and now here it is with this bAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? 1U3 LDOW, ssion this mutilatul sentouce upou it. I will not say that this deai brother ilid anything with it ; I will not say that he did. Tho qufistiou is, how does it como in that way ? There is the written documentary evidence. Yon can draw your own inferences. I dislike to come in whore tiio veracity of the speakers is concerned ; but I am s^lad I have kopt the record. About those couches. I think the brother must be rather hard up to get those couches immersed. Dr. Carson oflFered lo get them immersed, and he had to take them apart. I believe Dr. Carson is the standard authority among all immersionists — one of tho best authorities I have seen. He is p. stroug one. He could not refer to •' Take up thy bed and walk." He had to knock it to pieces, and immerse it piece by piece. The great Dr. Carson did not believe, with some of these wishy-washy authors, tliat they were perhaps a little roll or a bed, that you would wash or immsrse as any ordinaay sleeping arrangement. Suppose they were, as he says, bods and not couches — something to sleep on ; do you suppose that they would immerse those every evening ? They would be fearfully wet to sleep on, and you would certainly catch your death of cold. If they were not sprinkled, they must have been immersed, and they would be so wet as to be unfit for practical use. I think we must say with Dr. Carson, if we must come to it, that they were put together piece by piece ; nothing but a board seat, perhaps. I notice that the brother seems to be running out of arguments. He has gone back, and begins to repeat over the assertions that he gave here two or three nights in the last week — the same old illustrations. The brother may be able to read Greek and Hebrew, but what about Latin ? Ph. D., he says, is doctor of laws — Latin. How do you get doctor of laws, rather doctor of philosophy ? It is not letiHin doctor — that is doctor of laws. I : if. "If. m i ■» .' lU , < i ! |1 104 HAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? I guess lioliad hnttoi* tako tho Latin Dictionarios, instead of tho Englisli and Greek ones. I cont'e.sH tliat I am i;»norant enouf^li, but I do not think be knows overytliin*?. I iiavc weaknesses and faults, and enough of thom the Lord knows, but I do not want you to think that this distinguished gentleman from Toronto knows everything. I think the best way is to show it, not profess it. I would not say these things if they had not been called out by tilings the brother has said. I would prefer he would not say them ; but just as long as he uses them, I will. I want to give the brother a little something to work out for the next half h'uir, if he will. We differ very much upon our conception of baptism. Where in the Bible does God call the condition baptism ? I hold that baptiz- ing is an action, shown in the command, "baptizing them." It expresses action ; as Dr. Carson says, ''mode and only mode, dipping and nothing bul. dipping." This brother says it is not action ; that it is the result of the action, or the condition resulting from tho action. I want to know if the brother will tell me where in the Bible God defines baptizing as a condition. I have not found it. If he can fmd it, I would like to see it. I do not believe it is in the Bible. Tho very act of baptizing expresses action itself. Here is another question. He told us the other night that the word haptizo hau only one meaning. By Mr. McDiarmid : — I did not, sir. By Dr. Watson : — Perhaps it was a little different — that there was no word which had two meanings. By Mr. McDiarmid : — No sir. Nor that either. You mis- state it. By Db. Watson : — Just hold on now a minute. I under- Qstcad think >s, and you to oronto it, not ad not would 10 uses o work y much • Bible baptiz- ,ptizing *• mode [ This of the in the ive not I do ptizing r night -that )u mis- I under- DAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? 195 stand that he said that tliore was no word that expressed two different tilings. By Mr. McDiarmid : — Not that cither. By Dr. Watson : — I have a (lucstioii. If haptizn is the name for the condition^ wiiat is the name for the action / Bring them on ; I will stand the whole four of you ! The Disciple gentlumen seem to be exchang- ing notes. You will find you have an elephant on your hands before you get through. I am not lia'f waked up yet. I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, tiiis man is nervous. He bothers me every time. Every time he has spoken, I have not said a word ; but every time I get a little warm, a chill comes on him and he turns around, and begins to bother me. \^\\i it shows weakness ; it shows that his cause is sinking, and he will be immersed before he gets through. I have another question here. I put immersion in the form of logic. This is a nut for him to crack during the next half hour. All breaking of Christ's commands is sin — that is the major premise. On his ov\'n admission the other night, the practice of baptizing by immersion is breaking Christ's command. He said that the command, ** Go baptize them," means "Go immerse them," and he said that the meaning of immerse is to put them under, but not to bring them out; he said, " We bring them out for mercy's sake, or they will drown." All breaking of Christ's commands is sin. On his own admission, the practice of baptizing by immersion, is break- ing Christ's command ; admit it, and therefore the prac- tice of baptizing by immersion is sin. There is immersion put in one of Aristotle's syllogisms. I would like to see him break one of these premises. T7 ■f '! II'! 1 100 BAPTIHM — WHAT IS IT ? Auothcr (luestion — The relation of the symbol to the thing Hymboh>:o(l. We hold that the water action symbol- izea the Hpiritual action. That is, water baptism symbol- izes Spirit baptism. Now then, wo hold that inasmuch as the Spirit action is momentary and transient, of course the symbol of the acti(>!i ought to be momentary and transient, to correspond. Hut we hold that there is a condition resulting from the spiritual action — a purifying which remains ; so that when we baptize with water, the symbol passes away, of courHC, and so does the spiritual action ; but the rcHult of the spiritual action — the condition — remains with us. I undertitaud tiio brother to say that baptism is the condition, or the result of the action — that baptizing is action, and that the result of it is baptism, and that the one result symbolizes the other result ; that is, the result of the physical action, that is to say, water baptism — that condition — symbolizes the result of the spiritual action. Very well. This water baptism — the result — is simply being enclosed in water. That is the result of the immer- sion. Tliat is the condition. But as soon as he brings them out of the water, why of course the baptism ceases. What does it symbolize then ? That takes away the re- sult of the spiritual action, because he is not baptized. Every time he tak -s them out, they are unbaptized. With us, the condition, or the result of the spiritual action, re- mains. We have something after we are baptized. I would like to have the brother call that out. The fact is. Dr. Carson thought this whole thing thoroughly through, and he found that it was an unten- able position, so he stuck right to the word action. God commands us to go, and act — do something. He does not say " Go baptize and produce a result," If the result fol- ii^ nxPTlHM — WHAT IS IT ? 107 iliing nten- God s not tfol- lows, and tho man nickons and dicR, or anything of that kind, then we are not rcBponsiblc. Wo are not told to*do that. We are simply told to do Homething. I want to know where God tolls a man to do anything else than that for baptism. Here is another point. The iinraorsionists hold that water baptism is a symbol of spiritual baptism — which is the condition — and also it is a symbol of tho burial of Christ — both of those two thini»s. I want to ask the gentleman how a symbol can symbolize two totally differ- ent things. I want to know how a photogra^ih will exactly represent two different objects. Hero you have a photo- graph of the face of your friend, and it resembles tho face of your friend precisely, and also looks like a barn. Can that picture represent two totally diftorcut things ? The symbol must bo like the thing symbolized. It can only represent one thing. I hope the brother will show how a photograph can be made like two different objects ; tlien he can show how this can symbolize two things. M I iit \'\ Nil i ir I [198] MR. McDIAUMID'S FOURTH IHALF-IIOUR ADDRESS. [Seven ih Xitjht.) Mr. President and Christian Friends : — •'^y dear brother " finds it difficult to fill up his time. Ho could speak nicely when ho had the whole evening of two hours to himself each night ; but now, when I begin to speak, he cannot get along, somehow. Go on and prove your practice ; the way is open ; the course is clear. Prove something ! Do something ! I am sorry to liavo ititcrrrpted him. I will do so no more. He may interrupt me if he likes. If I state that which is not true, I would thank him to stop me. But before enter- ing upon any remarks that are supposed to be good, spirit- ual and to tlio ])oint, I will just raise one issue. It is an issue as solemn as the judgment, and I put it to Doctor Watson before an assembly of his own people, and others. I ask Dr. Watson — Did you write tuat wuich is on the BLACKBOARD ? I waut a yes or no. By Dr. Watson : — No, I copied the sentence By Mr. McDiarmid: — I don't want any speeches. Is that your chirography ? I want yes or no to this question. This can come before a judge, because it is a criminal case, and forgery is involved, morally. By Dr. Watson : — I copied it on my By Mr. McDiarmid : — Yes or no. By Dr. Watson : — I copied it on the blackboard By Mr. McDiarmid : — It is all taken down in shorthand. BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? 