» » CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. REV. DUNCAN D. CURRIE, or TBB CONrSRENCE QY EASTBKIi BBITISH AKEBTOA. "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and yB shall be clean."— fizEKiEL ;jti : 35. " And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upou All flesh.''— Joel 2 : 28. ** For the promise is unto you, and to your children."— Acts : 39. ENLARGED EDITION. 1^' TORONTO: S. ROSE, METHODIST BOOK ROOM, KING STREET. HALIFAX: A. W. NICOLSON, METHODIST BOOK ROOM. 1874. PKEFAGE. ■♦♦•- This Catechism is written because such a work is believed to be needed. Many, who have not access to larger and better bool> The first part of this Catechism was published about five yeart ago. Several editions of the work have, meanwhile, been sold. Various circumstances have combined to indicate the necessity of a fuller treatment of the subject than was aimed at in the prepa* ration of the first edition. The criticisms to which it has been subjected, by persons of opposite views, have called for conside- ration. The second part of this work has, therefore, been written. If it had not been that the first part was originally stereotyped, it is probable that, in preparing the larger work, the mould would have been broken up, and the work recast. The writer acknow- ledges indebtedness to others v* '\o have preceded him in this field of discussion ; and he is specially indebted, in the chapter on Classic Baptism, to an elaborate and excellent work on that sub- ject, by Rev. James W. Dale. If these pages shall, as it is hoped, help inquiring minds to recognize and accept the truth, and thus promote the interests of the Redeemer's kingdom, they will not have been written in vain. D. D, q, Fbkdbricton, N. B., October, 1869. COMTEK TS. •*• FIRST PART. Chap. ^^•^ I. Different Baptisms 5 II. Jewish Baptisms 5 III. Scriptural Washing 7 IV. Importance of Mosaic Baptism 9 V. Meaning of the Greek Word Baptizo 11 VI. Classical Meaning of the Greek Word Baptizo 13 VII. Scriptural Meaning of the Word Baptizo 13 VIII. Affusion 1^ IX. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit 16 X. John's Baptism 20 XI. The Mode of John's Baptism 24 XII. Christ's Baptism 24 Xlir. Christian Baptism 26 XIV. The Subjects of Christian Baptism 28 XV. Circumcicion and Baptism 38 XVI. Mode of Christian Baptism 89 XVII. Philip and the Eunuch 41 XVIII. The Jailer of Philippi 43 XIX. Buried hy Baptism . 43 XX. Israelites Baptized unto Moses 45 XXI. Noah and the Ark 45 XXII. Paul and Apollos 46 XXIII. He that Believeth and is Baptized 47 XXIV. The Immersionist Creed Inconsintent and Narrow 48 CONTENTS. SECOND PART. Chap. Paoi XXV. Positions Defined 51 XXVI. Irainersionist Stratagem 53 XXVII. Paul and Regeneration 00 XXVIII. Imraersionists and the Greek Word Baptize 6ft XXIX. Meaning of Words 08 XXX. Classic Baptism 70 XXXT. Modes of Classic Baptism 72 XXXII. Iiumersionist Inconsistencies 81 XXXIII. Testimony of Christian Greek Authors 84 XXXIV. The Baptism of Blood 86 XXXV. Religious Purification 87 XXXVI. Naaman the Syrian 93 XXXVII. Greek Church Baptism 94 XXXVIII. Christ's Ordination 97 XXXIX. Dipping Difficulties 103 XL. Immersionists and Infant Baptism 107 XLI. The Covenant of Grace 110 XLII. The Great Commission 115 XLIll. The School of Christ 116 XLIV. The Day of Pentecost 118 XLV. Apostolic Exam|)le8 119 XLVI. Believers' Baptism 123 XLVII. Objections Considered 134 XLVIII. The Immersionist Bible 133 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. FIRST PART. -^♦-•- I. — ^Different Baptisms. 1. Are there different baptisms mentioned in the Scrip- tures ? Yes. Jewish baptisms, or the baptisms required by the Mosaic ritual. John's baptism. Christian baptism, or the baptism of water required in the Christian dis- pensation. And the baptism of the Holy Spirit. II. — Jewish Baptisms. 2. What were the Jewish baptisms? Various washini^s imposed by the Mosaic ritual, and which were to^ continue until the beginriinjr of the Christian dispensation. Hebrews 9:8-10: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, {baj^tism.'i in the original Greek,) and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." 3. To what did these baptisms pertain V ^ \- These divers baptisms were ordinances pertaining to the flesh or bodv ; they were therefore personal. 4. How is it shown that these baptisms were personal? The Apostle contrasts the inefticacy of these various baptisms, visibly applied to the person to purify the con- science, with the suflicient efficacy of the blood of Christ M'hen sprinkled in behalf of the person. Hebrews 9:13, 14: "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more Bhall the 6 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. bloofl of Christ .... purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God." 6. Were the priests to be subjects of these baptisms ? It was required of the priests that they should be cleansed for the work of the ministry and the priesthood, by the sprinkling of water upon them, and by their be ing anointed with oil. G. Did the JVIosaic ritual require that the priests should be washed with water ? Yes. And that ritual also shows that God's method of cleansing or washing the person is by the visible mode of sprinkling. 7. Is it affirmed in the Mosaic ritual that the priest should bathe himself in water ? It is ; and it will be shown hereafter in these pages, that tlie word rendered "bathe" means to wash or to i-. I)y what passages of Scripture is it proved that the ^.'•iost^ were to be washed or cleansed by the sprinkling of witer upon them ? Exodus 29: 1-7: *'And this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them, to hallow them to minister unto me ill the priest's office, .... Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto tlie door of the tabernacle of the congrega- tion, and shalt wash them with water ; . . . . then shalt thou take the anointing oil and poui it upon his head, and anoint him." Exodus 40:12-15: "Thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons, and wash them with water. ... And thou shalt anoint them, .... that they may minister unto me in the priest's office, for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations." Numbers 8 : 5-7 : "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do imto them to cleanse them : Sprinkle water of purifying upon them?'* 9 What was the mode prescribed in the Mosaic law for the ckansing of the lepers ? They were to be sprinkled seven times. Levitictui A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 7 14: 7: "And he shall pprinkle upon him th.nt is to he cleansed from the leprosy seven limes, and shall pro- nounce him clean." 10. What ceremony did the ritual of Mosef require for the cleansine: from a dead man ? Whoever touched a dead hody was unclean under the law, and could only he washed or made clean V)y having water sprinkled upon him. Numbers 19 : 13-20 : ** W^hosoever toucheth (a dead body) .... because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean. And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and spHnkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and ttpon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched one dead," etc *' But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut oft' from amone: the con- gresration ; .... the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him ; he is unclean." 11. Did these washings, which the Apostle Paul called " divers baptisms," include the baptism of all the people ? Yes ; as all were sinners and needed cleansing, so all were required to be sprinkled, that they might thereby be washed or made clean. Hebrews 9: 19: " For when Moses liad spoken every precept to all the people according to the law^ he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the peopled 12. Were any persons baptized under the law by im- mersion ? There were sometimes the immersions of cups and other inanimate Jhings, but never the immersion of a person. There is no passage of Scripture to show that any person wf.s ever washed or cleansed by immersion, though the priests and all the people were baptized — that is, washed, or cleansed, by sprinkling. III. — Scriptural Washing. 13. Of what is baptism symbolical ? Baptism is the outward symbol of the inward w&ili* ing or cleansing from impurity. 8' A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 14. Is Scriptural wasliing in close analogy, as regards the mode, with the ordinary washings in every-day life? No. The Scriptural washing of a person is always effected in connection with the act of sp. ikling. Hut the ordinary washing of a person, and washing gen- erally, in daily life, are performed by rubbing, or similar operations. It is neither by simple immersion, nor sj)rinkling, that we wash ourselves, our clothing, or our furniture. The immersion of a person, or thing, under w^ater is not of itself sufficient to cleanse. God's wisely established plan, however, is that in spiritual life sprink- ling is washing, through sprinkling there is cleansing. 15. Do the dictionaries of our language show that to wash means to immerse ? Worcester (edition 1849) gives nine diiferent mean- ings of the verb to wash, but no one of these is to immerse. Webster (unabridged edition, 1861) gives twelve different definitions, but in no one of these does he indicate that the word means simply to immerse. The second definition given by him is: " To wet ; to fall on and moisten, as the rain washes the flowers or plardsP 16. Do the Scriptures teach that immersion is essential to washing? No. The application of water to a part of the body significantly repi-^sented the perfect cleansing or purity of the whole man. It was a custom not only among the Hebrews, but also among the Greeks and Latins, to wash their hands in token of their innocence, and to show that they were pure from any imputed guilt. In Isaiah 6 : 7, it is shown that the entire pur- gation of the prophet from moral defilement was secured by simply applying a coal of fire to his lips only. " Lo," says the seraph, " this hath touched thy lips, and thy in iquity is taken away, and thy sin is purged." Psalm 26 : 6 : " I will wash my hands'in innocency." Matthew 27: 44: "Pilate .... took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just man.'* 17. By what passages of Scripture is it proved that A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 9 the lieart and flesh are made clean or purified through the act of sprinkling? Ezekiel 36 : 25 : *' Then will I sprinkle eh^an wa- ter upon you, and ye shall be clean." Psnlni 51: 7: *'l*urge me with hyssop, (as the law required, Leviticus^ chapter 14, that is, take hyssop, and dip it in wa- ter, and sprinkle me,) and I shall be clean : wash me, (in this way,) and I shall be (spiritually) whiter than fmow." Hebrews 9: 13: "The blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctijleth to the purifying of the flesh." Hebrews 10: 22 : " Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil con- science, and our bodies v/ashed (that is, sprinkled) with pure water." 18. What authority have you for supposing that the word washed, in Hebrews 10: 22, should be sprinkled, and not immersed ? There is no passage in the Scriptures that teaches that to wash means to immerse. The Holy Spirit has not chosen to make immersion a symbol for the washing or cleansing of a person ; but, on the contrary, sprinkling is throughout the Bible the symbol of the cleansing and the blessing of the bodies and the souls of men. We need, therefore, the double baptism — having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies sprin- kled — that is, baptized — with pure water. 19. What is meant by the bathing required in the pu- rification of the Jews ? The Hebrew word, which in some passages is ren- dered " bathe," means only to " wash," and is in many places in our English Bible now rendered wash. Bath- ing does not imply immersion, and may be performed without it, and is so performed by multitudes every day. IV. — Importance of Mosaic Baptism. 20. In what consists the importance of Mosaic bap- tism ? The waier baptism of the Mosaic ritual ought not 1* 10 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. to be undervalued by us, because of its identity with Christian baptism. 21. Wherein can this identity be recognized ? Firstly, the iinj)ort of baptism under both dispen- sations is consecration. Secondly, the one grand idea pervading the whole system of revelation in the Old Tes- tament and in the New, is the cleansing and renewing of man's depraved nature by the dispensation of God's Spirit, and this is symbolized in the system of water- lustrations, or cleansings, in both Testaments. 22. Why is it that in the new dispensation there is but one baptism, whereas in the old there were " divers baptisms" *? The peculiar nature of the Levitical dispensation made its various baptisms indispensable ; the superior simplicity of the new admitted of their being condensed into one, and that one to occupy the initiatory place of abolished circumcision. 23. Were any others except the Jews baptized under the Mosaic ritual ? The Mosaic ritual was designed especially for the Jews alone, but during the interval of four hundred years between the Old Testament and the New, the Jewish rabbins are supposed to have invented the baptism of converts to the faith. 24. When a convert was received into the Jewish Church, to whom were the sign and seal of baptism applied ? If the convert were the head of a family, he and all his family, even to the children of eight days old, were proper subjects for baptism. 25. What word was generally used to express this in- itiatory rite ? The Greek word haptizo became the popular term ; and, because of its frequent use in this connection, it came to be applied vernacularly to express any sacred ablution. A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM, 11 V. — Meaning op the Greek "Word Bai'Tizo. 26. What is the meaning of the Greek word baptizo ? It ha8 a variety of meanings, like ahnost every other word in the Greek and other languages. 27. Do words have certain fixed significations 7 No. Words are changeable in their significations Words in frequent use in Shakespeare's writings are now unintelligible without a dictionary. Many of the house- hold phrases of a hundred years ago are now obsolete. Words fade. They assume new shades of meaning. They die out. The same word is now used by different persons with various and sometimes opposite significa- tions. No word has a fixed, arbitrary meaning. We use words as signs to express ideas, and our wants are 80 great that we must sometimes use old words in a new sense. In many instances, the best-chosen word but poorly expresses the idea of the thinker. Thoughts will sometimes weave a new garment for themselves, and there is then a new creation in the world of words. Hence new editions of our dictionaries are needed sev- eral times in a lifetime. 28. Is there any word in the Greek language that means what baptism means in the English ? No ; it was not possible there could be such a word. By baptism we mean a Christian ordinance, in the observance of which persons are initiated into the Christian Church. The word baptizo originally had no sort of ecclesiastical sense. There was among the Greeks no such ordinance or ceremony, and therefore they had no need of a word to mean that which did not exist. They were no more likely to have a word in that language that meant baptism, than a word that meant photograph, or telegraph, or railroad, or steam-engine or any thing unknown among them. A language might possess, in the grandest luxuriance, all the words that a heathen nation wants, and yet its vocabulary be barren of those terms which a Christian literature needs. 12 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 29. Why was the Greek word haptizo chosen to qx» press the idea of baptism ? Tliat word came the nearest to what we mean by baptism of any in the Greek. It was necessary, there- fore, to choose that word, or, perhaps, coin one. The former alternative was preferred. 30. How many different significations has the word hapt'zo f ' In the writings of Greek anthors, the verb bap- tize, or the noun baptism, has be^ii used with at least forty-seven different shades of meaning. It is unimport- ant to inquire what was the radical or primary meaning of the word. The point for us to consider is, in what sense did it come to be popularly used and to be popu- larly understood ? VI. — Classical Meaning of the Greek Word Baptizo. 31. How do you ascertain the classical meaning of the word haptizo f 15y the best lexicons of the Greek language. 32. What are some of its significations as given in the best Greek lexicons ? SoiiiiEVELius, a great master of the Greek language, giVes these definitions of baptizo : " To immerse, to wash, to sprinkle, to moisten, to wet." St vPULA and Hedericus give the same definitions. ScHLEUSNER, in his Lexicon of the New Testament, a work of the highest authority, defines baptizo as follows: "1. To immerse in water; 2. To wash, or sprinkle, or cleanse with water ; 3. To baptize ; 4. To pour out largely." Cole gives these definitions : " To baptize, to wash, to sprinkle." Passow defines it : " To immerse, to wash, to sprinkle." SuiDAS defines it : " To immerse, to moisten, to sprin- kle, to wash, to cleanse." Dwigiit's definitions are ; " To tinge, stain, dye, or color." A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 13 Grove defines it : " To dip, plunge, immerse, wash, wet, moisten, stain, sprinkle, steep, imbue, dye, color." The learned Gases, a member of the Greek Cluirch, whose Lexicon of Ancient Greek is cjenerally used by tiie modern Greeks, gives these definitions of haptlzo: " To wet or moisten, to wash, to draw water.'* The lexicons agree in giving wash as the most prominent meaning of baptizo. If one affirms that he washed himself, we do not suppose him to mean that he immersed himself. • 33. Is there any other way of ascertaining the clas- «ical meaning of baptizo? Yes, by consulting the Greek authors, and noticing the connection in which the word stands, and the sense in which it was there obviously used. 34. With what significations did the Greek writers use the word baptizo ? Sometimes meaning one thing, and at other times something else, just as we use words. It was used both in the sense of dipping or immersion, and sprinkling or pouring ; but it was niBver used by them in the sense of dipping or immersion as a Christian rite, 35. Did the Greek writers use the word baptizo when it could not possibly mean to immerse ? Yes, they sometimes used it in the sense of sprink- ling, and when they meant nothing else. In the Greek writers we read of " baptizing the grass with dew ;" — " baptizing a garment with needlework ;" — " baptizing a wall with arrows ;" — " baptizing the head with perfume ;" -—"baptizing the sea with the blood of a mouse." Phi-.- tarch, writing on the education of children, compares, by the Greek word for baptize, his labors to those of a gardener sprinkling ov pouring water on his plants. lu ^ these places, to baptize could not possibly have meant to '' hnmerse. VII. — Scriptural Meaning of the Word Baptizo. 36. How do you find the Scripture meaning oi baptizo f ' By examining the connection in which the word stands, its obvious meaning may be ascertained. -—_.__ 14 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISiT. 37. What version do you employ for this purpose ? The Greek translation of the Old Testament. This is important, because it will determine the sense in which the Hellenistic Jews understood the word haptizOj and how it was applied by them in their ceremonial in- stitutions. The Septuagint version was made by the Jews themselves, about two hundred and seventy-seven years before the Christian era, and was in use among those of that nation who spoke the Greek language at the time of our Lord's commg. To this translation tha New Testament writers repeatedly refer, and from it they frequently quote, employing its very language in the same sense in their own inspired compositions. Here we may look for the ecclesiastical meaning of the word baptizo. 38. Is there any passage of Scripture where it is evi- dent that baptism must necessarily mean immersion ? There is no passage in the Bible where the obvi- ous meaning of baptism is immersion, and may not be sprinkling or pouring. 39. Is there any Scripture to show that to baptize ne- cessarily means to sprinkle or pour upon, and can not pos- sibly mean to immerse ? Yes, there are many passages that clearly show that baptism was frequently performed when there could not possibly have been immersion. * 40. How do you prove that ? By the following considerations : 1. In Leviticus 14 : 4-6, the priest is required to take for the cleansing of the leper two birds, and to kill one of them, and preserve the blood in a vessel. He is then to baptize (it is " dip " in the English translation, but it is baptize in the Greek) the living bird, and the cedar-wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, with the blood of the dead bird. It is manifestly impossible that this baptism could have been by immersion. 2. In 2 Kings 5: 14, Elisha told Naaraan to go wash seven dmes in (or at) Jordan, and he went and baptized (it is " dipped " in the English version, but bap- A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 16 tized in the Greek) himself seven times. It is evident that he must have sprinkled himself seven times. Naa- man was a leper. The leprosy was incurable by human means. God had provided a way by wiiich a cure niight surely be eifected. There was no other way but God's way. That way is defined in Leviticus 14: 7: "And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean." Throuirh this sprinkling tliere was to be cleansing. Naa- jnan, who did not belong to Israel, heard of the cures etYected through God's appointment, and went to the prophet. What did the prophet tell him ? As a faith- ful prophet he must not make a law of his own, but must tell liim to keep God's law. " Go and wash — that is, Bprinkle — seven times." That was what the ritual of Moses required. In God's law sprinkling is washing. Elisha must have told him to sprinkle seven times, for the law required it. There was no reason why he should tell him any thing different from that. Naaman went and baptized himself seven times — that is, he sprinkled himself seven times. He did not immerse himself. No law required him to be immersed. To immerse would not be following the instructions given. To immerse would not cleanse him of the leprosy. Immersion is not symbolical of cleansing. He must have sprinkled him- self seven times, for he icas made cto^i— his flesh became as the flesh of a little child. He would never have been cleansed by going contrary to the law, but in its observ- ance he secured the blessing. By comparing" Scripture with Scripture, and allowing the Holy Spirit to be his own interpreter, it is evident that the baptism of Naa- man could not have been by immersion, and must have been by sprinkling. ' , » 3. In Daniel 4 : 33, Nebuchadnezzar, it is said, " was Iriven from men — and was baptized (it is translated " wet" in the English version, but it is baptized in the Greek) wnth the clew of heaven." It is manifestly impos- sible that his baptism with dew could have been by im- mersion. 16 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 4. In Mark 7 : 4, it is stated that the Pharisees observe " the baptisms (it is " washings " in the English transla- tion, but baptisms in the Greek) of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and tables." That the mode of baptism here was sprinkling will be apparent if we refer to the J^evitical rite to which they allude. In Numbers Is^ : 18, the ritual requires that " a clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, and spriyikle it upon fhe ttnt, and upon all the vessels." In these " baptisms " there could not have been immersion. 5. Throughout the New Testament the Greek word baptizo, is used in the sense of sprinkling, or pouring on. In Matthew 3: 2, John foretold that Jesus would "bap- tize with the Holy Ghost," and Peter expressly recog- nizes the fulfillment of the promise in Acts 11 : 15, when " the Holy Ghost fell on them." This baptism could not have been by immersion. VIH. — Affusion. 41. What is affusion ? The act of sprinkling, or pouring upon. 42. What is the difference between sprinkling and pouring ? They are substantially one. In both acts there is the application of the element to the person. To sprinkle is to scatter or disperse in small particles or drops. In pouring, the act is the same in form, but the element is shed forth more copiously. 