'>. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 l^|28 |2.5 1.8 I.I 11.25 IIIIII.4 IIIIII.6 V] <^ /2 /: Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. US80 (716) 872-4503 > ^^^s i/j CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques at bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a ^t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur r~~| Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul^e □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur6es et/ou pelliculdes □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ D D D Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents v/ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages d6tech6es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Quality in6gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire y n Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text, Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6x6 film^es. D D Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film6es 6 nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. n Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppidmentaires: This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est U\m6 au taux de reduction indiqui ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X v/ 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thank* to the generosity of: izaalc Walton Killam Memorial Library Daihouiia University L'exemplaire filmt fut reproduit grAce h la gAnArositt do: Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Library Dalhousie University The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont At6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de rexemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impr(>^:.sion. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont film6s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmte en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniire page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "COIV- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmi^s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsquti le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, 11 est film6 d partir de I'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m6thode. 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 '■>'. fe^^-^.' .f /e^ ■«**&tfei /" ;* \l s< % PRINTJ mgrr SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. \\ ITS p[«4i mA SMblttt. BY REV. ISAAC MURRAY, PRESBYTERIAN MINISTEE, CAVENDISH. CHARLOTTETOWN, P. E. I. PRINTED AT THE PATFIOT OFFICE, SOUTH SIDE QUEEN SQUARE. 1869. y / / / II (' PREFATORY NOTES. 1. Having complied with n request to review a pamphlet oo Baptism, published by Rev. D. Crawford — to which refer- ence is made in the following pages — I delivered three lectures at Summerside on the mode and subject of that Christian rite ; the substance of which is now given in this Tractate. 2. The matter found on pp. 4 to 10, is taken from Dr. Dale's recent work (1867) on Classic Baptism — a Treatise which com- petent authorities hold to be unanswerable. It is published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, Phil., U. S. With his eye on Classic use, he thus defines Baptizo : " Whatever is capable of thoroughly changing the character, state, or condition of any object, is capable of baptizing it ; and by such change of character, state, or condition does, in fact, baptize it." Dr. Schaeifer, Lutheran Theological Seminary, says, this definition "so aptly stated, is clearly made out." Professor Thayer, Andover Theological Seminary, says, " The theory that baptizo expresses a definite act — ' mode and nothing but mode ' — is shown to be pitiably helpless when applied to ' all Greek literature.' " Dr. Hitchcock says to I)r. Dale " You have certainly shown that baptizo does not, like hapto^ mean to dip." Drs. Hodge, Plumer, Green, Smith, Newhall, and all the lead- ing Divines of the different Pedobaptist denominations of the United States, likewise, agree in sustaining Dr. Dale's conclu- sion. Dr. Bomberger, German Reformed, when recommending Dale's work, adds, " Cause for serious complaint has been given by theologians and ecclesiastical historians by conces- sions far beyond philological and archeological fact." 3. What is it that Baptists do when they baptize ? Answer, They put a person into water and quickly raise hiui out of it. They are, therefore, bound to show that Classic Greek usage squares with or justifies this practice — that baptizo means this and nothing else, or their cause is hopelessly lost. Now, this they cannot do. To show that baptizo means to sink, immerse, plunge, overwhelm, &c., is nothing to the purpose. Not one of these words means to put into water and take quickly out of it, i.e., not one of them describes what Baptists do when m Prefatory JSTotes. tbty baptize. The only word which does this is dip; but baptizo does not mean to dip ; and therefore cannot describe what they do. •1. It may be stated in reference to the view given of Rom. G : 3-G, that the Apostle does not rest his argument on death and burial in their ordinary acceptation and accidents, but on death of a peculiar kind — a death of which there is only one example in the universe — i.e., the vicarious, sacrificial, propitiatory death of Christ — a death which is a satisfaction for sin. Such ii death as this cannot bo represented by merely putting a person out of sight, or covering him up in water. This might re- present a common death with its common accidents, but it cannot re; resent CMirist's death with its peculiarities. And the passage cannot refer to the simple, outward facts of Christ's death and burial, but to the inner truths, the spiritual facts and principles involved therein, viz., to the satisfaction given to Divine justice for the sinner by Christ's death, and to the ben- efits conferred on sinners in consequence of that satisfaction. The passage refers to a peculiar death, and as such, God taught his church to employ as a suitable symbol of it, sprink- ling or pouring. The passage has another peculiarity, viz., it refers to the union of the regenerate in that death, and the effects of this union on all who really enjoy it. But how can reference to common burial bring out such peculiarities ? Bap- tism refers to what is jyecidtar in Christ's death and burial, as a sacrificial victim, and not to what is common ; while Baptists view this rite as referring to Christ's death and burial, but in the light in which they are common witli any other death and burial. The idea of the passage is really missed in the Baptist view of it. The celebrated I)r. Owen takes this stand also. He says : " There is not one word or one expression (in Rom. G : 3-5) that mentions any resemblance between dipping under water and the death and burial of Christ, nor one word that mentions a resemblance between our rising out of the water and the resurrection of Christ. Our being buried with him by baptism into death, (ver. 4) is our being planted together in the likeness of his death, (ver. ,5). Our being planted to- gether in the likeness of his death, is not our being dipped under water, but the crucifying of the old man, (ver. 6.) Our being raised up with Christ from the dead, is not our rising from under the water, but our walking in newness of life, (ver. 4,) by virtue of the resurrection of Christ That baptism is not a sign of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, is plain from hence — because an instituted sign is a sign of the Prefatory Mtes. dip; but describe Rom. : eath and nil death example )ry death Such n a person night re- s, but it And the f Christ's facts and given to > the ben- isf action, ich, God t, sprink- ty, viz., it , and the how can IS? 13ap- jurial, as 3 Baptists !il, but in leath and 16 Baptist and also. (in Rom. ing under vord that the water th him by gether in anted to- )g dipped 6.) Our >ur rising life, (ver. aptism is Christ, is jn of the gospel grace participated, or to be participated. If dlppiog be a sign of the burial of Christ, it is not the sign of a gospel grace participated ; for it may be whore there is none, nor any exhibited.** Again, he says, " That interpretation which would INKRVATE the apostle's argument and design, our comfort and duty is not to be admitted. But this interpretation, that bap- tism is mentioned hero as the sign of Christ's burial, would INEUVATE the apostle's argument and design, our comfort and duty ; and therefore it is not to be admitted. Tho minov (in this syllogism, or what is found in the last sentence) is thus proved ; tho argument and design of the apostle is to exhort and encourage unto mortification of sin and new obedience, by virtue of power received from the death and life of Christ, whereof a pledge is given in our baptism. But this is taken away by this interpretation ; for we may be so buried with Christ, and planted into the death of Christ by dipping, and yet have no power derived from Christ for the crucifying of sin, and for tho quickening of us to obedience." Works. Vol., xvi, p. 2C8. .'). Socinians assert that the Divinity of Christ is not so fully set forth in Scripture as Ave might expect from tho importance of the doctrine. As bearing very directly on tho subjects dis- cussed in the following pages, especially in tho second part ; a portion of the answer of the late Principal Cunningham to the Socinian objection is here given. " We have no right, because no sure ground to proceed upon in attempting to prescribe or de- termine beforehand in what particular way, with what measure of clearness or frequency, or in what places of Scripture, a doc- trine should bo stated or indicated ; but are bound to receive it, provided only God in His word has given us siijlicienf. grounds for believing it to have been revealed by Him, — cspecitilly as it is manifest that the Word of God, in its whole character arul complexion, has been deliberately constructed on purpose to call forth and require men's diligence and attention in the study of its meaning and in the comptiriiftnt of its statements ; and to test also men's fairness, candor, and impartiality, as indicated by their being satisfied or not, with reasonable and sufficient, though it may be not overwhelming, evidence of tho doctrine therein revealed. The resolution with which the Socinians set out, of laboring to establiah a bare possibility that thu words mai/ not have the sense wo ascribe to them, — that tlicv hi/ possihilif)/ have a different meaning, — has no reasonabltj foundation to rest upon ; and it produces a state of mind manifestly opposed to anything like a candid and impartial A-. ( VI Frefatcry J^otes, investigation of what it is the Scripture truly means. Under the influence of this resolution, men will generally find no difficulty in getting up ome plausible grounds for asserting, that almost any conceivable statement does not necessarily mean what appears plainly to be its real and intended mean- ing, and that it might by possibility mean something else; while they lose sight of, and wholly miss, the only question that legitimately ought to have been entertained, — namely, What is the true and real meaning, which the words bear, and were intended to bear ? " The rules which determine this true meaning are given on pp. 77-81. 6. ^jlS ther'^ is no controversy about adult baptism, the subject of discussion in the second part is confined to infants. That they are fit subjects for baptism, sufficient Scripture proof is there given. A superficial reading of the {Scriptures may make a Baptist — PedO'±{aptists must be well instructed in the word of God. ERRATA. On Page SO, line 21, for right read rite. On Page 36, line 15, for their read its. On P' ge 36, line 16, after Mark 7 : 4, insert, if iinmersiou were the mode. On Pages 39 and 40, wherever Heb. 10 : 23 occurs, read Heb. 10 : 22. On Page 47, line 23, for 2 Cor. h : lo, read 2 Cor. 5 : 14. On Page .50, line 9, omit baptized. US. Under lily find DO r asserting, necessarily 3ded mean- thing else; ly question 5 — namely, vords bear, determine iptism, the to infants. pture proof turea may cted in the itnmersiou cims, read iv. 5 : 14. part ^rst. IN( Mr. cerity dispoG are t] Super Id ma womei assure would servici dange trate. sphere which Pofi invitei of Gk)( laws a ofGo( laws j will ai comm can laws, ] cepts I So far far a& moral " Oar< \ SCRIPTUEE BAPTISM, In defending the exclusive rite of dipping, Baptists, as Mr. Crawford does, find it necessary to proclaim the sin- cerity of their motives. Their sincerity we do not feel disposed to dispute. But what availeth it ? Thousands are this day sincere in defending the grossest error. Superstition never lacks sincerity. Paul was as sincere in making havoc of the Church, in murdering men and women, as in preaching the Gospel of Jesus. Christ assures his disciples that those who would kill them, would do so, under the impression that they did God service. The more sincere a man is in error, the more dangerous he is, the more mischief he is likely to perpe- trate. Let us be first right, then sincerity has a suitable sphere for her exertions. The question before us is one which rests on the former, not on the latter quality. Positive Institutions. — We are, by the pamphlet, invited to say a word on positive institutions. The laws of God are either natural or moral and positive. Moral laws are founded on the infinitely holy and just character of God, and in their very nature are obligatory. Positive laws are such as depend only upon the sovereign good will and pleasure of God, and which he might not have commanded, and hip nature remained the same. This can only be taken as a general description of positive laws, for Butler truly remarks : " Moral and positive pre- cepts are in some respects alike, in other respects different. So far as they are alike we discern the reason of both ; so far as they are different, we discern the reasons of the moral, but not of the positive." And very properly adds : " Care, then, is to be taken when a comparison is made 2 Scripture Baptism. between positive and moral duties, that they be compared no farther than as they are different. Unless this caution be observed, we run to endless confusion." To this direc- tion baptist writers seem to pay little attention, and the result-is as stated by the Bishop — They run into endless confusion. But in view of the facts just stated, it is plainly our first duty, in the study of positive institutions, to settle what is strictly positive, and what is not, or may be of a moral kind. What is moral or not positive in these in- stitutions, can havp as a matter of course, light thrown upon it by all scripture modes of reasoning. (2). We should remember that positive precepts are no farther binding, than the authority enjoining them can be dis- cerned. Their influence to bind or oblige is proportion- ally weakened as the authority commanding is dim or doubtful. We can not bow to human dictation, in lieu of Divine authority. And we here most firmly assert that the action or the mode of baptism which baptists practise is no where in the Sacred Scriptures positively com- manded. (3). When positive precepts come in conflict with moral, the former must give place to the latter. The positive command to rest on the Sabbath did not prevent the Israelite from relieving his ox, or ass, or from discharging a«ts of humanity and mercy. In all such cases, God demands mercy and not sacrifice. _,Hence the act of dipping persons—especially weak females — through the ice, is sinful. In regard to the outward in religion, it may be well to notice, that, in the New Testament Dispensation, little stress is placed on modes and ways. It may also be noted that the Pharisees were great sticklers for positive pre- cepts, obeying " exactly," in outward things, to the letter ; but their hearts were full of covetousness and every evil. Baptism is a positive ordinance, but what is positively commanded by God in this institution, is the point in dispute. Is it the act, so far as mode is concerned, of putting a person into water, and quickly removing him out of it ? This is what Baptists do ; we must bold them bound by what they do, and not by what they say. Or, are we only positively commanded to make use of water, jy be compared ess this caution To this direc- 3ntion, and the n into endless is plainly our ;ions, to settle r may be of a ve in these in- light thrown ag. (2). We fe no farther 1 can be dis- fs proportion- ig^ is dim or ition, in lieu dy assert that )tists practise iitively com- fe in conflict ) the latter. )ath did not ass, or from In all such .Hence the 3 — through 7 be well to ation, little so be noted ositive pre- the letter ; every evil. positively point in icerned, of 5ving him hold them sdi/. Or, of water. Scripture Baptisjn. 3 e as a symbol of spiritual or moral purity, leaving the mode of application undetermined ? The latter represents the view of pedo-baptists. The Lord's Supper is a positive institution ; yet much about it is not positively determined. We are enjoined to take bread, but the mode of doing so is not fixed — whether we recline, or sit, or stand, or kneel ; whether we take more or less, with one hand or two. We are com- manded to drink. But Christ does not define how much, or how little, though it may be said the term drink im- plies more than a mere sip. Were we to determine what our Lord intended by eating bread and drinking wine, in this ordinance^ by the same principle that baptists labor to fix the meaning of baptism, viz : by the mere force of the term Supper, our conclusion would be wholly false and mischievous. Supper was the principal meal among the Hebrews. To be consistent, baptists should ask us, 'How can taking a morsel of bread, and a sip of wine, be desig- nated a supper, or full meal ? How preposterous ! they should exclaim. Does not a meal indicate the taking of food until nature is satisfied ' ? Were they successful therefore in showing that the word baptism meant origi- nally nothing but dip, in view of the freedom allowed in the Lord's Supper, we have still a right to ask. How do they know that the mode of baptism is positively fixed by the Lord ? Let them produce the Rubric which He composed and enjoined on this point. This they cannot do. But we most emphatically deny that baptize means, nothing but dip, and will show that while the action, whicli is contained in dip, is what they always practise, yet Baptists cannot always translate baptize by this term ; or by any word containing the ideas of dip. We hold that this is not only not the primary meaning of baptize, but that it is doubtful if it can be shown ever to express what dip does. This statement is intended to hold good, not only in reference to New Testament Greek, but also to that of the Classics. Dr. Dale has demonstrated that Baptism is not dipping, and dipping not baptism — that the Greek words, which stand as representatives of these English terms, are never in all Greek literature interchanged. Bapto (dip) is never exchanged for baptizo (baptize). Scripture BapUsm, \\ Classic Meaning of Baptize, — We will here state that nothing can he clearer than that mode, or speciac action does not enter into the primary meaning of baptize. Its original meaning simply expresses the fact that a body or object is within a liquid element ; hoto that body was made to assume that condition or state, can never be ascer- tained from the word itself. Instead of action or mode inh«}ring in the word, as baptists maintain, it does cot express mode at all. Many baptist scholars, such ag Gale, admit that this is even so. The point is a vital one, and if sustained, the system of the baptists, so far as the mode of baptism is concerned, is overthrown. Our posi- tion is that baptism is not synonymous with dip. To prove this point we will give the reader the benefit of the labors of Mr. Dale, so far as a general outline can accomp- lish this end. In his work on Classic Baptism, he gives us all the passages in classic authors, in which the word baptize is known to occur. Thus we have spread before us the use of the word as it prevailed among ancient Greeks. He gives in all one hundred and twelve passages. He divides these into six skillfully arranged classes. The first contains twelve examples of the use of baptize^ among these we find the well-known passage from Aristotle, which represents the sea coast as baptized by the tide flowing in upon it. We simply ask, does this action rep- resent the mode of baptism practised by baptists ? If the sea coast were lifted up, and then put into the sea and taken immediately out, it would represent what they do. The action of the tide is any thing but this. From each one of these twelve, dip is excluded ; the baptism is per- formed by flowing, sinking, in-putting, falling, throwing, and walking. He hence holds that. To represent baptize by dip is wholly destitute of authority from Greek writerj —that the corner stone of the Baptist system "Dipping is Baptizing, and baptizing dipping, is pure error" The above examples of baptize are such as show no influence exerted by baptize, on the object ba][>tized. He next gives twenty-five examples, in which the baptism is connected with certain influence, e.g., destruction of vessels. So far as the destruction of vessels is concerned, the kind or mode of baptism is oinTcing^ the influence, dectructive, and ill here state le, or specmc ng of baptize. 