199 is. Is istion. Ll case, Itband. You will remember he walked to the blackboard, book in band, and said, ** I thought I had an example here, but I cannot Ree it; I con make one." lie confessed he did not have it in his book, but said, *• I will make one." He said we had an elephant on our hands, and so we have. I am sorry Barnum did not got hold of him. He outstrips Jumbo largely. When Jumbo loft England, the ladies fed him with candy and other sweetmeats, and wept. I wonder if the sisters here, wiien this elephant leaves Tonawanda, will treat him as kindly and shed tears over him as lovingly in the days of liis departure. He came here last evening, and I was watching him, as I was afraid he would rub it out ; he walked up to the board with his handker- chief in hand ; I caught him and said, " We want that." " Do you ?" he said ; '• well, we'll let it go." He then took his place on the platform without hinting tliat it had been changed. The thing is quite too ridiculous, and I am sorry for him ; but he must take that thing back, and de- clare that he wrote it, or that he did not — one of the two. There is no occasion for his going on so. It is a criminal offence, you know, to forge that ! It will rome to the courts if he does not say yes or no. I am one of those men who push right through to the end, and I have the money in the bank with which to do it. Somebody wrote that thing, and if it was not Dr. Watson it was a downright forgery on the part of some one, and who is the man who did so ? It will come to the Tonawanda courts, or he will say yes or no before this audience. He must take his choice. He cannot run over me, if lie is an elephant. I have a thoujand dollars in the bank, which I intended to invest in Manitoba, but I prefer to use it in this way. I am waiting with the patience of Job for the yes or no. (Pause and silence.) ' il r '200 HAPTIMM -NVIIAT IS IT*? I will go ou uow ; it in onouf^h. I want to disciiHs tho question as it ought to bo discussed. Clirist caniG l,o ** the place whore .lolin wsis baptixiiig and abode there." He undertakes to say that if tliafc is true, and, therefore, if immersion is referred to, of course Christ went and alnxh right "in tlie water," whore John was baptizing ! Suppose I tell my friends 1 am going to abide in Tonawanda, the place where Dr. Watson preaches ; must I abide in his pulpit, and only in that spot ; get tho kitchen, dining room and parlor all in his pulpit where he is preaching? I go, I say, to Loudon, to abide there — the place where Spurgeon preaches, and of cour^:), ac- cording to Dr. Watson's logic, I should have to stay right in his pulpit ! That is what ho calls, I supj)ose, a syllogism ! Suppose John was sprinld'nvj **in the Jordan," and Christ went and abode in the place where he s/trlnkled, what better is that ? Or, suppose John to have sprinkled all around the town ? Or, are we to suppose that he had a certain spot where he always sprinkled, and that Christ came and lived right in that spot ? Think of it ! In these days of photographs, and telephones, and electric lights, and steamboats, we have a man talking in this midnight dark way, as if the dark ages had come back again from the dead past. He asked me where was Christ consecrated to the ministry, if it was not in His baptism ? Christ was not baptized at all, you know ! If Christ was immersed, then he wants me to tell where He was consecrated. He says Christ was not baptized at all ; and I ask him then where ? He was appointed to the priesthood by the oath of His Father. " The Lord sware, and will not repent, thou art a priest for eyer after the order of Melchisedec." And not after the order of Aaron. He was anointed iif^ juid H true, Chrirtt in waH abide jiiche.s ; get tl)f> licrc he e there r-^o, ac- ly right logisin ! 1," and >rinl>lf(J, )riukled had a , Christ n these lights, iduight in from ecrated •ist was mersed, d. He \im then he oath Driest for lointed BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? 201 Prophet, Priest, and King when Ho came up out of the water, when the Holy Spirit came down upon Him, like holy oil. ChriHt was anointed of God — consecrated — but the baptism was not tlie consecration. It is never no called in all the Scriptures, and even if it was, it is well known that priests were washed in the brazen sea and in other places. Solomon built a special sea, about eight feet deep to the brim, •♦forthe priests to wash in." — II. Chron. iv. 1-6. He quotes Passow in regard to fis — into. 1 tell you he has not got Passow. Passow wrote his Dictionary in the German language, and how nicely ho can translate from the German to the English I There is the place where the difficulty is. He translates Passow's German just as he pleases, you see. That will not do for this '* into." He said the other evening that eis did not signify enclosure, or envelopment with a view to hidej unless it was doubled I Who ever said it did — doubled, or not doubled 1 The Doctor asked me on his paper the question : Does eis signify en- closure or envelopment ? I said " Never." Now he wants to make out that I said that eis — into — means enclosure I My answer was that it never does. Do I say, when the eunuch " went down into the water " that " into " means enclosure ? No, sir. Philip took him down into the water, as we do now — that is not the enclosure. He bap- tized him — that is the enclosure ; Uiat is the burial. It is there where the enclosure comes in. Here is the example he gave — on the blackboard— of a double eis, meaning into. If ei* means to, what would double eis mean but " too, too"? It M too, too utter. Did not the one eis take Jesus " into their synagogue " (Matt. xii. 9), as certainly as the double ds took David '• into the house of God" (Matt. xii. 4), which was the temple ? It u 202 nAPTIHM — WHAT IH IT ? fH ? ifl '* into tlio liouso of Cioil " in hotli casoH, niul it ifl iho pnnio veil) in both oisoh, only in one pluco ilicrc is *)ne n.s, RHil in ilio other tlirro aio iwo. As to tlio beast falling' " into a pit on th(> Sabbath," tho animal was not in tho ])it at all ! It just fell close to the nt- ,1. it ! I^ut 1 somewiieie near ii! nur as ii nni^'hr. roll over with a double cis really fall in, it shouhl be removed a p;reat way off, on the Sabbath! hr. Watson says that one m never takes a man into heav(>n — so as to hide I DoeH a double m/ Are nuMi hidden from sif,'ht in iuMiven ? Per- hnpfl they are from those outside. TIh^ sam«» was true of Christ in the synnp>gue one eis only bein^' used. " Cast into the lire <'ternal,"- one tis dovn that, does it not? 1 hope it does not; 1 pray (lod that the man who does not speak tho truth may not be cast into the place that is 80 dark. But in all the places in the Jiook of God, that I know of, where it says " cast into the lire eternal," one eitt does it. And so it is all the way down this list which I have ]>laced on this paper before you. You remember I quoted Jacob Ditzler, where he says that etuliio means immerse in the Old Testament, in the Apocrypha, and in the New Testament. 1 showed you that the word eiuiiio is api>lied to the Holy Spii it baptism, — " en- dutui with power from on high," and rendered in the New Version, " clothed with power," and the same by Wesley. '• Oh," he said, "the Spirit is poured on," and then add- ed, " If you pour water on the outside of a jug, it won't fill the jug." Let him settle that with the Lord. Is man like a jug, simply? Here is a vase; I //// it — is it bap- tized ? No. But suppose there is a tender plant grow- ing out of sig-ht within it, and I then pour water in, and fill the vase, — I thus immerse the tender plant enclosed within. Man's body is the vase. " Yoiu- bodies are the BAPTI8M WHAT IR IT ? 208 is ilio lie ris, ," iho to the n' and 1, prcat mo ns [)()es a Pcr- brue of does it m wlio place di God, ernal," his list lie says in the ou that , — " en- le New kVesley. en add- t won't Is man it bap- grow- iu, and nclosed are the temples of the Holy Spirit," says Paul. Now, " the nut- ward man " is filled with the Holy Spirit, while " tlio in- ward man," the human spirit, is rlofhed with the power of the Holy Spirit. It is the soul of the man that is bap- tized in the Holy S})irit, and not the body. The Apostle John says, *' I was in the Spirit on the iiord's day." His spirit was enwrapped, or invested, " clotlied with power from on high," while the Spirit dwelt in His body," as in a *' temple." Now bring on your jug. Irf man only a jug ? Man is not like a jug. But he says " clothed " — etuhut — means to niter. He said this word enduo — clothe— means to enter, and there- fore the Spirit must enter our spirits or souls, or enter the thing baptized, like the water enters the jug. We will see what endno means. '• Nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. — Matt. vi. 2r*." *' John was clothed with camel's hoir." — Mnrk i. 0. Was the clothing inside or outside of John's body ? He says cnduo means to enter. So it does ; but it is not the dothimj that enters ; it is the thing which is clothed. " Herod arraytd in royal robes."— Acts xii. *21. Where did Herod have bis robes, within or without? " Let UB put on the armor of light.'' — Romans xiii. 12. Where do men wear their armor ? *' For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." — Gal. ill. 27. Calvin says we are •• clothed with Christ." Enduo is used in all these passages. When we get to the land of glory, the Lord will enrobe — enduo — our spirits with an immortal body in that glad day, and that is the word that tells of the Apostles being CLOTHED in the power of the Holy (Spirit. Wesley and I 1^1 n 204 HAPTIRM — WHAT \H IT ? alRo tho Now VoiRiou Ray, " cloiliod with powor from on IukIi." Tlioroforo, liko .lolin, tlioy could go out and ho "in tho Spirit on tlu» hord'H chiy" — tlio Spirit in tlioir bodioR, clothing thoir houIh. IIo Raid that if I oaptizod a man according to tho olaRRicH, I would have to koop liim in tho water. Ho Raid that I coufcHHod hnptizo nuMinH to put in, and krepthvre. Indeed I I did nothing of tho kind. I Raid tho word hn/ftizo dooH not moan to tako out. 1 told him thoro iR no word in tho EngliKh, llohrow, (Jrook or Latin, or any other hingungo, that moanR at tho Hiimo tinio to put in and tako out ; : — No, you swallow yours, don't you ? Tlieij do the ij(nnou, perhaps, hereafter. I do not have it with me. It is very singular that Dr. Carson, who is, perhaps, the most critical^and most powerful authority among the immersionists, differs from this gentleman, and says that the word means mode only, and nothing but mode. He either wilfully or otherwise misapprehended my re- mark which I have in writing. I believe that the two pre- positions are used when the idea is concealment by enclosure. The passage, " cast into prison," tells where they were cast. The idea is not concealment, it is simi)ly location. I said that the double preposition might be used for the purpose of location, and so with the single prepo- sition eis. The point is, that the single preposition is never used to express the idea of concealment by enclosure. He did not touch that last night or to-night. In regard to this Ph. D. I will risk my reputation upon it that it is Latin. Philosophfe Doctor — that is a Latin sentence, a Latin phrase. He says it is not Latin, because it comes from the Greek. Let us see. Here we have the 224 IJAPTIrtM — WHAT 18 IT? word i>ropose. Wliut ih tliiit] TImt is I'iii^'lish. Oh, no, it Ib not EngliHli, because it comes from the Latin — pro and pono. It is pure Latin. All of our Knglisli language