43. What is immersion ? The act of putting into a fluid below the surface ; dip- ping ; ])lunging ; overwhelming. 44. What is the difference between affusion and im- mersion ? In affusion the element descends upon the subject; in immersion the subject is plunged into the element. IX. — The Baptism of the Holy Spirit. 45. In what relation does the baptism of the Holy Spirit stand to water baptism ? A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 17 The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the real and essential baptism ; that of water is the symbolical^ or figurative. 46. Wherein do they differ ? In the real baptism tlie administrator is God ; the element is his Holy Spirit"; and the subject is the indi- vidual. In the symbolical baptism the administrator is God's minister ; the element is water j and the subject is the human person. 47. Which is the more important ? The real baptism is more important than its symbolical representation. The application of the? Spirit is essential to salvation. Our Lord says, John 3:5:" p]xcept a man be born of water and of the Spirit he can not enter into the kingdom of God." As if he had said : " Except a man be born (not only) of water, (which, as the mere emblem, is the less important, but also) of the Spirit, ho can not enter into the kingdom of God." 48. Are the terms used to denote the baptism of the Spirit figurative ? No. When God baptizes with his Spirit the thing is real^ and the term is literal. We are not to suppose that because the term employed was spiritual^ it was there- fore ,^^Mra^/v6, 49. In what mode is the baptism of the Spirit always represented as being performed ? The baptism of the Spirit, in his renovating and sanctifying operation, is always expressed under the con- ception of its descent upon the subject. When there is the operation of the Spirit for other purposes, that ia never called baptism. 50. What Scripture proofs can you give to show both the sanctifying descent of the Spirit and its representa- tion by the symbol of water atfusion ? . ^ Isaiah 44 : 3 : "I will pour water upon him that is thirsty ; I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my - blessing upon thine offspring." Beautiful emblem ! " X w'lW pour water — I will pour mj/ Spirit '*^ Ezekiel 36 : 25-27: " Then will I sprinkle clean water ^ 18 A CATECHISM OP BAPTISM. upon yon, and ye shall be clean ; from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you ; . . . . and I will put my Spirit within you." Here also the Spirit's influences are associated with tlie sprinkling of water. Psalm 72 : 6 : " He (Messiah] shall come down like rain upon the mown grass." Hosea 10: 12 : "Seek the Lord till he come and rain righteousness upon you." Hosea 14 : 5 : "I will be as the dew unto Israel." Here the refreshing influences of the real baptism are rei>re- sented by a metaphor taken ivom. the falling of dew and of rain. 51. Is the symbolism betweea the Spirit and the water taught, under the new dispensation, as under the old? Yes. Only it is more definitely developed in the new, under the name and form of the double baptism. Mat- thew 3 : 1 1 : " I indeed baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." Luke 3 : 16 : " I indeed baptize you with water ; but one mightier than I cometh ; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." John 1 : 33 : " He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me : Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." 62. By what passages of Scripture does it appear that in the baptism of the Spirit there is no immersion, but that the element descends upon the subject ? Proverbs 1 : 23: "I will pour out my Spirit unto you." Matthew 3 : 16: "He saw the Spirit of God de- scending like a dove, and lighting upon him." Here was baptism, but not immersion. He was not plunged into the Spirit. Acts 2:3:" There appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them." There was no immersion here. A sound filled the house, and >he baptism of fire sat upon them. Acts 2 : 16,17,38: "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel : I will pour out of my A CATECHISM OP BAPTISM. 10 Spirit." This outpouring is called baptism. " Then Peter said : Repent, and be baptized every one of you : and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Tiiis could not have been immersion. One could not be said to receive an element in which he was immersed. More- over, it is said, " the gift of the Holy Ghost was poured outy Acts 10: 44-47: "The Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. . . . On the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. . . . Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost ?" As they had received the real baptism, so should they receive the symbolical baptism. Acts 11 : 15, 16 : " And as I began to speak, the Holy Gho^tfell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then re- membered I the word (not of John, but) of the Lord, how that he said : John indeed baptized with water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." Thus Peter pronounces the outpouring and the falling of the Holy Spirit to be baptism. 53. What important point is confirmed by the argu- ment drawn from the baptism of the Spirit ? The biblical, ritual use of the word baptize is es- tablished. Whatever may have been its primary mean- ing, we learn its meaning when used in a Christian sense. " The Bible is its own dictionary. The Spirit is his own interpreter." The thing has been made so visible that we may see it." God himself has given a definition of the word in question. " He poured out upon his Son, visibly and really — it was pouring, and not immersion, and he called it baptism. The Holy Ghost descended upon the disciples, and sat upon them, and this he calls baptism, ** On the Gentiles also Avas poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost," and this affusion he calls baptism, 54. If the real and essential baptism is performed by affusion, ought not the symbolical and figurative baptism to be performed by the same mode? . The mode of the former should in all fairness determine 20 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. the mode of the hitter. The symbolical act should be a true representation of the real thin<]^. If the form of a syjnbol does not express the reality it is not really a svtnbol. The design of a symbol is to present to the mind the idea of an unseen reality. We should make all things according to the pattern showed to us in the mount. Behold that pattern showed to thee when God himself baptized ! See that pattern where at Pentecost he baptized his disciples I It was by affusion, and not by immersion, that blessed work was done. And if thus it is that God baptizeth us, is not this the way in which his ministers should baptize his people? X. — John's Baptism. 55. What was John's baptism *? An ordinance performed by John, independent ot the regular services of the synagogue of the Jews, and intended to prepare them, in connection with repentance, for the aftercoming of Christ. 56. Why was John's baptism called the baptism of repentance ? He was specially commissioned to preach repent- ance, and baptize all who came to him with repentance, confessing their sins. 57. Was John's baptism performed under the Christ- ian dispensation ? No. The Christian dispensation was not inaugu- rated when John preached and baptized. This dispen- sation did not commence until after Christ had died, and risen again. John's work was finished and his life ended before the Jewish system was discarded. John never, in his preaching, spoke of the new dispensation as established already, but as being "at hand." 68. Was John's baptism Christian baptism? No. John had died several years before Christian baptism was instituted. Christian baptism is a ceremo- nial ordinance in which men are initiated into the Church of Christ. John never recci>«$d any person into the A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 21 ChriPliar. Church. The persons baptized by John still remained members of the Jewish church, ahd were as much the subjects of Christian baptism at'terward, as if they had never been baptized. Christian baptism must be administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. John baptized upon the confession of sin, before conversion, and without faith. Many of those baptized by John had never heard of a Holy Ghost, nor had they been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus ; they were therefore again baptized with Christian baptism. See Acts 19 : 1-6. That John's bap- tism was not Christian baptism has been admitted by a distinguished Baptist divine, (Rev. Robert Hall.) He says : " A Christian ordinance, not founded on the au- thority of Christ, not the effect but the means of his manifestation, and first executed bv one who knew him not, is an incomprehensible mystery.'''* 59. In what locality did John preach and baptize ? It is said that he l^aptized " in Jordan," and again, " in the river of Jordan." The preposition here rendered " in" has, like other words, a variety of meanings, and it means " at," or " near to," or *^ by," as much as it means " m." Those passages that indicate the scene of John's labors do not affirm any thing more than that John preached and baptized in that part of the coun- try lying " near to" the Jordan. 60. Is similar phraseology employed in the present day without implying the idea of immersion ? It is not unusual to hear persons speak of having been in a certain river, when they do not design to affirm that they were in the >vaters thereof. There is a locality in Nova Scotia called *' River John." A Wesleyan min- ister is annually appointed to labor ht River John. It is not only the river itself that bears that name but the country lying in the vicinity of that river. That minister preaches and baptizes in River John, but baptizing in Jiiver John does not mean immersion, for his mode of baptism is sprinkling. It is as incorrect to suppose that he immerses any gne, because he baptises in River JohO) 22 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. as it is to suppose that John the Forerunner of Christ immersed any one because he baptized in the river Jor- dan. The Jordan had several banks within banks, and the whole country lying within these outer banks was called " the river Jordan ;" hence a person could be in the river Jordan, so called, and on dry ground at the same time. John could therefore baptize in Jordan and not enter the water of the stream. 61. How is it proved by the Scriptures that the phrase " in the river of Jordan " does not mean in the water of Jordan ? By passages which are more definite than those which simply say in the river Jordan. For John might have been baptizing several miles away from the waters of Jordan, and still it might have been said he was baptiz- ing in, that is, near to, the river of Jordan. Moreover, it is never said he baptized in water, but always with water. In Mark 1 : 4, it is said, " John did baptize in the loil- derness^^'' and yet the following verse says it was ^* in the river of Jordan." This apparent contradiction is easily explained by showing that he baptized in a wilderness which was near to the river of Jordan. It is plainly affirmed that he baptized "in the wilderness." That could not therefore have meant immersion in the water of Jordan. In John 1 : 26-28, it is said : " John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you whom ye know not ; . . . . these things were done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan^where John was baptiz- ing.^^ Bethabara, where John gave his testimony concern- ing Christ, and where he was baptizing, was not in Joi^ dan, but beyond it. This Bethabara was at one time call ed Bethany. There was a Bethany about two miles from Jerusalem ; and there was another Bethany, here called Bethabara, in the tribe of Reuben, east of Jordan, and yet near to it. This was where John baptized — not in the water of the Jordan, but beyond it. John 10 : 40 : And Jesus " went away again beyond JoT" Jl CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 28 dan^intoihei^lacQ ivhere John at first baptized^ and there he abode." Wlion it is afiirraed elsewhere that John at first baptized in Jordan it is evident that it was not by immersion in the water of Jordan, but near to tliat river, as the Greek preposition indicates, and yot " beyond Jordan," as is plainly declared. That to be " in Jordan " does not necessarily mean to be " in the water," is evident from Joshua 3:8:" When ye shall come to the brink of the ''vater of Jordan ye shall stand still in Jordan." Hence " in Jordan " and " in the water " are by no means synonymous terms. The rendering of the passages in our version referring to John's baptism is contradictory and inexplicable, if we regard some of them as meaning immersion in the water of Jordan. Luke says, John preached and bap- tized in " all the country about Jordan." Another evan- gelist says, he baptized "beyond Jordan." Another locates him " in the wilderness." And yet they say it was in Jordan. There is only one way of reconciling this apparent contradiction, and that is by substituting for the preposition " in " the words " near to," which is the moaning of the Greek as much as " in " is. Then the narratives will all agree in simply locating the scene of John's labors in that part of the country lying in the vicinity of the Jordan. Every dilL dty will then be removed ; the whole record will then be plain, probable, natural, consistent, and reasonable. If John was accus- tomed to immerse in the water of Jordan, as some affirm, how pointless and meaningless the passage which says he went to ^non because there was much water there ! That would be leaving plenty of w ater, and going to less. But if we regard John as an itinerant, going about doing good, we wonder not that he should be glad to locate for a time, witli his followers, at a place of " many springs," as iEnon was, and sometimes along the shores of Jordan's strcnm, not merely because he needed water to ba])tizo witli, but because, for other purposes, such multitudes as accompanied him would require an abundant supply of water. 24 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISl^. XI. — The Mode of John's Baptism. 62. Did Jolni kiptizo by immersion ? There is no passage in the Bible which proves that John immersed. 03. Wliy do immersionists suppose that John im- mersed ? Great stress is laid upon certain prepositions, "in," and " into," and " out of," and they might just as cor- rectly have been rendered respectively, " near to," and "to," and "from," and the translation would thereby liave been more definite and correct. It is also affirmed that going dow7i into and coming up out of the water imply immersion. The logic which teaches that immer- sion inevitably follows from going into and coming out of the water, appears ratlier defective to most persons. In their judgment it is difficult to establisli the point, that having been in the water implies having been under it ; but nevertheless to some there appears no flaw in the argument, and upon tliis assumption a theory is built. 04. Does our English translation of the Scriptures, as it now reads, imply immersion ? No. One may baptize in a river, and not immerse. One may go down into the water, and not be immersed. One may come up out of the water without having been imder it. One may drive his horse down into the water, and up out of the water, and not have him im- mersed. Going down into the water, and coming up out of it, do not imply going under it. The word of God does not say tliat Joliu immersed. " He baptized with water," is tlie repeated testimony of God's word ; and baptism with water means affusio7i and not immersion, lohn tells us himself, that he was to be followed by Him who was to " sprinlde all nations^'' and that his own l)aptism was but tlie ty[)e of His great outpouring of the Spirit and the fii*e. XII. — Christ's Baptism. 65. With what baptism Avas our liord baptized ? It was not John's baptism, for he had no need of A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM.' 26 repentance, wliicli that baptism implied. It was not Christian baptism, for that was not instituted until sev- eral years after he had beeii bfiptized. The nature of the case makes it impossible that he could be baptized in his own name; therefore he could not receive Christian baptism. Christian baptism is a symbol of cleansing from inward impurity ; and lie had no such impurity from which to be cleansed. He was baptized " to fulfill all righteousness ;" that is, all the requirements of the law. He came among men that he might become a minister of his gospel, and our Great High Priest, and he had to fulfill all the requirements of the law appertain- ing to those offices. 66. What did the law require of our Lord as a minis- ter and a priest ? The Mosaic ritual required that he v/ould not begin to preach until he should be thirty years of age, and not then without being sprinkled witli water. Numbers 8 : 6-7 : "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. Take the Levites from among the chihlren of Israel and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou, do unto them to cleanse them : jSprinMe water of purifying upon them.''^ "^ . 67. 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 tlie office of the ministry and the priesthood, froui Aaron down to Christ. 68. Might not Christ be exempt from these laws, inas- much as he was lioly? ' ISTo. He made himself subject to his own laws. He was holy because he kept every law faithfully. He could not preach until lie was thirty years old, because he must keep the law. He could not be our faithful High Priest nnless he kept the law. " Tiiink not," says he, "that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fullill." 69. Did the law require that Jesus should be immersedj or that he should be sprinkled ? 26 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. There was no law that required him to be immersed. There is no evidence in the Scriptures to shoAV that he was ever immersed. 77ie law required him to be sjjrinkled before entering on liis ministry. If he was not so sprinkled ho violated the law, and could not be a priest. lie must have been sprinkled by John, for it is said he was "•' baptized to fulfill all righteousness." The law is explicit: "Thus shalt thou do unto them, (the priests :) Sprinkle water of purifying upon them." 70. Is Christ our example in baptism ? No. The baptism of Christ was an official act. By it he was inducted into the priesthood at the age of thirty years. We should follow Christ in moral con- duct, but not in his official acts. We are not to follow Christ in all things. He was a preacher; but all are not to follow Christ in that office. He never married; all are not to follow Christ in that particular. He was cir- cumcised ; we need not follow Clirist in that ordinance. To follow Clirist in baptism would be to follow him into a priestly office. If he were our example in baptism, none should be baptized until the age of thirty years, anvas by no means an unusual thing in the Christian Church, and that many families were baptized in the same way. 11. Our Lord says : " Of such is the kingdom of God." By taking infants in his arms, and publicly recognizing them as subjects of his kingdom, he certainly authorized tJie application of the distinguliiJdng symbol of that kingdom. Can any adult believer give any better evi- dence of being worthy of this ordinance than Christ has given of the worthiness of infants? An adult professor may be untrue and unworthy to he haptlzed into the king dom^ but the great Head of the Church gives the most positive evidence of the fitness of infants for baptism, for to such the kingdom of God belongs. Can there be any mistake when he speaks ? What more than this do we need ? There is reason and propriety, therefore, in dedi- cating them to God in the ordinance of baptism. Why sliould we deny them the seal Avhen Christ has declared them entitled to the thum' sealed ? 12. Infants should be baptized because they are justified by the blood of Christ. Through him grace flows to all children. Faith is not required of them because they can not exercise it^ and they are saved without it. The iu' fant stands in the same relation to God that the adult Christian does. It has a moral fitness for baptism and Church relations. If the infant dies in infancy, it Avill as surely go to be with Jesus as the dying saint of riper years. Then the infant is truly a member of Christ's invis- ible Church, and it has therefore the same claim for admis* A CATECHISM OP BAPTISM. 36 eion to the visible Church that the helievhig iidiilt lias, namely, justilication through the blood of Christ. Can you exclude thein, then, and be guiltless ? Nay, it is your imperative duty to bring them unto Christ in baptism, that they may be admitted to the visible Church of Christ, and '' forbid them not, for of such is the kingdoiu of God." 81. Have you any additional proof to sustain the doc- trine of infant baptism ? Yes. The following collateral evidence helps to establish the validity of infant baptism : 1. The teachings of the innnediate successors of the Apostles show that infant baptism was handed down from them. IrentBUS was one of the early fathers. He was the pupil of Polycarp, who Avas the disciple of John the Evangelist. Ifc was born near the close of the first cen- tury. His writings show that infant baptism was an ordinance of the Church in his day. Justin Martyr was cotemporaneous with Irentcus, and the first man of great learning who adorned the Church after Paul. He wrote about forty years after the apos- tolic age. In his writings he speaks of persons of sev- enty years of age who were made disciples in their in- fancy, and therefore received infant baptism. Justin Martyr had a dialogue with a celebrated Jew, and in it Justin compares baptism with circumcision. He declares that '•''they are alike in their nature and use." He says all are permitted to receive baptisn;^ and none are ev- cluded on account of their age. And as baptism came in the place of circumcision, infant baptism must have been an ordinance of the Church. After these men came Tertullian and Origen, who were both young men when Irena3us and Justin Martyr died. These witnesses both speak of infant baptism iis having universally prevailed in the Church from the Apostles' day. Tertullian urged the " delaying of bap- tism" until just before death for certain reasons, but speaks of it as the well-known and general practice of lus day. He writes of infants of a " guiltless age," who 36 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. '' can not of theniselvos " come to Christ, and " know not yhither tlicy are brought wlion they arc brought to bMptkmi." Origen speaks of liimself as having been a baptized cliild. He was a very learned man. He trav elled extensively among the churches. His flither had died a martyr for Clirist. Timothy and Titus had lived with the Oi-igen flimily many years. Infant baptism was of almost daily occurrence, and common to the Church in every j)lace. If infant baptism were a delusion, where were Timotliy, and Titus, and Polycarp, and I'-ona3US, that they did not expose the error everywhere prevailing in the Church ? Origen says, in his Homily Eighth, on Leviticus, chapter 12 : "According to the usage of the Church, baptism is given to inftmts." In his Com- mentary on the Epistle to the Romans, book 5, he says : " For this cause it was that the Church received an order from the Apostles to give baptism even to in- fants.'^ And he specially speaks of those infants who have never committed any actual sins. " In the time of Cyprian, in the third century, there arose a controversy concerning the day when the child should be baptized, whether or not before the eighth day. But there was no question about the point whether children ought to be baptized — in this they were all agreed." Thus do those who sat at the feet of the Apostles and earliest fathers testify to the validity of infant baptism. 2. That infant baptism was the universal practice of the Church from the days of the Apostles is strongly corroborated by the fact that for hundreds of years next after their day, there was no sect or schism in the Church that did not practise it ; and from the fifth century to the present time, in every period, it has been observed by the greater part of the Christian Church. 