3t that a body Kat body was ever be ascer- tion or mode I, it docH cot tars, such ae is a vital one, 10 far as the I. Our posi- th dip. To ►enefit of the can accomp- jsm, he gives ich the word aread before iong ancient Ive passages, lasses. The ytizey among n Aristotle, by the tide 5 action rep- its? If the the sea and lat they do. From each •tism is per- ?, throwmg, sent baptize :eek writers "Dipping ror." The 10 influence 5 next gives connected sis. So far le kind or uctive, and Scripture Baptism. 6 the time taken to perform the baptism indefinitely long — already thousands of years, and will continue until the sea gives up its dead. Is there any thing here that looks like a dip ? This is too slow a process to baptize three thous- and in an afternoon. Do baptists hold tnat they are com- missioned to sink men in waier, and to keep them in that state for a long time ? If they were to give baptize no other meaning than sinh^ they would readily discover that their cause was a sinking one. Why, then, say that this word has but one meaning^ through all Greek literature — one baptism ? Well, is this to sink ? In other instances of the class, now under consideration, the mode of baptism is flowing rounds coming in upon the subject, but in none of them can we say that the baptism was by dipping. Again, he presents twenty-four examples, in which the baptism is performed te secure influences of various kinds, such as drowning, saturation, &c. As to the mode of these baptisms, it is a most significant fact that Dr. Conant — one of the ablest and latest writers on the baptist side — can find only four wLich he feels safe in translating by dip. Mr. Dale shows that Conant is wrong in translating bap- tize by dip in these instances. It is a further notable fact that out of all the examples furnished by Conant from Classic Greek, he brings dip forward only three times additional to the four above noted to represent baptize. And it is a fact that, when he does translate baptize by dip, in these three last instances, he does so in violation of Greek syntax. Thus, an author, who set out with the avowed purpose ot proving that baptists, alone of all chris- tians, baptize in a way which brings out the exact mean- ing of the Greek word baptize^ can only, with any show of correctness, employ the word dip four times. But dip is the only act which has any semblance to the baptist method of baptizing, — the only thing they say they do ! Mr. Dale then gives six examples, in which the word baptize is used figuratively, and observes : " It is the ele- ment which moves to meet its object. The point of the figure is neither act nor covered condition, but turns wholly on influence. In no one of these is there the shadow of dipping/' In view of all the examples of 6ap- ti^ in ancient classic or pagan writers, there can be but S Scripture Baptism. one conclusion. T?ie primary meaning of this word is not to dip. Baptists were wont to say that their mode of baptism was in harmony with the primary meaning of baptize ; this, henceforth, will not be asserted by scholars. Dip does not belong to baptize at all. This fact we con- sider fairly made out by Mr. Dale. Baptists must be content to look for a secondary meaning for baptize to establish their peculiar " action " ; whether tl»ey shall dis- cover it, even here, is more than doubtful. In reference to the secondary meaning of words Mr. Dale quotes Dr. Carson who says: "Very many of the words of every language have received a metaphorical application ; but when custom has assigned this as their appropriate meaning, they are not to be considered as figures of speech. The grammarian will find many meta- phorical words, which wm not be recognized as such by the rhetorician. In explaining the word enlighten^ for instance, the grammarian will say that it signifies to in- struct, In a metaphorical sense, from the resemblance be- tween the effects of light and information. But this term being as much appropriated, now, in the above sense, as^^ the proper term itself, the rhetorician does not consider it as belonging to his department." From this it follows thut any word which, in pecondary use, has secured a well defined meaning of daily, long continued use, and with great breadth of application, loses, wholly, its fig'u,rative character, and must fee considered simple and literal in its expression. This is true in all respects of Baptize. We find this word used through a thousand years, com- monly, variedly, and independently, as expressing a definite meaning of its own, clearly growing out of, yet wholly distinct from, its original, primary, physical use. (Dale). This sense is as literal as the primary one. Of this secondary sense, Mr. Dale gives us thirty examples. In them all there is not a single case — whether in fact or in figure— in which the baptism requires its object to be placed within ivater, or anything else. We give an ex- ample or two : (1). What is sudden, all at once and unexpected, astounds the soul, f silling on it unawares, and thoroughly baptizes it. (2). When midnight had baptized the city by sleep. There can be no image of dip here. In t1 obje([ ovefl it is word is not eir mode of meaning of by scholars, act we con- 'S must be baptize to y shall dis- words Mr. lanyof the etaphorical is us their leidered as lany meta- as such by ighten, for tfies to in- iblance be- ; this term e sense, as consider it it follows red a well and with' fig\^rative literal in Baptize. ars, com- 3ssing a it of, yet lical use. one. Of samples. n fact or 3cfc to be ■e an ex- ice and res, and baptized 'p here. Scripture Baptism. 7 In the first, baptism is by somethjig falling upon its object ; and in this way exercising a controlling influence over the soul "hanging its condition. " The notion that it is put under water, in any way or intended to be so represented, is simply absurd." In the second the city is represented as being baptized by sleep. "Rhyme and rhetoric," itoys Mrtrfiale, ''carry license oftentimes into licentiousness ; but I do not remember that either has ever taken* the liberty of putting a city to sleej), figuratively, by plunging it into water I * The communication of the gentle influence of sleep, when represented by figure, pro- ceeds on a wholly differeiio basis. The poets represent humid night as gathering soporifics and sprinkling them over the darkened earth, and in this way inducing sleep. The sprinkling of poppy juice is, according to Ovid, sin- fieient to baptize a city in uleep. It would be as mon- strous to say that a city was plunged into poppy juice to induce slcv'^p, as to sa^ — as baptists did in times past — that the lake was dipped in the blood of a frog t If Daptize did, then, originally indicate, (1) simple posi- tion within another object, (2) position within another object with influence, and (3) for the sake of influence, there is conclusive evidence that it indicates influence without demanding pos^'^jon within anything. Nor is such change in the meaning of words any novelty. Bapto originally meant to dip, then to dye by dipping ; dipping for the sake of this particular influence ; and then dying by any mode, even by dropping. Not until Carson arose, would Baptists admit that bapto could have such a latitude, in literal acceptation, as this. The day may not be far distant, when the^ shall have to yield that baptize has a wider meaning than they choose to claim for it. There remain yet fifteen examples of baptize in Classic Greek to be disposed of. The conclusion Mr. Dale reaches after a thorough examination is : Whenever any liquid, possessed of a quality capable of exerting a controlling influence of any kind whatever, is applied to an object so to develop such influence, it is said, on all Classic authority, to baptize that object, loithout regard to mode of application, and with as little regard to physical posi- tion, — An example or two must suflSce. Alexander is 8 Scripture Baptism. I 1 baptized and put to sleep by wine, i. e,, he is made drunk with wine. On this, Mr. Dale remarks : " To dip any one in wine," for th nrpose of representing a state of drunkenness, is a fig ^hlch no thoughtful person ever employed. (1). Becaubfc dipping causes but a trivial effect, drunkenness is one of power. (2). BecaoBe cf want of adaptation. Nothing is made drunk by being put into wine. Immerse is as unsuitable, as dip. Baptists say the whole person, in baptism, must go within the element, consequently, Alexander must go, head and ears, within the wine ; and when there, he must stay there long enough to imbibe the intoxicating qualities of the element. How long this will take, I cannot say ; but quite probablv before he gets drunk he will have got drowneo. Such a case, shows the baptist error of confounding a dipping with a baptism. The qualities of the wine cannot be ex- tracted by a dipping* It shows, also, the essential error of a figure which represents drunkenness by immersing a living being in wine. A condition which has no tendency to intoxicate, but which must drown. Again, Tatius says, Leucippe had another chamher servant whom ha/ving baptized hy the same drug. Here, the effect of this bap- tism is stupifaction, the means, a drug — but where is the immersion? There is influence, but no inmiersion. Once more '" red-hot iron " is represented as baptized with water, by an ancient Greek, when it is cooled by water, " It often happens that heated iron is of such weight, or form, or in such relations, that it cannot be physically immersed. I have witnessed such cases baptized — brought out of a hot state into a cold state — by water, both poured and sprinkled." (Dale) From all this it appears that A FLUID ELEMENT may he used, as an agency ^ in "bap- tism, and accomplish such baptism, without involving the baptized object in a physical immersion, (I). Wine, a fluid element, baptizes without immersion by making drunk. There is no figure here. There is no sign of any figure. (2). Wine is used as agency, and not as element, into which the person is plunged. (3). The question here is not whether wine covers, or envelopes, or immerses. ItistI to. Wine I of thi^ it covJ ThI be no r^fe; saaMW •«• Scripture Baptism, 9 18 made drunk " To dip any ing a state of ful person ever but a trivial )• Because cf K by being put dip. Baptists go withm the lead and ears, tay there long f the element, uite probably )wnei Such ing a dipping cannot oe ex- ssential error ' immersing a J no tendency gain, Tatius whom hewing ^ of this bap- where is the ) immersion. baptized with ed by water. )h weight, or »e physically ed— brought water, both is it appears tcy, in hap- waiving the ). Wine, a by making sign of any as element, lestion here immerses. It is the intoxicating qtidlity exclusively that is referred to. Who ever thinks of tnis quality covering a man? Wine baptizes by its intoxicating principle solely ; robbed of this it ceases to baptize, i, e., wine baptizes, not because it covers its object, but on an entirely different principle. Then an opiate potion baptizes, but here there can be no physical immersion. We cannot conceive of a man going over head and ears into a pool of stupifying drugs, when we say he is stupified by drugs. This stupifaction is called a baptism. Had the drug been in the form of a pill, it would have baptized equally well. But what shall we say of a figure which rests on the idea that the baptized are " plunged in" a pill ? Strong wine is said to be baptized by ancient Greeks when water is poured into it, and changes it from being intoxicating to unintoxicating. In all such cases as have now passed before us, the word baptize would be appro- priately translated by conthols, or powerfully influences^ without the slightest regard to the mode or action by which the agent controlling, effected or accomplished that influence. Give what explanation you will, the stubborn .ct, the truly Important thing, remains ; the Greeks dail^ effected baptisms by a draft of wine, by a bewildering question, and by droppings from an opiate. Accumulate around these baptisms, metaphor, figure, picture, and what not, I make my argument with finger pointed to the cup^ the question, and the opiate drop, and say, the old Greeks baptizedy through a thousand years, by such things as these. (Dale) The sum of the matter is, that Baptize demands for its object, condition. 1. A change ii its present condition, introducing it into a condition of complete intusposition. This word has no form of act of its own; it asks for none ; it accepts indifferently of any, of all, competent to meet its demands. (2) It demands a complete change of con- dition, physical, intehectual, moral, or ceremonial, with- out intusposition, i. e., without placing its object within water. And to meet this demand of complete change of condition, it accepts any agency, physical or spiritual, 2 10 Scripture Baptism, |( M competent to the task. Hot iron made to pass into a cold conaition; intoxicating wine made to pass into an unin- toxicating condition; a defiled man made to pass into a purified condition ; a sober man made to pass into a drunhen condition; a wakeful man made to pass into a deeply somnolent condition; are all examples of baptism without intusposition in fact, and without any evidence of intusposition by figure. The varied acta and agencies inducing these baptisms, show that baptism is not confined to any particular act. And, (3) that baptize has any responsibility for the form of effecting primary baptism, or for the manner of applying the agency securing bap- tism in its secondary sense, is an error. (Dale) Hence, therefore, no man can tell from the term baptize, the mode by which any particular baptism was effected, and the foundation of the baptist theory is overthrown. With his eye fixed on every passage in which the word baptize occurs in Classic Greek, and with the criticisms of the ablest baptist writers before him, Conant among the rest, Mr. Dale says, — and let the fact be caretully noted, — I know not of one case where a living man is simply put into the water, and withdrawn from it, by the party put- ting him in. Dr. Conant can find no case in which a baptism can be converted into a dipping ; therefore, he can find no case of the use of this Greek word, (baptize), by which the ritual practice of dipping a man into water, as a baptism, can be justified. Again, he says, To say that a baptism may be produced by a dipping, is to say what the Greek language will be searched in vain to sus- tain. Such is the deliberate conclusion of a scholar, whose learning, logic and judgment, have received the highest encomiums from more than twenty Theological Seminaries, Universities and Colleges of the United States. Who, then, free from the blinding influence of bigotry, can for a moment believe that baptize means nothing but dip? Having taken this glance at the Classic use of baptizo, and shown that Baptists have no ground therein, on which to support their exclusive system ; let us now look at the disagreement of Baptists as to the meaning of this word. They would have us believe that their writers have alwaj eion will BaI tist The tism)| Lei heth W Kt m* r> '*' ^ 'i m >^'*' ^ *$mim Scripture Baptism. 11 iss into a cold into an unin- to pass into a pass into a y pass into a Js of baptism y evidence of md agencies not confined ize has any ar^ baptism, ecuring bap- Je) Hence, 20, the mode ed, and the >wn. With i'ord baptize sms of the )ng the rest, y noted,— I simply put ) party put- in which a lerefore, he , (baptize), into water, ys, To say , is to say ain to sus- a scholar, ceived the heological ted States. >f bigotry, )thing but ■ baptizo, on which )ok at the his word, ers have i ] always agreed about it, and do so still. Such an impres- sion is by no means correct, as the following statements will abundantly prove. BAPTifi%jNC0N8iSTKNCY AND CONCESSIONS. — The Bap- tist Confession of Faith drawn up in 1644, thus speaks: The way and manner of dispensing this ordinance, (Bap- tism) the Scriptures hold out to be dipping or plunging. Let us now ask the "venerable" Dr. Booth (1711) what he thinks of the term plunge to represent baptizo. His answer is found in a bitter complaint against Dr. Williams, for representing baptist practice by the word plunge. Booth says : *' Dr. Williams made choice of the term plunge, rather than immerse, or dip, in order to give a ridiculous air to our sentiments and practice." Here, let it be noticed, while the Baptist Confession asserts that the Scriptures require plunging, Booth holds that that word casts ridicule on Baptist practice and sentiment. We, then, ask Dr. Booth now he defines the word, Baptizo ? Ans. " The primary sense of the term is dip.' Dr. Carson, of whom it is said, his like will not be found for a millennium of years, says, I agree with this ; " My position is that it always signifies to dip; never eapressing anything but mode." Baptizing is dipping, and dipping is baptizing, throughout all Greek literature. Very well, Here is one of the defining terms employed by the Con- fession fairly disposed of — laid aside as a nuisance. We will soon see that the only other term, which it employs, will be given up, too. Morell being asked, how do you define Baptizo, answers, cautiously: "That the word uniformly signifies to dip, I will not venture to assert, nor undertake to prove,' The Confession thus defined it, and Carson says. It means dip through all Greek literature. Dr. Fuller, Charleston Southern Baptist Board of Publication, says, emphatically, " Jf y position is, that Baptizo means immerse. It matters not how the immer- sion is effected.'* (This was published 1859) And the Baptist New Testament, never, not in a single instance, gives dip, or plunge, — the two defining terms of the Con- fession, — a place as a fit representative of Baptizo, (1860). Thus we find both terms of the Confession disposed of, u Scripture Baptism, and that within 200 y^ars. No doubt, the framers of the Coniession, were just as confident that they had truth on their side, as Mr. Crawford is. I doubt not, Baptists of the present age consider that we use the term dip to cast ridicule on their practice, and sentiment, just as much as the " venerable" Booth did, in the case of plunge. Here, now, is a striking fact. In 1644, the wisdom of the Baptists declares that, the Scriptures hold out dipping and plunging as the way and manner therein demanded for Baptism ; 200 years after, when Baptists translate these same scriptures, they do not in one instance allow either of these words the honor of a place in that transla- tion ! After all, the world moves, and so do Baptists from old positions. Here is progress ; the Baptists are compelled to abandon most fondly cherished sentiments. Dr. Oonant writes a defence of the translation found in the Baptipt New Testament. He is therefore fairly committed to the meaning of " immerse" always used in that translation, to indicate the " way and manner of dispensing Baptism." This, no doubt, is the general opinion of the Baptists of the present day. Are Baptist writers beginning to feel that this word must be dropped, and some other, they know not what, substituted ? They are. Already, we find Morell exclaiming, " Thus far we surrender the question of imrmrsion. and in doing so, feel no small pleasure ia finding ourselves in such good com- pany as that of Dr. Cox." How far does he surrender the question of immersioji ? Ans.; by Dr. Cox, with whom Morell agrees, thus far : " A person may be immersed by pouring; was *hQ water to ascend from the earth, it would still be baptism were the person wholly covered by it." These writers give up Baptizo as a word of action; Bap- tism may be by pouring. Gale and Fuller, though not so frankly, make virtually the same admission. This is a concession of vast importance, in this discussion, — it touches the vitals of the Baptist controversy. It disposes of the Confession, Booth, Carson, and Conant, who are all committed to mode as essentially belonging to the word baptism. Mr. Crawlord asks the question. What dction does Jesus Christ require in obeying him in baptism ? Dip, and nothing but dip, is the cry of all Baptists, so far ■.'