comes from other tongues, yet wo say we have an English language. These little errors on either ;:ind unhistoric inethod, It is apparent, indeed, from tl^e BaPT1«?m — What is it ^ 2ii9 Writings of the fourth and fifth centuries, that many corrupt and unwarranted usages were introduced, in connection with this Christian ordinance, that greatly marred its beauty and simplicity. It is unquestionable that at that time baptism by immersion was practised with many superstitious and un- seemly rites. The subjects, both men and women, were divested of their clothing, to represent the putting off the body of sin, which, notwithstanding the great efforts to avoid it, inevitably provoked scandal. They then received triune immer- sion, to indicate, says Gregory Nyssen, the three days' burial of Christ; or, according to others, as a symbol of the Trinity. The rite was accompanied by exorcism, insufflation, unction, confirmation, the gift of milk and honey, the administration of the eucharist even to infants, the clothing in white garments, and carrying of lighted tapers, to all of which a myttical meaning was attached. *' But in the evidences of the catacombs, which are the testi- mony of an earlier and purer period, there is no indication of this mode of baptism, nor of these dramatic accompaniments. The marble font, represented in the accompanying engraving, now in the crypts of St. Prisca, within the v/alls, is said to have come from the catacombs, and .'o have been used for baptismal purposes by St. Peter himself, in corroboration of which legend it bears the somewhat apocryphal inscription — SCI-PET-BAP- TISMV- (sic). '* The tradition, at least, attests its extreme antiquity ; and its basm IS quite too small for even infant immersion. Other fonts have been found in several of the subterranean chapels, among which is one in the catacomb of Pontianus, hewn out of the solid tufa and fed by the Hving stream. It is tbirty-six inches long, thirty-two inches wide and forty inches deep, but is seldom full of water. It is obviously too small for immer- sion, and was evidently designed for administering the rite as shown in the fresco which accompanies it. The following in- scription from the Lapidarian Gallery seems to have come from some such font, and perhaps contains a reference to the Scrip- if' 1^ jjl'! 1 m \ ill 230 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT 9 ture : 'Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.' Imme* diately over the font in the catacomb of Pontianus, is the elab- orate fresco of the baptism of our Lord, figured above. He is re- presented standinfj in the Jordan, while John pours water upon his head, and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove. An angel stands by as witness of the rite, and in the foreground a stag, the emblem of a fervent Christian, is drinking at the pure stream. In a very ancient crypt of St. Lucina is another par- tially defaced baptism of Christ, attributed to the second centuiy, in which St. John stands on the shore and our Saviour in a shallow stream, while the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove. On the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus, Christ is also symbolically represented as baptized by affusion." You will fiud that while these authorities may differ, yet they are as good authority as there is ; it is m^u- mental authority against immersion. All these fonts and these frescoes, etc., were in the earliest history of the Church, before the conversion of Constantine ; so that if there is any conclusive evidence that they were not im- mersed, why this must be it. It is certainly as good as any historian that can be quoted as saying that they ivere immersed ; and I have just given an explanation ivhy they were immersed or washed before the baptism proper, which was the sprinkling or pouring. It looks clear from these fonts and frescoes that they were sprinkled with water, and that is my opinion of the Bible mode— that the candidates went to the water and it was thrown on them. Christ had it poured on Him, or it may have been sprinkled ; but there is no evidence from these monuments, and certainly no evidence from the historians, that the mode was immersion, though they may have immersed as a preparatory act and sprinkled afterwards. This is the consistent explanation of the whole question ; but if the brother does not agree with this, I want him to tell us why they were all baptized ir BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT 231 divested of clothing. If tUcy were, then the immersiouistB have not the Apostohc mode now, and they have changed it. I will quote you one or two authorities. Ambrose, in \. D. 340, expounding Psalm li. 7, says : *' Sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shaU be clean. He who wished to be cleansed by typical baptism was sprinkled by the blood of a lamb with a bunch of hyssop." In volume iii., page 300, he says : •* Moses sprinkled with the blood of a lamb and witli a bunch of hyssop upon him who was bapti'/ed in conformity with the law." Cyril, 425, addressing candidates for Christian baptism, says : ** Rejoice, Heavens, and be glad O Earth, because of those who are about to be sprinkled with hyssop, and to be puri- fied by the spiritual hyssop, by the power of Him who drank, at bis passion, from the hyssop and the reed. " Jerome, in explaining Ezekiel xxxvi. 25 : "I will pour out, or sprinkle, clean water upon you. I will pour out the pure water of saving baptism." Also, " Thou seest the power of baptism. He will sprinkle upon you clean water, and ye shall be purified from all your sins. " These quotations are from historians as early as 400, and even 340, so you see that v/e have quoted not only written history in this early period, but we have given you these monumental evidences, cut out in the rock in the catacombs, during the earliest history of the Church ; and, as I say, there seems to be no evidence of the practice of immersion, but all evidence of the practice of sprinkling or pouring. If the early practice of the real consecration was by immersion, why would there not have been large baptisteries, or something of chat kind ? I do not see how it is possible to overcome that evidence. It cannot be !5" « ■t .- ^ 'i ' 1^ ' I 232 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? overcome. These monumental evidence, are more per- manent, more expressive, and more powerful in the tale they tell, than anything these historians have written — mere writings which could have heen changed or corrupted any time. I will put this monumental evidence of the catacombs of the earliest history of the Church — against all the historians you can bring up. I will put historians against the historians of my brother, and I will have the monumental evidence besides that. (Dr. Watson here handed Mr. McDiarmid his book from which he had transcribed on the blackboard, the words eiserchomai eis.) By Mr. McDiarmid: — It is all right except one letter. No Greek scholar writes an y (sigma), in the middle of a word, like that. By Dr. Watson : — It is correct, sir. By Mr. McDiarmid : - No, sir, there is one letter wrong. Sigma is written in two ways. He has the form that is used at the end of the word, in the middle of the word ; and if he wants to test that thing as well as the pronun- ciation of these Hebrew words, I am ready. I will not dis- cuss the pronunciation now, but we will meet in the presence of Dr. Mitchell of Buffalo, and discuss this business of pronouncing Greek, Hebrew and Latin. ! [23a] 3 per- le tale tten — rupted of the igainst toriaus i,ve the )k from I words J letter, lie of a wrong, that is word ; ronun- not dis- in the usiness MR. McDIARMID'S SIXTH HALF-HOUR ADDRESS. [Eiyhth Ni>jht.) Mr. President, Ladies and Oentlemen : — My friend has a very nice way of turning things when he cannot answer a single argument I have offered. When I have swept out of the windows every law he laid down about eis and eis erchoniai, until he is simply speechless, he then says, "There is nothing to reply to." Tlie fact is, it is as much as saying, " There is nothing I can reply to." Do you know what side-light he wished to tln-ow on this matter of naked baptism ? He had one ostensible purpose, of course ; but there is a side-light. He told you he could make you laugh by the liour, at some baptisms in the water. Now he wants to bring disgrace upon the immer- sionists of the olden time, because they were, as he says, immersed naked. I would ask him to tell me if the Saviour did not say, " I was naked, and ye clothed me not '?" What does **naked" mean in that case? Does it mean abso- lutely so ? He would make you believe that it does. The 0" phans thatare in the streets raggedaresaid to be '* naked." When a fire occurs, a person leaps out of bed and goes out on the street ** naked," we say. He knows what that means. It is just barely possible, however, that they were just as he says, in some instances ; but I would just say the authorities differ about that matter, and I am not prepared to state whether they were actually and literally so or not. I cannot tell. He knows all about that matter. I do not, 16 234 UAITISM- WHAT IS IT ? 'd and tlie best historians do not. He wants to throw a side- light of disj^race on immersion. I have in my hand a book, published by the Rev. Thomas Gallaher, D.D. He lias in it pictures — the same pictures that arc in the catacombs — in which they have the Saviour naked in the water, sprinkling Him. They belong to ijDur church — these naked folks. They are sprinklers according to your own books and pictures ! Here is a picture, from one of the catacombs, put here by Gallaher, of a man and a woman in the same bowl, naked, and the administrator is pouri)i;f water on their heads ! They belong to your church! Tiie pictures I would not pass around the house ; they are not fit to bo seen. These are pictures from the catacombs of Rome. The historians can go, but these catacomb pictures are sural These ponrcrs are pouring water on the heads of a man and woman, who sit togetiier divested of their clothing. They are not being immersed at all, but poured I These nude persons belong to your church. They commenced the sprinkling business in your church. He docs not tell you where he gets these things. I have not brought into this discussion a single Baptist author, and do not intend to. Has he brought in a Baptist, confessing that sprinkling is right ? Suppose I could bring before you now, a wife who should testify against her husband, and a child who should testify against his father — saying that he murdered some one — would not that be pretty good testimony ? Now, when I show you Episcopalians, and Methodists, (vho testify that it is immersion, and that immersion was the practice of the ancient church, but that it has been changed — show you Luther and Calvin, who say it has been changed ; also Philip Schatf — of whom the brother BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? 