3. The history of the Churdi furnishes no satisfactory evidence of this practice having ever crept in. If infant baptism had sprung up as a neio doctrine or practice, it would have arrested the attention of the historians of the Church. There is no trace of opposition to the first A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. S7 practice of infant baptism. There can be no time men- tioned in which the baptism of infants was first intro- duced after the death of the Apostles. There is no writ- ten record to show that it was introduced as a novelty among Christians, and we have therefore the strongest reason to believe that this practice has come down to ua from the days of the Apostles. <1. The Catacombs of Rome furnish evidence indicating that infant bap+ism was practised by the Apostolic Church. Long before the beginning of the Christian era, excavations for building-stone were made near where Home now stands. In the course of hundreds of years they became a net-work, extending from fifteen to twenty miles under ground. Cicero, in his oration for Cluen- tius, speaks of them. For the first three hundred years after Christ, these recesses were the burial-place of the entire Christian population of Rome. There the Chris- tians dwelt during the persecutions in the first age of the Church. Jerome visited them about the year 300, and calls them " the sepulchres of the apostles and mar- tyrs." Here, in those dens and caves of the earth, were the doctrines and teachings of the Apostles preserved in their primitive simplicity and purity. The relics and in- scriptions found there indicate that infant baptism was an established ceremony among them. In those cata- combs there are numerous epitaphs of children who are called " faithfuls " and " neojihytes," which titles could not have been applied to them unless they had been bap- tized. The age at which they died shows that they were baptized in infancy. Some of these epitaphs read as fol- lows : " The tile of Candid us, the neophyte^ who lived twenty-one months ; buried on the nones of September." " Flavia Jovina, who lived three years and thirty days— a neophyte.'''' " Leopard us rests here in peace, with holy spirits ; having received baptism, he went to the blessed innocents. This was placed by his parents, with whom he lived seven years and seven months." " BufiUa, newly baptized, who lived two years and forty days." 6. The evidence is abundant, specific, and certain that 38 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. Christ, wlien lie instituted the new dispensation, did noi deprive infants ol* the ancient privilege which belonged to children when the Gospel was preached to Abraham. Not one word of evidence can be adduced from the Scriptures, or the history of the Church for the first four hundred years, to prove that infants ought not to be bap tized. It is alike unjewish and unchristian to refuse them the initiatory rite of the Church. 6. The Head of the Ciiurch has seen fit to make bap- tism occupy an important place in his economy of salva- tion, and he has not shut the children out. This ordr nance belongs to them. Through the grace of the Lord Jesus, infants belong to his kingdom. Can we, then, rightly refuse them the sign and seal of their relationship and heirship ? There were disciples who rebuked those who brought infants to Christ during his sojourn on the earth, and it was just like him to be displeased with them. How much alike is human nature in every age ! There are disciples now who rebuke those who bring them. With such disciples the Master can not but be displeased. Can you stand between those little children and their privileges and be blameless ? And if ye have done this wrong to one of these little ones, does not the Judge of all the earth say : Ye have do7ie it unto me f XV. — CiRCiTMCisiON AND Baptism. 82. What relation has baptism to circumoit^ion ? Baptism occupies the place under the evangelical dispensation that circumcision did under the LeviUcal. 83. By what evidence can you sustain that position ? 1. Baptism does for us what circumcision did for tho Jews. 2. Persons were initiated into the Jewish Church by the rite of circumcision. Persons are initiated into the Christian church by the rite of baptism. 3. The only way of admission into the Church of God, under cither dispensation has been by circumcision in the one ca>se, and by baptism in the other. A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 4. Circumcision and baptism are both alike, the out- ward, visible sign of the same inward, spiritual grace. The Apostl^^ Paul speaks of baptism as being evangelical circumcisio!!, in Gal. 3 : 27, 29 : " For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." XYI. — Mode of Christian Baptism. 84. What is the Scripture mode of Clu-istian baptism ? Affusion. This is apparent from it^ emblematical import. It is the symbol of certain gospel blessings, which are repeatedly spoken of under the figure of sprink- ling or pouring, and never under that of immersion. Tlie prophet, speaking of the Messiah, says, (Isaiah 52 : 15 : ) "So shall he sprinkle many nations." If this prom- ise refers to the influences which Christ bestows upon the nations of the earth, " through the redemption of his blood" called "the blood of sprinkling," then these gra- cious influences are designated by the term sprinkling^ and baptism, the outward sign, should surely correspond with it. Or, if this promise refers to the admission of persons into the Church by the ordinance of baptism, it fixes the mode to be affusion^ and not immersion. Tiie prophet does not say : So shall he immerse many nations. 85. What term is employed in the New Testament to denote the taanner of the application of the blood of Christ ? The term sprinkling. Paul says, (Hebrews 12: 22:) " Ye are come ... to the blood of sprinkling^ that speak- eth better things than that of Abel." And Peter speaks (1 Peter 1 : 2) of the same " pprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." If, through the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, moral cleansing is eftected, then the outward ordinance of baptism, which is the symbol of this in- ward cleansing, should correspond thei'eto in form. 86. Was immersion practised by the Apostles and by the Apostolic Church V »•? r 40 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. There is no evidence tliat it was. The word hap' tlzo was evidently used to denote only the ordinance of baptism, without reference to the mode. Baptism is an enihlem of the purifying influences of tlie Holy Spirit ; a!id the grand and leading emblem, of purilication insti- tuted by Jehovah himself is sprhiklbvj. Immersion is never foretold by the prophets, but sprinkling is, and that too as connected with the now dispensation. When immersion is practised the water is sometimes inevita- bly /a?\/'rc»^i ^e?'?i,9'2>;^>'(?, whereas "pure water" is in- dispensable in this syml)olical washing. Sprinkling is more simple, more in accordance wdth the whole spirit of the New Testament, and an ordinance of universal adaptation. In the Jewish ceremouies, although the blood was sometimes poured out at the base of the altar, imd sometimes smeared on its horns, or on parts of the [)erson for whom expiation was to be made, yet the grand significant emblem Avas sprinldlng. The whole nation was familiar with' the idea that where there was sprink- ling there was mercy. Sprinkling and mercy, in the great heart of the nation, were linked together. When the whole nation was consecrated to God at Sinai, Moses sprinkled all the people^ (Hebrews 9 : 19.) On the great djiy of atonement the lligh-priest entered the most holy place, and spnnlded le Ark of the Covenant, (Leviticus 4 : 17, and Hebrews \. : 25.) Paul and Peter both speak of the blood of spnnlding. Sprinkling throughout all the IJible is the symbol of mercy and blessing. Where tlie blood of the sacrifices Avas sprinkled there was mercy. When the destroying angel passed over Egypt, there was mercy where the blood was sprinkled. There is no evidence in the word of God that this ancient sign of mercy and blessing and cleansing w^as discarded, Avhe Christian baptism was instituted. There is no reason why this long-familiar, well-understood, and God-estab- lished symbol sliould be discarded, and immersion substi- tuted. "There arc three," says the Apostle, (1 John 6: 8,) "that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood : and these three agree in one,'''' As the A CATECUISM OF BAPTISM. 41 Spirit bears witness tliroiigli the mode of affusiou— ;/a/^ mfj upon — and as the blood boars witness through the mode of aifiision — behiff sprin/ded—so should the water bear witness in the form of affimon-^ for (iod's design is that these three should bear witness in earth, and tha these three should agree in one. The testimony in fa- vor of sprinkling is clear and irrefutable. It is the Bible mode. It is a form instituted by Jehovah himself, was practised throughout the Jewish dispensation, was adopt- ed by John the Baptist, and was practised by the Apos- tles and the primitive Church. Immersion never was the scriptural symbol of mercy and blessing and cleansing, and can nowhere be found in the Bible as an ordinance, either implied, acknowledged, sanctioned, or commanded. 87. When was immersion introduced as a mode of baptism ? The practice of immersion was probably introduced in an early age of the Church. Some men are so organized mentally that they are prone to yield an un- due regard to forms and ceremonies^ and hence the jM'ac- tice was introduced and i)ersistedin. Men of the purest motives sometunes run into extremes. In Paul's day members of the Christian Cluu'ch adopted a strange error concerning the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. They probably argued that if a little wine and a little bread arc good in this ordinance, a little more must be better, and so they ate and drank to excess. And men were just as likely to err in reference to the sacrament of bap- tism. If a little water is good, more must be better, the wisdom of this world would suggest. Some minds are so peculiarly organized, that they can never under- stand Avhat good a little water can do sprinkled on a person's head, but imagine there is special virtue in tbo grosser form of immersion. . XVII. — Philip axd the Eunuch. 88. Do the Scriptures indicate the mode in which Philip baptized the eunucli ? The narrative shows that Philip and the eunuch 42 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. were riding in a certain desert together, and they con« versed about a particular portion of Isaiah's prophecy which the eunuch had been reading. He did not under- stand tlie teaching of tlie prophet, (Isaiah 52 : 13, etc.,) who spoke of One whose visage was more marred than any other man, who was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and who was to '' sprinJcle many nations.'''' Piiilip be- gan (Acts 8 : 35) at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. They came to a certain water in the desert, and the eunuch wanted to be baptized, for he had just been reading about baptism — " so shall he sprin- kle many nations." There was nothing in the prophecy he liad been reading to lead him to think of immer- sion. He had been reading and speaking about sprink- Ibuj. The prophet foretold that Messiah must sprinkle many nations. That prophecy must be fulfilled, though Jesus " baptizeth not, but his disciples." They both went down into and came up out of the water — that is, more correctly, they went to and came from the water. But if we take the passage as it reads, it does not say he immersed him. Many ^^ersons have gone down into the water a thousand times, and have come up out of it as often, and not once gone under the water. As tlie Scriptures indicate that the eunuch was sprink- led, so does common-sense suggest the same fact. If immersion were required, would not Philip have de- sired him to wait until the chariot would arrive at a stopping-place, and fecilities be procured for attending to such a work ? Is it probable they would engage in an act that would involve the necessity of continuing their journey, one man wet all over, and the other man half wet ? Why this inconvenient wetting? Was ever That thing so done since ? Who ever saw a parallel to that scene as immersionists paint it ? But if the thing done by Philip were sprinkling, as the prophet had fore- told, and about which they had been reading and speak- ing, there was no difficulty in the way. A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 43 XVIII. — The Jailer op PiiiLirpi. 89. How was the jailer of Philippi baptized ? He was baptized in the night, and in the prison. (Acts 16 : 24-34.) If the parties concerned had left the prison, to attend to that ordinance, the jailer would have been guilty of violating the laws of his country, and the most sacred duty of his office, and Paul and Silas would have been involved in the act. Moreover, Paul and Silas would have been liable to the charge of hypocriti- cally pretending, when morning came, that tliey had not been out of the prison, for they refused to leave it, un- til the magistrates should come and take them out. The inference is inevitable that his baptism must have been by affusion. XIX. — Buried by Baptism. 90. What does the Apostle mean by being " buried by baptism " ? He is speaking not of symbolical baptism, which is with water ; but of the real, essential baptism, which is with the Holy Ghost. 91. How do you prove that? • The whole passage with which those words are con- nected shows that he does not allude to natural things^ but spiritual. " How shall we," says he, (Romans 6 : 2,) " that are dead to sin ?" He does not refer to a physi- cal condition of himself and his brethren, when he says " ice that are dead^'' but to a spiritual. Ye that " were baptized into Jesus Christ," does not mean a physical act — into water., but a spiritual baptism " into Jesus C/trist.^'' Therefore we are buried with him by baptism i/ito death — not buried in baptism into water, nor into ilie grave, but into death. There is no allusion here to w ater baptism, nor to its mode. The Apostle is speak- ing of S2nritual death, burial, resurrection, and life. He speaks also in the same place of our being planted to- gether in the likeness of his death, and of our old man " being crucified with him." If the baptism mentioned 44 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. be a literal burial of the body in water, we should adopt the same interpretation in reference to the planting and crucitixion, and be literally planted and crucified. Be- sides, to follow the figures literally, the person should be put under and Uft there. This alone is burying and planting. But, no, the whole passage has a spiritual^ not physical, significance, Benig " baptized into his death" can not mean a physical act, because there is no shnilitude between being put under Avater and being hung upon a cross, between the heavens and the earth, to die. 92. Does Paul teach the same doctrine elsewhere ? In the Epistle to the Colossians, (chapter 2 : 10-12,) Paul corroborates what has just been aftirmed. He also shows that the circumcision of which he speaks and baptism are one ; but this is the circumcision 7nade with- oiit hands, and b^/ which circumcision "ye are buried with him in baptism," and not by water. This is not water baptism, then, but that baptism of the Spirit which is " through the fiiith of the operation of God, who hath raised him. from the dead." Romans 6:3: " Know ye not that so many of us as were bapti 'od unto Jesus Christ were baptized into his death ?" That is, as many as were united to Christ, by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, were made partakers of the benefits of his death. 1 Cor. 12: 13: "For fty one Spirit,^'* not by water, " are we all baptized into one body," that is, " baptized into Jesus Christ." Romaiis 6:11: " Likewise, reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." Can water baptism, then, accomplish the great moral change to which the Apostle here alludes ? If we inter- pret these passages to refer to physical acts, they involve us in difliculty. That interpretation would favor the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. But every thing is plain, and consistent, and beautifully significant, if we suppose him, in speaking of being buried into Christ's A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 45 death, and being planted, and crucified, and dead, and yet alivo, to refer, not to the outward man, but to the Jiidden man of tlie heart ; not to physical, but to spiritunl things. XX. — Israelites nArxizED unto Moses. 93. What is meant by the Israelites being baptized unto Moses ? The Apostle alludes especially to the import of bap- tism. They were consecrated unto Moses, when passing through the sea, and took hitn as their leader and guide. 94. How were they baptized ? It could not have been by immersion. Immersion means being dipped, or plunged, or overwhelmed in a fluid until covered by it, and they passed " on dry ground through the midst of the sea," (Exodus 14 : 16.) A man can not be immersed on dry ground. They were b;i])- tized by affusion, for " the heavens dropped^'' " the clouds j)oiired out water "^"^ npon them, (Psalm 77:17.) The people of God who went over '' dry shod," and ui)oii whom the sprinkling rain fell were, Paul says, the bap- tized people. The hosts of Pharaoh were immersed — they were buried in a " liquid tomb," but they were not baptized, XXI. — N'oAii AND THE Auk. 95. What do you understand by what Peter says of baptism in connection with Noah ? He probably refers to the baptism of N"oah and his family, or the ark, or both conjoined. In either case, there was not immersion, but there was affusion. The rain fell upon them. They were sprinkled. The wicked inhabitants of the world were immersed. Those who were sprinkled were baptized, and had mercy. Tliose who were immersed " went down into a watery grave" and perished. " The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us," not the outioard rite, which is the putting off the filth of the flesh, but the inward or spirit- ual operation, through which we are purified, so as to live with a good conscience toward God, (l Peter 3 : 21.) 46 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. XXII. — Paul and Apollos. 96. Do the facts recorded in the New Testament, con- cerning Paul iind Apollos, throw additional light on the subject of baptism ? Paul stands out preeminently the model minister of the New Testament. The great theme of his preaching was, not Christ and him baptized., but Christ and him cruci- fied. Apollos, when a young man, did not understand the things of God as well as Paul. He was eloquent, however, and mighty in the Scriptures, and being pro- i>;ibly trained in the school of John, he went preaching in the synagogues, " knowing only the baptism of John," (Acts 8 : 25.) When Aquila and Priscilla heard him they " took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly." Paul says, (1 Corinthians 3 : 6,) " I have planted, Apol- los watered." This language implies that immersion could not have been the mode in which Apollos baptized, and that the mode must have been sprinkling, or pour- ing. Paul never would have used such a figure if Apol- los had immersed the people. He was too correct a writer for that. An unbiased mind would naturally infer that those plants were watered by affusion. No garden- er ever waters his plants by immersion. There is no evidence to indicate immersion here. Apollos appears to have made the subject of water baptism too prominent a topic in his preaching. Paul, on the contrary, "determined not to know any thing among them, save Jesus Christ and him crucified." "Christ sent me," says he, " not to baptize, but to preach the gos- pel." Again he says : " I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gains. And I baptized also th household of Stephanus," (1 Corinthians 1 : 14-16.) Wha , a rebuke there is in these words for those whose one peculiar and distinctive theme is the baptism of water ! No such preacher could adopt the language of Paul, after a successful and glorious ministry, as his had been at Corinth, and say ; " I thank God I have only baptized two of you, and the family of another." A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 47 XXIII. — He that belie veth and is baptized. 97. What is the obvious teachinir of the word of God in the passage in Mark, (chapter 10 : 16 :) "He that be- lieveth and is baptized sliall be saved " ? If an unbaptized person is born again through faith in Christ, he is a proper subject for water baptism ; but if he is alrea(l baptized he should not receive that ordinance again. It is not anywhere said in God's word that water baptism must come after believing in Christ. It is not, he that believeth and shall be baptized, but " he that be- lieveth and is baptized." If one is already baptized, when he becomes a believer, that is sufficient. Nor was it taught by John that his baptism should be preceded by faith. John did not require a profession of faith of his disciples. They were baptized upon repentance and the confession of sin. The reasoning that i-equires water baptism to follow the act of fiiith is unsound, and if adopted will lead into serious errors. This theory involves the idea that the one act of faith, through which the individual is accepted of the Father, secures his eternal salvation, and meets the claims of the word of God. But the divine testi- mony is, not he that believec?, on some particular occa- sion, shall be saved ; it is rather, he that believe^/i — he that has faith, and continues to have it^ shall be saved. It does not follow because one had faith yesterday that he therefore has faith to-day. Faith should be an act of the heart, as regularly repeated as is the rising of the sun. There should be the forth-putting of the hand of faith — the confidently taking hold of the hand of God every day^ and all the year round. If water baptism vnw^t follow the act of justifying faith, then, as that faith should be an every-day work, repeated baptisms would be required of every Christian. He who becomes a be liever in Christ may be asked if \\Qis baptized^ and if that rite is performed, wliether l)efore or after he is renewed by the power oi' the Holy Spirit, through faith, the law in the case is met. " Tie that believeth and w baptized shall be saved." 48 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. XXIV. — The Immrrsioxist Creed Inconsistent and Nauiiovv. 98. Wliorehi (loos tlie iminersionist creed agree with, and ditier from, that of tlie Cliristiiui Church generally? Thoy agree in affirming that by baptism we are initi- ated into the visible church of Clirist. The immersion- ist creed differs from all others in affirming that no per- son should be baptized but a believing adult, and that there is no baptism without immersion. 99. Wliat is the logical inference deducible from the dogma of the immersionists ? If the immersionist creed were true, there never has been a visible Church of Christ on the earth except E ap- tist churches. All those in other churches who were faithful followers of Christ, and who nobly served their Master, and who triumphed over sin and over the world through faith, and whose robes were washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb, have been stamped by the immersionist creed loith the brand of excommunicar tion ; for, says that creed, they were too early brought to Christ if they were brought when little children, and they never received baptism if they were not immersed. A creed whicu inevitably excludes such persons from the visible Churci, is manifestly inconsistent and narrow. 100. Has the peculiar doctrine of the immersionists been believed by any considerable portion of the Christ- ian Church ? Only a smrdl fraction of the Christian Church ever be- lieved their dogma. The great body of divines who have b<^en eminent for piety and learning and genius, and whose writings have graced the literature of the ages, has beon radically opposed to the peculiar doctrine of the immersionists — namely, that only adults should be baptized, and that there is no baptism without immer- sion. ' 101. Is the immersionist creed in accordance with the genius of Chrisiianity ? : . _ - The immersionist creed is antagonistic to the genius of A CATECHISM OP BAPTISM. 