<.wwiwliiBi>*iM Scripture Baptism, 13 le framers of hey had truth not, Baptists 8 term dip to just as much plunge, he wisdom of \ out dipping in demanded sts translate stance allow that transla- do Baptists Baptists are sentimonts. on found in •efore fairly ^ays used in manner of ;he general Are Baptist be dropped, ed? They riius far we >ing so, feel good com- rrender the ^ith whom imersed by h, it would red by it." •ion; Bap- hough not This is a ission, — it t disposes ho are all the word at acfwn baptism ? its, so far at least as practice is concerned. And, notwithstanding the above concessions, mode, and nothing but mode, is con- stantly wrung in our ears ; if we do not perform a certain mode, — why, we are not baptized, and are rebels against King Jesus I Let us ask, then, what is an act, or action, or mode ? Is it not a particular way, or manner of performing, or executing anything? For example, when I move my hand up and down, we have one action ; when I move it from left to right;, and horizontally, we have another action, mode, or way, when I move it in a circle, yet another, and diagonally, yet another. We, now, ask Baptists what is this particular act en- joined on Christ's followers. Are they agreed, as to the answer? By no means. Their writers are found, not only contradicting each other, but the same author con- tradicts himself, giving sometimes one answer, and sometimes another. They will all tell you, it is true, that it is an act, and that act, dip ; but we have not read far until we find they employ words to translate Baptizo, the act implied in which is very different from what is indi- cated oy dip. Nay, strange as it may appear, a word which does not indicate an act at all, but a state or con- dition, has become the most popular with their writers and followers. But if we are commanded by Christ to perform a certain act, and if that act must be " exactly" performed, then we must know " exactly " what the act is. If I am told " exactly " to raise my hand, I have not obeyed by giving it a lateral or side motion. This shows the Baptist position. They say, in 'llustration, that we are commanded to raise our hand, and, therefore, no other action will do. This is perfectly clear. We must keep them to it. In opposition to this, Pedo-Baptists say, Baptize does not indicate specific action, but a state, con- dition, or something resulting from action, which may be accomplished by a variety of means or ways. The word is general, not specific, in its signification. For example, I am commanded to move my hand. This command, indicating motion generally, is satisfied by any movement of the arm, sideways, or any other way, and does not demand a particular movement u Scripture Baptism. Ml- !!: »( li'Sl Hear Mr, Crawford: he says, " We believe there is a benefit in obeying Jesus Christ in a positive institution, that is, in doing exactly what he has commanded. But if we do anything ehe instead of what he has com- manded, we believe there is no virtue whatever in it**' Pamphlet, p. 12. Here are sharply defined limitations ; ought we not to know " exactly" what the exact act is under such circumstances ? Have the Baptists, again we ask, " exactly " defined this very exact act ? And, again, we answer no. Carson, it is true, shouts dip, and nothing but dip, mode, and nothing but mode ; but he has often to resort to immerse, and, even sink; while Gale, Cox, Morell and Fuller — all in the front rank of Baptist scholars — give up mode. Gale says, " Baptism does not so necessarily express the action," mark the language, "of put- ting under the water, as in general a thing's being in that condition, no matter how it comes so." At this. Dr. Carson lifts up the cry of treason, and says, " Dr. Gale was induced to suppose that it does not so necessarily express action of putting under water, as that the object is in that state. But this is evidently inconsistent with the meaning of the word." Cox says, *' a body exposed to Eastern dews, would be as wet as if plunged into water." Carson at once exclaims, this leaves mode unaccounted for, and gives up the point at issue, as far as mode is concerned." Notwithstanding this, Morell, says : "It appears quite evident that the word, also, bears the sense of covering by superfusion, i. e., by pouring upon." Here mode or action is entirely given up, as involved in the meaning of the word. Conant himself, certainly the most scholarly writer on the Baptist side, seems to feel the impossibility of holding to mode, and nothing but mode: who says, " It expresses the coming into a new state of life, or experience, in which one was, as it were, enclosed, and swallowed up." There is no particular mode neces- sary to produce this state ; pouring could certainly effect it. He defines Baptize, to immerse, immerge, submerge^ to dip, plunge, imhathe, whelm. And then says it means a ground idea which is expressed by them all." What iR the nature of this ground idea ? Is it an act, or condition? Not an act, because, manifestly, immerse, plunge and whelmJ of the] grounc must bl that, aj und d] is com] confess moistei Mr. C, Here Baptist upon a OanM: Christ Lord i coverec comm£ to the mode, do not theory this is then, ] all tb not hj be wi theory dip, a by po the u Bu the f Scripture Baptism, 15 lieve there is a tive institution, imanded. But i he has com- hatever in it." )d limitations ; he exact act is tists, again we * And, again, | p, and nothing it he has often lie Gale, Cox, ik of Baptist ■sm does not so :uage, "of put- I being in that At this, Dr. rs, " Dr. Gale so necessarily hat the object 'stent with the y exposed to i into water." unaccounted ' as mode is , says: "It )ars the sense ipon." Here olved in the inly the most 3 to feel the ig but mode: new state of '■re, enclosed, mode neces- rtainly effect e, submerge, lys it means " What is r conditiou? plunge and i whelm, have no such bond of union. And the character of the act is a matter of supreme indifference. This ground idea can be only a state or condition — action must be abandoned. To make this plain : were I to say that, a ground idea united ploughing, chopping, mowing and digging, I could find no common act that would accomplish this object, — the ground idea that unites all, is labor, expressive of state or condition. We have not then, as yet, found agreement among Baptist authors. Some say it means act, some state. That every Baptist writer contr?^ diets himself, can be abundantly proven. Every one of them will set out with the assertion that, mode is essential ; yet we have only read a few pages of any Baptist author, when we find he is compelled to employ words to represent Baptizo, which, confessedly, implies no mode, such as bathe, wash, wet, moisten, whelm, immerse. We should like to learn from Mr. C, the " exact " act which these necessarily involve ? Here is another difficulty : As we have seen, some Baptist authors hold, that if enough of water be poured upon a person to cover his body, the individual is baptized. Can Mr. C. reconcile this with his doing " exactly" what Christ commanded ; will he please to tell us, whether our Lord intended to pour water upon a person, till he was covered, when he wishes us to. do *^ exactly" what he commanded — or will he admit, that, such a latitude given to the meaning of Baptizo destroys the one meaning, mode, and nothing but mode. — There are Baptists who do not think that this concession does rudely destroy their theory. It is in vain for Pedo-baptists to tell them that this is ruinous to the cast iron rule of Mr. C. Let us, then, hear what the oracular Carson thinks about it. " If all the water in the ocean bad fallen on him, it would not have been a literal immersion. The mode would still be wanting." Carson is here consistent with Baptist theory. It is ridiculous to say, Baptism means mode, dip, and nothing but dip, and then say, It can be effected by pouring, as many Baptists are compelled to do, from the use of the word Baptism in certain circumstar. ces. But we call special attention to this fact ; Immersion, the favorite word, with Baptists of the present day, to ^'t 16 Scripture Baptism, I ii^i 'I represent baptizo, does not indicate any specific oc^, bat a state or condition. Immerse is a state of position within, or intusposition ; " it does not define the depth of position, time of continuance, force of execution, or mode of accomplishment " You cannot tell how a subject has been placed in a state of immersion by the word itself. Example: Here is a piece of silver immersed in this tumbler of water, can you tell me hotv^ it has been brought into this state ? Was the water poured on it, or was it put into the water ; was it put in gently, or thrust in, plunged in, dropped from the ceiling, or how ? You can not tell ; and yet it is in a state of immersion. Is it not, therefore, ^ost absurd to say that haptizo means a certain definite actionj and then translate it by immersion ? Will Mr. Crawford inform us which of the several ways, in which a subject may be immersed, was "exactly" meant when he says, Our Lord commanded his disciples to immerse believers ? And if he attempted to give us the " exact" method, may I press to know how he got his information ? feee, then, tne immense blunder of the immersion New Testament, for immerse is not an act, but Baptists, sometimes in words, and always in practice, my baptize is an act. I confess. Ladies and gentlemen, it is extremely difficult in following my Baptist leaders, to discover this " exact " act, which our Lord ordered us to do " exactly." Conant says, " the idea of emersion is not included in the word." On this, Dr. Dale remarks : " Well, baptizo (in the sense of immerse) will put a man into the water, but it never did, and never will take him out. This, Dr. Oonant admits ; but he adds, as the man is not intended to be drownedj he must be taken out of the hands of baptizo, which otherwise would drown him. In other words, the Holy Spirit has employed a word which requires, absolutely, disciples to be put under water without making any provision for their withdrawal ; and Dr. Conant has to find some way to remedy the defect, on the ground of an inference that they are not to be drowned " ! Let it be here noticed that, raising a person out of the water does not, according to Oonant, belong to the word baptizo. How then can baptizo ever be translated dip f Dip implies outimi all Or predec( assume itself, sistenc; ing on person Baptize Here, not cru so fait takes save its never figure Conant many t having us, so I Buti raise hi he ofFe watery veneral ing on negativ is the c into W8 assured the ler Conani positivi the sul precep water negati^ up to 1 us of, the wa h f Scripture BapUsTn* 17 jecific act, but te of position le the depth of ition, or mode a subject has le word itself, lersed in this J been brought >n it, or was it , or thrust in, w ? You can on. Is it not, leans a certain ■ immersion ? ! several ways, ras "exactly" i his disciples ed to give us V how he got blunder of the s not an act, ^s in practice, gentlemen, it ist leaders, to )rdered us to 't included in Well, baptizo to the water. It. This, Dr. not intended the hands of n. In other hich requires, thout making '. Gonant has lie ground of ;d'M Let it le water does ord baptizo. dip f Dip implies necessarily two things, to put into, and take out immediately. Carson fought manfully for dip, through all Greek literature ; but Conant discovered that his predecessor exhibited more zeal than prudence, and quietly assumes that, Baptizo will put a man into water, but, of itself, never takes him out ! So much for Baptists' con- sistency. But this is not all. Every Baptist when reason- ing on Rom. 6, makes emersion, or the raising of the person out of water, an essential part of the meaning of Baptizo, — the full development of its proper significancy. Here, they all see an emblem of the resurrection. Is it not cruel for this man, who has served the baptist cause so faithfully, to shew to us heretics, that baptizo never takes a man out of water ? — would not, if left to itself, save its subject from drowning ; and, therefore, surely can never emblematize the resurrection. Death it may be a figure of; but of life, how can it ? Will Baptists agree to Conant's view of this matter ? We fear that he, like many that have gone before him, will be set aside, as not having discovered that "exact" thing, which, Mr. C. tells us, so much benefits those that do it " exactly." But if Baptizo puts a person into water and does not raise him out of it, is not Dr. Conant interrrpted, when he offers help to the immersed, to raise him from his watery grave, by another baptist maxim ? Has not the venerable Booth told us, over and over again, when writ- ing on this subject, that positive precepts imply their negatives ? i.e., you are positively prohibited to do what is the opposite of the command. The negative of putting into water is the taking out of the water. Now, we are assured that Baptizo will only put into water, — that is the length and breadth of the command, according to Conant. You are, then, by the operation of the maxim, positive precepts imply their negatives, forbidden to remove the subject out of water, you must stop where the positive precept stops, i. e., you must leave the immersed in the water to shift for himself. Positive laws imply their negatives. Look again : — Sin has two sides, not coming up to the law is one cide. This is what Baptists accuse us of, in regard to baptism ; we do not put people into the water. Well, the other side of sin is, transgression, 18 Scripture Baptism, in iif i I ] or going beyond what the law demands. Baptists assure as they have positive law to put people into the water, but none to take them out ; yet they do it : very well, here is, transgression, going beyond law. Do they pretend to be more benevolent than the lawgiver ? Can not the immersed shift for themselves ? Mr. C. informs us thai Jesus Christ does not require any man to do what is ou'. of his power ? From all this, it would appear that the ^^ exact" thing, which Mr. C. contemplates, is to put subjects into the water and leave them there. This is Baptism — the action demanded of Christ's disciples ! ( But this Baptists never do ; and, according to their own showing, do more than Christ commanded in Baptism. Here, then, we have one Baptist author contradicting another, the same author contradicting himself, and the practice of all contradicting their own theory. Bapto would do exactly what Conant says is Baptist practice. But this word is never used in the Scriptures to designate Christian Baptism. We must follow our baptist brethren still farther, and show their confusion on this subject. Baptist writers continually confound the meaning of dip and immerse. Dip is to put into v;ater, and take out immediately, — to put into water with the design or intention of immedi- ately taking out. Immerse, as we have already shewn, requires no such conditions. Now, why do Baptists con- found two words, whose meaning is so diverse ? The reason is, baptizo does mean sometimes the state of being in, or under water, without expressing mode — or, the same as immerse in its proper import ; but it never means dip. Hear Conant, again, " The idea of emersion is not included in the Greek word. It means simply to put into or under water." As already stated, Conant only translates baptizo, when found in Classic Greek, by dip, seven times. But mark, even in those, he can translate Baptizo by dip, only in violation of his own law, which says, That the idea of emersion, or rising out of the w?' "r, is not included in the Greek word. Here, then, it is plain the Greek word does not mean to dip. But it is as plain that Baptists practise nothing else but dipping. Hence, to reconcile this dis- crepancy between practice and theory, they are compelled to attac times and SOI making unthinl practic^ widely : to the tist the they n\ afford t| well as stated, him 01 Mr. C( Baptizo Strange not use case of That dip and dent. Hebrew works signifyi the aul that I ] Befo say th sink, I *' exact be perf ho lau immcr Baptiz " exac We until many own. the d < MM ■■iSTr i HT i ' i i i Baptists assure into the water, : very well, here they pretend to ? Can not the informs us that ) do what is ou . appear that the lates, is to put there. This is st's disciples ! i ig to their own 3d in Baptism. f contradicting imself, and the theory. Bapto aptist practice. :es to designate ill farther, and Baptist writers and immerse, mmediately, — on of immedi- ilready shewn, ) Baptists con- iverse ? The state of being — or, the same er means dip, snot included into or under slates baptizo, times. But by dip, only it the idea of eluded in the ek word does ^tists practise cile this dis- re compelled Scripture Baptism. 19 ; \ to attach an improper meaning to immerse. They some- times make it a word of a^^tion, synonymous with dip ; and sometimes a word which indicates no action, and, by making the word do double service, conceal from the unthinking, the disagreement between their theory and practice. But for the "lawless interchange of words, widely removed iu meaning, no plausibility could be given to the position that Baptizo always means to dip." Bap- tist theory is, that Baptizo always means immerse ; but they never immerse, they always dip. We may well afford to allow men who condemn their own practice, as well as ours, great liberty of speech. Bapto, as already stated, would not only put its subject into water, but take him out again, and so dispense with the supplement Mr. Conant finds necessary to add to the meaning of Baptizo, before he can save its subject from drowning. Strange, if Christ intended exactly to dip men, he does not use this word — that he carefully avoids it in every case of baptism. That baptist writers understand the difference between dip and immerse, notwithstanding this confusion, is evi- dent. Hear Booth, " The reader needs only to dip into a Hebrew or Greek Lexicon. I have just dipped into the works of such an author. Kow," says he, "this so far from signifying that I feel my mind, as it were, immersed in the author's writings, only means, as Johnston tells us, that I have entered slightly into them.'' Before passing to another author dear to Mr. C, let me say that. Baptists translate baptizo, by whelm, drown, sink, plunge, wet, souse, pour. Will Mr. C. tell us "exactly" which of these was "exactly" intended to be performed in Christian baptism ? Nay, Conant, whom he lauds so highly, besides the definition of Baptizo, to immerse, submerge, employs /oWy other words to translate Baptizo. Will Mr. C. tells us which of all these is " exactly'' intended !• ! ! We have reserved the view of Campbell, of Virginia, until now. Contradicting all that preceded him, and many that follow after, he payp, " I have a theory of my own. My idea is that the word originally meant, not that the dipping should be performed frequently, but that it 20 Scripture Baptism. indicated the rapidity with which the action was to be performed ; that the thing should be done quickly.'* Carapbell saw the exigency of Baptist practice, and defined Baptizo to suit that. But he cannot carry his definition through all Greek literature ; and now takes up sink, or immerse, or any other word, that suits, and then dip as cir- cumstances demand. — I defy Baptists to take any one of their translations, dip, immerse, sink, plunge, bathe, and carry it through all Greek literature. Baptizo has a wider sense than their theory will allow. The result of what has been said is, That, after all the boasting of Baptists, they either do not know what Baptizo means, or they can get no English word to suit it, — that exact thing of Mr. C.'s, is a quantity which cannot be discovered. But what do the Baptists dip ? The whole man^ or only a part thereof ? This is another baptist difficulty. They all agree in saying, that they dip the whole body in water. Stovel says that baptizing is " moving a man until he is baptized in water. Now, do Baptists dip the ivhole of any of their candidates ? We think not "eas- actly.'* Hear Prof. Kipley : " Prof. Stuart blends to- gether two things that are perfectly distinct, viz., the going down into the water, and the immersion into it. That the going down into the water was the immersion, no one believes; the immersion after the descent into the water is expressed by another word, he baptized him." Here the going into the water up to the waist, Ripley says, no Baptist thinks of calling a part of immersion. Baptism is wholly confined to the act after the party is up to his waist in water. This is quite clear. But does any Baptist minister dip the whole body in water ? Taking advantage of the previous walking, or wading, as part of immersion, he only dips his head and shoulders, not his whole body I It is, clearly, only a certain part of the subject that is put into water and taken quickly out. But, according to the definition of Baptists, what they are bound to do to one part of the body, they are bound to do to the whole of it : i. e., put the whole body into water, and quickly remove it. But the matter of fact is, one half, or more, of the body is made wet, or covered, not by the action of dip, but of walking, or, as Stovel says, by :i at. ■fwyT! , ■■^i Mn ni ..yL I K.gHM.'ll ! HL Scripture Baptism, n n was to be ne quickly.'