285 a side- le Rev. ic samo avc the r belong )rinJders here by naked, lieails 1 uld not e. The re sure! nau aud They se nude iced the : I have author, rinkling a wife lild who lurdered |imony ? bhodists, lion was las been it has brother has not heard — saying it has been changed ; fi^i tlic Pope, who says it has been changed, and Dean Stanley, who says it has been changed — is it not pretty good testimony that they have changed it ? I will go back now for a moment. I have in my hand what is called the Apocrypha of the New Testament, written in part by Barnabas and Hermas, supposed to be Paul's companions — I do not say they wore — but at any rate, Barnabas and Hermas wrote, according to all authorities, not later than 145 or 160 years after Christ was born. I read from Hermas, — and this is away back before any nudeness, or oil, or salt, accompanied the baptism : '' Now that seal is the water of biiptism, iuto which men go down, under the obligation uuto death, but come up appointed unto lite." Well, fioinr/ down is immersion, according to the Doctor. He cannot go back on that. He stuck to it, that descend- ing the la'lder — yarad — was immersion. Hernias says : " Men go down hito the water of baptism " and " come up." That is back of all his pictures, back of all his testi- mony. I will now quote from Barnabas : " Blessed are they who put their trust in the cross and descend into the water." A little further down he says : *' We go down into the water full of sins and pollutions, but come up again bringing forth fruit." I turn now to TertuUian, who was born a little later — about one hundred and fifty years after Christ. You can- not find any nudeness, or any salt, or spittle, or any wax in connection with baptism back of his time. He says : ** Know ye not that so many ot us as were immersed into Christ" — using the word tinyo — "were immersed into his death." 2ac BAPTISM — WUAT IS IT ? m Jf ^ ■t Then in another place he uses the word mcryo^ the usual Latin word for immerse, and says : " We lire three times immersed, answering somewhat more than the Lord commanded in the Gospel." They hegau ahout this time to immerse three times, confessing that they were adding to the word of God. A httle later — 250 years after Christ — a man was dying, and they poured water on him, in the had in which lie lay, for baptism. But all historians agree that in the first, second and third centuries it was immersion. With one voice they all proclaim that the rule was immersion. I will read from the Christian Mirror, a Congregational paper published in the Eastern States. Prof. Paine, a Congregational Professor in the College of Bangor, Maine, in the oxamination of the students, asked the following questions and received the following answers : Q. ** What was the apostolic and primitive mode of baptism ? A. — By immersion. Q. — Uuder what circumstances only was spriukUng allowed ? A. — In cases of sickness. Q. — When was the practice of sprinkling and pouring generally introduced ? A. — Not until the 14th century. Q. — For what reason was the change adopted ? A. — As Christianity advanced and spread in colder latitudes, the severity of the weather made it imprac- ticable to immerse." He goes on to say that all historians with one voice proclaim immersion the rule. Philip Schaff says the same. To show how sprinkling stood in the beginning of the fourth century, I will give you an extract from Cyprian, of the third century and beginning of the fourth, in answer to a letter sent him, by a man named Magnus : *• You have asked what I thought of those who obtained God's grace in sickness or weakness, whether they are to be accounted legitimate Christians, for that they are not washed but iprinkled." RAPTiaM WHAT IS IT ? 237 (Showing that uashimi was onr tliinjj; and sprinllinp another in those days.) " On this point my diffidence an 1 nioilpsty prrjndjjos none, io as to prevent tluni fi'om followinf; wliat tiny tliitik to be rij,'ht. So far as my poor undcrstandiiif,' conci ives, I think that the Divine benefit can in no respect bo nmtilated or weakened, nor can anything; hss occur in that case, wlien, with full and entire faith both of the ^iver and receiver, they ucctpt what is drawn from the divine gift." This is tlie point. In moments of sickness and death, when necessity compels, he justilies tlio sprinkling. Ilishest judgment is that in the case of necessity, God forgives the sprinkled person, and that he ought to pass muster. If the man recovered, his case was doubtful, and there was a law against his entering the priest's ofiice. Dr. Watson made a statement that is not true. I told you philosojihia was Greek, and was transferred to the Latin wholly and bodily, just like baptism is trans- ferred to the English. And then he asked : " Can he read Latin ?" As if that word was not Greek ! I said it was Greek first. I took pains to avoid just that dodge of his, but he dodged all the same. The word jthilosophia is Greek. That is its oldest con- dition ; and it is just carried into the Latin bodily without change. It is Greek. He stood here, last night, before you, and said eiuluo means to enter ; so it does, and it occurs twenty-eight or thirty times in the New Testament. But now, attention I It means to enter, but always refers to the person entering into something. Emluo means to enter, or clothe, but the person always is found nilhin his clothiiuj. When he said, ** I do not enter into my clothing," I looked to see if he was dressed, and it appeared to me as though he was. Actually, he says, " I do not enter into my clothing I" !l ly- 288 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT? ■/ A firo talces place in a building' — does a man jump into his boots, or does lie jump bis boots into himself? If a man took and bundled up bis clothes every morning, and with one gulp ate them down, lie would be wanting (need- ing) a new suit every day. I am now answering a wise mp>u according to his wisdom. He wants us to think that the clothing or tiie raiment vntcrfi into a man in every case, and that, therefore, the Holy Spirit which endues a man, must enter into his soul, I sp.ppose ! The Holy Spirit enters the bodies of men, I told you, and their spirits are enrobed or clothed by the Holy Spirit. There are three things, you see — the outward tabernacle, the body, then the human spirit which dwells in this outward man, and which in its turn (in the case of the Apostles, at least) is clothed by the Hol^' Spirit, and so they went out in the 2)ower of the H'":y Spirit. So we are said to h' > *^ put on Christ" — enduo is the word. Yes, we are ^^hoj into Christ." He is round about us, we being '* in Him ;" but according to his theory Christ ought to put us on, and be baptized into us. We are clothed with Christ, as with a garment — clothed with His righteous robes. We put Him on ; so we are clothed with the power of the Spirit — the Spirit being, as it were, round about our souls. It dwells in our bodies, which are its outward temples ; but our spirits dwell in the Holy Spirit. He knows these things perfectly well. (Some of these statements apply rather to the Apostles than to us.) The clothing of the body is on the outside ; the clothing of the spirit is on the inside of the body, but outside of the soul. Our spirit dwells in God, dwells in Christ, and in the Holy Spirit — that is scriptural, from end to end ; but he will tell you that we are filled with the Spirit, forgetting that it is our bodies that are filled with the Spirit. He r.\F«TISM— WHAT IS IT ? 239 will twist, :i. id I can frighten him into not knowing who made those pictures I He has rejected histor v, rejected his Discipline (or kept silent about it), rejected Luther, Wesley, Neande)-, SchalT, Alzog, Guericke, Waddiugtou, Milman, the Fathers, and the Scriptures, saying Christ was not baptized, though three mspired men say he was ; he has rejected the com- mentaries on the Bible, the translations," revised and unreviscd ; the translation of Wesley, the translation of Campbell — for they all say Christ was baptized. He says no ; and now, after reji cting everything in his own ^church and in other churches, he flies back underground, and digs in under the church of St. Sebastian, for some pictures made by nobody k.iows whom ! He has no use for Dictionaries. He can make Greek. He has made history about the Baptists and the Bible Society, and about these pictures, and I will reward him with a fine reward if he will tell me who made those pictures, or drew them in the stone, that was found in the catacombs of Rome. He tries to prove from these that sprink- 210 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT H 11 1 liii^' was tlu; practice then. Who knows but what Home Monk cLew them, as a buileLique on these baptisms? I have discussed with Methodists, CongregatiouaUsts and Fpiscopalians, and their last dying struggle, on the last evening, and almost the last speech, is to rush away from history, and Dictionaries, and the Bible, and commentaries, and dive down in the dark, under the Church of St. Se- l)astian, and there they find, drawn by somebody — nobody knows or can tell whom — these blessed pictures, a sample of which is that of the man and woman in a bowl, with somebody pouring water on their blessed heads, to disgrace immersionists ! They surpass the pictures of Barnum, these pictures of persons nude in a bowl. They actually have Christ in the Jordan without any clothing almost, to be poured ! I would like it now if my friend. Dr. Watson, would stnte to this waiting .assembly what are the Greek words for "in water." What would he write in Greek for "in water?" I said en hudati. (He called it Iiiidati. I will hold to my pronunciation until it is proved wrong.) What would he say for " in water ? " Would it not be en hudati.