49 Christianity. It says : We are right ; all who differ from us are wrong — we only are the Chinch of Christ, there is no visible Church but ours, for none can enter the Church but in our way. All ye great and good men of tlie past, says that creed, who imagined ye were in Christ, and who lived and died in the faith of Christ ; ye pillars of the Church of England, Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer; ye princes of the Presbyterian Church, Calvin, Knox, Chal- mers ; ye eloquent divines of the Independent Church, Baxter, Howe, Watt» ; ye noble spirits of the Methodist Church, Wesley, Wh'ttefield, Asbury ; ye faithful children of the cross, who pined in inquisitions, and who died for Christ at the martyr's stake ; and ye nameless ones who sleep in unremembered graves, the immersicnist creed hath denied you the fellowship of the saints ! It matters not that ye had faith in Christ, that ye had been convert- ed, that ye were new creatures in Christ Jesus, that ye had been baptized with tih tSpirit, and that ye had been baptized with water — if ye were not immersed in water^ it else is vain, ve were not in the visible Church of Christ. Stand ye aside! we only are in tiie Chu ch, and immersion is the door ! Such are the inevitable teachings of the immersionist creed. It is therefore obviously an- tagonistic to the whole s})irit, and scope, and breadth of Christianity, and to the plain teachings of the Bible. 102. Are immersionists as inconsistent and narrow as their creed ? Immersionists are better than their creed. Tlieir creed is opposed to the fellowship of the saints, but they love the brethren in Christ. Their cree XXV. — Positions Defined. 103. Is further inquiry into the baptismal question desirable ? The points upon which the Christian Church is divided on the subject of baptism are important and vital. Fur- ther discussion is therefore indispensable. If the iin- mersionist creed be true, there are no baptized persons except those who have been dipped ; and there are no Christian churches except imraersionist churches; and there are no Christians except those persons who have been dipped upon a profession of faith. 104. Has inquiry on this subject in the past been profitable ? Yes. Information has been elicited. Some long- cherished errors have been abandoned. It is settled that Christian baptism was instituted after the resurrec- tion of Christ, and before his ascension. Imraersionists now admit that infant baptism was practised long before the errors of popery appeared, and in the times of Ter- tuUian, who was born in the year 160. Immersionists also admit that infant baptism was practised in the Cat- acombs of Rome, where dwelt the persecuted Christians of the earliest ages of the Church. ' 105. Will you mention some of the points still open to discussion ? 1. Immersionists regard the Greek word baptizo as 52 A CATECHISM Or BAPTISM. the chief corner-stone of their temple. The defenders of the immersionist dogma affirm that it has " one meaning, and only one meaning." Some immersionists, however, affirm that it means to dip, and nothing but to dip. Others declare, with equal emphasis, that it means to plunge, and nothing but to plunge. Others, again, contend that it sig- nifies to immerse, and that only. And these, without ap- pearing to perceive that they contradict each other, velie- mently protest that it has one, and only one meaning. The Baptist Confession of Faith affirms that " baptizing is dipping, and dipping is baptizin/^." If this salient point of the immersionist stronghold can be carried, the whole fabric will fall. 2. Affusionists, on the other hand, affirm that the Greek word baptizo has various meanings, and that no necessity has existed to prevent it from being used, as other words, with different significations. It is con- tended, also, that baptizing is not dipping, and that dip- ping is not baptizing. Baptizing is more than dipping, riie word baptize carries a far richer freight of meaning titan the word dip. Objects may. therefore, be dipped without being baptized. It is believed, by affusionists, that to baptize is more than to plunge, or to immerse, or to sprinkle, or to pour upon ; and that the immersionist creed, which restricts the signification of the word !)ap' tizo to " one meaning, and only one meaning," and which fails to recognize the wealth of meaning which is included in the words baptize and baptism, is radically defective. 106. What writers have in late years taken a prom- inent position on the immersionist side of this contro- versy r Gale, Booth, Hinton, Carson, Robinson, Noel, Curtis, Chase, Pengilly, Conant, Jewett, Cramp, and otliers. 107. Do these immersionist writers agree among themselves ? No ; they frequently, under a logical pressure, coutra- A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 53 diet each other. There is among them a want of accord- ance with principles. 108. What do you infer when immersionist writers disagree, on the most important points, with themselves and with each other ? That in the immersionist creed there are radical er- rors, and that further investigation is needed. 109. Which of the afore-mentioned writers may be taken as a representative of the whole school ? 1. Rev. J. M. Cramp, D.D., late President of Acadia College, Nova Scotia, who has reviewed the first part of this work, in several communications in the Christian Messenger^ of Halifax, Nova Scotia, and in a work called a Catechism of Christian Baptism. 2. Dr. Cramp's Catechism has received high commen- dation from leading immersionist divines, and has been republished by the Baptist Board of Bublication,'P\n\si- delphia. The usual immersion arguments are given in a condensed form. Perhaps no immersionist writer has succeeded in defending his creed more successfully than Dr. Cramp has done in his recent publication. If the arguments advanced by Dr. Cramp will not bear the test of criticism, the immersionist treasury can furnish no weapons of attack or of defense more formidable. XXVI. — Immersionist Stratagem. 110. Do immersionists quote other divines in support of the immersionist creed ? Immersionist writers sometimes give extracts from others who are prominent alFusionists, which appear to fivor the immersionist idea ; and these extracts being disconnected from the context, have frequently misrep- resented the views of their authors. 111. Can you mention an immersionist writer who does thus mislead ? Dr. Cramp selects from some divines a sentence or 64 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM". more that appears to favor his theory. He conceals what the writer says in immediate connection with the part quoted, and which explains or qualifies it, and thus misrepresents his author. 112. What authors does Dr. Cramp thus misrepre- sent ? John Wesley. Isaac Watts, Adam Clarke, George Whitefield, Thomas Chalmers, Martin Luther, and others. 113. In what position does Dr. Cramp attempt to place those authors ? • He attempts to show that they believe the immersion- ist creed, although, during all their ministerial career, their practice was antagonistic thereto. Dr. Cramp does not appear to have remembered that, if his accusations against the brethren wliom he has named were w^ell founded, any testimony from men whose faith and practice would be so completely contra- dictory as theirs is misrepresented to have been is utterly worthless. 114. Will you mention some instances to show how Dr. Cramp misrepresents those whose opinions he pro- fesses to give ? 1. Dr. Cramp quotes {Catechism^ page 40) from Dr. A. Clarke's Notes on Rom. 6:4: "It is probable that the Apostle here alludes to the mode of administering baptism by immersion, the whole body being put under tlie water." In Dr. Clarke's Notes the word " proba- ble " is given in italics, though not so quoted by Dr. Cramp. Dr. Clarke adds an important qualification to the above passage, which Dr. Cramp carefully omits: "I say it is probable that che Apostle alludes to this mode of immersion ; but it is not absolutely certain that he does so, as some do imagine ; for in the next verse our being incorporated into Christ by baptism is also denoted by our being planted^ or rather grafted toffether in tha A CATECHISM OP BAPTISM. 66 likeness of his death ; and Noah's ^vk^ floating upon the water, and sprinkled by the rain from heaven^ is a figure corresponding to baptism.'*'* 2. Dr. Cramp says, (Correspondence Christian 3feS' sengery February 22d, 1805:) *' He " (Stewart) "asks for one instance of dipping. Let hiin read the New Tes- tament. Every record of baptism in that book is an instance of dipping, as John Wesley, and ministers of all Christian denominations, have again and again con- fessed." 115. How does it appear that Dr. Cramp misrepre- sents Mr. Wesley ? 1. In Mr. Wesley's Journal there are some statements which indicate that he, on a few occasions, either im- mersed persons or was present when some persons were immersed. The Journal, however, does not tell us that Mr. Wesley supposed he had authority for such a prac- tice in the Bible, but that such a practice was taught in the Prayer-Book of the Church of England, and by the custom of the Church. 2. Mr. Wesley says, in his Journal : " On Saturday, 21st February, 1736, Mary Welflh, aged eleven days, was baptized according to the custom of the first Church, and the rule of the Church of England, by im- mersion. The child was ill then, but recovered from that hour." 3. It is important to observe that Mr. Wesley here refers to what he understood the custom of the first Church to have been, and the rules of the Church of England. Mr. Wesley, at the period mentioned, (1730,) had not learned to tate the Bible as a rule of his life in preference to the rules of the Church. His theological views and his plans of ministerial labor were subse- quently subjected to revision and modification. 4. Dr. Cramp points to an act alleged to have been performed by Mr. Wesley in the year 1730 — several years before the rise of Methodism, and before hiu con- H^ . A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. . version — and asserts that Mr. Wesley was an immersion- ist. A just representation of Mr. Wesley's creed can only be had by reference to his words and his deeds written and pertbrnaed after his heart had been renewed through the grace of the Lord Jesus, and his mind had been enlightened through patient research and study of the oracles of God. Dr. Cramp, however, seizes on an isolated instance or two, and suppret^sing most important particulars, he misrepresents him whose opinions he pro- fesses to give. 1 1 6. Can you mention another instance of Dr. Cramp's disingenuous style ? Dr. Cramp says, (Correspondence Christian Messen- ger, March 28th, 1866:) "A neighbor of mine who writes in the Provincial Wesleyaii under the signature of Veritas, endeavors to be facetious on the Wesley- and-dipping question. He flatters himself that he has gained an advantage, and imagines that the great John's * misrepresented words ' will be expunged from the title- page of my Catechism. Veritas is mistaken. The dis- cussion has brought out three facts. First, that John Wesley, as a minister of the Church of England, was an immersionist : he was a minister of that Church, I be- lieve, when he died." 117. What peculiarities are prominent in this quota- tion from Dr. Cramp ? 1. Dr. Cramp misrepresents Mr. Wesley. He insinuates that Mr. Wesley was a Church of England minister until his death ; and was, as such, an immersionist. Mr. Wesley's life-long practice, and his published writings, show that Dr. Cramp's misrepresentation of him is neither accurate nor candid. 2. Dr. Cramp's misstatements are calculated to mis- lead. A misstatement may be much more mischievous because there is a small amount of truth in a large amount of error. It is unnecessary to elicit evidence to show the disiugeuuousuess of Dr. Cramp, who hat tp*^ght A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 67 his readers that Mr. Wesley was an immersionist, as a minister of the Church of Enghind, and was such " when he died." 3. If Mr. Wesley had been an immersionist in theory, as he is misrepresented to have been, and an affisionist in practice, as he was, it seems surprising that Dr. Cramp should have honored him with a conspicuous place by the side of Paul on the title-page of his Catechism. No jury would receive testimony from one whose faith and practice were known to be as contradictory as Mr. Wes- Ly's is said, by his accuser, to have been. It is possible that Dr. Cramp has not paused to measure the extent of the accusation involved in his ungenerous misrepre- sentation of him against whom he has bornt; such incor- rect witness. 118. Can you show by Mr. Wesley's ^writings that Dr. Cramp misrepresents him, when he says that John Wes- ley " was an immersionist ;" and that "John Wesley has again and again confessed that every record of bapti;?m in the New Testament is an instance of dipping " ? Yes. Mr. Wesley published a Treatise on Baptism in Novemb M-, 1756, (Works, Vol. 6, page 12.) He says : 1. " Concerning baptism, I shall inquire what it is. It is the initiatory sacrament which enters us into cov- enant with God. ... It was instituted in the room of circumcision. For as that was a sign and seal of God's covenant, so is this. ... It can not be cer- tainly proved from Scripture that even John's (bap- tism) was performed by dipping. . . . Nor can it be proved that the baptism of our Saviour, or that adminis- tered by his disciples, was by immersion. No, nor that of the eunuch baptized by Philip ; though they both went down to the water : for that going down may re* late to the chariot, and implies no determinate depth of water. It might be up to their knees ; it might not be above their ankles. 2. " And as nothing can be determined from Scriptr 68 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. precept or example, so neither from the force ov ineauing of the word. For the words baptize and baptism do not necessarily imply dipping^ but are used in other senses in several places. Tlius we read that the Jews ' were all baptized in the cdoud and in the sea,' (1 Cor. 10 : 2 ;) but they were not plunged in either. They could there- fore be only sprinkled by drops of the sea water and refreshing dews from the clouds ; probably intimated in that, ' Thou sentest a gracious rain upon thine inheri- tance, and refreshedst it when it was weary.' (Ps;iim C8 : 9.) Again, Christ said to his two disciples, ' Ye shall be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized witli,' (Mark 10 : 38 ;) but neither he nor they were di|)ped, but only sprinkled or washed with their own blood. Again, we read (Mark 7 : 4) of the baptisms (so it is in the original) of pots and cups, and tables or beds. Now, pots and cups are not necessarily dipped when they are washed. Nay, the Pliarisees washed the out- sides of them only. And as for the tables or beds, none will suppose they could be dipped. Here, then, the word baptism^ in its natural sense, is not taken for dip- ping, but for washing or cleansing. And that this is the true mcining of the word baptize^ is testified by the greatest scholars and most proper judges in this matter. It is true we read of being buried with Christ in baptism. But nothing can be inferred from such a hgurative ex- pression. Nay, if it held exactly, it would make as much for sprinkling as for plunging ; since, in burying, the body is not plunged through the substance of the earth, but rather earth is poured or sprinkled upon it. 3. "And, as there is no clear proof of dipping in Scripture, so there is very probable proof of the con- trary. It is highly probaule the Apostles themselves baptized great numbers, not by dipping, but by wash- ing, sprinkling, or pouring water. This clearly repre- sented the cleansing from sin, which is figured by bap- tism. And the quantity of water used was not material ; no more than the quantity of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. The jailer *aud all his house were bap- A CATECHISM OP BAPTISM. 59 tized * in the prison ; Cornelius with his friends, (and so several liouseholds,) at home. Now, is it likely that ail these had ponds or rivers in or near their houses suffi- cient to plunge them all ? Every unprejudiced person must allow the contrary is far more probable. Again, three thousand at one time and five thousand at another were converted and baptized by St. Peter at Jerusalem, where they had none but the gentle waters of Siloam, according to the observation of Mr. Fuller, ' There were no water-mills at Jerusalem, because there was no stream large enough to drive one.' The place, therefore, as well as the number, makes it highly probable that all these were baptized by sprinkling or pouring, and not by immersion." 119. What do you infer from Dr. Cramp's style of controversial writing ? 1. The inference appears inevitable that if Dr. Cramp, having read Mr. Wesley's works on baptism, supposes him to have been an immerplonist, he could make the same mistake in reference to Paul, or any other of the sacred writers, and misconceive that they were immer- sionists. 2. It may also be inferred that if Dr. Cramp imagines that such men as Watts, Whitefield, Chalmers, and Lu- ther, who, during all their ministry, administered bap- tism in the mode foretold by Ezekiel, (36 : 25,) "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you," were immersion- ists because, occasionally, a sentence flowed from their pens which had some resemblance to immersionist theo- logy, he might also presume that the Bible contains some immersionist theology, because there is, here and there, a passage which seems to look somewliat in that direction. 3. It may be inferred, moreover, that a creed which requires its ablest advocates to resort in its defense to a style of argumentation so disingenuous as that which Dr. Cramp employs must be radically unsound. The assertion of Dr. Cramp that Mr. Wesley was an " im- 60 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. meiTsionist," and that he "again and ajijain confessed tliat every record of baptism in the New Testament is an instance of dipping," is absurd, ungrounded, and illu- sory. Dr. Cramp's assertion is disproved by the evi- dence adduced. The truth never asks its defenders to misrepresent its assailants. If tlie imniersionist creed were true, it would not make demandi, upon its ex- pounders so extravagant and humiliating. Dr. Cramp appears to have looked through a very deceptive me- dium, by which facts appear very much as a landscape appears in a mirage, turned upside down and variously distorted. XXVII. — Paul and Regeneration. 120. Does Paul indicate the agency through which the regeneration of the heart is effected ? Paul teaches that through the agency of the Holy Spirit one is renewed, becomes dead to sin and alive to Christ, becomes a member of Christ's spiritual body and one with him, and that he is thereby washed from his sins. Paul does not teach that the symbolical baptism, which is with water, can change the heart. It is the real baptism of the Holy Spirit that works this wondrous renewal. Romans 6 : 3, 4 : " Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ (by the Holy Spirit) were baptized into his death ? (not into water.) There- fore we are buried (not have been buried) with him by baptism into death." Colossians 2 : 10-12 : "And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the tienh by the circumcision of Christ : buried with him in baptism, (that is, not in water, but through the bapti^i of Christ by his Holy Spirit, and without hands,) wherein also ye are riaen with him through (not the ^ A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 61 hands of any man, but) the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." 121. What is the immersionist exegesis of the passages just quoted ? Immersionists teach that the great change of heart indicated in those passages is accomplished through immersion in water ; that one is baptized into Jesus Christ, and into his death, by immersion in water; that immersion in water is meant by tlie putting oif tlie body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, aud burial with Christ, and being risen with him. 122. What radical error is apparent in the immersion- ist exegesis ? 1. The immersionist exegesis of the passages under consideration teaches the doctrine of regeneration through the baptism of water, whereas the Bible teaches that regeneration can only be eflected through the work — the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 2. Immersionists misconceive the design of the Apos- tle, who does not, either in the passages just quoted, or elsewhere, attribute to the baptism with water a renew- ing or regenerating power. Paul attributes the wash- ing of regeneration to the Holy Ghoai which had been abundantly shed upon them. 123. Can you quote some passages from writers who have held the immersionist theory, and who have sup- posed that the spiritual regeneration of which Paul wrote is eiSected through the baptism of water? 1. Dr. Cramp gives some specimens in his Catechism : Ambrose : '' In the font there is a transition from the earthly to the heavenly. This is the passover, that is, the sinner's passing-over — the passing-over from sin to life, from guilt to grace, from pollution to sauctifica- tion." ( Cramp*s Catechism^ p. 26.) Chrysostom : " Christ has given baptism as a kind of antidote against poisons ; and so all malice is ejected, aud the fever is quenched, and the putridity dried up. 82 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. We are clayey before baptism: after it, we are golden." (Cramp's Catechism, p. 26.) Jerome : " In the hiver the old Adam altogether dies, and the new one is raised up, together with Christ ; the earthly j)en8lies, and the super-celestial is born." (Cramp's Catechism, p. 26.) Paulinus : " O wonderful raercy of God ! The sinner is plunged in the waves: presently he emerges from the "water, justified." (Cramjy^s Catechism, ip. 26.) Bede, (called *' Tiie Venerable " :) '' He who is bap tized is seen to descend into the font ; he is seen t« ascend out of the water; but what the laver of regene- ration performed in him is not seen at all. It is known only by the piety of the faithful. He descends into the font, a sinner ; but he ascends, purified. He descends, a child of death ; but he ascends, a child of the resurrec- tion. He descends, a child of rebellion ; but he ascends, a child of reconciliation. He descends, a child of wrath ; but he ascends, a child of mercy. He descends, a child of the devil ; but he ascends, a child of God." (Cramp's Catechism, p. 26.) 2. Campbell (founder of the Campbellite sect) says : "So significant, and so expressive, that when the bap- tized believer rises out of the water, is born of water, enters the world a second time, he enters it as innocent, as clean, as unspotted as an angel." 124. Are the extracts just quoted fair representations of immersionist views ? They express the logical inferences which grow out of the immersionist exegesis of the passages from Paul which we have been considering. Immersionists are more evangelical than their creed. Dr. Cramp, and all evangelical immersionists, recoil from the extravagant lengths to which the logical inferences of their interpre- cittions of Paul would lead them. 125. What appears to be the correct interpretation of the passages from Paul under examination ? A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 63 They are to be interpreted as teaching that regenera- tion can be effected through the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is the real and essential baptism ; and not merely through the baptism of water, which is the sha- dow or the symbol thereof. » 126. How can you prove that ? 1. The Scriptures do not teach that water baptism can accomplish so great a result. The renewal of the soul is always represented in Scripture as effected by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the truth. Many good but mistaken persons have supposed that Paul teaches that this change is connected with being buried under water — with " a watery grave " or '* a liquid tomb." Imraersionist theology teaches it. Paul never taught it. God does not teach it. Neither does the Hebrew, nor the Greek, nor the English Scriptures (except the new Baptist version) teach that water can work that mar- velous renewal of our nature. That is God's work; and it can only be wrought through the baptism " made vrithout hands." 