* 5, and defined 118 definition s up sink, or en dip as cir- :e any one of p, bathe, and has a wider isult of what ^ of Baptists, , or they can thing of Mr. i. lole maUy or It difficulty. whole body oving a man tists dip the (nk not "ea;- k blends to- ict, viz., the sion into it. I immersion, jent into the )tized him." aist, Ripley immersion, ihe party is But does in water ? wading, as shoulders, iain part of uickly out. at they are ound to do _nto water, act is, one 'ed, not by 3l says, by moving the body, — had he his eye on this in his defini- tion ? — though Ripley says, these two acts are perfectly distinct ; that no one believes that going down into water immersion, or a part thereof; baptism takes place IS after the subject is in water ! But baptism in the hands of the Baptists is not one act^ but many acts, not single, but complex, not an act, or action at all, but a complicated process, — including walk- ing or wading, and dipping, wading into, and wading out of, as to part of the body ; putting i. lo, and taking out of, as to the remainder, — occasionally dashing water on the face of some parties, who could not be put into the liquid grave, is resorted to. Some of these acts are per- formed by the minister alone, some of them by the subject. This is " exactly" what the Baptists do ; and where do we find one word, through all Greek literature, which " ex- actly " describes it ? Or, where do we find Baptist writers attempting to discover it ? It is useless to say it would be difficult to dip the whole body, at once, and quickly, into water. Baptists have no difficulties in doing "exactly" what Christ comma aded ? A baptism through the ice suits the exigencies of the case. We have read that Eumonius and his disciples, did dip the whole body into water, but it was by the aid of ropes and pulleys. There is yet a greater difficulty than this to be looked at. According to baptistic directions. Baptists cannot baptize at all. Take notice, Ripley says, " Baptism takes place AFTER the party has gone into the water." Conant says : " With the preposition into before the name of the element into which an object is plunged, or immersed, baptism expresses the act of passing from one element into another." Ripley puts him to his waist in water, and then says, baptism takes place after that, Conant says, in baptism the subject, i. e., of course the whole body passes from one element into another. Query, what is that element into which a man passes when he is im- mersed, who already stands in water up to his breast ? A. Baptist minister takes a man into water breast high ; this done, he has to baptize him by causing his ivJiole body to pass from one element into another. We ask, how this duty is to be discharged. Is it ever done by 22 Scripture Baptism, vH one of those men who tell us they Jo " exactly'* what is comuianded by Christ. Baptists must change their prin- ciples or their practice. If their principles are right, there is no obedience " to the act commanded," and no baptism in their practice ; and if their practice is right, there is no truth in their interpretation of the command, or in the principles they deduce from it." Baptist misrepresentation op Pedo-baptist state- ments. — Baptists, with Mr. Crawford, assert that over one hundred Pedo-baptist authors could be quoted to prove- that immerse is the action commanded by our Lord, as the only valid baptism. This statement is not true ; no Pedo-baptist admits this. (1). Because immerse is not an action, but the state or condition of being completely covered up in water, and not the acts of putting in and taking immediately out of water. (2). It is impossible to show that any Pedo-bap- tist ever gave such a definition of baptism. They have never described it as an action. Campbell, of Virginia, claims the paternity of this view of baptism, and dates its existence only so for back as 1820 ! Many of the authors referred to in. this pamphlet, lived hundreds of years before this date. The English translators of the Sc'ptures knew nothing of it ; neither did the Lexico- graphers. And how many of the authors, translators, and lexicographers who lived since 1820, have heard of it ; or if they did, have treated it with respect enough to men- tion the absurd thing ? Who, but Campbell, and his blind followers, to this present day, ever speak of baptism as an action ? How then can Pedo-baptists be called up to sjive evidence favorable to a theory of which they have never heard, or treated with respect enough to mention ? (3). Pedo-baptists may admit that dipping is baptism. But this is not repeating what Baptists assert, viz., that nothing ehe hut dipping is baptism. Sujipose that Bap- tists should hold that, the only wind which blows in P. E. Island is the north wind. I admit frankly that this is one of the winds which blow over our Island. What would you think of the man's wisdom and honesty who would represent mo as testifying, by this concession, to pMwm > w»iK. i iji..in Scripture Baptism, 23 ¥* what is their prin- are right, 'd/' and no ce 18 right, command, '1ST STATE- at over one d to prove- r Lord, as iist admits it the state water, and ■tely out of Pedo-bap- TJiey have Virginia, and dates ny of the Jndreds of 3rs of the e Lexico- ators, and •d of it ; li to men- and his f baptism called up hey have nention ? baptism, viz., that »at Bap- in P. E. ; this is What 'Sty wlio ision, to thtt theory that the nortli wind is our only wind — that nothing but north wind is wind ? I admit that a man, who rides from one place to another, travels — that (;b*)f)- ping is labor ; but how grossly absurd would it bo U, quote me, because I make such admissions. Jis holding that there is no other way of travelling or of lal .ring ! Equallv absurd is it for Baptists to (piote Pedo-bn}» lists as conceding, by the admission that dipping may be baptisin, that nothing else is baptism. The truth is, as the above examples show, there is dislK>nesty in such a line of argument. It must be despised by all noble minds and able thinkers, (4). Besides all'this, the pamphlet directly misrepresents some redo-baptfsts quoted in it. Moses Stuart is made to give evidence against his own views, and in favor of Baptist theory on Kom. G : 4 — that dip- ping is here referred to. This celebrated scholar most strenuously opposes this idea. After examining all the passages in the New Testament, in which the word baj)- tism occurs, he says : " I consider this point, (viz., that immersion is not the only mode of baptism) so far made out, that I can hardly suppress the conviction, that if any one maintains the contrary, it must be either, because he is unable rightly to estimate the nature or potver oj the Ch'eek language; or because he is influenced, in some measure, by party feeling ; or else because he has looked at the subject in only a partial manner, without examining it fully and thoroughly." The pamphlet represents Calvin as maintaining that John, 3:5, refers to baptism, and as holding that, dipping is the only mode : Whereas, Calvin asserts that baptism is not referred to here at all, and expresses no view on this passage about the meaning of the word I On page 13, of the pamphlet, we find the following : " Those sick persons who received this sprink- ling, in case of recovery, could never after hold office in the church." On page 11, Novatus is represented cor- rectly to have been baptized as a clinic, on his bed by pouring or sprinkling. Novatus recovered, and after- wards held the office oi' a presbyter in the church. The only point of dispute ever raised about those baptized, on what appeared a death-bed, was not whether their baptism by sprinkling was valid, but whether their conversion was u Scripture Baptism, ( P^.4- the work of the Spirit, or one of a counterfeit nature— whether it was true or false. Such misrepresentations and bhinders are sufficient to rule this pretentious lecturer out of court as an unreliable witness of other men's state- ments, or opinions. But whilst we might pardon such a writer as Mr. Crawford, who migh' have no means of correcting his errors, we cannot speak so gently about Dr. (Jramp, The doctor represents Stier as saying : " Con- cerning the baptizing with the Holy Ghost. Theophylact rightly said, ' It signifies the outpouring and abundance of the bestowment. " ' " They should now be immersed into the full flood of the Spirit of God." By this, Theo- phylact is made responsible for what is contained in the liiKt isentence of the quotation, as well as for what is contained in the sentence previous thereto, — for the immersion as well as for the outpouring, for what he did not say, as well as for what he did. The fact is that it is Lange, who identifies baptism with immersion in Stier's work, referred to by Dr. Cramp, while Theophylact speaks of it as an outpouring. Lange is a living German ; Theophylact was an ancient Greek Father. Who can acquit the doctor of design in putting the language of the modern German into the mouth of the old Greek ! This change suited the baptist theory ! Such conduct is simply disreputable. Besides, Stier holds that Baptism " occurs frequently in the sense of mere washing, that it is pro- bable there was from the beginning a certain freedom of action, and distinctly specifies ^pprinkling as baptism in Apostolic times." Words of tha Lord, vol. 8, page 306. Neither does Lange view baptism as nothing but immer- sion, for he says on Matt. 3 : 1. " In ordinary lustrations the person to be baptized, sprinkled himself with the water of baptism." (5). Writers who admit that immer- sion is baptism distinctly protest against the construction, which would represent them as asserting that it means notliing else. Dr. Schalf, the ablest living historian, a fine scholar, and German in thought, and thoroughly acquainted with the views of Germans, — " the renowned and learned pupil of Dr. Neander," — is one of these. On his own behalf, as well as that of his countrymen, after admitting that baptism means immersion, he says : " But Scripture Baptism, 25 felt nature— presentations ions lecturer men 8 state- irdon such a '0 means of ly about Dr. ing: "Con- Theophylact 1 abundance •0 immersed this, Theo- lined in the for what is — for the what he did is that it is n in Stier's dact speaks Grermaa ; Who can uage of the eekl This "it is simply 'ui "occurs it is pro- freedom of baptism in page 306. ut immer- tustrations with the at immer- istruction, it means storian, a loroughly renowned lese. On aen, after 's: "But they (German commentators) do not intend to deny tlie wider Hellenistic use of the term, mucu iesa to convoy the idea that immersion is the only proper mode of baptism ; the effect and validity of which do not depend either on the quantity or quality of water, or the mode of its appli- cation." Note on Luke, 3 : 16. Lange'a Com. Now, mark that the validity of baptism is hero asserted not to depend on the quantity of water, or the mode of its appli- cation, and yet Mr. Crawford, and other Baptists, quote Schaff to prove that baptism must be administered in a certain way, otherwise it is not baptism ! Schaft" Hays that his view is that of German Commentators. Let the celebrated Wall speak for English Divines. Wall says, " What an idle thing is it for these deniers (that baptism means anything but dip) to bring instances of that which is confessed by both sides, instead of over- throwing or confuting the instances brought by the others for those other loays" (sprinkling and pouring). Herc^ is Wall's protest, yet the pamphleteer is heedless. Though the good man cries from his grave against the abuse made of his name, Mr. 0. puts him down on the baptist side ! 1 Where does any Pedo-baptist say that Christ commanded immersion to the exclusion of sprinkling or pouring? What now becomes of these quotations from learned Pedo-baptists ? It is simply dishonest to treat our writers as Baptists do, on this subject. liosen- muller, DeWette, Tholuck, Koppe, Schalf, „ putting into and quickly taking out of the name 1 1 Campbell's statement, that we cannot for grammatical reasons say, We sprinkle men, is mmmmiommmmm mnan wesm*f *r translates ih century ; Q the Latin s enough to those who To say, [•es from the to Baptists, ^rned, taken 16, without tnition of a ihle terms." y definition n the place If, in all ' be conver- if not, it is efinition of pe is to dip It is to put the specific t be farther st practice, hat they all inseparable ^hich suits fn by their bis. They I ? 1 Cor. ' one body, into, and Make good 'f Christ ? M Rom. ng out of, , no pious klatt. 28: d quickly t, that we © men, is Scripture Baptism, scarcely worth a passing notice. So shall he sprinkle many nations. Having your hearts sprinkled, Heb. 10 ; Sprinkle the house, Lev. 14, are statements, which will remain in the Bible, notwithstanding the fire of this pedantic criticism. " We may either speak of sprinkling a person, or of sprinkling water on him." (J. A. Alex- ander, D.D.) Besides, when we say, a man is immersed, we must, to be grammatically accurate, supply, " hy being put into water." All accurate thinkers admit that a verb of motion is required here, and must be supplied. But when we say a man is sprinkled, we have only to supply, " mth water" and all is satisfactory. Christ's Baptism. — There is no evidence that Jesus was dipped, John's baptism was not dipping. Baptists hold that baptism means nothing but dip, and then con- clude that John practised dipping ! Dale has shown all this to be gross error, and the learning of America admits the force of his argument. Baptism is not dipping, therefore John did not dip; such is the state of the argument from Classic use. It is true, we come now into new circumstances, — the Evangelists did not write pure Greek ; and their Hebrew extraction shows itself in the peculiar use of Greek words and idioms. With them the meaning of baptism will be modified by Jewish customs and practices. John's baptism was a legal one, i.e., it was under and according to the law of Mosaic rites and ceremonies regulating lustrations. Looking along this new line for light to ascertain how John baptized, every thing is against dipping. (1). John's baptism was a purification. This ip settled by John 3 : 25, 26, where a question about purifying is treated as one about baptism. John himself speaks of the fire baptism of the Messiah, as purging, or a purification. Matt. 3 : 12. But if a fire baptism is a purification by fire, then a water baptism is a purification by water. Now, " These legal purifications were always performed by running water, sprinkled on the unclean subject, and usually with a hyssop branch." The purification by the water of separation. Num. 19 : 17, 18, is expressly called by the Septuagint, a baptism, and is referred to as such. Heb. 9: 10, 13. [Divers wash- Ill 30 Scripture Baptism. I 1^' m < ! i ings, being in Greek, divers baptisms]. Dale says, " what- ever is capable of thoroughly changing the character, state, or condition of any object, is capable of baptizing that object ; and by such change of character, state or condition, does in fact baptize it." Here, then, is the state, character and condition of tents, vessels and persons changed — thoroughly changed — ^from one that is unclean, into one clean, i.e., they are baptized, even according to the strictest ide&j of Classic use~How is the baptism effected ? By sprinkling. For it is distinctly said, Num. 19: 13, 20, that the person remains unclean, " because the water of separation was not sprinkled on him." The impure leper was made clean in the same way. The leprous house was changed from an unclean to a clean state, i.e., it was baptized by sprinkling. Lev. 14 : 5-7, 50- 52. Such was the common means ot purification. On the other hand, it cannot be shown that ever a human being, under the Mosaic dispensation, was dipped, in order to purification. Since, now, Christ assures us that he ful- filled all righteousness — ceremonial as well as moral — how can we suppose, in submitting to the right of bap- tism. He violated the common law of Mosaic purification ? which would be the case, were He dipped. Christ's bap- tism must have been, therefore, by pouring, or sprinkling. (2.) One object of Christ's baptism, as Gieseler says, was " His consecration to His messianic activity." This ac- tivity was that of Prophet, Priest, and King. But where, in all the Scriptures, do we find men set apart to the active duties of prophet, priest, and king, by dipping ? Anointing, is the standing rite, 1 Kings 19 : 16, Lev. 4 : 3. There is nothing to show that Christ made any change in the ordinary forms. He was circumcised as others were, and ate the Passover, in the usual way. He is spoken of, not as the Dipped, but as the Christ, Messiah — the Anointed. And though this designation may refer to His spiritual qualifications, still the im- portant fact remains, that the highest possible endowments are figuratively spoken of, not as a dipping, but, as an anointing — a pouring. The reference of Dr. Cramp, and Mr. C. to Heb. 7 : 11, 13, 14, as opposed to our view— in regard to Christ's priestly activity — betrays ignorance of the ApoJ whose vi which, if mere hui haman p elementj to do wi secratioi and kinj Old Tei The mos sent CI bishop < 390), an as it is ! when d state o1 original descend " from, wise ex meanini the coi translal straigh point t' by Baj this p: we de his sti The pi raising away J But Thisc farthe of th( demai brewfi ject, Drinl ii i i winiii mnnnamiiu.m- m Scripture Baptism, 31 the Apostle's design. He is arguing there against those whose views of Christ's priesthood were false; — views which, if carried out, would make Him only a typical, or mere human priest. Paul shows he could not be a mere human priest, at all, for He lacked some of the essential elements of that kind of priesthood. But what has this to do with the view, which makes Christ's baptism a con- secration to His true messianic activity, as prophet, priest^ and king ? Christ, acting in his true character, did honor Old Testament rites — why not in His baptism ? (3), The most ancient pictorial illustrations (A.I). 401) repre- sent Christ as baptized by pouring, — so do P«".linu8, bishop of Nola, Lactantius, Aurilius Prudentius, (A.D, 390), and others. This testimony is all the more valuable, as it is given by men, who practised dipping, and in a time when dipping the person three titaes, and that too, in a state of perfect nudity, generally prevailed. (4). The original in Matt. 3 : 16 does not imply that they had descended into the river. (Barnes). Jesus went up " from, i.e.y away from^ not out of which would be other- wise expressed, much less from under ^ which is not the meaning of the particle in any case, nor here suggested by the context." (J. A. Alexander, D.D.) The Baptist translation, as given in their version, is : " Jesus went up straightway from the water." This fact, which yields the point to us, as to the meaning here of apo^ long denied by Baptists, effectually disposes of Mr. C.'s criticism on this preposition — to pronounce on the import of which we deny his competency — it also shows his indocility ; his stout professions to the contrary, notwithstanding. The picture which Matthew presents, is not that of John raising Christ out of the water, but of Christ walking away alone up the ascent from the river. But we are reminded that John baptized in the Jordan. This does not prove that he dipped. If a man stood no farther in the Jordan than to wet his toes, the conditions of the Greek en\ and the English m, are met ; but dip demands something more than this. Besides, the He- brews had a method of expressing our relation to an ob- ject, quite different from what we have. They said, e.g., Drink in a cup, instead of, ffom^ or, out of it. HencQ m Scripture Baptism. John says, He that killeth toith the sword, Greek, in the sword, Kev. 13 : 10. Hence the idea that John baptized with the water of Jordan, could, according to this idiom, be represented by saying, He baptized in it. Paul asks, shall I come to you with a rod, Greek, in a rod, 1 Cor, 4 : 21. It would require a big rod, and be rather a ludicrous affair, whether in fact or figure, to represent Paul approach- ing the Corinthians immersed in a rod ! The Greek word en often means proximity. Sit on, or at my right hand, is in Greek, in my right hand. The tower in, i.e , near to Siloam. Robinson gives rest at, as one of the primary meanings of this preposition, (en^ in) Christ abode in the place where John baptized, John 10 : 40. But why go to a river ? Let it be noted that, Christ sent the blind man to wash in a pool of Siloam, John 9 : 7. Now, nipto, the verb translated wash, never means dip, or immerse. This is enough to sho^. that the Bap- tist inference is not correct. The heathen Greeks were purified on the banks of Ilissus, by water poured on them. They went to the river, but where is the dipping? Prophets frequently took up their abode by the side of a river, as did Ezekiel — Daniel was by the great river, but certainly not for the sake of immersion. Elijah took the false prophets doiun to, or into the brook Kishon, not to dip them, but to slay them. Certainly, the reason why men go to rivers, is not always to dip, as Baptists seem to think. In John's case, the correct explanation, doubtless, is found in the fact, that the water of purification, Lev. 14, was to be of running water. This law would create a sentiment for itself, which would instinctively impel John, and the Jews, to seek the running stream, while it would as infallibly fix the mode of application hy sprink- ling — if even by a brush or bunch of hyssop ; the certainty that God appointed this as the way to effect Jewish purifications, or baptisms, ought to have checked Mr. C.'s levity and irreverence, when referring to this opinion. All the people baptized. Matt. 3 : 6,&. Luke 3 : 21. Of course, this means all the people of a particular locality. Before Christ's baptism, John's ministry lasted about six months. The Baptists feel that, John could not dip be DOthii ing, and increased and Lul hints thfi dip, und John, t preachio room to when th We an Pharisee side is l notes tfa lion bee been r< Baptist about B be asn said, h greater thinks ministi Jordan of the Judea to, Jo exten( is evi( Heroc Judej John to C discii- from puzzl main TV came from Scripture Baptism. 