^ If not, what ? What is the Greek for " into the water ? " "Would it not be eis to hudoor ? Is not that what it is in the Scriptures where we read that they " went down both into the water /" It is l-ateheeso ye into all the world, baptizing them." The baptism only expresses the action. They are only coLonuinded to do an action, and when that action is done tl.'oy are also done, and it makes no difference whether the subject lives or dies. Tf they perform the act, they obey the oouimandnn'nt fully. I want that gentleman, or somebody, to give me a word from the liible that describes the result of the act, as bap- tism. I have looked it all through, and cannot find one. I challenge him or any immersionist to give me a word out of the iiible that says that the result of the action, called the state, or the secondary meaning, is baptism. The great Dr. Carson has searched from top to bottom, through and through, and he would not take the position he does if he knew it was a failure and could not be sus- tained. So he takes the position that I take, and which is the only tenable position, that baptism is the action. Every man that takes it as the result of the action has failed, and will fail. To make the word expressing the action both a verb and a noun at the same time, reduces the language to a gram- matical or linguistic absurdity. I only differ from Carson in the application. I thinK his definition is fibsolutely correct ; but when he comes to make an application of that use, then I think he falls into error. Webster says that baptism is the act, and not the condi- BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? 251 condi- tion — not the result of the act. Timl is tlio grcatesfc book in the Enghsli language, and ovou tliat I have on my side. What are you going to do about it ? You will have to surrender unconditionally, or throw away Webster's Un- abridged Dictionary. Which will you do ? By Mr. McDiarmid: — Do you want mo to answer your question now ? Can I ? By Dr. Watson : — No, sir, the people have answered it already. If I had that picture I would use it as a dilemma. Here is the dilemma ; you have got to hang on one horn or the other. Never mind ; don't got nervous. I am in good humor. I have got into the Methodist fashion of exhorting. Three minutes more ? Thank you. This gentleman has got to hang on one horn or the other of this dilemma. He has got to give an unconditional surrender, or throw away Webster's Dictionary. I will hang him there to-night, before this audience, on the throwing away of the Dictionary, or the unoonditional sur- render. He is hanging on it now. He will have to throw the Dictionary away, for he says it is not the action. He is hanging there now, on his own position, that baptism is the result or the condition, and he has kicked Webster out. Poor Webster ! That great book ! I guess he will never look into it again. Ladies and gentlemen, it seems to me that settles the question. I think you will take my side. I think you will say that Webster's Dictionary is about right. If you do, you will come to my position, that baptism is the action, because Webster says so. I do not know whether I agree with Webster, or Webster agrees with me. It might be a little egotistical to say Webster agrees with me. I will say that I agree with Webster just now. It is very fortunate. It is a God-send to me now. It settles the question, ladies and gentlemen. It settles the question. [262] [•4- AN EXPLANATION. * ■ m ■^ I'l il It? Afl my opponent, in liis fiiKt reply on the last evening, gave U8 to understand that the discussion would continue (see his intimation, page 228, that ho would hereafter read from a paper which he had in his library at home) in my next address — wliich proved to be my last, owing to his Budden announcement that the debate would close -I did not sum up the work accomplished as would have been done were it known that the discussion was coming sudden- ly to an end. Judging it proper that each party should be allowed space for a summary, or an appendix, it was proposed to Dr Watson that both the speakers should occupy several i)age8 at the close of the volume, as might be thouglit proper. This the Doctor declined for himself, having in his closing reply made all the summary he desired ; and, by withholding from all his intention to quit the field, having succeeded in shutting off a summing up on the part of his opponent, he desired nothing more. Under such circumstance a, and especially as the book is published at my expense, 1 judge it entirely proper to make such closing remarks as may seem good to me. H. McDi^MiD. A GENERAL SUMMARY. In my first address I showed, from standard Greek Lexicons, that Baptistees, the name given to John, means *• He who immerses ;" that baptizo properly means to im- merse ; and that haptisma literally means immersion. And by the testimony of Pedo-Baptist scholars — Profs. Tyler, BAPTISM — WnAT IS IT ? 258 Foster and Humphreys -I showed tliat no standard Greek Lexicon gives sprinkle or pnur as a meaning of hnptizo. Against all this you have Dr. Watson's statement, that he is a lexicographer, and that he does not care " the flip of a penny for Lexicons I" I then appealed to (ireek writers, who wrote before and after the time of our Saviour, and found that their con- stant use of the word agrees exactly with the testimony of the Lexicons. With the same result an appeal was made to the Greek Old Toritaniont, to the passage — "Then went he down and dlftpcd himself eeven times in the Jordan " — in which the word l.aptizo occurs. The testi- mony of eight different translations of the New Testa- ment was brought forward, beginning with the Latin in the second century, and ending with the Hebrew in the sixteenth century. Then a direct appeal was made to the New Testament in our own language. We saw that bap- tism is connected with such phrases as — '• In Jordan " — *' Came up out of the water " — *' Buried with him in bap- tism " — " Wherein also ye are risen witn him " — •' Because there was much water there," and " They went down both into the water." To this was added the testimony of the historians, saying that the practice in the first, second, and following centuries was immersion, and that sprinkling began in the third century, and was at first tolerated, in the case of the sick and the dying, being based on a supposed indulgence of God. To this the Doctor responds that he is an historian ! (see page 102.) He brings not a single historian that tells a different story. My second address is occupied for the most part with answers to questions that were handed in by Doctor Blighton, but which, no doubt, were inspired by Doctor Watson. 254 BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? In this address, page 52, iu answer to the question : " Does ej« alone, after a verb, ever express the thought of concealment by entire enclosure ?" it was said : " Never, never more ; and no man of sense ever said it did." Thus the later nonsen«e about "enclosure" and " concealment," and {Toing into a place " to hide," was annihilated in advance. In this address it wr*s shown tliat the ceremonies connected with the Levitical priestiiood had nothing to do with Christ's baptism, as He belonged to anotlier tribe. To this you will look in vain for an answer, except it is found iu the curious statement, that •' His High-Priesthood refers back to Melcliisedec, but his main Priesthood was obtained through the Levitical rules! " (page 173.) ''His main Priesthood! " This is only surpassed hy his question on the same page — " Did He not obey all the Levitical ritual as a human priest ? " He did not obey any of it as a " human priest," or as a priest in any sense. So the Doctor would have us beliove that Christ's " main Priesthood " consisted in His being a " human priest " under tlie law, while His High-Priest- hood for ever after the order of Melchisedec is only a secondary afTair ! In my third address it was shown that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is spoken of as a being " clothed with power from on high," and that therefore the Apostles are represented as being '* in the Spirit." This view of the matter was supported by the fact that endiw, the usual word iov clothe, is used— the word which Paul uses when speaking of " being clothed " with his house from heaven. I find that Cyril Bishop, of Jerusalem, 350 A. D., takes precisely the same view. He says : *• The Holy Spirit descended that he might clothe [eiiduo) with power — that he might baptize the Apostles. For the Lord says, * Ye shall be baptized by the Holy Spirit not many days hence.' The grace is not limited, but the power is com- BAl»TlSM WHAT IS IT 9 255 a fylete. For as one covered {enduno) and baptized in the waters is surrounded on all sides by the watervS, so also they were completely b.aptized in the Spirit. But tlie wat( r flows around externally, while the Spirit completely baptizes the soul internally. They were Invested (cnduo) bt)th soul and body with divine and saving vesture." Dr. Dale, of the Presbyterian Church, in his Classic Bap- tism, page 557, speaking of the two passages, " Ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit," and " Tarry till ye bo clothed with power from on high," says : ** The phrases are equivalent, and mutually expository." In this he is right I rtad Dr. Ditzler's admission that eiulxo mean immerse in both Testaments. I showed that enduo is translated again and again in the King James Version to clothe, and more frequently so in the Kevised Version, and in the translation by John Wesley. When the Doctor thought that enduo was not translated '• being clothed" in 2 Cor. v. 3., he declared that " If it is, of course he has the argument" (p. 121) ; but when he found that it is there, he says, " Suppose endni) does occur in there I " (p 174.) I also showed that the baptism in fire is, in every case, associated with the generation of vipers who are to be " cast into tlie fire." But if any prefer to make it refer to the fact that Christians have to pass through the furnace of affliction, and in the fiery trial have their faith tried as gold is tried in the fire, it will meet the demands of the argument equally well. It is still viewed as an immersion. '• In the furnace He may prove thee, Thence to bring thee forth more bright." '* When thou passeth throiufh the fire,'' etc. Lexicographer*, translators, historians, and critics. Catho- lic and Protestant, JJaptistandPedo-Baptist, unite in testify- ing to the scripturalness of immersion. Their opinion that the spirit of the ordinance is retained in sprinkling, only serves to add to the value of their testimony in favor of the true meaning of tiie word used by our Saviour. Against all this what has l>t€n brought ? Well, tlie Doc- tor has brought himseU\ and almost only himself, and himself continually. He rejects the Ijexicons in iotu, and he has 256 Baptism — what is it ? *: no use for the historians. He is both a lexicographer and an historian. He gives to words definitions unknown before, and repeats history not to be found in any of the books. He quotes comments on two verses in tlie Old Testament from Ambrose ana Jerome, and calls thut an appeal to history ! (p. 157.) Finding not a single historian that diifers from those produced by his opponent, he tells us that manuscripts may be corrupted and changed, but the drawings on stone remain the same, as he hies away from Scripture and all known human authority, and digs into the catacombs of Rome to find