2. That Paul did not refer to the symbolic baptism is evident from the fact that many have received water baptism in whom no such change as Paul indicated was produced. Many who have had water baptism have still remained in the '*gall of bitterness," and urn-enewed in heart. Hence we infer that it is not through water that one is buried into Christ's death, and is regenerated, » but tlH-ough the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 3. The effects of the real baptism we^o apparent on the day of Pentecost, when the promise made at the time of the ascension was fulfilled, (Acts 1 : 5, 8:) "Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. . . . Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you." Here a real change of condition was effected. They received power. Water never could have produced such a result. They became, after that baptism, different men. They were not, as they had been, the weak and' vacillating disciples \ but ^^ A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. bold witnesses of Christ's power and truth. This is the rml^ essential baptism. This is what Christ does for us. We are made "complete," not in water, but in hira. ,,rk ^^^«"«P MoRRiss, (Methodist Episcopal Church:) * Ihe next argument is raised from the doctrinal refe- rences to the action of baptism used by Paul, Romans t) : 1-1 1. It IS thought to be very plain from this text that water baptism is designed to represent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and therefore the sub- ject muHt be immersed. We reply: (1) Is there any . mention made of water here? Not any; and if there was, and that for the purpose, as you suppose, of repre- scntmg the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ what then, we ask, is the Lord's Supper intended for ^ V/e have always supposed, with the Christian world generally that the Lord's Supper was designed to show lorth his death, or what he had done for us by redemp. tion and water baptism to show what he does in us by His fepirit ; but, according to your system, we have two sacraments to represent his sufferings for us and none to represent his grace in us ! If we were to administer the Yrds Supper only as an emblem of conversion, we should pervert the ordinance, and destroy its ori> to plunge,^"* Da. Cramp, 1866. "Every body admits that the natural meaning of the word is to immerse.'''* Baptist Confession of Faith. "Baptizing is dip- ping, and dipping is baptizing." 129. What points of importance are specially apparent in the definitions of immersionist authorities as just quoted ? 1. That the word haptho is claimed by immersionists to have in all the range of Greek literature one meaning, and only one. 2. It is claimed, with great unanimity, that the word haptizo expresses the action of putting under water ; and that action only. 3. It is affirmed that the word haptizo does not ex- press the condition of being under water, 130. What important distinction do we need here to keep in sight ? 1. Our invesiigation demands that we must not lose sight of tlie difierence between the action of putting un- der water, and the condition of being under water. A word that expresses such an act^ and a word that ex- presses such a condition, are separated from each other by an essential difference of nature. They belong to difie- rent classes of verbs. These two views do not coincide M A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. in one clear and precise meaning, but are essentially diverse and irreconcilable. Dip has a development growing out of its peculiarities as an act ; immerse has a development which is based on condition. These terms, therefore, are not synonymous. " I have been dipped into water ;" " I was immersed in water ;" express ideas essentially diverse. The structure of language is con- trolled by such differences. Dip expresses the course of action by whicli one was put into water. Immerse says nothing about the course of action, and only indicates the condition of being under water. It is important not to confound act and condition, and not to treat one word as though it expressed both act and condition, or at one time act, and at another time condition. 2. We may affirm that the word baptizo has not been used to express the contradictory qualities of action and condition. It is apparent that immersionist writers agree in claiming for that word the meaning of action, and that alone. Words that express action and condition belong to two distinct classes. Each class has its own deeply marked and broadly distinguishing characteris- tics. The word baptizo can not belong to both these classes. 131. Why is it important to keep these points promi- nently in view? The whole immersionist structure depends upon these special points. If it can be shown tliat the word baptizo expresses the actio7i of putting under water, and that action definitely, precisely, and clearly, and that action only, as immersionists claim, then their position would seem to be impregnable. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that the word baptizo expresses condition in- stead of action, the immersionist fabric has not a single prop upon which to stand. XXIX. — Meaning of Words. 132. Before passing on to the further investigation of the word baptizo^ will you state the peculiar aesumption A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM 69 of imtnersionists in reference to the one meaning of words, and especially the word baptlzo f Immersionists affirm {Grampus Catechism^ page 31) that " every word has one natural, obvious, original meaning, which will be applied to it by all readers or hearers, and with which it will be used by speakers and writers. From that natural and primary sense other ac- ceptations or uses may branch out, but they will imply or include the original idea." In accordance with this opinion, it is claimed that the word baptizo has "just its own meaning, and no other ;" namely, the action of put- ting under water. (Grampus Catechism^ \i^,gQZ2.) The exigency of the immersionist creed demands tliat with unfaltering pertinacity this position must be retained. 133. Is that theory correct? The most eminent scholars have given testimony, clear and abundant, that words may have various and some- times opposite significations. 134. Can you furnish evidence to sustain that view ? 1. W. P. Strickland, (Manual of Biblical Literature^ pp. 57-60 :) '' Words, considered simply as sounds, have no meaning ; for they are not the natural and necessary signs of things, but conventional ones. Usage or custom has constituted a connection between words and ideas. The connection between words and ideas is now ren- dered necessary by usage, whatever may have been the case at first. This does not mean, however, that a word may have only one meaning, for usage contradicts this. Usage, which is the law of language, has gradually as- signed many meanings to the same word, lest words should be indefinitely multiplied, and the difficulty of learning a language become too great. The way to de- termine the usus loquendi is by taking into account the religion, sect, education, common life, civil affiiirs, etc., all of winch have an influence on an author's language, and charactei'ize it. The same word is employed in one sense respecting the ordinary things of life ; in another, respecting the things of religion; in another still, in 70 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. the schools of philosophy. . . . The interpreter is not to be guided in his work by tlie anjilogy of faith With many, tlie analogy of faith is aU the, rule of inter- pretation they have ; and this, instead of being a scrip- tural analogy, is nothing more or less than a sectarian analogy With such, the voice of their church is the voice of God, and not the voice of the living oracles." 2. Trkncu, ( The Study of Words : ) " It will often happen that you will meet in books, sometimes in the same book, and perhaps in the same page of this book, a word used in senses so far apart from one another, that it will seem to you at first sight almost absurd to assume as possible that there can be any bond of connection between tliem." 3. Sir William Hamilton, {Logic:) "All languages by the same word express a multitude of thoughts more or less differing from one another." 4. C. U. Spurgeox, {Excellent Thoughts for Young Ministers:) " Rest assured, in Holy Scripture, the same word does not always mean the same thing." 135. What point is indicated by these quotations? Tliat the immersionist declaration that the word bap- tizo has one definite, precise, and clear meaning, and one only, is contrary to all experience ; and improbable, if not untrue. XXX. — Classic Baptism. 136. What is the classic meaning oi Baptizof- The word haptizo in classic Greek has various signifi cations ; but whatever shade of meaning may be appa rent, it always expresses a change of condition. This change of condition may be effected by various agencies and in different ways. But, whatever peculiarity of mode may have obtained, the use of the word haptizo always carries with it the idea of condition. It belongs to a clearly marked class. A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 71 107. How can you demonstrate the correetnoss of this position ? By appealing to any passage of classic Greek in which the word is used, there is at once a clear and adequate solution revealed. 138. How can you show that the immersionist theory of a defifiite act is erroneous ? By appealing in the same manner to any passage of classic Greek in which the word occurs, the definite act idea is found to be without foundation. 139. What becomes of the dipping theory when tried by the same standard ? 1. If it be true that the word haptizo expresses always a change of co7idition^ and net the action of putting under, then it is evident that the word haptizo does not express the idea of dipping. 2. Immerse and r?^}:> are interchanged at will and confounded together by immersionist writers. There is no valid authority for so doing. Dip performs an act that is transitory. It does not put its object in a new state or condition. We may speak of the laying of the Atlantic cable, which involved its immersion, but no person educated or uneducated would speak of *' dip- ping" the Atlantic cable to the bottom of the ocean. If a portion of the earth had remained covered with the Bea since the morning of creation, it can not be said to have been "dipped" all that time, though for thousands of years it may have been immersed 140. By what peculiar modes may that change of con- dition indicated by tlie word haptizo hQ accomplished? 1. By plunging, or sinking, or overflov/ing, the essen- tial demand of condition may be secured. An object therefore may be baptized (according to the authority of the classic Gi'cek) by being plunged, or sunk, or over- flowed. 2. The same authority shows that by pouring or 12 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. sprinkling, a change of condition^ which the word haptizo expresses, may be effected. An object therefore may be baptized by being poured upon or sprinkled. 141. To what tribunal should we appeal that we may test the meaning of the word baptizo f We should appeal to the tribunal of usage, which is of supreme authority, and the rule in the language. Usage is a higher tribunal than the authority of all critics. 142. What does usage suggest as the classical mean- ing of the word baptizo f Usage shows that the word baptizo does not express a form of action, and therefore does not mean to dip. No immersionist writer has yet produced a passage from the Greek which shows that the word baptizo means to dip. The word bapto means to dip, but baptizo does not mean to dip ; and it is the word baptizo — the word used in the Scriptures — whose signification is the object of inquiry. XXXI. — Modes op Classic Baptism. 143. How do you ascertain the modes of classic bap- tism ? By consulting the Greek authors we ascertain in what sense the word baptizo was used by them, and what they meant by baptism. 144. Will you give some illustrations ? 1. Strabo, (14 : 3, 9:) "Alexander falling upon the stormy season and trusting commonly to fortime, pressed on before the flood went out, and through the entire day the army marched baptized {baptizomendn) up to the waist." This baptism was by loading, not dipping. The text shows that the army was in a certain state or condition — they were loet to the waist. The act that produced this wetting was that of loading, passing through, or techni- cally marching. There was no dipping, or plunging, or burying, or watery grave, or liquid tomb here, and yet A CATECHISM OP BAPTISM. 7& there was a baptism. What becomes then of t^*:- im- mersionist chief corner-stone — " througli all Greek lite- rature the word baptize has one ineaning^ and tlmt mean- ing is mode^ and nothing but inode.^^ 2. Heliodorus, (uEthiop. 5 : 28 : ) " Already being baptized, {baptizonienon^ and wanting little of going down, some of the pirates at first attempted to pass into their own boat." This baptism was by a storm dashing the waves and epray upon the vessel. There is no dipping here. There is no immersion. The ship had not gone down under the water, and yet there was a baptism. 3. DiODORUS SicuLUS, (1 :) " Of the land animals a great part overtaken by the river are destroyed, being baptized {baptizomena) with water rushing on them." There was no dipping or plunging of these animals into the water. The water rushed upon them ; and they were baptized in that way. 4. DiODORUS SicuLus, (16 : 80:) ''The river rushing down with a strong current baptized (ebaptize) many with water." The water rushed upon them. They were not dipped into it. 5. Joseph., (A?. X. 9 :) " Baptized {behaptismenon) by intemperance to insensibility and sleep." He had not been made intemperate by being dipped, or plunged, or immersed into wine. His condition was changed by imbibing it, and this was called a baptism. 6. Alex. Apiirod. Prob., (2 : ) "A force baptized (bebapHsmene) into the inward parts of the body." The word baptized here is used in the sense of diffused in. This baptism was not a dipping. V. JosEPHUS, (De Bello 4 : y :) " Those indeed even » without engaging in a faction baptized (ebaj^tisan) the city." Josephus in the immediate context shows that this baptism means a rushing or pouring in upon ; for ho «4 7A A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. says the inhabitants received them all, " thinking that all wlio poured themselves in upon the city came from good-will to help them." The city was not dipped into any thing, although it was baptized. There was no plunging or immersion of the city under water. 8. Plutarch, (Par. Gr. and Rom. 3 :) ** He gathers the shields of the slain foe, and having baptized {bapti- sas) his hand into the blood, he reared a trophy, and wrote upon it." No passage can be quoted which affords a better foun- dation for the dipping theory than this. Out of more than one hundred passages there are only six besides this which Dr. Conant, an iramersionist, translates dijy. *' That any Baptist writer thoroughly committed to dip- ping should be unable to introduce the word on which his system hangs in more than one passage in twenty is a fact which, of itself, suggests the gravest doubt about the justness of such a translation in any case." As the passage just quoted from Plutarch is specially claimed to sustain the di2)ping idea; and as there is no other Greek passage for which the same claim can be urged with more plausible pretensions, it invites careful consideration. A Roman soldier is left wounded on the battle-field. He spends his failing strength in gather- ing the armor of his slain enemies to erect a trophy. In order that he may write an inscription, "he baptizes his hand into the blood," It does not follow that this bap- tism was a dipping. The current usage of the word does not require such a meaning, and will not warrant it. The attempt has been made to ally this phraseology with pen-dipping. In pen-dipping, however, the whole pen is not immersed ; the point only is dipped in the ink. In this case it was not the point of the tinger that was dipped into blood — the hand was baptized. It is not said that he wrote with the same hand that was bap- tized. It is quite possible, if not probable, that the blood was taken up with the baptized hand, by its being scooped up ; and that from it the blood was taken by dipping the finger of the other hand into it, and thus A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 76 writing the inscription. And if he thus scooped up the blood in his hand, that would not be dipping. The liand may be introduced into a pool of blood in various ways otiier than by di}>ping. 9. Chariton Aphrod., (^ : 4 :) "I saw a vessel wan- dering in pleasant weather, full of its own storm, and baptized {haptizonieno7i) in a calm." There is no dipping here. The waves in a storm broke against the vessel. There was no immersion here ; the vessel was not under the water ; and yet she was baptized. 10. LiBANius, {Epist. 25 ;) *' And I am of those baptized {behaptisme7i07i) by tliat great wave." No dipping here. No immersion here. The object was not plunged, nor dipped, nor immersed into the element. It is the element that moves to reach the ob- ject. And this is baptism. 11. Heimerius, (15: 3:) "Great at Salamis; for there, fighting, he baptized (^ebaptise) all Asia." It would be difficult to dip " all Asia," or to plunge it, or to immerse it, into the waters of the Gulf Argolis. And yet it is said *' all Asia" was baptized by fighting ; that is, it was subjected to a new state or condition of things by a triumphant victory, which gave Greece a controlling influence over Asia. There was no dipping here, but there was a baptism. And baptism implies condition, and not necessarily any action or mode which secures that condition. 12. LiBANius, (Declamat, 20:) "Salamis was the pin- nacle of exploits; where thou didst baptize {^ebaptisas) Asia." In this passage again it appears that baptism means an effect produced, and not an act. An immersionist writer (Gale) contends that a " lake was dipped in the blood of a frog," because he would not give up the posi- tion of " one meaning, and one meaning only, in the whole range of Greek literature," for bapto. Libanius 76 A OATECniSM OF BAPTISM. i{\(\ not mean that all Asia was dipped, or plunged, or immersed, though he says it was baptized. 13. Plotinus, {Ennead. 1, 4, 9:) " Hut when he does not so continue, being baptized (haptistheis) by diseases, and by arts of wizards." There is no dipping here. The man is not dipped into diseases, nor into arts. He does not lie on the sea-shore until diseases and arts roll over him, like the waves of the sea. The diseases, or the arts, or both, have affected the condition or state of the person, hence he is said to ^'? *"'ptized. The action belongs to the wizards, and the 11. - and the diseases; the effect to the person bap- tized. 14. Plutarch, {Galba, 21:) "Knowing how to be licentious, and extravagant, and baptized (bebaptlsme- non) by debts of +ifty millions." This person was not dip})ed into the debts, nor did the debts dip him into or under water, or any tiling ebe. The debts were a burden, a load upon him. He was not immersed in debts, but burdened by debts. He was baptized without being dipped, or plunged, or immersed under water. Dr. Conant says: "The ground idea expressed by the word baptizo is to put into or under loater . , . that this act is always expressed in the literal application of the word." Dr. Cramp indorses Dr. Conant. Plutarch, however, did not so understand it. He, and the other Greek authorities, used the word baptizo where there is not even a shadow of the idea of being put into or under water. Plutarch thought men could be baptized by having debts pressing upon them. 15. Themistius, (Oration 20:) "But when she (Phi- losophy) sees me baptized {baptizoraenon) by grief, and carried away into tears, she is displeased." The object was not dipped by grief, nor into grief, nor into tea s. The term " baptized by grief" expressed A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. Y7 aiiioiig the Greeks a condition of sorrow ; aiul tlid not convey the idea oi" action or mode. IG. Achilles Tatius, {Leitc, mid Clit. 2: 31 :) "But Lencippe liad another cliainber servant, whom, hav'niLr baptized {haptlsaa) by tlie same drug, Satyrus conies to the door-keeper, at tlie tliird door ; and him he cast down by the same potion." In this passage tliere is shown a condition of stupefac- tion, to whicli one had been brought by a soporiiic drug, by which lie was " cast down." There was a baptism, but tliat baptism did not imply action. Tlie drng did not lay hold of the person and dip, or plunge, or immerse her. Nevertheless the immersionist creed claims that the word haptizo has " one meaning, and one only." 17. Athen^us, (PA«7oA 7icf/i^. 5 : 64:) "You seem to me, O convivialists ! to be flooded beyond expectation with impetuous words, and to be baptized ibehaptisthai) by unmixed wine." ^ This baptism expresses the condition of drunkenness through unmixed wine. This company of convivialists had not been dipped into unmixed wine. Nor were they immersed into unmixed wine, nor were they sunk in it, nor drowned in it. They were simply under the influ- ence of wine. The word haptizo expressed t]ie.eff*ect of the wine, and not the special mode in which the wine was applied or used. 18. CoNON, (JVarrat. L. :) "Thebe exhorted to the murder, and having baptized (baptisasa) and put to sleep Alexander by much wine." This passage shows that the word baptize here im- plies the condition of drunkenness. Alexander was made drunk, and put to sleep, by much wine. The im- mersionist creed, which contends that haptizo has one meaning^ and one only^ in all Greek literature, must, of course, declare that Alexander was dipped or immersed into the wine, rather than that the wine was poured into him. If " haptizo means mode, and nothing but mode," as immersionists affirm, of course Alexander was made ^8 A CATECHISM OF BArTISM. by being dipped, or jilungcd, or iiiiiuersed iuto his dass, or his decanter, or his c;usk. The iramerbion- drunk wine-gh ist creed is inexorable in its demands, and however im- probable or absurd those demands may be, its advocates must accept tliem, or abandon the held as lost. The mode whereby this ba]);ism wns effected is indi- '^ated ; not, however, bj the word baptlzo, but by the connection in which it stands. That mode was drinking. T!ie mind and the body are liajUized by drinking from the wine-cup. There was no inuncrsion here, no dip- ping, no plunging; but simply the pouring the element into the mouth. lie was su])jected to a condition of drunkenness and sleep, through the mode of pouring. 19. Homeric Allegories, (p. 495:) "Since, now, a mass of iron, j)ervaded with fire, drawn out of the fur- nace, is baptiz' (baptizetai) by water, and the heat, by its own nature quenched by water, ceases." This passage is claimed b}'' iinmersionists as showing the plunging process. The grammatical structure of the sentence indicates that there is no plunging here. Of course water is capable of receiving hot iron by plung- ing, and hot iroii is frequently plunged in water, but it does not follow that there is plunging in this case. The word haptizo does not CApress the idea of plunging. Hot iron may be wet or may be immersed without having been plunged. And the phraseology in this passage in- dicates the agency by which the result is accomplished, and not the element in Nvhicli it is done. Hot iron may be brought into a cold condition by being plunged "nto water, or by having water poured over it, or by being sprinkled with water. It often happens that heated iron can not be physicaUy plunged into water, or iiu- mersed, on account of its weight, ^'' form, or because of some other peculiarity. 20. Plato, {Euthy dermis^ 1 :) " I, knowing that the youth was baptized, (baptizonienon,} ^vishing to relieve him." Cleinias, a youth, in company with some sophists, was A CATECHISM 0.^ BAPTISM. 79 bewildered with a series of subtle questions. This be- wildeni^ent was called baptism. The young man was not dipped, nor pluLged, into the questions addressed to him. There is no immersion into water here. He was in a condition of bewilderment, and Plato calls that a baptism. 21. PujTAJicn, {Alexa7ider, 57:) "Soldiers baptizing {baptizontes) with bowls, and cups, and flagons, along tlie whole way, pledging one another out of large wine jars, and mixing vessels." Plutarch refers to the riotous and drunken march of Alexander's army from their Eastern conquests, and to t, 3 fact that they had been made drunk by excess of wine. There was no dipping in this baptism ; the wine was poured. 