33 not dip great multitudes in this short period, even had he nothing else to do. But when you add time for preach- ing, and for confession of sins, the difficulty is greatly increased. Hence, Mr. C. labors to show that Matthew and Luke can not mean ally when they say all ! and hints that all means as many as John could conveniently dip, under these circumstances. But the early history of John, his peculiar mode of life, the character of his preaching, and the expectation of the people, leave no room to doubt how the evangelists are to be understood, when they say all the people. Compare Matt. 11 : 12. We are reminded that the ' all ' is limited, for the Pharisees and lawyers were not baptized. All Summer- side is baptized, except a few, is accurate language. Luke notes the limitation of John's ministry ; had that limita- tion been more extensive, we thus suppose it would have been recorded. It does not, as it stands, relieve the Baptist difficulty. The Pharisees are stated to have been about six thousand at that time ; the lawyers could only be a small fraction of this number ; while Jerusalem, it is said, had a population of 600,000 — a number of itself, greater than John could dip in six months. But Mr. C. thinks that John would have none to baptize, after Christ's ministry, if all in Jerusalem, Judea, and the region about Jordan, were baptized before that date. What ignorance of the geography of the country and of John's history — Judea, with him, is all Palestine 1 At tl e time referred to, John 3 : 23, John had left Judea. That his ministry extended into Galilee, and, perhaps, to northern Par83a, is evident, for he was imprisoned, and put to death by Herod, who had jurisdiction over Galilee, and not over Judea and Samaria. It is not said by Matthew that John baptized all Galilee, and the rogion ahout it, prior to Christ's baptism. How Christ might make more disciples from these regions, and of pilgrims going up from all parts to Jerusalem to attend the feasts, need puzzle no Bible student, though, meantime, Christ re- mained in Judea. The representation of John's disciples, that all men came to Christ, " is the language of envy, and proceeds from sinful ambition," (Calvin) — is intentional exaggera- 5 i 34 Scripture Baptism. tion, and creates no difficulty. Thus, we scfp, that Mr. C/s exclamation over supposed pedo-baptist ignorance, proceeds from his own ignorance of easily understood facts — We add. To immerse men and women promiscu- ously in the Jordan, would be repulsive to all oriental ideas of decency. iENON, MUCH WATER, Johu 3 ! 23.— As to the site of iEnon, Dr. Barclay's view is clearly wrong. The Imperial Bible Dictionaty says, '* It probably lay considerably to the north, and towards Galilee, if not actually within its borders." A short distance from the south boundary of Galilee, a place still called Ainoon, has been discovered, where are seen " m Lev. 15> 12: Every; 36 Scripture Baptism, time the Jew ate, he baptizei^, himself; all, at every feast, must do the same. What Baptist, that has gone through the process of dipping, cari tor a moment think, that on such occasions, and in the iijce of such difficulties, erery Jew that was baptized, was dipped over head and ears I Must not all Bible students relieve with Lange that, on these occasions, at least, tie persons to be baptized, sprinkled themselves with the water of baptism ? Dip- ing, here, is out of the question. As these baptisms were daily, and repeated on the sane person every day^ it is plain that the most common idea of baptism among the Jews, could not be that of dipping, but of pouring or sprinkling. And who can suppose, that every house in Jerusalem and Judea had attacned to it a fountain or pit wherein was plenty water to baptize their couches or tables, as the washing means, Mark 7: 4 ? Besides, these tables were generally " made fast to the walls of the building." Three Thousand Baptized, Acts 2: 41. These were baptized on the spot, and by the Apostles. The Baptists attempt to remove the difficulty of dipping this number, by supposing (V) that the Apostles authorized other parties to assist on this occasion. (2) That the converts were not baptized where they heard Peter's address — ^that for this purpose they were taken to the brook Kidron, or some- where else. To the first we reply. When Peter com- manded others to baptize the household of Cornelius, the fact is recorded. Had it been as the Baptists suppose, on the day of Pentecost, we have reason, therefore, to con- clude that the statement thereof would not have been omitted. To the second, we remark that the Ethiopian eunuch could not be baptized on the spot where he pro- fessed his faith, and we are informed, that he had to descend from the chariot to the water, to receive this rite. Surely, if the historian notes this peculiarity, in the case of one individual, he could not, had three thousand per- sons moved together from the Temple to Kidron, or some pool, have failed to mention it. No intimation is given that they left the environs of the Temple for baptism. We have no right to suppose they did. We have seen that baptism was performed on other ocoaaions by sprinkling-^ i^^otft-^-Vx-y'**^-;' '>di Scripture Baptism. 87 that we have no reason to suppose that any but apostolic hands administered this baptism, and that we have no authority that in receiving baptism, the converts were asked to leave the place in which they heard the word. Since, then, they could all be baptized by the apostles, without any change of localitv, and in the time at disposal, by pouring or sprmkling, is it not contrary to all the facts of tne case, to say their baptism was by any other mode ? The Ethiopian Eunuch's baptism, Acts 8: 38. — Scholars are not agreed as to the place at which this baptism was administered. Lechler views Dr. Eobinson's statement on this point, as only " a bold opinion." K. Von Baumer controverts it. The latter fixes the spot at Beth-zur, " a considerable distance east of the place noted on Bobinson's map." The sacred Historian says. They came unto a certain water; rather, some water, (ti hudor). " The indefinite expression suggesting naturally a small degree or quantity.^ (Alexander). Let us notice here that wherever a suitable subject, and water were found, Philip could administer baptism. How often might such a man as the Eunuch, in point of profession, in travelling through our well watered country, with a Baptist minister, and pointing to many a rill, say, " Lo / water" tvhat doth hinder me to be baptized, receive for reply. There is too little, it is not deep enough! But apostolic times, knew of no such difficulties. The Acts of the Apostles do liot mention a single instance of any person taken from the place of profession to a distance, in order to receive baptism. So far as this poiut is conr>rned, wherever there was ivater, baptism could be administered. It is not so in baptist practice — Professor Hackett (a Bap- tist) admits that the reference in the words " went down," maybe to the descent "from the higher i^roundfo the water;" rather, we should say, from the chariot to the water — both went down from the chariot to the water. That no argument for, dipping can be drawn from the preposition into, (Greek eisS, a few examples will abundantly prove. Go wash into feisj the pool, John 9 : 7. No one supposes the blind man dipped himself, for (nipto) wash cannot nxean this. As aoon as ihey came to Jmdy John 21 : 9. s\ S8 S(^riptiiTp Baptism, % Greek into, (eta) land. Coming out of the skip, did they dip into the land I John came to (eif, into) ikt sepulchre, John 20 : 4 ; but verse 5, says, he went No:^ in. Accordingly, eis may prove that both Philip and the. Eunuch went to the water, it cannot prove they penetrated into it. Professor Bipley, a Baptist, admits that into tha water, is not proof of immersion. He chides Stuart for representing Baptists as confounding that act with baptism* Who has not gone down into a stream and came up out of it, and after all, was not ankle deep in water ? £Ud we been told that the Eunuch changed his garments after baptism, we could believe he was dipped, the nacrative a^ it stands, supplies no proof to this enect. The Eunuch, great in autiiority, and surrounded by servants, n{iigh^ have bidden water to be brought His humility is con- spicuous by his descent from his chariot ; in the cir oum- stances, it affords strong proof of the sincerity^ of hia profession, — that the lordly courtier was changed into the meek Christian — and is recorded, we apprehend, to teach this truth, and not to determine, the xnpde of hia b^pj^iis^. r. Brown translated t>e applied Ws couch. K As lis coming Wore He id body in the resur- seen in a md latest emersion, 5 meaning can have 'ith rising 10 natural cannot be >n coming 1 has no ts of the e 5, Paul, &c. But y dipping it quickly I Romans id lost ill t buried, nates tJie 'his is an aid to be > because e buried ns, along possible, sense, be rs since ier. To Christ, trine of srtion of ' time a Scripture Baptism. JfS This passage Baptists hold teaches also, that baptism is an emblem of our spiritual death and resurrection, and at the same time, of our spiritual cleansing or washing. But spiritual death and resurrection are the same as spiritual washing. They are only different modes of indicating the same idea. But how can the same visible sign represent, in the same action, and at the same time, both a washing and a burial ? What association of ideas is there between a burial and washing ? Surely, washing in a grave is a most incongruous idea, even to us ; it would be more so, to a Jew. The Baptist notion involves utter confusion of ideas. The resemblance traced iu this passage is that wliicli exists between the literal death, burial and resm*rection of Jesus ; and the spiritual death, burial and resurrection of true Christians. He died and rose, literally. So they die and rise, spiritually. It is, therefore, plain that the reason they are represented as dying, being buried, and rising, is not that in any literal sense all this took place with them, but because Christ both died, was buried, and revived again. Because they are united with Him in what He did, and share in the merits thereof, therefore, are they spoken of as being with Him in death, burial and resurrection. His people died on His cross, lay in his grave, rose in His life. / am crucified ivith Christ, and Christ liveth in me. Gal. 2 : 20. It is to this precious spiritual truth Rom. Cth refers. By dwelling so much ou water, Baptists obscure it, and mar the gospel of Jesus. The figurative sense of dip will not suit this passage*. The figurative meaning of dip indicates feebleness, wbul is slight and cursory. A person says he dipi^ed into u book, a science, an art, to indicate his slight acciuaintance therewith. Baptized into Christ is a figurative expression , so is baptized into one body; — how absurd to transfer to this phraseology the figurative meaning of dip, and sa\'. There is nothing more than a slight cursory relation indicated by it ! Feeling this, the Baptists, in tuords, drop, * dip,' and substitute burial ; but yet in practicr cleave to dip, and do not bury ; — a ken of in ' the idea ay be, the le baptism ^od, tvas a : out, pro- ^ed in this iterpreta- of in the of as a of Water anguage, thorities, tn is said ^d forth, image of Baptists sprink- if the Apostles were not baptized by the Holy Ghost, Christ's words were not true. He told them they would be. Mr. C. seems to think they were not ! 1 Look again. In John 20 : 22, Christ breathed on the disciples, and said, " Receive the Holy Ghost." This breathing upon them, was evidently the outward sign He gave nere of the gift, or baptism of the Holy Ghost. Both by types, and in the language of the Old Testament, the extraor- dinary influences of the Spirit, are represented as a pouring: Priests, kings, and prophets, were anointed. The Spirit is said to be put upon the seventy elders. Num. 11. Again, and again, we are told that, by the laying on of hands, persons received the Holy Ghost. The cloven tongues were the outward sign of the baptism of the Apostles, on the day of Pentecost, which set and rested on them. In all this, there is no image of a dip. How is this, if nothing but dipping is baptism ? God's people, moreover, in historical narrative, are said to be baptized by the Holy Spirit, J Cor. 12: 13. — Luke describes the Apostle as filled with the Holy Ghost, and we are asked if this is baptism. This question is put, because the party, who does it, fails to see the difference between the act of baptism and the effects of it. He con- founds the act of baptism with the " resultant " condition ; an error which Baptist critics loudly and justly condemn. Christ assures the Apostles that they would be baptized with the Holy Ghost, to prove that the promise was fulfilled, Luke records the effects of this baptism. This was all that was necessary tc be done. If I tell you that I am to accomplish a certain object, by the use of a cer- tain means, I am not required to state historically that the means were employed ; all that need requires, is to record that the object is attained. Yet Peter calls it an outpouring ; this Luke does record in plain history. Acts 2:16, 1,7. By the baptism of the Spirit, we are reminded of an outpouring, not of an immersion, Acts 11: 15, 16. This fact, so ruinous to their systtm, Bap- tists can never explain away. As to the baptism into Moses, in the cloud and in the sea, there is no reference to mode. The effectual separa- tion of Israel from the power of Egypt, and their 7 .i '■1 i r)0 ScHpture Baptism. identification with Moses to God's servi Paul views as the baptism of the former. This wa« ffected by the operation of the cloud, not covering Israel, but coming between them and the Egyptians ; meantime, the sea also, aided in preventing Pharoah's hosts from attacking Israel. The one came not near the other all the night. Ex. 14 : 19-22. The parties in this scene, who were immersed, (the Egyptians) were not baptized ; and the parties baptized, (the Israelites) who were not immersed, were baptized. How Baptists can get anything like a dip — putting in and taking quickly out again — from this passage, is a mystery. Carson, referring to the fact that Israel went through the Sea on dry ground, says, Moses " got a dry dip " ! ! Such views may make infidels laugh, but enlightened Christianity must thereat hang down her head. The Old World was immersed, but it was not baptized. Noah and his family were baptized, but they were not immersed. 1 Peter, 3 : 21. Baptism here consisted in being saved from immersion. In conclusion, I present a summary of what I have proven. From the Classic field, I have shown that the primary meaning of baptize does not imply any action — that it indicates state, or condition, and tb'^refore, cannot be translated dip. I have shown that Baptist authors contradict one another, the same author also contradicts himself, and that they have never yet agreed as to what that action or mode is which they call " one baptism." — I have shown that, with great unfairness, they parade, as concessions to Baptist principles, certain statements of Pedo-baptist authors, wholly contrary to the intention of those writers, and wrest their words to suit ideas never contemplated by them. I have shown that the transla- tions, ancient and modern, of the Scriptures, are opposed to the iron theory of Baptists. I have passed into the New Testament, and, there, also have shown that, there is no foundation for the theory that baptism is dipping — that dipping is not baptism, being nearer the truth. ti il views as ed by the it coming e, the sea attacking the night, who were ; and the immersed, ag like a •from this fact that ys, Moses 3ls laugh, down her baptized, were not sisted in ; I have that the action — • 3, cannot authors ntradicts i to what ttism/' — irade, as nents of Jntion of as never transla- opposed into the it, there pping— h. THK CI Wo no parent ot baptisi on the cc (1). a grace, a Jewish ' 18 yet in professei remains, embrace those n professe the seal same c forbidd" seal, ai their ii must \ The i grace, with t churcl bracec coveni TheC is, th embri profei cover m i-w Abraham and with the 'as.— Hence, I, hence, too, fANOE. But us Gentiles t consists in e, must be K and the What Paul here was no t Abraham It is worse )venant has han it con- his several persecutors ' he tvas a I Acts 23 ; conversion as a citizen to God — this is the true rendering of the original — he claims to be a theocratic citizen, a true member of the true Jewish Church. (See Alexander in loo.) In chap. 24 : 14-16, he reiterates the same claim, and asserts that he adhered to the Old Testament God, to the Old Testament Scriptures, and to the Old Testa- ment Hope, or Messiah, and conscientiously and habitually labored to discharge his duties to the Theocratic King, and to men, as fellow-citizens in that Kingdom, that, therefore, the charge of apostasy brought against him by the Jews, was unjust, and could not be sustained. Then, in chap. 25 : 6, 7, he shows the absurdity of the position, in which his accusers placed themselves : He was in harmony with the constant and earnest religious longings of the Fathers and twelve tribes — if crime he had com- mitted, it was holding too firmly and intelligently to the ancient faith and hope Under such circumstances, how astonishing that he should be put on trial for his faith by Jews ! Such is his line of argument. He was '' afellotv- citizen with the Saints. Eph. 2:19. And because he proved that such was his present religious standing, and showed that he preached nothing inconsistent with such a position, " Saying, none other things than those which the prophets, and Moses, did say should come," he was acquitted by his Judges. This man doeth nothing toorthy of death or of bonds y is their united and hearty decision. Paul was no innovater or schismatic. Suppose, now, a Baptist minister arraigned, like Paul, by the Jewish Sanhedrim, for contempt of Moses and the law. Satisfactory evidence is supplied, that he had often spoken in light terms of the Old Testament, said that the gospel was never preached until Jesus rose, that the Abrahamic covenant was swept away, that circumcision had no religious value, and sneered at the idea of infant church membership ; we ask, " Would he not have been condemned by the court which acquitted Paul ? Most inevitably. The Jews could have easily shown that their Fathers' God taught principles directly antagonistic to such views, that, such doctrine was not from heaven, and could not be believed, even, though " a sign or wonder" were wrought in its favor, that God allowed this to be 56 Scripture Baptism. hen, Acts al interest id defence, le outward ere wrapt, i therein, es. As a *aul, may ing signi- 'cause he rod. To Canaan ; ' promise ed years naan; a time to Qly con- nething le true- Canaan, posses- viewed 9: 12. looking for another country and re at, even an heavenly, as the promised inheritance, Ps. 95; 7, 11, (compare Heb. 4 : 7-10), aye, he plainly states that God, and not land, is his portion and inheritance, Ps. 16: 5. — But, that cir- cumcision is connected with spiritual promises, is placed beyond all doubt by Paul, when, in Gal. 3 : 17, he speaks of it as ratifying the " covenant in reference to Christ." Then, (2.) persona who never constituted a part