pictures, made, according to De Rossi, not earlier than the sixth or seventh century ! (See Withrow, his own authority, p. 539.) All we know of the origin of these pictures is by " tra- dition." And even if they could be traced back as far as the fourth or even the third century, which is impossible, they would only prove that sprinkling at that early day was substituted for immersion in certain cases — a fact well known and admitted by every historian. But as a matter of fact the chief picture mentioned by the Doctor — the one found in the catacombs of Pontianus — does not represent John as pouring water on the Saviour's head, as stated by Dr. Watson on the authority of Withrow. But in this picture the Saviour is represented as standing in the water up to the waist, and J^^hii as standing by His side with his right hand resting on the Saviour's head, as if engaged in prayer. There is not the least appearance of pouring or sprinkling in the picture. It is all in the imagination. But as the Doctor has failed to find sprinkling for baptism in the Bible, which he, at the first, claimed as the only authority, it may be well to allow him to anchor to the pictures and the traditions accompanying them. As to his seeing sprink- ling in the picture where it does not appear, this is only in keeping with his theory and practice. He may be allowed this imagination, as the pictures were made by unknown men in the dark ages. How does such an appeal to such pictures harmonize with the Doctor's first speech against human authorities ? On page 90 he says : ** We know what baptism is by the Bible and bv the Bible only." BArTISM WHAT IS IT ? .257 But later on, the catacombs underground become his very cities of refuge, and the pictures therein his chief advocates. Speaking, on page 230, of one of his pictures — the one that has not the semblance of sprinkling about it — he says : " If thtre irf any couclusive evidence that they were not immersed, why this must be it." Thid looks like giving the Bible and everything else up except this one ]iictme. He has found nothing better than this picture against immersion. There is nothing better. Yet from this picture sprinkling is conspicuously absent. Of course, all this well becomes the man who, in hia first '^]>« fcl], had no ns for Dictionaries, but who, in his last, appealed to Webster's Unabridged, calling out at the top of his voice, '* It is a God-send to me now ! " Yes, the man who did not care the flip of a penny for Dictionaries, after failing to find in the Bible or in the catacombs his heart's desire properly attested, closed with Webster in his hand, crying out, "It settles tlie question ; it settles the question, ladic- and gentlemen !'' Yes, at the last, when everything else had failed him, Webster became the ne plies ultra, as well as the sumuntm hunmu. It is not nearly so amusing on paper as it was on the platform, I am sorry to say. It may be well to enumerate a few of THE DOCTORS INNOCENT MISTAKES : 1. In his first speech (p. 103), he quotes the language of Calvin and attributes it to Luther. 2. His stor\ ibout the Baptists and the Bible Society has scarcely the ^^ mblanco of truth about it pp. 107 to 109). 3. Strongs Encyclopedia, to which he appeals (p. 153) for authority, gives a very different story. 4. In his first speech (p. 113), he declares that the Revised Version contaiis the whole of Matthew xx. 22, 23. In his third speech (p. 1-33 1, tae statement is repeated. But in his next address, dehvered beiore leaving the platform, he confesses that the di^puTtp-i passage ia left out, and reveals the fact that ht^ lxu*v it ill the ii»n', by telling us that " very able critics iii Lwiiuon say there was no suffi- ■' .. f i I 1- 1^ I t. Ik*^ 1 1 I' ' ' " f' , 268. BAPTISM — What is it? cient reason for leaving it out " (p. 171), and that it fell dead from the press in consequence. So lie v.as thor- ougbly posted on the whole subject when asserting it was not left out I 5. His blackboard performance and his effort to attri- bute his eisechomoal eis to another hand need no further mention. (See drawing from a photograph of his board, page 137. G. In his fifth half-hour reply he seeks to account for the presence of immersion in the early Clmrch ; declaring that " They got it from the old Mosaic method " (p. 227) ; utterly foi getting that in his second reply he had assured us that " None of the Mosaic washings or cleansiugs were by immersion I" (p. 130.) Yes, he had declared most positively that "It is absolutely impossible to show that any of tliem were by immersion" (p. 180). Yet a little farther along he traces immersion to " The peculiar at- tachment of tlie Jewish converts to the law of Moses !" Although he had declare*! it impossible to find immersion in the law of Moses, he now finds it there for the sake of keeping it out of the law of Christ ! When I was seeking to convmce the jtcople tliat Paul's '* divers washings " re- ferred back to the Mosaic immersions, it suited the Doctor' ;3 puri)ose to deny that there, were any Mosaic immersions ; but when needed, the Mosaic immersions become so abundant that the early Christians could borrow them in quantities ' At all hazards immersion must not be obtained from Christ's great commission. 7. He claims that the early Christians immersed before the wprinkling, which he calls the baptism proper, in imitation uf the Mosaic method of cleansing the leper. This is not only contrary to all the tacts of history, but it 18 also i'outrary to tiie Mosaic method of cleansing the lepf'r. The lejifr was/?rsf sprinkled with blood and water miuglefl, and nt'tenvanh washed or immersed. The spriukling was preparatory to the immersion. (See Lev. xiv.) In ptrfect harmony with this the Apostles and early Christians understood that we must first come to the blood of 8])riukUng by faitli, and afterwnrds have " our bodies washed iU pure water" (Heb. x. 22). The r BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT f 259 before in leper, but it the water The } Lev. and to the " our The Doctor's story about the early Christians immersing first and spiiiikliug afterwards, as the baptism proper, is utterly unhistorical and mythical. It was manufactured in his hour of need. 8. It may be well to point out, by an example or two, the way iu which the Doctor seeks to pervert the testimony of the Fathers. On page 231 he quotes from Ambrose, of the fourth century, as follows : " Sprinkle me with liyaaop and I shall be clean. He who wished to be cleansed with the typical baptism was sprinkled by the blootl of a lamb with a bunch of hyssop." This scrap was evidently quoted with a view of jingling together the words " sprinkle " and " baptism," in the hope that the untliinking might imagine that Ambrose regarded sprinkling as baptism. Nothing is farther from tlie truth. Let us quote the passage without omittinij any of the words. Ambrose says : " Sprinkle me with hyssop and I shall be clean; wash me and 1 shall be whiter than the snow. — (Psalm li. 7.) He asks to be cleansed by hyssop according to the Law ; he desires to be washed according to the Gospel. He who wished to be cleansed by typical baptism was sprinked with the blood of the lamb by a biuich of hyssop." It is perf(!ctly plain that Ambrose considered that the sprinkling of the blood of a lamb under the law was typical of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ under the gospel, and that the washing or baptism that followed the sprink- ling under the law was typical of the baptism under the gospel. Notice how he contrasts the sprinkling and the baptism. He makes the sprinkling with blood preparatory to the typical baptism, not identic(d with it. But to put the matter beyond doubt, Ambrose says : '* So also in baptism, since there is a similitude of death, witliout doubt, u'hiht thou dost sink down and rise again, there ia a similitude of the resurrection." He also speaks of being " immersed into the font," add- ing, " Therefore the font isu sppulchre.'' This is one of the Doctor's historians in favor of sprinkhug! 260 BAPTISM — WHAT IR IT m 9. Ill the same way, on the same page, he seeks to pervert the testimouy of Cyril, of the fourth century. He correctly quotes him tlius : " Rejoice, Heavens, and he jjlad, Earth, because of those who are about to be sprinkled with hyssop and to be purified by the spiritual hyssop, by the power of Him who drank at His pat^sion from the hyssop and the reed." Kindly notice that Cyril here says nothing about bap- tism. Now we will have an extract from the very next page, and thus allow Cyril to explain himself. He says : " The water indeed purifies the body, but the Spirit seals the soul, that hii\'n]ii \h i'u si)ri}ikJ''d (erratitii<'nie'noi) as to the heart by the Spirit and v:iisnia. So all his foolishness about the word being both a verb and .i noun, if it means both the act and the state, is scattered to the winds by Webster's definition of immersion. 12. His claim that bnptizo means sprinkle, since sprinkle occurs sixty times in the Bible, is a very juvenile effort at deceit. The words lait the rvsult of com' plrfv iiil1u)'iice v^'tfhil hif (Oi ij postiihlc nu'diis (Dul iit any conceiv' It is scarcely rKsccsRary to modify theso propositions. The first woiilcl bo abHolutcly correct did it read ** expresses entranct' into condition," etc. Tlio last may be accepted as it stands, since " complete influence" involves an ideal immersion. The truth of his hrst proposition may be illustrated thus: Ships are hcijitizcd by storms, by cannon bulls, by overloadiwiy by contact with icehenfn, and in various other ways. "The form of the act" by which the ship is anisnl to go down into the water, is indifferent. But its entrance into a con- dition <*f intns})osition is secured in every case of its baptism. It is Mi'.HSED. The truth of his second proposition may be illustrated thus: The human mind may be baptized (mersed or im- mersed) in sorrow by the deatli of a friend, or by the loss of property by liie, or by detection in guilt, or by bad news received by letter, or by wire, or by vocal organs, or *' in any conceivable way." So, also, the mind can be baptized in pleasure, in thought, in ignorance and in sleep, by various causes and in many ways. Ln all this baptizo dilfen nothing from the word immerse. Dr. Dale's own books contain such phrases as ** Im- mersed in horrors," "Immersed in ignorance," "Immersed in darkness," " Immersed in sleep," " Immersed in thought," "Immersed in pleasure." Besides, the meaning which lie gives to ////;//e/-.s7? corresponds with his propositions respecting baptizo. lie says : ItAPTISM — WHAT IS IT '? 