22. Plutarch, (Water and Land Anim.^ 23 :) "The nobleman being sober, as you see, and prepared, sets upon us, debauched and baptized (bebaptismenois) fi-ora yesterday." In this passage a contrast is shown between one in a condition of sobriety, and others in a condition of ine- briety. It is difticult to see how this baptism could liave been dipping, or how those who were baptized from yes- terday could have been immersed during that time, or could have been dipped during that time. The immer- sionist who can see a resembhince between the action of drinking and the action of dipping must look througli a medium peculiarly his own. 23. Plutarch, (Phys. Qiies., 10 :) " Why do tliey pour in beside the wine sea-water, and say that fisher- men received an oracle, commanding to baptize (bapti- zein) Bacchus by the sea ?" As Bacchus has no personality, and is a representntive for wine, this is a command to baptize wine. This passage shows that the wine was baptized by pouring the water into it. Water poured into wine would change its con- dition — take away its intoxicating quality. Such bap- tism is in perfect accord with the idea of baptizing^ hot 80 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. iron by pouring water on it ; it brings it into a new con- dition. It is also in harmony with the exposition given of baptism by pouring wine into a man ; it changes his condition ; from having been sober he has become drunken. 24. Plutarch, {Superstition^ 3 :) " Call the purifying Old Woman, and baptize {baptison) thyself (going) to the sea." This is fi religious baptism. There is nothing in the passage that indicates the mode of action. The fict that tiie baptism was by the sea does not prove plunging, or immersion, or dipping in it ; for Bacchus was baptized by the sea without either of those modes. The sea-water may have been used by sprinkling or pouring, or wash- ing the hands, or by drinking, or in any other way by which religious purification would be secured. In Hin- dostan, Ganges water is put into the mouth of the dying as an act of purifying them for death. " There is nothing in classic usage to prevent haptizo meaning to purify by the spiinkling or drinking of sea-water, any more than to mean to intoxicate^ or baptize, by drinking wine. Palinurus was baptized into sleep by sprinkling his tem- ples with Lethean dew." Plutarch says : " The priests in Egypt besprinkle themselves, not with any water, but with that of which they believe that Isis drank." Dale says, in his com- ment on this passage : "The term baptism is not applied to this transaction ; but I affirm that a state of complete purification^ induced by the sprinkling of Ibis water, is as legitimate and true a baptism, interpreted by classic Greek, as would be a state of complete covering of their bodies, by their being sunk to the bottom of the Nile. Sprinkling demands, not as of grace, but as of absolute right, the acknowledgment of its power to ba '•tize." 145. What results are apparent from the examples ad- duced of classic baptism ? 1. Usage, which is higher authority than lexicons or lexicographers, shows that the word ^/?^ts;o has b«eii A CATECHISM OP BAPTISM. 81 used, in the twenty-four instances cited, where it does not mean to dip. 2. Usage shows that the word baptizo does not, in t]ie passages adduced, express definite action of any kind.. 3. The word baptizo expresses a change of condition^ either physical, intellectual, moral, or ceremonial. 4. The word ba2ytizo does not indicate the mode by which the act of baptism is effected. 5. The word baptizo has many significations, adjusting itself to the most diverse cases. 6. The key whereby the v/ord baptizo may be inter- preted is conditio7i. XXXII. — Immbesionist Inconsistencies. 146. Will you state some of the definitions given by leading immeraionist authorities in reference to the word baptizo f Baptist Confessuon of Faith : '* Baptizing is dip- ping, and dipping is baptizing." Alexander Carson, LL.D., Baptist Board of Pub- lication : " To dip, and nothing but dip, through all Greek literature." T. J. Conant, D.D., Ba2)tist Bible Union : " Baptizo has, in fact, but one sole acceptation. It signifies lite- rally and always to plunge.''^ Dr. Conant, again : " The literal meaning of this word, its true and only import, is, to immerse.^^ Dr. Conant, again .• " To immerse, immerge, sub- merge, dip, plunge, imbathe, whelm." Dr. Conant, again : " The meaning of the word was clear, definite, always the same, and one of the easiest words to translate." 147. Is Dr. CouAut a recognized authority among im- mersionists ? 82 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. Dr. Conant has labored in belialf of the " American Bible Union " in preparing for the press the new Baptist version of the Scriptures, lie has been successful in making the new version teach, as no other version doos, the dogma of immersion. He has bestowed great labor in collecting passages in Greek literature in which the word baptizo is found. And, though his reasonings have been inaccurate, and his conclusions erroneous, he has, nevertheless, contributed valuable materials, and has made them the subject of elaborate study. No writer has appeared in the immersionist school better qualified than he for the investigation of this subject. 148. What inconsistencies arc a2)parent in the defini- tions just quoted ? 1. The want of accord, apparent in the definitions just given, mdicates that the immersionist theory, re- specting the word baptizo^ is inconsistent and erroneous. 2. Dr. Conant says, in one place: ''''Baptizo has, in fact, but one sole acceptation. It signifies literally and always to plunge!''' In another place, he says : " The literal meaning of this word, its true and only import is, to iimnerse.^'' Here is a gr'„ve and fatal inconsistency. The words plunge and immerse are not synonymous, A ship may plunge among the waves, and not be immersed. An island may be immersed by being overfiowed with the swollen waters of a river, Avithout having been plunged. If the immersionist definition of haptho weri; true, it would not involve such contradictions. The trutli is never inconsistent with itself. 3. Dr. Conant, again, says: "The meaning of the word was clear, definite, always the same, and one of the easiest words to translate." And, in another defini- tion, he says : " To put into oi under water." IT this woid is so easy to translate, and has always the same clear, definite meaning, why does not Dr. Connnt say whether it means into or under ? Does he not know which ? Or, does it mean sometimes one, and somet'' les the other; without having a fixed meaning? Or, does A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 83 it meau both ? Being into any thing, or under it, does not convey the same " one, clear, definite idea." Going into the water does not involve going under it. The iui- mersionist rule of interpretation is seriously defective in its working. 4. If, as Dr. Conant says, the meaning of haptizo is *' clear, definite, and always the same, and one of the easiest words to translate ;" and if it means " to dq^^ and nothing but dlp^ through all Greek literature ;" how aro we to account for the fact that, in another definition, Dr. Conant gives the word haptizo seven different mean- ings ? And if the first of those seven words i&, the " clear," " definite," and " sole acceptation " of haptizo^ why are we to believe that the other six words are also, each, the clear, definite, and sole acceptation of haptizo ? Or, if any one of those seven words is the clear, definite, and sole acceptation of haptizo^ why give seven difter- ent words ? The theory out of which grow such incon- sistencies must be radically wrong. 149. What does Dr. Cramp affirm of the word hap- tizo f Dr. Cramp says : " Every body admits that the natu- ral meaning of the word is to immerse^'' He also says : *' No learned man will risk his reputation by affirming the contrary." 150. Will you give the testimony of some eminent scholar, to show the incorrectness and absurdity of Dr. Cramp's teachings ? Timothy Dwight, S.T.D., LL.D., late President of Yale College^ says : ^' Concerning the former of these subjects I observe, that the body of learned critics and lexicograj^hers declare that the original meaning of both these words {haptizo and hapto) is to tinge^ stain^ dye^ or color ^ and that, when it means immersion, it is only in a secondary and occasional sense; derived from the fact that such things as are dyed^ stained^ or colored^ are often immersed for this end. This interpretation of the 84: A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. words also they support by such a series of quotations as seem unanswerably to evince that this was the origi- nal, classical meaning of these words. " I have examined almost one hundred instances, iu which the word haptizo, and its derivatives, are used in the New Testament, and four in the Septua^^int; these, so far as I have observed, being all the instances con- tained in both. By this examination it is to my appre- hension evident that the following things are true : 1. "That the primary meaning of these terms is cleansing ; the eflfect, not the mode, of washing. 2. " That the mode is usually referred to incidetital- Ij/, wherever these words are mentioned ; and that this is always the case, wherever the ordinance of baptism is mentioned, and a reference made at the same time to the mode of administration. 3. " That these words, although often capable of de- noting any mode of washing, whether by affusion, sprinkling, or immersion, (since cleansing' was familiar- ly accomplished by the Jews in all these ways ;) yet, in many instances, can not without obvious impropriety bo made to signify immersion ; und in others can not sig- nify it at all." XXXIII. — Testimony of Cheistian Greek Aitthoes. 151. What testimony do Christian Greek authors give as to the meaning of the word baptizo f The Greek Christians of the first century followed the sacred writers in their use of religious terms. An ex- amination of their works will show that they used the word haptizo^ when they did not mean to plunge, or dip, or immerse ; but in the sense of affusion. 152. Will you give some illustrations ? 1. Clement, of Alexandria, the most renowned Chris- tian writer of the second century, says, (Stromat. lib, 4 :) ** And this it would seem is the image of baptism, {bap' A CATECHISM OP BAPTISM:. 85 tismatos,) which from Moses has been handed down from the poets after this manner. Penelope, * In waters washed, and clad in vestments pure,* goes forth to prayer. But Telemachus, * Laving his hands in the gray sea, to Pallas prayed.' "This was the custom of the Jews, that they also should be often baptized {baptizes ihai) on their couch." Clement could not have meant immersed, or plunged, or dipped on their couches. 2. Origen, another Greek writer, of great talents and learning, uses the word baptizo to describe the pouring of the water upon the wood by order of Elijah. lie says, (Comment on John :) ** How came you to think that Eiias, when he should come, would baptize, who did not in Ahab's time baptize the wood upon the altar, which was to be washed before it was burnt by the Lord's appearing in fire? Bu' 'le ordered the priests to do that ; not once only, but saj s. Do it the second time, and they did it the second time ; and. Do it the third time, and they did it the third time. He, therefore, that did not himself baptize them, but assigned that work to others, how was he likely to baptize, when he, according to Maiachi's prophecy, should come ?" Origen says that Elijah ordered the priests to baptize the wood ; and by what mode was this baptism done ? The inspired word -avs, (1 Kings 18 : 33 :) " He put tlie wood in order, a t the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the woo ^ a d said. Fill four barrels with wa- ter, and J90wr it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood." 3. John Damascenus : " John (Baptist) was baptized {ebaptisthe) by placing his hand on the head of his di- vine Master, and by Ws own blood." Again, this writer speaks of *' the baptism (baptisma) by blood and mar- tyrdom by which Christ was baptized (ebaptizeto) for us." 4. AthanasicTS mentions several baptisms, of which one is the baptism of Moses in the sea^ another is the 86 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. ceremonial cleansing practised by the Jews, and another is the baptism of ttiars. 6. Gregoky Nazianzen^: "I know of a fourth bap- tism, that by martyrdom and blood; and I know of a fifth, that of tears." 6. Ambrose : *' He who desired to be purified with a typical baptism was sprinkled with the blood of a lamb by means of a bunch of hyssop." Sprinkling with blood was a typical puriiication, but not a typical dipping or immersion. 7. If these learned fathers understood their own moth- er tongue, tlien the purifications practised by the pour- ing of water on the altar, and the falling of tears on the face, and the flowing of one's own blood upon a part of his body, were correctly called baptisms. XXXIV. — The Baptism op Blood. 163. What is the testimony of the Scriptures, as to the meaning of baptizo, and the baptism of blood ? In tluB work it has already been shown, pages 13-16, that the word baptizo is sometimes used in the Bible when it could not possibly have meant to plunge, or dip, or immerse. Further testinionv may be adduced to es- tablish the same point. Additional proof is available to show that the Greek word for baptizo, or baptism, is used in the New Testament, as well as in the Old, ,; a religious act, in the sense of purifying, or cleansing, or washing. . 154. Can you give some illustrations ? 1. Christ said to his disciples, (Luke 12 : 50:) "I have a baptism to be baptized with ; and how am I strait- ened till it be accomplished." This language will apply to his agony in the garden, when " his sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood ;" and to the wounds inflicted on him, by which his sacred body was stained with blood. The early Christian wi'iters abound with similar A OATEOHISM OF BAPTISM. 87 phraseology in speaking of the martyrs who were, they say, " baptized with their own blood.'' This could not mean a plunging, or dipping, or immersion. 2. Some immersionist, or rathor some plunging au- thorities, who make baptism always mean plunging, de- mand that ** we must imagine a plunging even here." Immersionists, of course, bow to the demand. As it is asserted that baptism always means plunging, they must, therefore, "imagine" that our Lord, and the noble army of martyrs, raCist have been, each, plunged in his own blood. Others will rather say that the creed, whose demands are so humiliating to the logical sense, and to a discriminating imagination, must be unreasonable, and unworthy of acceptance. The plunging rendering of the passage just quoted is : "I have a plunging to bo plunged with; and how am I straitened till it be ac- complished." 3. In Rev. 19 : 13, it is said : " He was clothed with a vesture dipped (baptized) in blood," that is, bespattered, sprinkled, spotted, or stained with blood. The vesture had not been plunged into blood, but blood had been shed upon it, and thus it was baptized with blood. This passage is precisely parallel to Isaiah 63:3:" And their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment." « XXXV. — Religious Pitkification. 155. What relationship exists in the Scriptures be- tween baptizing and purifying ? Baptizing, when mentioned in the Scriptures, as a re- ligious act, signifies to purify, or cleanse, or wash; whether it be the baptism with water, or the real, in- ward purification of the Holy Ghost, of which water baptism is the outward symbol. 156. How can it be proved that the term purifying is synonymous with baptizing ? 88 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. By comparing Scripture with Scripture, and allowing tlie Holy Spirit to be his own interpreter. 1. In John 3 : 25, it is eaid: *'Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying." The context shows plainly that the question was about baptism. The answer given by John to his disciples admits of no other interpretation. 2. If to baptize does not mean to purify, cleanse, wash, w« can not understand the question which the Jews, who had come from Jerusalem, put to John, nor John's answer to it, namely : " Why baptizest thou then if thou art not that Christ ?" It never had been predict- ed that the Messiah would immerse, but that he would purify. Isaiah 52 : 15 : "So shall he sprinkle many nations." Ezekiel 30:25: "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you." Malachi 3 : 2, 3 : " But who may abide the day of his coming ? and who shall stand when he appeareth ? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap : And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver : and he shall purify the sons of Levi." Numbers 8:1: " And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them." 3. When the Jewish authorities, therefore, saw that John purified the people symbolically with water, and at the same time confessed that he was not the Christ, it was natural that they should ask John, " Why bap- tizest (purifiest) thou then ?" John's answer is consis- tent with the import of the question, as if he had said : " Do not imagine that I am the great Purifier promised by the prophets : I baptize (purify) only with water, but he shall baptize (purify) with the Holy Ghost. He, and he only, can work in you a complete change of condi- tion. He shall change the* fc"«art through the renewing energy of the Holy Ghost, and that is the real baptism." 4. The Old Testament service is described, in He- A CATECHISM OF liAPTISM. 89 brews 9 : 10, as consistinj^ in meats aiul drinks, and divers washings (baptisms, in tlie Greek,) and carnal ordinances. These ''(iivers baptisms" were pnrifica- tioFis of various kinds — sprinklings and washings, of which the Apostle speaks in the context, (ver. 13:) *'Sprinkliiig the unclean sanctiiieth to the purifying of the flesh." Again, he says, (ver. 10:) "Moses . . . . sprinkled all the people." And again, lie says, (ver. 2 J :) "Moreover, he 8[)rinkled .... -jill the vessels of the ministry." And again, he adds, (ver. 23 :) " It was therefore necessary that the j)atterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these." Jiy allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, and by exa- mining the passages which prescribe these ceremonies, (see pages 6 and V,) we tind that these baptisms could not possibly, in any instah^je, have been by immersion, or j)lunging, or dipping, and that the baptism in He- brews 9:10 does not mean immersion. 5. That baptizing is synonymous with purifying is further ap{)ai"ent from the teachings of Mark 7 : 3, 4 ; and Luke 11 : 38. In M .rk 7 : 3, 4, it is said : " For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their liands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash (baptize themselves) they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing (baptizing) of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables." In Luke 11 : 38, the washing of hands is called baptizing: "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he (Jesus) had not first washed (baptized himself) before dinner." The word rendered " tables," in our version in Mark, means also " beds " or " couches." This is admitted by Dr. Cramp in his correspondence. (Chris. Mess.^ Feb. 22, 1865.) The beds "were wooden structures, from eigl'.t to twenty feet in length, about four feet wide, and about three or four feet high." Hornk says: "In later times their couches were splendid, and tlie frames inlaid with ivory, and the coverlets rich. On 90 A OATEOBISM OF BAPTISM. those sofas, in the latter ages of the Jewish state-— the very period to which this passage refers — they univer- sally reclined when taking their meals." 6. The iramersionist theory, which requires baptism always to mean plunging under water, requires all these persons, pots, brazen vessels, tables, beds, couches, etc., of all the thousands of Jewish families and house- holds to be repeatedly plunged under water. This demand of the immersionist creed is extravagant and repulsive. In summer and in winter, in sickness and in i^ealth, their eating must be preceded by the inevita- ble and evcr-recurring plunging of themselves, their beds, couches, etc., under water. No matter how im- probable, or absurd, or unscriptural all this may be, immersionists must cling to their idea. They can not alTord to allow that baptizo ever means any thing elso but plunging under water. If that creed gives up one point, every thing is lost. Dr. Cramp perceives tLcse difliculties that crowd around his creed, and condescends to bow to the absurdity of saying, ( Chris. Mess.^ JFeb. 22, 1865 :) "In whatever way it may be translated, or whether we are to believe that ' beds,' * couches,' or * tables' are referred to, those articles were treated in the same manner as the ' cups, pots, and brazen vessels ;' that is, they were immersed. They underwent a baptis- 'inos^ and baptismos, as the Greek Lexicon (Liddell and Scott) says, and every scholar knows, means 'a dip- ping.' " That Dr. Cramp and his creed are both wrong is evident, first, from the inspired word, which shows that .hese baptisms were always performed by sprink- ling ; and secondly, from the law of common sense, which is never antagonistic to the law of God. 7. J. H. Godwin, {Notes on Mark:) "This (Mark V : 4) is one of the three passages in the New Testament which refer to Jewish baptisms, and show that, what- ever may have been the primary meaning of the word, it had become the name of a class of purifications, distin- guished by their importance, and not by the mode of A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 91 their performance. Nothing is more common in all lan- guages than the change through new usages of the pri- mary signification of words. From Hebrews 9 : 10 it appears that the pimjications appointed by law for the service of the tabernacle were called haptisnis ; but none of these were immersions. Here the name is given to puri ications of the person, observed by all the people of Judoa when they came from the market ; and to the purifications of couches also. But the practice of im- mersion is unmentioned, unparalleled, and almost im- possible." 8. The Apocrypha of the Old Testament shows that to baptize and to purify are synonymous; and that to baptize could not meari to dip, or plunge, or immerse. The Apocrypha was written .by Jews who were well acquainted with the pCi'soiial washings prescribiid in the ceremonial law, and who used the dialect in which the New Testament was written. In Judith 12 : '7, it is shown, by the literal translation, that "she baptized herself in the canip, at a fountalii of water." The context shows that "garrisons had been set over the fountain." There is no probability that this high-born, refined lady disrobed in the presence of the soldiers and immersed herself She had gone to baptize as a prejjaration for prayer, and the custom of that peo- ple required, not immersion, but the washing of face, and hands, and feet only, as the baptism necessary for 2>rayer. In Ecclesiasticus 34 : 25, it is said : " He that bap- tizeth himself after the touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing ?" Here baptizo is used in the sense of washing. A reference to the law for the purification of those who were defile«l by touching a dead body shows that there was no plunging or immersion here, but that this baptism was by sprinkling. 157. How does it appear further that this purification does not mean immersion ? ^ g2 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. There is no passage of Scripture that indicates that immersion is a scriptural mode of puritication or cleans- incr or washing ; but numerous passages show that it is by* affusion that this purification of botli the bodies and the souls of men is accomplished. XXXVl.— Naaman the Syrian. 158. How was Naaman, the leper of Syria, cleansed of his leprosy ? He was cleansed by observing the law specially ap- pointed for such cases. (See pages 14 and 15.) 159. What was that law ? The law is found in Leviticus 14:7: ** And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the lepro- sy seven times, and shall pronounAje him clean." 