of the Jewish nation, or claimed any land in Canaan, were circumci^. How could this be, were it merely a Jewish national distinction ? Of, about, one thousand persons circumcised, at first, in Abraham's household, only one was his descendant ; and that one never sought to identify himself with the Jewish nation. Persons bought with money were circumcised, but in all such cases, there could be no reference to temporal and earthly possessions, but only to spiritual and eternal privileges. All in Abraham's household, whatever their civil and domestic relation, must be believers, and, therefore, circumcised. Gen. 18 : 19. Then, too, the stranger was, by express law, exclud- ed from a share in the land of Canaan ; for this kind of inheritance was settled by lot, and entailed on the Sons of Israel. But the stranger was circumcised. We thus see that men might receive the token of the Abrahamic covenant, when there could be no reference to temporal promises. Can Baptists produce one example of circum- cision, by divine authority, in which there was no refer- ence to spiritual privileges, but only to temporal blessings ? They cannot give one. Then Ishmael's descendants were circumcised, and are to the present day ; Keturah's sons, and their sons, were circumcised ; Esau and his descend- ants, the Edomites, were the same ; but where do we read that these peoples mingled with the Jewish commonwealth, and formed one nation with them ? All were bound to believe the promises concerning the coming Saviour made to Abraham, and, therefore, were circumcised. Truly does Dr. Fairbairn say, " There never ivas a more evident mis-reading of the palpable facts of history, than in the disposition so often- manifested, to limit the rite of circum- cision to one lino merely of Abraham's posterity, and to regard it as the mere, outward badge of an external 63 Scripture Baptism, national distinction." It has been shown by Rev. S. C. Kerr, after careful examination of all Scripture passages bearing on the point, that circumcision, instead of indicat- ing mere nationality, was always a token of church membership, that it had reference, as in Abraham's case, so in all others, to spiritual privileges alone — as appointed by God, the regenerate alone had right to it, (3). It is certain that circ^ia nsion was a sign of regeneration. Paul refers to i r o other light, he sees it to be the sign of the " putting 'i ih » body of the sins of the flesh." Col. 2: 11; a symool ol 3 circumcision of the heart. Rom. 2 : 28. With this view, Moses is in harmony, who exhorts Israel to love the Lord, appealing to the true meaning of their circumcision, to stir them up to this duty. Dcut. 10 : 16. So are the Prophets. Jeremiah exhorts the people to seek new hearts, by saying: Circumcise Tjourselves to the Lord. Chap. 4: 4. Then the unre- generate are represented as the uncircumcised in heart. Acts 7 : 51 ; Lev. 26 : 41 ; Jer. 9 : 26. Candlish is right when he says : " Circumcision was to Abraham precisely what baptism is to us — the seal of his engrafting into Christ ; and as such, it was administered to the infants of his house. The child, eight days old, as well as the aged patriarch himself, received the sign of circumcision — a seal of the righteousness of the faith which Abraham had yet being uncircumcised." (4). Circumcision was spiri- tual, for it was the token of a spiritual covenant. Gal. 3 : 17. Rom. ^: 11-17. This covenant was made in reference to Jesus, who is its essenee. He who had been known as the Bruiser of the Serpent's head, and the Seed of the woman, is, in it, Abraham's Seed, the Saviour and Possessor of the nations. Believing in this coming Deliverer, both Abrahatn and his posterity are saved. So spiritual is the covenant, that only they who are be- gotten by the power of God, unto salvation, are esteemed in it as Abraham's posterity, Rom. 9 : 8. Now, circum- cision is the token of this covenant. Gen. 17: 11, and is even called the covenant, v. 10. " my covenant shall he in your flesh." v. 13. How is it possible to view circumcision in this light, unless it signifies as much, and the same thing, as the covenant itself? If the one was same J possess faith r embra< even 1 rejoict made cision this V circui This For, what Bapt abili set certJ tion muj folh the am ass Scripture Baptism. 68 Rev. S. C. re passages of indicat- of church lam's case, appointed • (3). It eneration. e the sign ihe flesh/' ihe heart. lony, who the true this duty. h exhorts ircumcise ihe unre- in heart. 1 is right precisely ting into nfants of the aged ision — a lam had IS spiri- fc. Gal. lade in ad been nd the Saviour coming saved. are be- fceemed ircum- 1, and t shall ) view \ and e was spiritual, referring to faith in Christ Jesup, so must the other be. Compare tlic way in which Christ speaks of the Lord's Supper — "This is my body" — "this is my blood of the New Testament — this is the New Testament " — and also what Paul says, " This cup is the New Testa- ment " — So circumcision is the covenant. " It is not a little remarkable, (says Candlish) and not a little satis- factory, to trace so exact a resemblance between the words in the case of these two sacraments. It proves the sub- stantial identity of all the sacraments, as seals of the same covenant, — the covenant of grace." (.5). That circumci- sion was spiritual in its import, is evident from the fact that Paul designates it a " seal of the righteousness ol faith." Rom. 4 : 11. Righteousness of faith is a succin'^t expression for "the righteousness which is of God by faith." Phil. 3 : 9. The faith, which attains to this righteousness, is such faith as Abraham had. p8,ul'b object, doubtless, is to show that, wherever there was he same kind of faith as that of Abraham, there was the possession of justifying righteousness. Now, Abraham's faith rejected all works and hura^n merit, Rom. 4:5, and embraced the promise of life through the coming Deliverer, even the Lord Jesus Christ, whose day he " saio and rejoiced; " and embraced that promise just because God made it. This is justifying faith in all ages. Circum- cision WaS a seal, or proof, that Abraham was justified in this way, and not by works. Baptists, however, say that circumcision was to Abraham what it was to none else. This view is taken to save their system from destruction. For, admit, that circumcision was to Isaac eight days old what it was to Abraham ; and what becomes of the Baptist objections to infant baptism on the score of in- ability to believe ? The seal of righteousness by faith, is set on Abraham's infant son. If Abraham obtained certainty of his personal acceptance with God, in connec- tion with his circumcision, as Baptists teach, Abraham must have gained this knowledge by a process like the following : Circumcision is the seal of God, to attest that the sinner is saved by faith — I have faith, thercrefore, I am accepted of God. To teach that circumcision directhj assured Abraham of his justified state, is to give that rite 64 Scripture Baptism. i I. a place and importance wholly adverse to the principles on which Ciod dealt with that Patriarch, or with any other justified sinner, and makes it dim the glory of grace and faith. It turns the mind from the importance of faith, to contemplate an external mark, or a work, and thus teaches a most pernicious doctrine. In the passage cited, Paul is opposing men, who held that circumcision justified its subject. In the first blush of the matter, it is plain his object must be to teach these errorists that, their circum- cision cannot rank higher than Abraham's, that as in his case, it must direct iheir thoughts away from itself, and every other rite, to the righteousness of God, as gained by faith alone. They were circumcised, and drew from the fact a deadly doctrine, Paul's object, in the passage, must surely be, to give them a correct view of the place circum- cision ought to hold in their own case. Whatever reference he makes to Abraham must bear on this point. How would it correct their abuse of circumcision, to tell them what it was to Abraham, unless Paul meant to assert that it taught them a similar doctrine? The Apostle must intend to teach that, what circumcision was to Abraham, that it ought to be to them. It was to Abraham, as Conybeare translates the passage, " a seal to attest the righteousness which belonged to his faith." The grand object of Abraham's circumcision, was to show him that he was justified through faith ; it surely could do no more for them. Baptists make Paul's statement about circumcision, as a seal, prove nothing, by making it refer to a point not in dispute, and not before the Apostle's mind. Paul's opponents did not deny that Abraham was a justified man, or that he knew that such was the case. The point they stoutly contested, was the way by which he was justified. The question to be settled was : Hoiv was he justified ? Paul says, his circumcision answers the question. It was by faith. Had not Paul viewed circumcision as a witness or proof of the doctrine, that the justified by faith alone can live, he never could have introduced Abraham's case in this connection. Nay, to make circumcision prove that Abraham was saved, without a distinct reference to the way of his salvation, would have a most pernicious tendency on the mind of Paul's circumci| glory; could h£ meant descend^ There if case, thi Paul saj he does I the true IS, &c. circumc Abraha anythin context exampl God j\] thing^ 2 Baptist! trine p was a reason! dual, t Baptis stated, on tV " Circ that t be cu confir in wh a,nd fi ing. r,: 1< what was t 1: I assui accc I tftmrnf^mrm. Scripturr Baptism. 66 principles i any other ' grace and of faith, to US teaches Jd, Paul ia istified its 8 plain his ir circum- as in his itself, and gained by from the lage, must 5e circum- W'hatever his point. )n, to tell meant to le? The ision was t was to « seal to s faith." I to show % could fcatement making fore the ny that lat such was the J settled mcision •t Paul 3ctrine, r could Kay, saved, v^ation, ind of Paul's opponents; who could reason thus; Abraham's circumcision proved to him his certainty of eternal glory ; how can our circumcision prove less to us ? They could have demanded of Paul, to prove that circumcision meant one thine: to Abraham, another to them, or to his descendants. What Prophet ever taught such a doctrine f There is nothing more said of circumcision in Abraham's case, than is said of it in its general application. When Paul says, circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, he does not refer to Abraham's case in particular, but to the true and universal import of that rite. Circumcision IS, &c. Bo Moses. Deut. 30 : 6, Consequently, to confine circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham, individually, is preposterous. It was never anything else, as designed by God. Besides, the whole context presents Abraham as a pattern, or " father" an example both to Jews and Gentiles, of the way in which God justifies the sinner. To make circumcision mmc' thing peculiar to him, is Ktrangely to overlook this fact. Baptists might as well hold that justification was a doc- trine peculiar to Abraham, as to hold that circumcision was a seal only to him. And what sensible man ever reasons from what is particular, or peculiar to an indivi- dual, to what is general or applicable to all ? But if the Baptists are right, Paul must do this, or, as already stated, hfe does nothing. Let the implied absurdities rest on the Baptist system, not on our great Apostle. ■' Circumcision was a sign by which the Jews were reminded that the whole nature of man is corrupt, and requires to bo cut off; moreover, it was a proof and memorial to confirm them in the promise made to Abraham, of a Seed in whom all the nations of the eartli should be blessed, and from whom they themselves were to look for a bless- ing. That saving Seed, as we are taught by Paul, (Gal. !') : IG,) was Christ, in whom alone they trusted to recover what they had lost in Adam. Wherefore, circumcision was to them what Paul says it was to Abraham, (Rom. 1: 11;) viz., a seal by Avhich they wore more certainly assured that their faith in waiting for the Lord, would be accepted by God for righteousness.". (Calvin,) I have now shown that the Abraharnic covenant i?< still y 06 Scripture Baptism, li hi s i. in force. " Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles." Gal. 3: 13, 14. And (2.) that circumcision was a seal of this covenant in its spiritual aspect. Hence, says Dr. Hodge, " The blessing promised to Abraham, in which the Gentiles participate through Jesus Christ, can be none other than redemption. As that blessing was promised to Abraham on the condition, not of works, but of faith, the Apostle, hence, argues, that in our case also we are made partakers of that blessing by faith, and not by works. This was the covenant of which circumcision was the seal. All, therefore, who were circumcised, professed to emh'ace the covenant of grace. All the Jews were professors of the true religion, and constituted the visible church, in which, by divine appointment, their children were included. This is the broad and enduring basis of infant church membership." Moreover, if baptism were not the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, how could Paul say, that the baptized Gentiles were not only Christ's people, but also Abraham's Seed? Gal. 3: 27, 29? Unless baptism introduced the Gentiles into the Abra- hamic covenant, how could they be called his Seed? And how could baptism introduce them into this covenant, unless it was the sign thereof? Having thus proven all that was assumed in our formula, on page 53, the con- clusion is irresistible : — Children must now receive the initiatory sign of the covenant — they must be baptized. " The practice of infant baptism does not rest on inference, but on the continuity and identity of the covenant of grace to Jew and Christian, the sign only of admission being altered." (Alford). The Theocracy or People of God. — The Baptist controversy can never be settled, unless we get Baptists educated on this and kindred subjects. The distinction wh^.ch we make between what is civil or political, and what is religious, had no place in the mind of a true Israelite. To him both fields laere alike religious. Obe- dience to the voice of God was the one motive and principle of action. God was King in Jeshurun, — the State was the Church, and piety and loyalty were the same. The tmm urseofthe lie on the rciimcision • Hence, ►raham, in 'hrist, can 'Ssing was ^orka, but case also > and not cumcision 3umcised, the Jews tuted the icnt, their enduring f baptism low could y Christ's 27, 2.9? lie Abra- 8 Seed? covenant, 'oven all the con- eive the baptized. 'ference, o/ffrace 1 being Baptist baptists inction il, and a true Obe- nciple e was The Scripture Baptism. i'y (i7 political with the Jew, was not the same as the political with us, they did not stand separated from, or opposed to, each other. A fact that Baptists overlook. " Cfivil and Sacred were not distinguished ; municipal immunity was identical with religious privilege, and a spiritual meaning was attached to dress and diet, as well as to altar and templa" (Eadie). The Theocracy was a Kingdom of priests, and as such, was called to know God, to draw near to Him and serve Him. It was a holy nation, called to be holy, even as God Himself is holy — I am the Lord your God, which have separated you from other people. And ye shall be holy unto Me; for I the Lord your God am holy, and have separated you from other people, tJiat ye should he mine. Lev. 20 : 24-26. The design of the Theocracy was to establish a community of Saints — a Divine Kingdom, and to exhibit the excellence and happiness inherent in such a constitution of things. Jehovah designates Israel His Saints, a people neai' unto Him. Ps. 148 : 14. The dignity and calling of Israel, fill the mind of Moses when he utters the glowing langu- age : " Happy art thou Israel ; who is like unto thee, people, saved by the Lord, the Eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms." Jeho- vah most clearly sets forth the nature and design of this Kingdom, when he says, by the mouth of Jeremiah, I have caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel, and the whole house of Judah ; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory. Jer. 13: 11. See Deut. 26: 16-19. In the light of these facts, we can see how grievous and far-reaching is t'lat Baptist error which represents the Old Testament Kingdom with its rites, and ceremonies to be 80 outward, and earthly, that we cannot reason from them to the New Testament Kingdom. True religion, being founded in the nature of God, cannot change. John 4: 24. The heart God required in all religious service, then, as now. Dent. 10 : 12. " Sacrifices of any kind were acceptable, only in so far as they expressed the feeling of a righteous soul." Love was represented as that which fulfils the law. Ex. 20 : 6. Deut. 30 : 6, 20 ; hatred as its violation, Kx, 20 : 5. The law is Fpiritual. 88 Scripture BaptU-m . '( Rom. 7: 12, 14, Hence Christ fulfils, but does not destroy the law, Matt. 5 : 17-19 ; and shows that he is the prophet, like unto Moses, by thoroughly entering into its spirit. Mere outward service was always rejected bv God, Ps. 50, throughout ; Is. 1 : 10-15. Hos. 6 : 5-7, &c. All the ordinances of the Jews were symbolical. That is, the outward rite or action was intended to express religioun views and principles, which the worshipper must recognize and heartily concur in. " It was the conscious recogni- tion of these views and })rinciples, and the exercise of the feelings growing out of them,' for tvhich more immediately the outward service was appointed, and in which its acceptability with God properly consisted — without these the whole would have been a false parade — an einpty and meaninglesB form." (Fairbairn.) Israel was to be religious in eating and drinking, in tiliiiig their soil, in lying down and rising up, in birth and in death. Heaven-born religion was to surround and press upon them in all times, and in all places, like the atmosphere of their sacred land, and in it they were to live, move, and have their being : Si^ecifically, the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ, who was revealed in the first promise to Adam and Eve, seen by Abraham, trusted in by Moses, Heb. 11 : 26, the Guide and Stay of Israel in the wilder- ness, 1 Cor. 10 : 4, 9, represented by Altar and Temple, priest and sacrifice, candlestick and ark, mercy seat, and the glory which overshadowed the cherubim ; He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Rev. 13:8, the propitiation for the sins that are past. Rom, 3 : 25. Christ was the Jehovah of the Old Testament, whose merits and grace were represented to the ancient worshippers by Mosaic rites, as the only ground of their salvation. This Paul establishes beyond the reach of doubt in his epistle to the Hebrews. Hence, then, to assert, as Baptists do, that * flesh " was all the Old Testament Theocracy required to give a right to a place in it, and to its ordinances, is most untrue. The distinction between Israel, according to the flesh, and Israel according to the Spirit, existed then, as well as now. Gal. 4 : 29. The latter alore were heirs of the promises. Augustine says correctly, ** The faith of Abra- ham wa^ flatly coj not the promise into the) been Ui ham; tl religion I exclude] more n acknowl ence tof of race, doms. his flag become which Jews ■ does Jc rohrdly could ( right s in its > forth i it was beaut; the g( flesh rejecl as at If vine"' Ex.''' defii the all Jeh 141 Go< does not that he is tering into Nected by 5-7, &i. That is, [ssrelfgiouH recognize s recogni- ■cise of the 'mediately which its - without irade — ^an fsrael was li^g their in deatii. •ess upon mospherc ve, move, n of the t prnojise »y Moses, e wilder- Temple, cy seat, » ; He is W, Kev. t' Kom, tament, ancient 3f their 5ach of Scripture Baptism . 