207 *• To Immkrsk— ;irnnan7j/ — To cnnse to be in a Btate of intus- position (onvflopod on all Hides by, ordinarily, a lluid element), without any limitation an to depth of position, time of continu- ance or mode of accompliHhnient." — ('l by making the same disimction between them. This extract will give his distinction pretty fully as to his supposed difference between baptlzo and dip. He says : "Now, if anything out of mathematics was ever proved, it has been proved that this word does not mean to dip ; that it never did, that it never can so mean, without there be first an utter metamorphosis as to its essential character. That which above all other things discriminates and puts a great gulf between Ixtplizo and 'dip' is the time of intuppositiou de- manded, respectively, lor their objects. ' Dip ' puts its object in a condition of intusitosition momcnturibj ; It puts in and draws out ; baptizo demands a condition of iutusp/z^JMon fur its object without any limitation as to the time of continiittwe in such condition, but allows it to remain for ages, or an eterr ity< BAPTISM WHAT 18 IT ? 277 tor its t»/ e in ity. There are no writings in which these discriminating charncter- istics are more essential or more boldly presented than in the Scriptures. It is obvious, that under these meanings no one can bo baptized into loater, for deatli must follow, and there- fore the theory apologetically introduces 'dip' and says: ' The command of God to baptize ChriKtiaiis into water cannot be obeyed, therefore dipi>in(j into water must be substituted.' But might it not be well to review the theory, and inquire whether God ever gave the command to baptize Ilis people into water ? In fact there is not a particle of evidence for any such command. Inasmuch as there is no element in baptizo for withdrawing its object from the water, there is nothing in Christian baptism to play the part of ' resurrection from a grave,' or of ' birth from a womb.' And if there is no pro- vision for taking out of this grave and womb, it will be hard to find any one who will be willing to go into this water-grave- womb. As the theory cannot exist without a dipping, and as baptizo makes no provision for a dipping, its philological foun- dation falls out bodily." — Glasuc Baptism, pp. 22, 23. Although the Greek Lexicons universally testify that haptizo means to dip, Dr. Dale declares that '* it never can so mean ;" and the only reason for so declaring is his own assumption that dip involves comiu;/ out as well as going in, while baptizo demands no act but that oi mersion, involv- ing simply a state of intnsposition, or n-ithimiess, to use his favorite words. He seeks to draw the same distinction between immerse and dip. He says : " Immerse does not mean to dip. No word can by any possibility mean distinctively to immerse and also mean distinc- tively f'j dip, because these words do not belong to the same class : the one makes demand for condition to be etTected in any way, and without limitation as to the time of its continuance ; the other makes demand for an act defhiite in character and limited in duration." 278 rtAPTFSM — WHAT IS IT? {I ' •! liiM Jli; mm \ Arm ii ■■• ! t 1 ,:C' i The fact that the English Pictionaries say that dip means immrrse, and tliat iunncrsf means diji, is no obstacle in the way of Dr. Dale and his theory. His declaration to the contrary is enon<,'li ! Now, I will show from extracts found in his own book that dip doas not take out what it puts in. Ijike immerse and baptito, it simply iyitusposes. Take this : •' And dipt tbom in the sable well, The fount of Fame or Infamy. " Dipping into infamy does not involve getting out of it. Again : " Dipping deeply into politics. " " He was a little dipt iu the rebellion. " "Persons dipped iu politics" or iu " rebellion" do not, necessarily, ever come out. " Put out the principal iu trusty hands, . Live on the use, and never dip the lands. " This advice of a father to his son not to dip his lands (by mortgage) was given because he feared the lauds would thus be sunk after the dipping, instead of coming out. *' A person dipt in scandal. " — JFarburtuii,. Does this also involve getting out of the scandal ? It should, according to Dale's definition : ''The landscape gives the aumniit of a ridge of land that suddenly dips from siifht, in the mid distance, and rises again in the form of a dim hue of high ground drawn along the horizon. " — Kosa Boidieur. If rfi/) in itself involves rm«r/ ou«, why have we "rises again " in addition to it ? It is used here like haptizo in the Scriptures. " And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water." ,^ '! M I BAPTISM WHAT IS IT ? 270 It that igain the Irises zo in out Dr. Dale's distiuction is a myth. Wli* n ho quotes : ** She flippod up vater in her handK ami ^mivo her child," to prove that dip means '* to take out as well as to insert, I answer, it is the " ii/> " that secures the taking out, )u>t the dip. In the same way the Greeks spoke of " baptizing out of wine jars." So it is evidt. nt that Dr. Dale's distinc- tion between dip and iminrrs<\ jnid between dif and haptiio, like his whole theory, losts on no solid foundation. The following, from liis pen, n. ty be safely endorsed : " It is in proof, that bapti^." demands for its object a condi- tion of iutusposition fusuail^ within a lluid eleiuont) without regard to the act to be used in securing such intusposiiion, and without limitation to the time of continuing in sut h condition ; never taking out what it puts in." Very well; since haptizo demands a condition of intuspo- sition without deciding the length of time of continuing in such condition, we^\ill continue to immerse the candi- dates, making sure that they come out of the water straight- way, alter the example of our Saviour. By putting several of Dr. Dale's statements together, their utter inconsistency will appear. In Christie Baj)tism (p 449) he says : ** Baptizo : 1. This word primarily makes demand for the intus position of its object within a fluid element." This is the exact truth. 2. " This word introduces its object verbally into an ideal element suggestive of a thorough change of condition. " This also is correct. Speaking of haptizo in the commission (p. 405), he says : ** We understand this word here, as in every other like syntac- tic relation, whether among classic, Jewish or inspired writers, as demanding for its object withinness of position^ without regard IMAGE EVALUAT90N TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I _ 1^ 1^ *^ Ui |2.2 li 1^ ^ m 1-25 11.4 III 1.6 < 6" N ^ liice together. For ju8t as in any burial, we sinkiiij,' down in the water as to our heads, the old man is buried, and the whole sinkinj,' down is hid all at once. Tlien, wo emerging, the new man comes up again."— Ilora. in John xxv. 2. Roman Catholic Testhnonif. Stephen II., wlio became Pope A.D. ir/l, having been asked ♦' If it ia lawful, iu case of necessity, to pour water with a ladle or with the bauds upon the head of an infant lying sick, and so baptize it," replied : •' This baptism, if it shall have been performed in the name of the sacred Trinity, shall remain firmly ; especially when necessity also demands that he who has been kept back by sickness, being in this manner regenerated, may be made a partaker of the kingdom oi God.''— Respon. Steph. 12. Dr. Brenner, a Roman Catholic historian, testifies that in France, iu the sixteenth century, spriukliug was allowed only in special cases : " When, for example, there was no suitable place for immer- sion, or the candidate was seized with a severe sickness, making immersion impossible ; although otherwise even the bed- ridden sick were immersed." — Gesch. Daret. der Verr. der Taufe, von Christ, bisaufuns. Zeit. p. 15. Greek Chunk Testimomj. De Stourdza, a native Greek, says : " The distinctive character of the institution of baptism is immersion, baptisma, which cannot be omitted without de- 288 IIAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? ptrdyiiif^ the cniMrniiiticiil meaning of the Bacrament, and without ciiiitradic-tii)^', ut tiio Hniue time, tho etymologicnl meaning' of tlie won! whicii Kerves to (h't^i^Miiite it." •' Tilt' W( stMU C'huich, then, has dcpaiUd from tlie imitation of JfKUs Chiist. Siifc has lumUi to disappear all tho sublimity of tho external Kij'ii In i flfct, tho vcrl) hajitiio — immerse — ha8 only one acc( ptation. It literally and perpetually si{,'ni- fieK to plunj,'e. l»ii[ilihni and immersion, therelore, are identical; and to say bnpti.sm h\j aspnsKnt is as if ono should eay iinmer- aiOH h\i aspemiiDi, or utter any other contradiction of the same nature." — (Jonsid. sur la Doct. et I'Esp, de I'Efil. Orth. p. 87. Lutlicrun Cliurch Testimony. Mathiks, in a work that took the prize iu the Univer- Bity of Berlin, says : " In the Apostolical Clmrch, in order that a communion with tho death of Christ mi^ht bo sij,Mjit)ed, the wlude body of the person to be haptized was immersed in the water or rivor, and then, in order that a connection with the resurrection of Christ mij^ht bo indicated, the body af,'ain emerged, or was raised out of the water. That tliis rite has been chaityed is, indeed, to be tanwntid ; for it jiluced before the et/ts, mont aptly, the symbolical nwaniiKj of litipfi.sin.^' — Bib. Hist. Do<,'mat. Expos. Bap. p. 116. Augustus Neandek, in the first edition of his General History, says : *' Baptism was originally administered by immersion : to this form many comparisons of the Apostle Paul allude, the immer- sion being a symbol of tho dying, the being biu'ied with Christ, the emersion being a symbol of the resurrection with Christ, as the two parts in the new birth, a death of the old man and a resurrection to a new life." In the last edition of the same work, he says : " In respect to the form of baptism, it was, in conformity with the original institution and the original import of the symbol, performed by immersion, as a sign of the entire immersion into the Holy Spirit, of being entirely penetrated by the same. It was only with the sick, where the exigency re- nAPTISM— WFIAT IS IT?