160. Was there any other way of curing the leprosy? There was only one way of curing the leprosy, and that was by following the divinely appointed directions. The leprous person must submit to God's plan, and be sprinkled seven times. 101. To whom did this law concerning the cure of leprosy apply ? To all who were afflicted with the disease, whether they were strangers or home-born, bond or free. 162. How can you prove that ? By passages of Scripture which show that God's laws w^ere meant for general recognition and acceptance. Though the commandments were given in the midst of Israel, and specifdly for that people, yet they are meant for all. The leprosy of either body or soul can be cured in only one way — by special compliance with God's plan. There is no other way. This will apply to the stranger or the home-born, to the Jew or the Gen- tile. In Leviticus 24 : 22 it is said, aft^ar giving the law concerning various feasts, sacrifices, priests, murders, A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 93 sin-offerings, uncleaiinesses, and leprosy : " Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger as for ono of your own country; for I an\ the Lord your God." 163. Yvhat does Dr. Cramp say of Naaman ? Pr. Cramp admits {Cor. Chris, Mess.^ January 11, 1865, and Catechism, p. 72) that "Naaman was a leper,'* and that "lepers were cleansed by sprinkling." Ho evidently found the leper an unpleasant subject to h;in- dle, and was compelled to resort to some weak and transparent sophistry and special pleading. He saj^s Naaman's cleansing was not " a legal cleansing ; it was, so to speak, outside of the law. It is useless to say that Tno law required him to be immersed.' He Avas not cleansed according to the law, for he was not under it." " It was a case of miraculous intej-ference above and beyond the law." 164. What proof does Dr. Cramp give to sustain his position respecting Naaman ? Dr. Cramp offers not one word of proof to ^/iistain his assertion. He can not produce one wovd from the Bible to show that Naaman might be cleansed frorj the leprosy in a different way from any Oiie else. The Bible reveals only one way. Thougli Naaman was u great man, he had to observe God'r- requirements if he desired and would secure his ble&sing. Though Naaman was not one of God's people, yet he went to an inspired servant of the Lord, whose duty it was to teach and to practise the law of God ; and he went to him to be cured in the way that God's servant would direct. There was a well-known law that exactly met Naaman's case. He came as a stranger, it is true ; but God had said, (Numbers 9 : 14 :) "Ye shall have one orditiance, both for the stranger and for him that wpj-s born in the land." There was no "miraculous interference; above and beyond the law," as Dr. Cramp imagines ; none v/as needed. An existing long-established law, applicable to " the stranger" and to " him that was born in the 94 A CATECHISM Or BAPTISM. land," exactly met tlie necessities of the case. Let Naaraan "sprinkle himself seven times," and the won- drous power of God will be seen. This sprinkling is called baptism. 165. How do you prove that Naaman sprinkled him- self seven times ? He was made clean; and the Scriptures show that his disease could not have been cured except he had been sprinkled seven times. In 2 Kings 5 : 14, it is said : " He dipped himself seven times. '^ In the original Greek if is: "He baptized himself seven limes." The inspired word shows that this baptism must have been sprinkling. Dr. Cramp asserts that he immersed him- self seven ti'i'es, because the Greek word used is haptizo^ There could l>Mive been no cure for the leprous man if he liad failcid to .sprinkle himself seven times, ds God' ; law requ'ied. 166. Why dO( s Dr. Cramp assume that there was an immersion here \ He can not h( Ip it. He must do tLat or give up his creed. lie must contend that there was a miracle in the case, and th?. / sprinkling, whiijh was the established and well-known symbol of demising and blessing, must be set aside, and that immi^-sion, a new mode, was in this case emplo/ed; or otherwise it would be apparent that sprinkling was tho mode whereby Naaman was baptized. XX XV II. — Greek Church Baptism. 167. "Wl,.<.t does Dr. Cramp assert concerning the Greek Church? Dr. Cramp says, (Catechism.^ p. 45 :) "Has the Greek Church ever sustained sprinkling or pouring ? No. I was about to say that this is remarkable. But it is not remarkable. The New Testament was written in Greek. In speaking of baptism the Apostles used the Greek word A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 95 haptko. Cliristi.'ina nowadnys differ in opinion as to the n.eai.nig of that v^orrl. What can be taircr than to submit the qnetslion to tlie Greeks themselves? Thev must surely understand their own lan-uai^e. Now the Gieeks have always held baptism to be iinmersion, and they have practised accordingly. They do so to this day, even durnig the severity of a Russian winter. The Kussiaus, you are aware, belong to the Greek Church." 168. Are Dr. Cramp's assertions true? Dr. Cramp gives part of the truth and suppresses part when he says the Greek Church inunerses and does not. sustain spiinkling or pouring." 169. In what way do the Greeks baptize? 1. They immerse three times and ponr or sprinkle three times. They frequently dip their infants to the breast and ponr water on the head. 2. Booth, (whose work Dr. Cramp recommends,) in us ledobapUsm Examined, quotes Deyungius : "So long as the Apostles lived, ^.9 mcmy believe, immersion only was used, to which afterward, perhaps, they added a kind of affusion, such as the Greeks 2)r a ctise at this daii after having performed the trine immersion." 3. HuBER says : "I resided upward of three years in the capital of the Grand Seignioi's dominions, in a (^reek family of the first respectability. During that time I was present at four baptisms—two in the family and two m the immediate neighborhood. It is the custom among the Greeks either to have their children baptized publicly in their churches, or else in their houses ; in which latter case the parents invite their nearest rela- tions and neighbors ; and after the ceremony, while re- freshments pass round, the father gives to each person present a token of witnesship, consisting of a small piece of Turkish money, through wliich a hole is pierced and a piece of new ribbon inserted. I was thus invited to at- tend the four .:b(.ve-menti()ned baptisms, and I still have ui my possession two tokens- the other two may be seeu 90 A. CATECHISAI OF UAFTISM. ill Mrs. McDowall's nms^uin in Danville. The company were all seated on the 8ofas around the room. A table Blood ill the middle with a basin of water on it. Tho priest was then sent foi', wlio, upon enterini^ the room, was received by the t':ither ot* the infant and led to the baptismal water, which he consecrated by a short prayer and the sign of a cross ; then the mother presented to him her babe, which he laid on his left arm, and in tho name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost he thrice dipped his hand in the water and dropped some of it on the child's forehead, giving it a name. . . . Most generally the infants are baptized in the churches. Be- fore the altar stands a tripod holding a basin of conse- crated water for baptism." This was the baptism pio- per. The preparatory immersions which the Greeks — at least in some places — practise would be performed in another apartment and without the presence of the priest. 4. The immersions were not baptisms proper. In earlier days, persons when immersed were naked. Dea- conesses were appointed to officiate at the immersion of women and of girls. These immersions were prepara- tory to the baptisms proper, which were performed by the minister. The minister was not required to be pre- sent while the parties, being naked, submitted to tho trine immersions. 170. What word do the Greeks use for immersion ? Since immersion has become a practice among the Greeks they use the Greek word katacluo and its deriva- tives, which means "to dip under," "to cause the sink- ing of," "to immerse." The word haptizo would not answer their purpose, because, in common usage, it was employed to express any kind of religious washing, howevei- partial. 171. Will you give some illustrations to show that the Greeks use tho word katacluo to indicate the act of immersion ? etc. til A CATECHISM OF llAPTISM. i)J 1. CYniL, of Jerusalem : "PlurijTe them clown (htta- duete) Llirice into the water, and uVise tliciii uj) again." 2. Basil: '* JJy three iininersiors (e7i trld katadusesi) and by the like numbed' <'tc. 3. JoiiN" Damascenus : '*]>a|)tisni is a type of tiie death of (Jhrist ', for by three inuuersions, {kataduseon )" -;te. 4. PiioTius: ''To immerse {katadusai) a child three imes in the bath,'"' etc. 5. Dr. Oramp asks: 'Wliat can be fvirer tlian to sub- mit the question to the Greeks themselves ? Thev must surely understand their own hmirdage.''' The question has been submi.ted to them, and it^appears that when they wanted to express \\\it actio a of putting under icattr they cho>e the word kataduo. If these Greek writers believed that haptizo expressed definitely the act of im- mersion, why did they select otlier words to express that action, and employ haptizo in cases where there was no iinmersion ? XXXVIir. — Ciikist's Ordination. 172. When did Christ's ordination take place? (/hrist was ordained al)out the ch,se of John's minis- try, and when he was sprinkled with water by John and aacinted with the Holy Ghost. (See page 24.) ] 73. Was it necessary that Christ sliould be ordained for the work of the ministry and priesthood ? Yes. Every high-priest had to be ordained in thincys pertaining to God. (Hebrews 5 : 1.) All generations are bound together in one moral system, having one God and one religion, whose principles do not change. In the old dispensation, as in the new, those who hTve been called to the sacred office of the ministry in the church \vere required to be set apart by consecr.ition or ordination. In Christ we liave the high-priest typified 98 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. » in lIio old (lisjKMisatioii, and in liini we liave the 6rst and greatest preaolier ot tlie new. 174. What does Dr. Ci-ainj) alHrni respecting Christ's baptism tor the vvoi'k of tiie piiesthood ? 1. Dr. Cramp appears to teacli that C/hrist was not a ]niest at all. lie says : " These are novelties in theuU)gy. Tile ba})tism of the Saviour did not take place under the law. Thi're was no command of tlie kind in the law." IVIattliew tauirht dilt'erentlv ; for lie savs ('hrist came to John to be i)aplized, for thus it became liim to fultill the requirements ol" the law. 2. Dr. Crai.M) savs: "I must confess mv astoinslunent at tlie childish folly of those who assert that our Lord was baptized in or : i;i, "He shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne." Christ, as a priest, was made like unto his brethren in all things required by the law. John the Forei'unner was properly qualified, because of his official position, to apply to Christ the spriidvling of water, without which he could not legally have per- formed the functions of his priesthood. A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 103 12. Dr. Cramp is anr.ized at the fact tli.jt such o])iii- ioiis are lield and taui^ljt ; and he has e\,)iv"s(»d iiis astonishment at wlial he considers tliis ^'chihlish folly." His astonishment is natural and suooestive. A cienr and consistent exegesis of this suhject exposes tlie al)- surdity involved in the dogma that Oiirist was haptized as an example for us ; and that Ciirist was baptized by immersion. XXXIX. — Dipping Difficulties. 179. Will you mention some of the difficulties in- volved in the immersionist theory? 1. On the day of Pentecost three thousand persons were converted and baptized. The gift of the Holy Sj>irit came upon the assembled brethren. "They were nil iilled with the Holy Ghost and began to speak." This became "noised abroad." A multitude of devout men of diiferent nations, then in tiie city, hearing of these things, went to the iiouse whei-e the ' brethren were assembled. These were all amazed, and had .^omethinc: to sav '''one to another." Peter standinor up with tlie eleven, lif ed up his voice and preached. Tins s])eakiiig, and this gathering of the multitude, and tliis preaching, must have consumed a considerable por- tion of the day. The Baptist theory requires that in the remaining fragment of the day those three thousand persons must have each told his or her experience ; and must have each been immersed, which would involve on tlie part of each a change of clothing. It seems difficult to compreliend how so much could have been accom- plished in the swift-running moments of a fast-wani?ig day. It is difficult to resist the suggestion that, if those three thousand persons must each be put under water, it would be needful, lor various reasons, to defer a por- tion of the operation until the following day. To have baptized those three thousand persons by the mode pre- dicted by the prophet, when speaking of these latter days, (Ezekiel 36 : 25 : "Then will I sprinkle clean water 104 A CATECinSM OF liAPTIS^J-. Ti))OTi yon, and ye sliall be clean,") \voiil<1 liave heon in accordance willi existini^ nsaoos, atid could liavc been done in llie house wliere the word was preaclied, aitd wliere the bretliren received tlie baptisn) of the Spirit. 2. A difficulty also presents itnelf in reference to the place where such a ceremony could be performed. '' No river passes the city ; the nearest lake is many miles away ; the brook Cedron is the dry bed of a litllo stream which only flows in the winter months." And neither wells, pools, nor cisterns could have been used for such a purpose. 3. The immersion of those three tliousand persons would involve a ))ublic display in a city intensely hostile to the disciples, and their cause, and their Master. Dr. Cramp says, (Ca^ec7^^,s;/v, p. 38:) "There were public pools — the pool of I3ethesda, the pool of Siloam, and others — at which the administration miffht have taken place without any difficulty." Dr. Cramp, obviously, does not comprehend the situation. There existed, among: the authorities of the church and of the state in Jerus:dem, as well as among the people, the bitterest hostility to Christ and to his gospel. It is impossible that Peter, with the other apostles and brethren, could Iiave taken three thousand pei-sons to any of the pools of the city, or any other public place, and immersed tiiem, in the nam'^. of Jesus, " without any difticuliy." An attempt to accomplish such a work in Jerusalem would have provoked a most furious opposition, and would have caused a wild and wide-spread uproar throughout the whole community. The ]>revailing popular senti- ment of Jerusalem at that time would not liave permit- ted their public pools to be used for a purpose so dis- tasteful and abhorrent to the Jewish people. 4. The manifestation of the popular feeling, soon after the day of Pentecost, against Peter and John, for having professed to heal a lame man in Jerusalem " in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth," indicates what would h.-ive been the result if there had been an attempt U) inimeise A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 105 those tlirce thousand persons in tlie ])nl)Iic {tools oftlint city. Peter and Julm were arre.sted and iin])ris(>ned and put upon Uieir triid, becanse of tlie good deed done to the in)potent man in the name of Jesus. Tlie arrest of those brethren, and their imprisonment and their trial, fihow how malicious and how j>ervading was the hatred against Jesus and Ids disciples. It the knowledge of tlie perfoi'manee of an isolated deed of mercy, like that of healing the lame man in a public place in the name of Jesus, had excited the i)opulace, and had caused the assembling of the great council of the nation— '' the rulers, and eldei's, and scribes, and high-priests " — how much more would the city have been moved with rage, and the authorities with indignation, if the brethren Inid attempted to immerse those three thousand persons in the pools, for which they cherished so much pride, and in the name of the Nazarene, whom they had hanged on a tree. Tiie fact that there is no record of any opposi- tion or any uproar, on the |)art of either the rulers or the people, on the day of Pentecost, suggests the inevi- table inference that those three thousainl pei'sons bap- tized on that day could not have been immersed. 5. Immersion ists afiirm that baptizing is dipping, or plunging, or immersing, and that these terms are there- fore synonymous. li\ subjecting their theory to a practical trial, and substituting one of these words for another, its absurdity will become apparent. Let us look at a few examples: Matthew 3 : 11 : ''I indeed plunge you with Avater unto repentance ... he shall plunge you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." ^fatthew 20 : 22 : "Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be plunged with the plung- ing that 1 am plunged with ?" Mark 1:4: ''John did plunge in the wilderness, and l>reach the plunging of repentiince." Mark 7:4: " And when they come from the market, except they plunge, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the 106 A CATECHISM OP^ BAPTISM. plunging of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tJibU's;" that is, beds and couches. Acts 11 : 16: "John ind.eed plunged with water; but ye shall be jjlunged with the Holy Giiost." Acts 19: 3: "Unto what then were ye pluuf^ed? And they said, Unto John's plunging.*" Itonians 6 : 3, 4 : " Know ye not that so many of us as were plunged into Jesus Christ were plunged into liis death ? Therefore we are buried with liim by plunirinf into death." ^ ^ "" ° 1 Cor. 12 : 13 : " For by one Spirit are we all plun. jd into one body." If either the word "dip" or "immerse" were substi- tuted for the word " plunge," in the quotations given above, the difficulty would be quite as manifest. The same absuidity would appear in praying for the desirable baptism of the Holy Spirit in the dipping phraseology : Lord, plunge my soul with the Holy Ghost ; or, dip my soul with the Holy Ghost; or, plunge, or dip, this congregation with the Ploly Ghost. 6. In 1 Cor. 10 : 1, 2, the Israelites are said to have been "baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." The Israelites were not plunged unto Moses, nor im- mersed unto Moses. Upon the Israelites the clouds dmpped down rain. The Egyptians were immersed. Hut the Egyptians who were'immersed were not bap- tized ; and the Israelites who were baptized were not immersed. In 1 Peter 3 : 20, 21, there is a probable reference to the baptism of Noah and his family in the ark, by the rain which fell upon them. Peter shows that baptism is the antitype of the salvation of those eight souls. Yet the very gist of their salvation con- sisted in^ their not having been imirersed at n^'. The unbelieving contemporaries of Noah wlio were innnersed, and perished in the deluge, were net baptized ; but the eight souls who were saved in the ai'k, and were bap- tized by the falling rain, were not immersed. A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 107 ^^'- — Immei4!;ionist8 and Infant Kaptism. ^ 180. Wli.Tt opinions are held bj- iiniMcrsioiiislsruspcct- ing the .'intiquity onnfiml hnptism ? Iinmersioiiists are not able to point to the date at which th.e i)r;ictice of infant baptism, wliich they cr--. si tism is administered ' even to little children acc<)rdin<_c to the usage of the church;' and in another, that 'the' church has received from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to little children.' " 186. How does Dr. Cramp dispose of the teachings of Origen ? He assumes that Oriixen wras not sound in his theo- loc:v — that he could not adduce a "Thus saith the Lord" in confirmation of the right to baptize infants — that he was "a fanciful theolonian " — and that what Origen taught was oidy " the usage of tlsc church " and "tradition." Dr. Cramp says: ''Origen knew that it was only a tradition, and that neither j)recept nor pi-e- cedent liad been discovered in the New Testament." 187. What do you learn from these admissions? 1. Dr. Cramp's admissions show that tlie defense of his creed i?ivolves him in contradictions. lie aduiita thnt Oriuen, lorn in the second century, taught that infant bnptism was "the usage of the church," and that the church in the time of Origen held the " tradition" that infaut baptism had existed in the Apostles' day. The disagreement apparent between these admissions and Dr. Cramp's previous teaching, that "infant baptism lirst a))pear( lias blmideml Homewhere If the chmrh recei/ed frori the Apostles a tradition to <>ive K.ptism tr iMfa,,ts~-and if Oi|,.en, as he .-.fHrnis, was hii.iseU bajjtizec. m irin.ncy, then J)r. Cnnnp's assertions are u.nvonhy oi acceptance, and his creed needs revision >n(i aineri(!inf*nt. . ■^r«^''*?'f' appears to think that he has disposed of j.edirt.culty which Origen gives his creed, by amrn.in- Dat Ongci had no better ground for teaching tlial iiihuits snoiihl be baptized than "tradition" and the prevai..^^" custom of the church;" and by affinnin<. th'?f A T ,^«^^;»^"t, ^«^'s not teach the doctrinen that Origen believed and taught. The point, however M Inch we are now considering is, not what is tauoht in the Scriptures on this subject-that point is elsewhere livest.gated-but what was the pi-act ice m Orir/eu^s time, from the year 1S5 to the yen r 254; and what did Ori(/en. say was the practice of the churd, from the ApostlesUUy f On these points Origen's teimonv i clear and siiows that infant baptism was practised in thenisdve" ' "^m^^^ down from the Apostles XLT. — The Coven^ant of Grace. 188. Were infants included in the Covenant of Graced Infants were included with their pnrents i., the cove nant of grace. Pliey always received the seal of ihat covenant; and they can not therefore be excluded with- out an express command from God. The practice of ifant baptism may be justified by the continuity and entity of the covenant of grace to Jew and Christian, the sign only of admission being altered. ' 189. Does the covenant of grace still exist ? The covenant which God made with Abraham is the gospel covenant, and under it we now live. ^ 190. Are all the provisions of the covenant still bind, mg I A CATKrmSM OF BAPTISM. HI The covonimt embraced scnoral inoi«lcntal matters which were; pi'ciiliar to Al)raluim's iiatui'al Reed, tho Jevv8. But all these have either expired by limitation, or been revokt'*], or chariujed, by God's eominaini. 'J'hat covenant at the same time included tlie promise of the Messiah and all the blessings of the Gospel. It clearly included the Gospel itself and the gospel church and all its blessings. Gen. 17:7: "And I will establish my covenant be- tween me and thee and thy seed after thee in their gen- erations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Gen. 2'2 : 16-18 : *' By m}^self have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: *'That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiply- ing I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies ; "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." These passages show that God's covenant with Abra- ham was " an everlastinii: covenant," and included a blessinof for " all the nations of the earth." Tliat must liave been the gospel covenant. 191. Does the New Testament teach that the cove- nant with Abraham included the gos])el dispensation ? 1. Yes. It teaches that the covennnt with Abraham comprehended a spiritual family, including all the faith- ful, so that those who obey the gospel are included in the promise as Abraham's promised children. It is believed that the declaration, '' In thee shall all nations be blessed," was the Gospel pi-eached before unto Abra- ham. Gal. 3 : 6-9 : "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. "Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, thiiigs is a fiiltilliueiil ot that eoveiiajit, and that it is not a new tiling, but a continuation of the Abrahamic family, with such altera- tions as were required to adapt it to a wider circle by the incorporation of the Gentiles." 