6\9 'M v was a right in true, flesh, s weJI of the dbra> ham was the Seed of Abraham," and a greater than he, flatly contradicts the Baptist dogma ; Paul affirms that not the children of the flesh— but the children of the promise are the Seed. Rom. 9:8. If flesh introduced into the ancient church, church membership must have been limited, in it, to the natural descendants of Abra- ham ; there could have been no proselytes to such a religion, nor could any one of Abraham's descendants be excluded from it. Nay, its foundation must have bc..n more rotten than that of any mere civil nation. It is the acknowledgment of certain principles, and faithful obedi- ence to them in life, far more than mere flesh or identity of race, that constitute the basis of mere political King- doms. A man's flesh does not change when he betrays his flag, or when his country expatriates him, or when he becomes a memb^t ' of another Kingdom from that in which he was born. Christ denies that the unbelieving Jews were children of Abraham, Jghn 8 : 39-44. So floes John Matt. 3:9. He is not a Jew who is one out- lOkrdly. Rom. 2 : 28. According to Baptist views, how could God say, He planted Israel a nohle vine, ivholly a right seed ? Jer. 2 : 21. It must have been degenerate in its very nature ! and it could not be expected to bring forth anything but wild grapes ! ! It was all vain to say it was the ehcicest vine ! ! Is. 5 : 2, or the perfection of beauty ! or the good olive tree ! ! Israel was lopped off the good olive tree, not for lack of flesh, but for lack of faith. Rom. 11 : 20. Was it equitable dealing to make flesh the principle in founding a church, and then to reject it for unbelief, though its flesh had remained puro as at the beginning ? If God expects good grapes. He takes care to plant his vineyard in a fruitful hill, and with the choicest vine. In Ex. 19 : 5, 6, Israel's character, as it ought to be, is clearly defined. (1.) They are a peculiar treasure to God. Are the unconverted God's own treasure ? (2 ) They are above all people. Is a nationality founded on flesh alove all other nationalities? Israel rests on grace, saved of Jehovah ; He has not dealt so with any other nation, Ps, 147: 19, 20. (3) They are a Kingdom of priests unto God, aad a holy pe^ople. f Compare J Pet. 2 r 9.) The ^'i^ ■r'!3 70 Scripture Baptism. truth is that church membership in the Old Testament, and in the New, is precisely the savm^ and involves the same principles. Regeneraiion in both constitutes church membership, in God's sight ; the profession of jaith con- stitutes church membership in man's sight. This was always the case. Professors, and their children, were always regarded and treated as church members. The church was organized in the household of Abraham, at a time when it must have contained about two thousand souls. He was a believer, and all were protessors of faith. Gen. 18 : 19. The Israelites who entered Canaan were all professed believers, Heb. 3 : 18, and the great majority of them must liave been truly regenerate, true servants of God. Josh. 24 : 31. Jer. 2:2. To suppose a Jew who did not profess faith and obedience to God, to yet hold his place, constitutionally, in the Old Testament Church, proceeds from gross and shameful ignorance. Such an one was regarded and treated as a rebel — his punishment was summary and severe. If the constitution of the Jewish church did not discriminate between " converted and unconverted," as we are sometimes told, what right had it to reprove or punish sin ? Demanding nothing but flesh, wliat right had it to be dissatisfied with the works of the flesh ? What King can find fault, if his subjects live in accordance with the constitution his own wisdom framed for them ? Baptifit theory would give the Jewish nation a constitutional right to sin, would take the rod out of the Divine hand, and convert the Great King of Israel into a patron of transgressors ! Baptists sometimes admit that the Jews were regene- rated by the use of the ancient ri^.es, but yet hold that these rites were carnal. This we have seen to be an incorrect view of the ancient rites. It is founded on what Paul says about the Jewish ordinances being " beggarly elements," " carnal ordinancen," &c. But Paul never speaks in this manner, except when used by carnal men for carnal ends. In such circumstances, we can speak of New Testament ordinances as carnal and beggarly. Separate baptism and the Lord's Supper, from their true spiritual import, and convert them into agency, as many Jews did with Old Testament ordinances, to overthrow e.g., is theory streng A the 1 enter: his c there the fi mr c the God and \m Scripture Baptism. 71 Testament, volves the itescliurch faith con- This was Iren, were )ers. The iham, at a > thousand •s of faith, n were aJI lajority of "'tsofGod. who did hold his Church, Such an nishtnent Q of the converted right had 5iing but he works subjects wisdom ' Jewish the rod King of t'figene- l(i that be an n what %'garJy never il men >eak of [garly. ir true many throw the doctrine of justification by faith, then, these sacraments are weak, carnal and beggarly, too. But viewed in con- nection with God's purpose, in appointing them as means of grace, it would be blasphemous to speak thus of them. And to say that God did not attach spiritual ideas to the ancient ritual, and intended Israel to do the same, must be greatly offensive to Jehovah. How, we may earnestly ask, could spiritual results flow from the use of mere carnal ordinances? That which is born of flesh is flesh. How could spiritual men take delight in mere carnal ordinances ? How dearly David loved the ancient taber- nacle. Christ is found in the temple, not holding its forms of worship up to contempt as carnal, but filled with zeal for the honor of His Father's house. Paul himself ob- served the Jewish rites o/i^e?' his conversion. Acts 18 : 18 ; 21 : 26. James, and the many thousands of believers at Jerusalem, the devout Ananias, and all the Apostles, did the same. Acts 21 : 20 ; 22 : 12. How was all this, if these rites were wholly carnal ? No ! tlie services of the Old Testament required faith, and pertained to conscience, md had a spiritual element in them all. It is this spiri- tual element which lays a firm and immovable basis on which to rest, when " drawing conclusions from the nature and administration of the one to the nature and administra- tion of the other." This, Baptists feel, and hence their ef- forts, at the sacrificb of the Divine honor, to represent the Old Testament ordinances, as merely carnal. If baptism, e.gr., is not more spiutual than circumcision, the Baptist theory crumbles to atoms. We should know where our strength lies. A FIXED PRINCIPLE OF 8cRiPTURE. — Tlie parent being the Divinely constituted representative of his child, in entering into covenant with God for himself, introduces his child also into the same covenant. The child is, therefore, regarded and treated, and spoken of, as making the same profession as that of its parent. It is a frojes- «or 0/" religion. To deny that such a principle pervades the Scriptures, is worse than foolish. It is seen in all God's covenants with man. In the covenant with Adam, and with Noah. In God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac, 111 n •.» V > . t jy any [)0S8ibility, be viewed as a servant ';f God — he could not be even understood ; for all the n|ocX:j of thought, and associations of the church ; all its Divinp teachin^H were diamotrioally opposed to their Bystem. obey all mises. Dj himself, I No Chri^ Jew. Kl for infai But God| disobedie somethir absurd! obedienc nature o and the that sen on this Cannon the staii law of < stance t that we that Gc little r< parent'f as Dr. ^ against child \ from c own p out of of our of wl sound Be char^ parei hia < treat It ai i\nd and nWesmeaKSsmB:imiStsmapemsi,'fiami»iiwi^jinrm=%=^-' V Scripture Bapusni. 7J ather, the \^t no less hen first 5- Here ■nng into 'Presenta- ■^y estab. ' J'elatiou |and their the God Jher right was not ate God, lation to child in fy: and. tend, hh If the y to all id this; ikewi.ve. • 1, 12 'iught to ie God, el from , there- profess d God romist •e thi.s, 1 great of two uiust ncipl(} ispen- hav(i ujd a 1 as a )r all ; all ^heir system. The Jew professed to take God for his God, to obey ail his commandments, and to believe all his pro- mises. Deut. 26 : 16-19. But what the Jew did for himself, he also did, by God's authority, for his child. No Christian can do more than God demanded of the Jew. If it is wrong for us to profess faith, and obedience for infants, it was wrong for the -/ew to do the same. But God demanded that service ot the Jew, and punished disobedience with sore judgments. Did God demand something wrong ^ in the very nature of things, wrong, and absurd! But the Baptists say that we in professing faith and obedience for our children, do what is wrong, and in the nature of the case absurd, though we do as the Jew did ; and the Baptists must know God required the Jew to do that service II It is this aspect of the Baptist objection, on this point, which induced the pious and learned Dr. Cannon to say, " Nor is the blasphemy thus spoken, nor the stain thus fixed upon the glorious character, work and law of Jehovah, in any means removed by the circum- stance that the law of circumcision is now abrogated, and that we live under a changed dispensation. He who says that God was a fool in Abraham's day, can have very little respect for the Divine character now." If the parent's profession of faith for the child, deprives the latter, as Dr. Cramp holds, of its liberty, this wrong must be laid against God for requiring the Jew to profess faith for his child ! And if, as this author maintains, the child is free from obligation because it did not make profession in its' own person, then, our obligation to God, does not arise out of the relation He assumes to us, wholly independent of our confession, but from our voluntary achioioledgment of what we owe him ! — a principle which subverts all sound ethics, as well as true religion. Besides, if there is absurdity in the 'transaction, the charge lies not against a suitable acknowledgment, on the parent's part, of kindness shown, and promises made to his child, but wliolly against God, who condescends to treat the ohii;^ as a party capable of receiving promises. It an eartl^iv boTv^factor should bestow gifts on my child, and grant prr:!' laes to him, who does not see the absurdity, and stupidity even, of failure, on my part, suitablv to 10 I mi IMiyGS^EiJ w-'\ u Scripture Baptism, acknowledge these favors ? Now, baptism of infants only acknowledges the fact that God makes, promises to them, and the obligations such favors impose. On the supposition, then, that promises are made to infants, we see it would be absurd and stupid for the parent not to baptize them. But that God does make promises to infants, cannot be gainsaid. I am thy God — a promise involving all others, and all possible good — is made to a child eight days old, as well as to a man of eighty years. Against this fact, where the wisdom and goodness of God are seen, lies, if anywhere, the baptistic charge of absurdity in this matter. Baptists might indeed reason, ' How absurd to make a pro- mise to an infant ; can a child understand or believe a promise ; what good is there in making promises to in- fants M Ah I but God does make exceeding great and precious promises to mere helpless, unconscious infants. Let the Baptists settle their controversy with God, with whom it ib, in reality, and not with us. — Then, too, we must remember, here, the fixed law of Divine procedure : " The supernatural ever bases itself on the natural" The law of nature binds parent and child together, and on this connection, as on a stock, God grafts his grace, just as he grafts his grace on the natural powers of the soul in regeneration. Whatever divinely belongs to humanity, grace will sanctify, and make subservient to its reign. God has made the link which binds parent and child together ; grace will iio more overlook the connection, than it will any faculty of the soul. Here we view the system of the Baptists as specially defective. It does not recognize this relation in religious matters, but deals in the field of grace with man, by a species of separate individualism, h'ue oi ly of angelic nature, while the con- nection of paieur ard child in it, must necessarily sink to the low level o' mete nnl.nalism ; which we need not state is entirely opposed 'u (?od's appointment. Mai. 2 : 15. The fact is, that tho Baptist theory, here, chimes in with that inferior form of infidelity, whose province is to de- velope socia^'sm. AdditiOxS^al reasons for this method. — (1.) The fact that parents have extensive control over the child's thoug^^' parent s eartlily ing teasi live dut to what] upon only to their m] feet coi tio eart his po^ itig th€ parent! childli^ of the: cheersi hisch depar light paren these Dr.^ in a The chiV he^ Wi ab\ If ch wi to a t^ • - ^i-ija i ii' i n iii| »i i tnnMMim iii wii ».-. JM^HMWHIIHIIIW" It'M'MH lilt .'•XnSE.'seK^es ints only J^o thein^ positioul ^t Would 'e them. mot be others, ays oJd, ^Js fact, J lies, if patter. p a pro- ^iieve a *o in- iat and Nants. P» with [00, We 'dure ; , The 'n this as he ui in initjr, eign. Md tion, the not Jin ate )n- to ite 5. ;h Scripture Baptism, 76 thoughts, judgments, conscience and feelings. The parent's position, as a teacher, is unique. He alone, of all earthly teachers, can teach with authority, without assign- ing reasons for his teachings. It is his right and impera- tive duty to mould the opinions of his child according to what he believes to be right. His children are cast upon his care without power to resist his will, susceptible only to receive the impressions he chooses to imprint upon their minds. Within certain limits, the parent has per- fect control over the mind of early, plastic infancy, and no earthly tribunal can arraign him for the exercise of his power. The common sense of mankind, acknowledg- ing the principle, and looking for good fruit, holds the parent accountable for the early faith and practice of childhood, equally as for his own. The Bible, the guardian of the rights and liberties, whether of infant or philosopher, cheers with its promises, and assures the parent, that if his child is trained in the way he should go, he will not depart from it, while it casts a steady stream of celestial light upon the path of duty, both personal and relative, of parent and child. When controversy is out of sight, these great principles are admitted by Baptists. Hear Dr. Wayland. The eternal destiny of the child is 'placed, in a most important sense, in the hands of its parents. The parent is under obligation to instruct and cause his child to be instructed, in those religious sentirnents which he believes to be in accordance with the will of God. With Ms duty in this respect, until the child becomes able to decide for himself, no one has a right to interfere. If the parent be in error, the fault is not in teaching the child what he believes, but in believing what is false, without having used the means which God has given him, to arrive at the truth. But, if such be the responsibility, and so extensive the authority of the parent, it is manifest that he is under a double obligation to ascertain what is the will of God, and in what manner the future happi- ness of an immortal soul may be secured. As soon as he becomes a parent, his decisions on this subject involves the Juture happiness or misery, not only of his own sold, bat also of that of another. Both considerations, therefore, impose upon him the obligation of coming to a serious i; i^sji 1''f! i 76 Scripture BapUbrn. and solemn decision upon his moral condition and pros- pects." This extract contains what may be callea the philosophy of infant baptism. It contains the same argument that Peter employed, on the day of Pentecost, to induce the Jews to embrace the crucified Jesus as their Messiah and Saviour. " Repent and he baptized^ for the promise ia to you and to your children" The parent's decision would determine the future happiness or misery of his own soul, and have a most important bearing on the eternal state of his child. Hence, the greater obliga- tion to consider seriously and solemnly the step about to be taken. (2.) The Remedial scheme not only seizes upon the extremes of station, but the extremes of age. None are too old to enter the portals of the Temple of Grace, none too young. This momentous feature of the ?lan of redemption, invites our admiration in the Old 'estament, and smiles upon us in the pages of the New. The Great Master, when eight days old, received the seal of the covenant, which, like his baptism, pointed to His cross, and tells us that He was placed under the law for His people ; and since in all things he was made like unto His brethren, we hold that he hereby claims the seal of initiation as the right of infancy, that the fold of which he is the Chief Shepherd, has a place and a seal for the tenderest infancy, within its sacred inclosure. (3.) The family contains not only the elements of the State, but of the ChurciJ. and what is elementary of both, as Howe observes, is both. The family ought to be a church. And hence, as if to remind us ever of this important, celestial idea, we find continual reference throughout the Scriptures, to the gathering of families, as such, under the wings of the Almighty. No doubt, want of perception to see the wisdom of God in this arrangement, will hinder the worli of the gospel. Any system whose base is narrower than the Divine plan, courts failure by such defect, and introduces an element of mischief into its r)perations. These things being so, the Baptist system cannot be right. Consistency to their system would induce Bap- tists to imitate the example of the Baptist mother of President Olin, who, to leave unimpaired the freedom of her 6( Lord's prj in the vi^ ren B reU j parentfti that the| Bivine dispeiiBftJ demonBt certain by it effort; phraseoj would impiou^ bow lax rowed connecij in the unaii^ are to lilew lang" inJe accui — \i^ oft! lang sene stoc det< ace (H as Is tl iS SiTssTiwwsnra ^*iJ*«J* ■ ' "uT^£S3affiRRr9«^- I and pros- l^d the E"® fiame "entecost 's as their ^, FOB the parent's "• misery F obiiga, about to }y seizeg ^^, age. ^P^e of „ o^ the the OJd ;e I^eur. 'he seal , to His fa^v for '©unto seal of which or the > The mtof Jov^re ^rch. fcant, the •the 1 to der is ch its )e Scripture Baptism. 77 of her son's Christian choice, refused to teach him the Lord's prayer I It is mockery to first train their children in the views of a certain creed, and then say their child- ren's religious profession was made wholly independent of parental action, and wholly by themselves. Peculiar Phraseology. — We ought never to forget that the formation of a language accurately to express Divine ideas, was one purpose subserved by the former dispensations of grace. For thousands of years, God demonstrated by example what he meant by the use of certain phraseology, until the ideas he intended to convey by it were understood by the church without a mental effort; and the attempt to graft a meaning on that phraseology, not in harmony with those Divinely taught, would be viewed, not simply as false or defective, but impious, or God-opposing. " It is unnecessary to show how largely the language of the New Testament is bor- rowed from the Old, or how expressive and suitable the connection is. As presented to the Old Testament wor- shippers, there was a definiteness in the ideas, expressed in the Gospel, arising from long usage and familiarity, unattainaMe in associations only newly formed" If we are to have a similar definiteness of ideas in reading the New Testament, we too must be as familiar with the language of the Old, as were the Jews, who first believed in Jesus. In the Old Testament, to use the words of an accurate thinker, " God made a dictionary for Christians" — like the noble Bereans, we are to test by it the language of the Apostles. " For if we are not to understand the language of the Bible in its historical sense, that is, in the sense in which the sacred writers knew it would be under- stood by those to whom they wrote, it ceases to have any determinate meaning whatever, and may be explained according to the private opinion of every interpreter." (Hodge, on Rom. 3 : 25). Now turn to suca phraseology as we find in Gen. 17 : 7, 9 ; Is. 65: 23 Jei 32 39 ; Is. 59 : 21 ; 61 : 9 ; Ezk. 37 : 25 ; Josh. 24 15. The peculiarlity of all is found in this statement : The Loid thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy Seed, to love the Lord thy God," &c. Deut. 30: 6.— (1.) II w 78 Scripture Baptism. &:"' "Sr±t' ^^ft""*' throughout the Old with him. (2.) Cbwf ^-'^^d, hiscEud k bwl f««o. (3.) The Old Tcef„n,«,f f T- Salvation £ either tended to exclude infants ofS statements never were in "f these promises, but most eer?i'-''r?' T ^""^ * Ws inoludiug them. T/ieu nl^,i "iT"™ ^"'^ the purpose nf mil serve the Lord. Thou aJ% *"§ "f*^ "^V We, Z covemnt. For two thousand If ^^l^''' *'"»« *««P mv -requires no little tirne to flx^th« *' '?™«I te'I^s tins phraseology included p1,;m ".^8« oManguaee- «j; their right to ^^21 ^^1^? °f «fents, and IX- ^iemembering, now, thirOodt Ztf -^""^f ^''~ Old Testament church tn »**„ Purpose w schooling the oertain fixed words was to create ?f'" ^""'^ ^el^'to Meaning of which would beunnlt ? i"°8"%% the true Testament Church was nr"'^*^''*'''''' ''''en the New lanRuage, and the oldTdCs I^ 't'':. f°'°P''« this old ^ hoary centuries, w th P^f S ''^ 'h ^"^ ^^' »P^e ■Beheve, ami thou shall be\TZ ,^f *° the Jailor doubt hat the ok ideas we4 flndtd tT ^'>'' <=«« injantsfrom this langme TT ' ^"^^"^^ "« ^ e^cZ^Sc ter. In the light of S'T.^^Se ^n^t settle this rnT good reason to Ly Ihaw; f ''■ "^ •""?»