* 2ft0 'I 1 quired it, tliat any oxcoption wiis iiiiulo ; ntid in tliifl caHo baptinin was administnod by sprinkling'." LuTiiKH liimHL'lf, utter t^iNin},' vjuious rcasous for believ- iiig that baptihU) in imiiicisidii, suvh : "On this account I could wish tliut IhoM* wim arc to Le baptized Khonld ho coniph'ldy iniinerMHl into the wator, as tho word signilics and the niyhtical rite i xprts.scs; not because I think it ncccRsary, but because it would ha beautiliil, that uf a thinj? so perfect and full ; an expn.vsion Hk( wise lull and perfect shouhl bo given, rk also it was inslittited, without doubl, by Christ." — Captiv. Babylon., Opera, Luth. toni. ii. p. 70, Wit. ed. 1562. Melancthon says : " Baptism is immersion into water, wliich is made with this admirable benediction : ' I b;ipti/o thee,' " &c. " The immer- iiion signifies that our sins are washed away, and nier<^ed into the death of Christ." — Cattuh. Mrl(iii(li(»iiif <>/>. (hn. Par. i. p. 24. Geo. C. Knapp, Professor of Theoh)gy in tiie I'liiversity of Ualle, Germauy, says : ** Immersion is peculiarly af^roeable to the institution of Christ, and to the practice of the Apostolical Church ; and so even John baptized ; and immersion remained common a long time after, except that, in the third century, or perhaps earlier, the baptism of the sick {baptismti diiiuornm) was perftirmed by sprinkling or affusion. Still some would not acknowledge this to be true baptism, and controversy arose concerning it, so un- heard of was it, at that time, to baptize by simple affusion." — Knapp's Theology, p. 48tj, 2nd Am. ed., 1845. Theophilus C. Stokr, Professor of Theology in the University of Tubingen, says : " When the Lord commanded that disciples should be bap- tized. (Matt, xxviii 19), the apostles, through those things which had gone before, could have understood nothing else than that men should be immersed in water ; nor did they, in truth, 200 n\I»TlHM — WHAT IS IT? nndorfitand anytliiiif? flso Imt iinniorsion, as is cviilrnt from tlio toHtimcuy <»1' tho kiickmI writiiii;^, aiul fn»m tlio tiKU'^o of tho niiciciit Church, hy which iimiii rsion hud h«'('ii ho received that, a'^ yet ill the third century, the haplisiu of the sick, for exaiupU*, becauKO it was |)erloinied hy the allusion of water, waw hy sumo entirely rejected, hy otliers certainly it was esteemed far less than tlie hapiism of the rest, wh»» were hapti/ed in health, that is, not perlused or sprinkled with the salutary water, in tho manner of the sick, hut were hathed. Otherwise the ancient custom, certainly amon^' those who were hapti/ed in In altb, oven in tho Western Church, was preserved u lon^' time ; aye, then also, when niiion^' somo of tho western churclus, tho ancient custom heinj; chauf^ed, they had introduced atTusion universally, there were not wanting' others which continued to hold tho ancient custom. Since these thinj,'s were so, it is altof,'ether to be lauii nted, that of the wishes which our Luther had ecpially with respect to the usa^'e of immersion in tho suc- cessive administration of baptism, and with respect to the ounimon u.so of the cui) in tho sacred supper, bo was permitted to accomplish only the latter." Presbyterian 1 Cdlinwni/. John Calvls, in his comments on Jolin iii. 23, says : " But from tlieso words it is lawful to conclude that baptism was cehdjrated by John and Christ by tho submersion of the whole body." On Acts viii. \jS, he says : " Hero we see plainly what the rite of baptizinj^ was amon, or umnerne ; and its K)(H)iii i whole l)()ily was oniittod only in the casn of tho sick, who could not leave tlmir hods. In tliirt case spriuklin<^ was substituted, which wan oiilied clhilr biiiilisni. The Clrook Church, as well as theschisinatics in tho Kasl, retained tho(MiRtom of iminoiHing the whole body ; but thu WfKternCdnn'cli adopted, in tho thirteenth century, the mode c.f bapliHin by Kpririkli/i«^, which lias boon coutiiuied by tin* Protestaiits, the liaptistH only excepted. Tho introduction of this mode of baptism was owing to the great inconvenience which arose from tin iinmersion of tho whole body in the northern cliinatos of Europe." — Art. liap. Phil, ed., 1820. The Edinhur«h Exi^LYOLOPHDiA says : " Baptism, in the apostolic ago, was performed by immersion. Many writers of respechibility m<>intain that the (Jroek verb baptizo, aa well as its Hebrew synonym, sometimes denotes sprinkling ; but the various passages to which they appeal will lead every candid mind t ) a dilLfrent conclusion. The circum- stances recorded concerning tho first udininistration of baptism are likewise incompatible with sprinkling." " It is impos- Bible to mark the precise period when sprinkling was introduced. It is probable, however, ti)at it was invented in Africa, in the second century, in favor of clinics, liiit it was so far from being approved of by the Church in general, tliat the Africans them- BelvcH did not count it valid." "It was not until 1311 that the Legislature, in a Council hold at Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to bo indifTerent. In this country, however, sprinkling was never practised, in ordinary cases, till after the Ur^formatiou ; and in England, evoi in the reign of Edward VI., trino immersion — dipping first tho right side, secondly, tho htft side, and last, the face of the infant — was commonly observed. But during tho persecution of Mary, many persons, most of whom were Scotsmen, lied from Eng- land to Geneva, and there greedily imbibed tho opinions of that Church," "and returning to their own country, with Knox at their head, in 1559, established sprinkling in Scotland. From Sootland this practice made its way into England in the 294 BA1>TISM — WHAT IS IT ? reign of Elizabetli ; but was not authorized by the Established Churcli. In tlie Assembly of Divines held at Westminster, in 1543, it was keenly debated, whether immersion or sprink- ling should be adopted ; twenty-five votes for sprinkling, and twenty-four for immersion ; and even this small majority was obtained at the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had ac- quired great influence in that assembly. Sprinkling is therefore the general practice of this country. Many Christians, how- ever, especially the Baptists, reject it. The Greek Church universally adheres to immersion." — Art. Bap., Phil, ed., 1832. The Encyclopedia Britannica says : " The custom of sprinkling children instead of dipping them in the font, which at first was allowed in case of tb'" weakness or sickness of the infant, has so far prevailed that immersion is now quite excluded. What principally tended to confirm the practice of affusion or sprinkling was, that several of our Pro- testant divines, flying into Germany and Switzerland during the bloody reign of Queen Mary, and returning home when Queen Elizabeth came to the crown, brought back with them a great zeal for the Protestant Churches beyond the sea, where they had been sheltered and received ; and having observed that, at Geneva and other places, baptism was administered by sprinkling, they thought they could not do the Church of Eng- land a greater piece of service than by introducing a practice dictated by so great an authority as Calvin. This, together with the coldness of our northern climate, was what contributed to banish entirely the practice of immersing infants in the fonts." — Art. Bap., 7th edition, Edinburgh, 1842. Historical Testimony. K. K. Hagenbach, Professor of Theology in the Univer- sity of Basle, says : *' Sprinkling also (instead of dipping) gave rise to many disc issions. Thomas Aquinas preferred the more ancient cu6 jm, because dipping reminded Christians of the burial of Christ ; but he did not think it absolutely necessary. From \ BAPTISM — WHAT IS IT ? 205 by ng. tice the thirteenth century sprinkling came into more general use in the West. The Greek Church, however, and the Church of Milano still retained the praotico of immersion." — Compend. Hist. Doctr., vol, ii., p. 81, Edinburgh ed., 1847. George Waddington writes in his Church History, chap, ii. § 3 : " The ceremony of immersion (the ohlst form of bapti.^m) was performed in the name of the three persons of the Trinity." Jcirish Tffitinioni/. Rabbi Maimonides, of the twelfth ceutury, writes : " "Wherever, in the law, washing of the flesh or clothes is mentioned, it means nothitig else than dipping of the whole body in a laver." " For if a man dips himself all over, except the tip of his little finger, he is still in his un- cleanness. Every one that is baptized [as they were on com- ing from the market] must immerse the '>-hoIe body. In a laver which holds forty scaJis [aboiit one hundred gallons] of water, every defiled person dips himself, except a profluvious man ; and in it they dip all unclean vessels. A bed that is wholly defiled, if he dip it part by part, is pure. If he dip the bed in the pool, although its feet are plunged in the thick clay at the bottom of the pool, it is clean. What shall he do with a pillow or bolster of skin I He must dip them and lift them out by the fringes." — Adkins, p. 108. Rabbi L. Kleeburg, of Louisville, Ky., on Dec. 23rd, 1870, answered the subjoined questions as follows : 1. What does tcival mean? "It means to immerse, to dip." 2. Does it ever mean to sprinkle or to pour ? " It never means to sprinkle or to pour." 8. Did the Hebrews always immerse their proselytes ? "They dvl. The whole body was entirely submerged." 4. Were the Jewish ablutions immersions? " Before eating, and prayer, and after rising in the morning, 296 IJAPTTSM WHAT IS IT ? they washed; wlieu thoy have hoeomo unclean, they must immerfie." JosEPHus, of the first century, says : "For our ships havinpf been baptized in the midst of the Adriatic, being about six hundred in number, we swam through the wliole night." Testimonii Touchimj Murk vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38. Thomas S. Greene, of London, of the Church of England, in his translation of the New Testament gives Mark vii. 4 thus : " And coming from the market-place, they do not eat unless they dip themselves : and there are many other matters which they have received to hold, dipping of cups, and jars, and brazen vessels, and couches — and the Pharibcos and Scribes asked him : Why do not thy disciples walk according to the trndition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands ?" —♦ Twofold New Test." And Luke xi. 38 he translates : " And as he spoke, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him, and he went in and lay down. But the Pharisee, on seeing it, wondered that he had not dipped before dinner." Dr. H. a. W. Meyer, Lutheran, in his commentary on the Gospels, says : " The expression in Mark vii. 4 is not to be understood of the washing of the hands (as interpreted by Lightfoot and Wetstein), but of the immersing, which the word always means in the classics and the New Testament ; that is here, according to the context, the taking of a bath. So Luke xi. 38. Having come from the market, where, among a crowd of men, they might have come in contact with unclean persons, they eat not without having first bathed themselves. The representation proceeds after the manner of a climax ; before eating they always observe the washing of hands, but [employ] the bath when they come from the market and wish to take food." — Chase, p. 95. ey must fit of the •- re swam 38. lurch of 3nt gives ^ at unless ers which jars, and - d Scribes Qp to the hands ?" vith him, on seeing ntary on jrstood of tfoot and lys means according Having men, thev jy eat not Bsentation ting they the hath 1 food."—