193. Does Paul elsewhere teach the same doctrine? Paul, under the figure of an olive-tree, shows that the g:ospel church is the old Abrahamic tree, with the GeJi- tiles gratfed on. llomans 11 : 17-21 : " And if some of the branches he bioken otf, and thou, being a wild olive-tree, wert gratfed in among them, and wilh them parlakesl of the root JMid fatness of the olive-tree; " IJoast not against the brandies. ]>ut if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. " Thou wilt say then, Tl)e branches were broken oflj that I might be grafted in. " Well ; bc^cause of u!ibelief they were broken otf, and tliou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but (ear: " For it* God spared not the natural branches, take lieed lest he also spare not thee." 194. Did infants receive the seal of the covenant of grace ? Yes. Circumcision was the seal of the covenant in the Judaic dispensation, and that seal was placed upon infants. Gen. 17 : 10: "This is my covenant wliich he shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised." Romans 4:11: "And he receivcui the sign of cir- cumcision, a seal of the righteousness ot the taith which he had yet being uncircutncised : that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not cir- cumcised." 114 A CATECHISM OF lJAlTIS\f. 105. Wlifit ol»au2je wuR iiiMdc rcspcciini^ the scul of the covoiiant under the new dispcnsution ? Tliis subject lias been very ])ri('fly eoiisidcred at page 38. JJaptwni takes the place of cii-cunirision a:i»l is now the seal of the covenant. *' Circinncision wjih a mark of di lie re n CO between the pe()|)!e of God and tlie uncov(»nante(l worhl, and baptism is now that same mark of distinction." It follows, therefore, of necessity tliat infants an; to have the seal of the covenant place(i upon them — that is, they are to be baptized. ]90. Wliat inference appears inevitable from these teach inixs ? The iTosj)el cburcli is no more and no otlier tlian tlie perfcctiny- of the Abrahamic covenant. Tlie trutli, as involved in the covenant made with Abraham and sealed by circumcision, is confirmed in Christ, and we are enjoyinii^ the perfected state of that covenant in the ])rlvileyes and blessint^s of the gospel church. Uojuans 15 : 8, 9 : ''^ow I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for tlie truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers : "And that tlie Gentiles mioht glorify God for his mercy ; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name." 1 97. Does a change of the seal involve a change of the Rul)jects of the seal ? ° As infants are included in the covenant of grace, and made partakers of its benefits, and as they received the former seal, they mu8t receive the present seal, wliicl. is baptism. Nothing but an express command can pre- clude infants from ihe rite of baptism. No sucli com- niand has been given. No such preclusion has been intimated. There is no record in the Scriptures that favors it. A special enactment to baptize infants was not needod. The existing covenant covered the whole ground; and infant bapUsm was required under the A CATECrnSAt OF BAPTISM. 115 ciroumstaiicos, us no coinnutud liud btuii issued ibibid- diiig It. ^^^^^' — The Gukat Commission. 108. Wlieii vv.is the rrreut coininissiori given ? AtU'i' tho resurrection of our Lord and just ])revi()U8 to Ins uscentaou. * MattlKnv 28 : 18-20: ^'And Jesus came and ^mke unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in hei- ven and in earth. "(4o ye therefore, and teach all nations, bar)tizin'r them n. the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy (;host: > ' "Teaching them to observe all thinirs Avhatsoever I have comma, (led you: and, lo, I am with you alwav even unto the end of the world. Amen." 190. What does this commission teach resnectiixr in- taut baptism ? x o 1. The commission tenches that we are to mala^ dis- ciples of all persons-all nations. A nation includes the children of the nation. They were therefore to make disciples ot the children. This is to be done by first baptizing them, and then tenchin^r them. After they have been baptized, let them be taught so that they shall grow in grace, hi wisdom, in knowledge, and iii nsetulness Ihe immersionist exegesis, which requires that ue shall first complete religious instruction and tiien h.ipiize, is manifestly wrong. Till:: "^f "xr '"" ^'' }^? ""^^ the ''most important uncial i>JJ5.s. the Vatican, (13,) and the Cambridge Codex, (Co- dex Bezne or D,) the Greek reading is:''"i\lake disci- pies ot all, and having baptized {hapHscmtes) them in the name of the Faiher, and of the Son, and of the lloly Ghost, teach them to o])serve," etc. Laxge says, this IS the more correct rending, nnd that the text implies two acts, a mission.-iry nnd an ecclesiaslieal — the ante- cedent baptism, the bub.sequent instruction." Mkyku 116 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. says, the text nccorcIii)(r to the readincr of tlio rnnjority of the MSS. with the present parli(;i|;Ie {Ixipiizoittts) even, requires first baptism and tlien tc aehinir. Alfokd says, this passatre implies; "the initi.itory,*" admissory rite, and the subsequent teacliing. It is much to be regretted that the rendering in our Bible lias clouded the meaning of tliese impoilant words. It will be ob- serve«l that in our Lord's words, as in the church, the process of ordinary discipleship is from baptism to in- struction, that is, is admission in infancy to the cove- nant, and growing up into the observance of all tliino-s " XLIII. — The School of Chkist. 200. What provision has Christ made for us as the great Teaclier V He has provided for teaching all nations. 201. What are the conditions for scholarship ? 1. All adult persons who will come, may come, into Christ's school, by :;ccepting him as their authority and guide, and by having faith in him. 2. All infant children may be brought into this school. 3. Baptism is the entrance to this school. Peter received the Gentiles to the church by baptism. The Epistles, which were designed to teach those who were in Christ's school, assume that all the disciples have been baptized. 202. Is it right to baptize the children of unconverted parents ? Yes; if the parents bring them. The fact that pa- rents bnng their children to be baptized implies, on the part of the parents, an outward profession of Christ and beyond this we have no authority to claim. ' 203. What example has Christ set respectimy the admission of infants into his churcli ? ° 1. Ciirist received infants when brought to him. He A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 117 did not stop to inquire about the cliaracteror motivo8 of the parentH who brought their children to him. He «le- c ared that they were subjects of his kincrrb)m-henco they were entith^d to admission therein, 'lie did not baptize them: Christian baptism had not been then nistituted. No adult person had then received (Jhris- tian baptism. tn,ni what Christ said and en. Entrance into covenant with Christ is one ct the wavs by which little children can come to him. From Chn'st's command lo sufter little children" to come unto him, we infer that he does not stop up a siiinrle one of those open and tra- veled roads, whereby at any time children can come to him. hince he does not, v»e should not. "He open- eth, and no man shutteth."" 204. What do the Scriptures teach respectiuij child- hood scholarship ? ^ » 1. The Scriptures teach that children should bo brougnt np " in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.' (Eph. 6 : 4.) ■ Tiie interests of Christ's kino-d a are all-important; and the souls of men are precious beyond all price; it is therefore of the greatest moment tiiat the earliest as well as the most careful efforts be made to train up children ario-ht. 2. The church of Christ is a school. The course of education is summed up in the order and the studies which the Master prescribes. In this school are those who have placed themselves under the instruction and directions of the Master; and those also whose parents have placed them there to grow uj) under the Master's authority, and discipline, and counsels. Persons are not admitted to this school because they have been taught, 118 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. but because they iiee8, 30 : "Then Peter said unto them. Re])ent, d be bapti^sed every one of you in the name of Jesus A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. HO Si Of tt>;;^r '' ^^"^' ^^' ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^- ^^>^ and ^alf^.^r ^f^^ T^ ^'"' ^°' ^^ ^^^^ ^^"^^'•^'^' AWn r"'^^'* evidently referred to the promise made to Abraham, which included infants. He was a Jew and was preaching to Jews ; and these must have un' derstood him^ as including mfants in this promise. i.AJ^GE says, in a note on this passas^e : *'The church and tne people of God had hitherto been so constituted that not only adults but also little children belonired to the people of God, and with all these he made a cove- nant that he would be their God. Let us now suppose that, on the day ot Pentecost, Peter had thus addressed the Jevvs: Brethren, repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesns Christ, for the remis- sion of sins; but your little children shall not be bai> tized ; they shall remain in their sins, continue in their state ot condemnation, and be counted among the i)eo- ple ot batan, until they grow up and reach the years of understanding;' what answer would the devout Jews have made ? ..... If the Apostles had made holy baptism, which is the true door of the kino-dom of hea- ven narrovyer, by instituting a baptismal "examination, as those deluded spirits do who degrade the sacrament ot baptism to the rank of an exhibition of certificates ot their lull-grown ' believers,' then these three thousand could nevei- have been added on the samQ day." ^LY. — Apostolic Examples. 206. Did the Apostles baptize infants ? It is evident from the Scriptures that the Apostles baptized infants. Various passajres indicate that fact. Acts 1(5 : 31-33 : "And they said. Believe on the Lord Jesns Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 120 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. " And he took tliem the same hour of the night, and WMshed their stripea ; and was baptized, he and ail iiis, straightway." 207. Uow does it appear from this passage that in- fants are entitled to baptism V By tlie pliraseology employed by Paul. He used two different Greek words on this occasion, which, in our version, are rendered " house ''—oikos and oikia. The word oikos is used by both Old and New Testament writers in the sense oi family, Avith special reference to infanta, and the same word oikos is frequently used in the classic Greek to express the same meaning. The word oikia is used by the same writers in the sense of honsehold, including servants. The passage just quoted siiould read: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy family, {oikos,) (including all thy children.) And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his household, (oikia,) (Includhig servants, if any.) And he took them vants and all others; but he only baptized the jailer and his {oikos) family. The promise was to 'i;m and his oikos— \n^ family, including his children of what- ever age. The Oi7(r/a— servants of the jailer- heard the word; but we do not read that one of the oikia was ba[)tized, whereas this we do read of the i:;iler, and all his house; which is precisely what the Ap >stle foretold. 208. Do other passages of Scripture indicate the same teachinjys ? 1. Yes. Lydia and her oikos, and Stophanu? Rndi his oikos, were baptized. 2. It is difficult to imagine any phras(iologY that could have been employed, which would more cloarly ex|)ress the fact that the Apostles baptized int'ints. If tlie nar- rative stated in any direct terms, " The Apostles bap- A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 121 tized infants," still objections niiirht have been urged, Origcii, who was born in the second cefituiy, and who was in a jyosition to be acquainted with tlie facts, says that the Apostles baptized infants ; and imniersionists exclaim : " Fanciful theologian "— " Metaphorical in- rants." No words can ho teach any doctrine but un- scrupulous controversialists may object. 3. Lange says, (in note on Acts IG ; 15 :) <' The real strength of the argument (namely, that as households in- clude chddren, we have no right to except them from the general statement) lies not in any one case, but in thej-epeated mention of whole houses as baptized." Bengel says: '' Who can believe that not one infant was found in all these families, and that Jews, accus- tomed to the circumcision, and Gentiles, accustomed to the lustration of infants, should not have also brou-dit them to baptism ?" ^^ ^ 209. Is the testimony of the early fathers, and histo- rians of the church, in harmony with these views? 1. Their testimony is in exact coincidence therewitli. Tertullian was the lirst person who wrote against infant baptism. He published his works about the year 198. From these we learn that infant baptism Avas practised then, or he w^ould not have written against it. This was more than a century before Constantine was con- verted, and hence it was before the introduction of cor- ruption into the church, through its connection with the state. If infant baptism had been introduced after Ter- tuUian's birth, which was about the middle of the second century, his strongest argument would have been, This IS a new thing— the Apostles never baptized infants. J?ui he never intimated that it was an innovation. 2. The fragments of liistory that have come down to as from the earliest times of the Christian church are all in favor of infant baptism. Tlie fact that theie is no record of the introduction of this practice, h strong evidence that it was the custom of the church from tha beginning. 122 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 3. Dr. Wall says : *' For the first four hundred years after Christ, there appears only one man, Tertullian, who advises the delay of infant baptism in some eases, and one Gregory, who did, perhaps, practise such delay in the case of his own children; but no society of men 8o tliinking or so practising; or any one man saying it was unlawful to baptize infants. So, in the next seven hundred years, there is not so much as one man to be found, who either spoke for or practised such delay, but all the contrary." XLVI. — Believers' Baptism. 210. Do the Scriptures teach that, under certain cir- cumstances, faith is required before baptism? Yes. All persons, morally responsible, who have not received baptism, and who seek admission to the Chris- tian church, are required to believe before being baptized. 211. Do immersionists differ from others on this point ? 1. Immersionists do not differ on this point from others. They sometimes mislead, by presenting pas- sages to prove that believers were baptized in apostolic times, which is a fact admitted by all. Moreover, it is sometimes urged that they hold the baptism of believers, and their antagonists the baptism of infants. Such a representation is a misstatement of the case. 2. The baptism of believers is common ground to the Protestant Church. Every instance recorded in the Bible of f;dth being required in order to baptism, is a case where affusionists would require faith in order to baptism. From the multitude who were converted on the day of Pentecost, from Saul of Tarsus, from the eunuch, from Lydia, from the jailer of Philippi, and from all other Jewish proselytes and Gentiles, a profes- sion of faith v/ould of course be required. 3. There are nine cases mentioned in the Scriptures where faith preceded baptism ; and any one of these is A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 123 euoiirrli to prove t]i:it any person, in tlie same circnm- stniices as they were, musl believe in order to be bap- tizefl. But niai-k wliat tliese circumstances were : Every one of tlicm, up to the peiiod of liis baptism, was either a Jew or a Jewish proselyte, a Samaritan or a heathen ; each one of them was an adult coming into the Christian church from the worhl beyond it; each one of them was the case of a person wliose parents had not been Christians; and none of liiem had ever received Christian baptism before. 4. Immersionists differ from others in affirming tliat because an adult needs fnith before ]>aptism, therefore an infant needs faitli before baptism. His logic does not carry conviction with it when he affirms, because a profession of faitli was needed from Jews, Samai-itans, and pag.'ins, on their entrance into the church, therefore the infants of those in church membership already need to make a profession of faith, or be excluded from baptism for want of it. If faith before baptism is le- quired from adults, in certain circumstances, it does not follow from that fact, that faith before baptism is re- quired from infants in totalhj different circuinstcmces. A person who would settle in another country and im- der another flag than those of his birth, is required to secure articles of naturalization before he can claim the rights of a citizen or a subject in the country and under the fiag of his adoption ; but he who is born within llie reahn may claim the rights of a citizen or of a subject, as lus by birth. The circumstances peculiar to the alien and to the home-born are materially different, and have an important bearing on the question of citizenship. For the ali'Mi there must have been an initiatory rite — the profession of fiith or ^delity (sometimes called an "oath of allegiance") to the nationality into which he would enter. From those born in the realm no such pledge is required ; the rights of citizenship are theirs l)y birth ; they are free-born. Infants belong to the kingdom. No Buch profession is required of tliem as of the alien, to en- 124 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. title them to mernbersliip in the Christian nationality. Let their membership, then, be recognized by baptism. XLVII. — Objections considered. 212. Will you state some of the objections to infant baptism, and how those objections may be answered ? The principal objections urged against infant baptism have been examined by Dr. Luther Lee, in his JSle- ments of Theology^ and may be here reproduced. 1. " It is objected thit there is no scriptural warrant for infant baptism. " To this it is replied, the objection is not admitted. It is insisted that a scriptural warrant has been made out in the preceding arguments. Whether or not there is a scriptural warrant for infant baptism, is the main question at issue, and to object that there is no such warrant, is to beg the whole question. It is thus seen that the objection can not be admitted in this form. 2. " It is objected that there is no express command in the Scriptures to baptize infants. In this form the objection is admitted, as a fact, but the conclusion is denied on the following grounds : " (1.) No express command was necessary, as infants had always been admitted, Jewish children by circumci- sion, and Gentile children with their parents, by circum- cision and baptism. It required a command to exclude them, rather than one to admit them. This has been proved in the direct argument, and the argument need not be repeated. I' (2.) The absence of an express command is not suf- ficient to exclude infants from baptism only upon the assumption that nothing of like kind is to be done with- out an express command. This can not be maintained. There is no express command for admitting females to the Lord's Supper. It is clear that no females were present at its institution, and there is no command to admit them. So far then as the simple want of an A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. 125 express command is concerned, female communion must be abandoned or the objection to infant baptism must be abandoned. There is no express command for observing the first day of the week as a Sabbath, and yet it is almost a universal custom. There are a very few Bap- tists, known as * Seventh-Day Baptists,* who are con- sistent enough with the ground they are compelled to take to oppose infant baptism, to repudiate the Chris- tian Sabbath and keep the Jewish Sabbath. The nature of the evidence in both cases is the same. 3. " It has been objected that infants can not believe. It is not insisted that they can believe. The reply rests upon other grounds. " (1.) Infants could not believe when they received circumcision, and yet that very circumcision was a seal of the righteousness which was by faith. And faith was required of all who were old enough to believe, in order to receive circumcision ; yet cliildren who could not believe were included with their believing parents, and circumcised without being able to believe. " (2.) Faith is more clearly in order to salvation than it is to baptism. ' He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.' Tliis, some contend, ex(;ludes all but believ- ers. In a limited sense it does, but only so far as to exclude all unbelieving parents with their children; but it includes all believing parents, and the children of believing parents are included with them by the very terms of the covenant. This has been proved. If it were not so, it would exclude infants from salvation ; for it is added, ' he that believeth not shall be damned.* This shows that these words of the commission do not take cognizance of the case of infants, or it would exclude them from salvation, and of course we are left to fall back upon the terms of the covenant to learn what relation they sustain to the ordinance of baptism, which has been proved to be the initiatory rite of the covenant of grace. It does not say he that is not bap- tized shall be damned, but only 'he that believeth not;' BO that while infants are included with their believing 126 A CATKCmSM OF BAPTIS^f. pfironts to receive the seal of the covenant by baptism, the cliildreii of unbelievini; parents are not excluded from fsalvation by })L'inible makes short work of the imrnersionist controversy, and at a single stroke attempts to unchurch all the fol- lowers of Christ who have not been immersed, and all Christian churches that do not stand on the inunersionist platform. 215. Is this new version indorsed by any who are not immcrsionists? 1. It is sometimes disingenuously affirmed that dif- ferent denominations cooperate in the publication of the new Bible. It is even sometimes asserted that ministers of the several Protestant churches are identified with iminersionists in this enterprise. Those statements are manifestly absurd. It is impossible that a Christian minister, whose mode of baptism is sprinkling, could be a party to the publication of a book wliich condemns his own personal practice, his own creed, and tlie discipline of his own church. The testimony pf any man would A CATECIITSM OF BAPTISM. 129 bo uttculy wonliless, in mtiv court of justice, nvI.o woul.l ime hold the jninisten:,! oliicc in u clnnvh wMc eXs thf *hTI!h"! T'"" ^'y^''''^.'^y ?;'^"y ^'^^^^ nn.l wise men of the Baptist deno.mnutiou, " too l<,v..,| to their own ante- cedents t^o n.uch alive to the pJr.nanent intc" t of that portion of Christ's church, too well versed in the 8(.h()laiship of the a-e, to accept the change thus forced upon thein, and allow themselves to be unceremon o isly thrust out of the Baptist Church and swept into the church of the inimersionists." ^ 216 Does the publication of the immersionist Bible tend to the promotion of the interests of trutii ? As the immersionist Bible is obviously pu],lished in the interests of a denomination, its example is clearly pernicious If immersionists may publish a Bible which shall teacl the prominent, distinctive, and peculiar tenets of their creed, other denominations may follow their example. The difi'erent sects, professin- 'to hold the truth revealed in tlie Scriptures, may each have their ±5ible which with their peculiar interpretatiors of the original, shall settle in their own way all controverted points in theology. The " American Bible Union " has no more right to pervert the Scriptures in the interests ot immersion, than any other sect has to pervert the Scriptures in its interests. The tendency of such a course must be deplorably adverse to the interests of truth. 217. What serious defects are apparent in the new version ? 1. Some of the prominent defects of the new version have been noticed by Professor Jewett, substantially as follows : "First, as an Englisli work. While modernizing the 130 A CATECHISM OF BAPTISM. l.infxufiijje of the common English version in many criSes, il still retains many of its ol)8olescent forms, and is Ihus inconsistent witli itself Many of its renderings are un- 'ntelligible to the common reader. It frequently f^ra- ploys tautological expressions — as, * from hence,' ' fn-m thence,' ' from whence,' etc. It recognizes no law lor the use of Engjlish relatives, usin