«. ^e havTal" ""fonts as to 4 it means%n?.r«^ '^ Paul inSes objected. The word w«! f ?y*wg at all. But t I honsehold, (Greek rarrX^thl" f '" "'« Jai o..'. ^et us turn again to onr n" • ™erefore are excluded ascertain theVth on th^'""'' ""^^ DictionZ to -mpartial utterance of "sage P^'v '? S'^^" by th assured that all Moses cTm«„5'/°'''- ®- ^S, we are he men of Israel, womr^nd rw'"" '''^ ^^^re a 1 10,12. Ii announced parties to dared to made witi fessedly ir ^leclared t to onr chi genius of speak anc eluded in it is said, all his st ary for exact pa is first ii and all This lai ham's ci relation Idays wa was ent profess( evident verses done, 'v to incli child \ cision, the ot fessorj cised, k that 1 hut ti lies, 1 cised supp< this] was can" iudr Scripture Baptism. 79 ".* "le Oid ^ Wessed '« either '^ ^ere in. [^j^*he seais f^em, and fiJipose of 'f ^«^, and rf^e, toe i^^^P my d tell us {!'^S the pdeas to \ne true «« old 'e space Jaiioi'^ *o can 'ted by ^«ded, id tJie fvhicii chdc mat- ndes It is brs led. I to the ire iJ] as 10, 12. In Deut. 29 : 10-15, not only is the covenant announced in the presence of the little ones, but they are parties to it, even to the oath. The people are here de- clared to be a people, in accordacce with the covenant made with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, which con- fessedly included infants. In vrrse 29, the Divine will is 'leclared to be, that revealed things belong unto us and to jnr children for ever. From the connection and the genius of the Jewish Dispensation, infants, who could only speak and act through a representative, are as much in- cluded in this word, *' children," as an adult. Once more, it is said, Acts. 16 : 33, the jailor was baptized ; " he and all his straightway" Let us again look into our Diction- ary for the explanation of these words. We find an exact parallel in the household of Abraham. His faith is first introduced. Because Abraham was a believer, he and all his house were circumcised. Gen. 17 : 26, 27. This language was purposely framed, to teach in Abra- ham's case that, not only did his profession determine the relation of his household, but also that the infant of eight days was included in the initiatory rite of the covenant, was entitled to receive the same token as Abraham, who professed his faith. As this language, verses 26, 27 was evidently used to show that what God commanded, in verses 9-14, which specify the infant of eight days, was done, we therefore say it was framed for this purpose, i.e., to include infants. It cannot be denied that parent and child were linked together, in the initiatory rite of circum- cision, — the profession of the one being the profession of the other, and both alike recognized and treated as pro- fessors — and the language he, and all his, were circum- cised, would bring out the fact, and was intended to do so, that the whole family were circumcised, not excluding, but including infants. In the case of rdl proselyte fami- lies, to say, he believed ; and he and ai; his were circum- cised straightway, is language which would never be supposed to exclude an infant. For two thousand years, this linking of parent and family in the same ordinance, was intended to include infants of the tenderest age ; how can it exclude them in Acts 16 : 33 ? Mark, there is no individualizing of the family — no separating them from ,7 IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /' ^ /. 1.0 If KS I I.I 1.25 • 50 Hi M ^ 1^ 25 1.8 U IIIIIL6 Photographic Sciences Corporation \ V <> 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 873-4503 80 Scripture Baptism, each other, and from the parent, and, after the custom of the Baptists, carefully pointing out that each believed, and therefore was baptiaxid. The parent, here, occupies the same prominence, as he does in the Old Testament, certainly, for the same reason. The only diffiarence be- tween the record of the Jailor's household, and that of Abraham's, consists in this, The former were baptized, the latter circumcised. Baptism constitutes the only point of novelty, the seal is changed, this is the only fact which the old language could not bring out ; accormngly it is stated that baptism, and not circumcision, was applied to the believing parent and his house. The point to be determined really^ is, whether we are to understand this phraseology in unison with the Divinely tangnt ideas attached to it in the Old Testament^ or force on it ideas, positively, not known to the.cl^ch, for fifkeen centuries after the Jailor was baptiaed'?^ The question gives its own answer; and what we hold, thereiore, is, that the statement. Believe, and thou ihaU be saved, and thy home, carries with it such peculiarity^ that it neces- sarily excludes the Baptist dogma, wad expresses, in its own emphatic way, the right of ir^ants, wmer the New Testament, to he regarded and treated as making the same profession as their believing parents, i.e., it ex- presses the right of infants to baptism. We might show ^7 the same line of argument that, the promise to parent and child, Acts 2 : 39, from the days of Abraham, up to the day of Pentecost, included infants eight days old, and, therefore, must have included them on that day. No- thing greater was promised by Peter, than is found in the promise to Abraham, " To be a God to thee and thy Seed after thee. Gen. 17 : 7. So, too, we might reason from the Scripture usage of the term, "Seed of Abraham." According to Gal. 3 : 27, 29, the Seed of Abraham are to be baptized, for they are Christ's. But, beyond all con- tradiction, a child eight days old, was included in this phrase, and therefore entitled to baptism. We hold, therefore, before infants of believing parents can be denied baptism, the language of the New Testament must be cut off from its roots, and separated from all the past, which made it what it is, i.e., it must be destroyed. Baptists pvepa wbici Bcri]f nifyi of Of sucl' mov rep Th of of cv tl ■ Scripture BapUsTn, 81 Jusfcom of occupied r?noe be- ^hat of 'aptized, In? ^'^^^ ^% fact '''» Was e point >i«£aQd ^ ideas on it fifteen «estion ore, is, "i and neoes- in Hb ? iVc2^ ig the U ex* show arent ipto and, Ko. /he om w." to n- lis ^, d t 1 cannot speak as the Apostles did ; we can. It is a striking fact that, among all the records of the Baptist Church, not one is found in harmony with the baptism of the jailoi s house, and similar records ot Apostolic baptism. We constantly find such records among Pedo-baptist churches. Strange, indeed, if they who neither speak nor write like the Apostles, should act like them, and we who both speak and write like them, should not act like them. Especially is this so, when we remember that, " Language is the outward appearance of the intellect of nations ; their language is their intellect, and their intel- lect their language ; we cannot sufficiently identify the two." (Humboldt). The language, wliich Grod taught his church, was framed with special care to assert the right of infants to the initiatory rite of the New Testa- ment. — To admit this, only requires that we understand this language. A CONTRAST. — What is found on several pages, will prepare us to look for a contrast, between the way in which Baptists speak of infants, and the way in which the Scriptures speak of them. Baptists are continually mag- nifymg the infirmities of our infant state, for the purpose of casting them out of the church ! Infants can only cry, suck the breast and puke ; with religion they have no more to do than herds of the stall ! " Baby sprinkling " is represented as the essence of profanation and folly ! Theories, like animals, have their instincts, by the exercise of which we may learn wliether they belong to the class of clean or unclean. We look into the Scriptures, and find that the painful cry of the infant did not protest against its circumcision, that all its infirmities did not exclude it from church connection. In Scripture, the position of infancy is hon- ored, and religious. There, hope to the hopeless springs from infancy. The history of redemption starts with infancy as its corner stone, — the first and greatest promise turns our thoughts from vanquished manhood, to conquer-^ ing and restoring infancy. Like a stream of light, this thought runs through successive dispensations, to illumine our benighted race. It comforts Eve in God's gift of 11 m 82 Scripture Baptism. Seth, who, like Abel, is to carry on the conflict against evil ; — it refreshes Lamech, weary with his toil because of the " curse" ; it brightens the wide field of Abraham's vision ; fills David with emotions of unutterable satisfac- tion and joy ; and no where does the effulgence of grace more overwhelm ns, even in Isaiah's glowing pages, than when he exclaims : To us a child is born — a son given — his name is Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. *' Sucklings, weak children, are the threads on which the hope of Israel hangs." The sacred associations which encircled every birth, in every household, lifted infancy in Israel above tlie Baptist platform, and clothed that event with antici- pations, that the time would come when the Serpent's head would be bruised, and Paradise restored. How natural that Israel should sing: Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast Thou ordained strength. The Kew Testament opens with the same theme. Heaven and earth meet around the manger cradle. Angels and Shepherds worship the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes. In his infant state, Christ is proclaimed King ; and saints, sages, and prophets adore him — the Seed of the woman, the Infant, Kinsman-Redeemer. Long after, John in holy vision sees Him, and speaks of Him as the Child caught up unto God and His throne. Let us learn to treat with respect, a stage of being which Jehovah consecrated as His Temple, and filled with His glory. Unlike proud and vain man, the Son of God has not forgotten, or cast aside His infancy, but carrying it through His manhood, He raised it to the right hand of the Majesty on High. We cannot dcoire a stronger pledge of the honorable place infancy occupies in His heart and Kingdom, than the fact that Jesus was an Infant. Tried !ike them, we know that He i? therefore their merciful and faithful high priest, Heb. 2 : 17 — that He esteems them His " brethren," and that He must be much dis- pleased with those who will not recognize and treat them as such. We find Abraham's household reckoned keepers of the way of the Lord — doers of justice and judgment. Gen. 18 : 19; and infants a month old numbered with the Keej>ers of difac also, says a B 0CC8 con' Bai ov^ onl inl an w C t1 • I I Scnptwre BapUsm^ 83 XT ^-28 Joshua's house the Sanctuaiy, caM «^«\^/^^^^^^^^^^ 'of infants is de- pray lor mercy. Joel 2 . l^ i^ ' . (^^d, def^^^S^**"!'' w He thus baptized no "^^".UhoIv Ghost. But He Phrist laid His bands on mw*"'' ^irch members. Luke ThusordainiDg .tbem i^^t^dbyHi^ blessing, How can 18 15 16. Being regenerated By n ^y^^t infants should i oftbe Lord's Servantsf^Wwater,^^^^^.^ TJ^ he baptized. Acts 10. *' •. , -g^ selected is as ?»thanbaptw°^ ^y 7*^';.! mea^ng of that rite. He savs : Of such is the »^^"Sfi^ ^..^o^v's conduct on this SI unfit for ««'«'■ """'f'CaV Baptists can bear Xts Cbrist be.«.B /-f ^,^; rsrOhurct has no P^-e nothing but popery ! ih'- J^ l^„f,.iev.(lly inn, iiad Christ for infants - r^^' ^ , -"lll^'CeSVeu rmf^rHim'Vthin its Ef ^r'an^itout of their Vna?:gtnSTot«:n,;W---^--^- ,.^.,j^^r»5«W?r'^'*^' 5i Scripture Baptism, His infancy, but was the Head thereof, as an infant ; and, as such, received the homage of heaven and earth. Is it not a strange, earthly eiror, that Baptists are guilty of, who after that fact deny infancy, as such, a place and seal within His Kingdom ? Had Christ come to a Baptist Church, it must have remained aloof from Him, and received Him into fellowship only after He could tell who He was, and the design of His mission ! Paul classifies infants with the people of God, in 1 Cor. 15 : 22. He speaks of them, as of adults, being made alive in Christ. Infants cannot be excluded from this passage. They, like believers, sleep in Jesus, and -vill be raised by Him, and in Him. But think of the meaning of this phrase, •' m Christ." It expresses that union between Christ and His people, which is formed by His Spirit and our faith. Yet of those in Christ infants must form a part, from this class we dare not exclude them ; if we did, we would, then, deny their blessed resurrection to eternal life ! In Rom. 5 : 12, having spoken of mevi, as sinners, the Apo3tle without a change of language, turns to what is true only of infants, and siys death reigned over " them," i.e., over men, meaning infants. And does he not, in this passage, include infants among " the many," and *' the all" who are represented and justified by Christ, though this whole class is spoken of m common, as receiving the gift hy faith f So Joshua makes no divstiuotion between them and adults, but speaks of all as if, according to Baptist views, they were adults. They circumcised all the people, Josh. 5:8. In Eph. 1 : 1, children are included among the Saints and Faith- ful; for chapter 6:1, shows that they constituted a part of the church to whom this epistle was written. All Israel, the infant as well as the adult, were Saints. Ps. 148: 14. In 1 Cor. 7: 14, infants are called Saints,' or holy, or church members. Our Lord must refer to infant, eighth day, circumcision, John 7 : 23, yet he uses the term " man." " Except a man " be born again, John 3 : includes an infant. The truth is that the children of believers were, from the beginning, regarded and treated as believers. They have always entered the heaven of believers,, and the church of believers. The God of guage sense, inwh' the S tween the ^ Veasic into i/ie«i ave thei ( Gc 3; b^ ci tl '^ t Scripture Baptism. 85 ,?^; and, rmJty of, and seal ^]^y and ^ei] who lod, in 1 griBade om this •vil] be eaning union h His ts must them ; 'J'ection of we?i gnage, ^ (leath infants, among d and fen of oshua peaks iults. aith- parfc AJI J Ps '■ '/or mt, 3: of ed of 3f believers is their God ; the Saviour of believers is their Saviour. The rewurrection and reward of believers are their resurrection and reward. It is not wonderful that men trained in such views, should speak of the household of believers as believers. Infants are keepers of the covenant wj * :h demanded faith in the coming Messiah. Gen. 17 : 10, 14. Baptists will not allow this use of language ; they treat it as absurd. That is, they cannot allow the same latitude to words, that God taught his people to attach to them. Hence, we have one of our strongest arguments against the Baptist theory, where its friends suppose are found the strongest arguments for it. It appears that they attach a sense to words God did not — they restrict where he extended their meaning — they use old words in a new sense, without the authonty of God for such a course. They do not use Scripture lan- guage, in this case, in ts historical, i,e,, in its only true sense. Thus there is a. perfect contrast between the way in which Baptists speak of infants, and the way in which the Scriptures speak of them. While the harmony be- tween the way we speak of them, and the manner in which the Scriptures speak of them, is as striking. Our Con- fession says, " Children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the visible church, distinguished from the ivorld, and them that are without, and united with helievers. They are Christians, and, federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized." (Administration of Baptism.) Circumcision as spiritual and significant as Bap- tism. — Does baptism involve the duty of worshipping God in Spirit and in truth ? So did circumcision. Phil. 3 : 3. God always sought such to worship Him. Is baptism a sign and symbol of regeneration? So was circumcision, which was not merely outward, but that of the heart, by , the Spirit. Rom. 2 : 28 ; Col. 2: 11 ; Deut. 30 : 6. Does baptism bind us to repentance ? So did circumcision ; " Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart." Jer. 4:4; Lev. 26 : 41. Is baptism connected with faith ? So was circumcision — a seal of the righteousness of faith. But since we have just seen that circumcision was a In \¥^(mfifSr-^-''rf:f»l^T,be bap- tized under the New ? The first passage says as much,, as to the importance of circumcision, as the latter does of baptism. Let them remove the first difficulty in the way of their system, and the second may follow ; until that is done, all they can say about regeneration being connected with baptism is unavailing to reject infants as unfit sub- jects of this ordinance. It is as scriptural and reason- able to hold that infants were not circumcised in the Old Testament Church, as to hold that they loere 7iot baptized in the Apostolic Church, This is also clear from another view which Paul presents when he says : I testify to every that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the man ivhole law. Gal. 5 : 8. In the spirit of a Baptist objec- tor, we may ask aloud, and with a sneer: Paul, how could infants be circumcised ? Infants bound to fulfil the tohole law ! ! How could an infant fulfil the whole an Absurd ! Bound to have do they know about God I can a child name of God make in vain law, moral and ceremonial ! no God but Jehovah ! what lO make no graven image ! How graven image ! Not to take the How can infants take the name of God in vain ! Does not the term, infant, indicate that the creature can'v sp'^ak ? To keep holy the Sabbath ! What does an infant know about the division of days, how can it keep anything holy ! 1 Scripture Baptism. 87 Here b the first ta^e ^ ^ rS-^^UaS:^^^^^^^^^^ HI Every comma^ «^jn to Him yjeltol b) *. FAITH m Hho. »"« ^ , KrmokcUj(< /'''" ' w r 'the oir- utZn^ room enough here for *e 'r^';^ i„fant covet, RaS exclamation, AT>mtrd ! I^^ * ^^e the rcqmre- !*Pal l^ar false witness, &"? ^r sacrifices, to attend Tthe^ ask, can they v'leld ^i»^^j,„ent against mfent "^Tre^^bXthe cleare^^^'t; ^fS oircnm- ""^^^S repeated reference to tUe n ^^^^^^^^ "'1 from X'*, o"« '=^'? -"""Tone torn the nature cision , IroTn " circumcision, as ont, u gt^ict ment against imani c Testament, ^ can co subjects, in the one rue 88 Scripture Baptism. therefore, in His own way, but that most emphatic, antici- pated and answered all BaptiHts can say against infant fcaptism ? For who holds, from the importance attached in the New Testament to circumcision, that infants were not circumcised ? Teach all nations, Matt. 28: 19. — Kather, make disciples or Christians, of all nations. The command to teach, or disciple, does not exclude infants from the Apostolic Commission. (1.) Because the promise " 7 «;// f/iy (jod," is made to a child. But this implies not only that children have God as their portion, l)enefactor and protector, but also as their ieacJier, All to whom God snys, " I am thy d'od," lie is their teacher, and they His disciples. The correlative of, I am thy God, is, you must hwiu God. Hence, in Ex. 20: 2, God bases all the msiruction He imparts to Israel on this statement, 1 am ihy God. Deut. C: 1, 2. Hence, too, the ancient church is a school, by which God teaches those to whom He is a God, Deut. G : G-9 ; and teaching is grafted upon the covenant of which this promise, I am thy God, is the essence. Gen. 18 : 19. (2.) There are two ways of teaching, by words and by signs. The latter is the more ancient, and the more emphatic mode. But circumcision is the sign or token of the covenant made with Abraham, find, as such, taught all the precious truths which that Divine compact contained, even the same gospel as is now preached to the Gentiles. Gal. 3: 8. But the token which taught all this, was applied to a child eight days old. " My covenant shall he in your flesh" Was not the infant, by circumcision, articled and enrolled a disciple of God ? This teaching sign was placed upon an infant ; and yet some will tell us. Infants cannot be included in the Commission, because the Apostolic church is commanded to teach ! What deplorable ignorance of God's ways to man. Were the Commission couched in these terms : Go teach, or disciple all nations, circumcising them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; no Bible Student could infer that infants were intended to be excluded from its operation. Hence, if infants are ex- cluded from it, it is not the command to teach, that excludes them, lor the instruction it enjoins is thus seen to same Bai>t^ typic cum' rite. syn iuCi ci8< syi ail T \\ 1 • 1 Scrip^'iro Baptism. SO « T^nthine remains, then, "CtiS th/oS -f«-- rtf the "t* ' Thus in the presentation 01 ^^^^^ ^'^^i • J This Ve TVtp circumcisea were uu Christ, i-nis :««e for aduU«. The ~"«,e think it so strange as Sle. Paul «o»^f "°ASen as disciples. (40 AU Ssts do, to Bf -i^^^^Xng was connected Jithcir- Scal.and By-^o^tu Ans -^ J^iSmn tto ^:^r: V- - '-Tr^hM-^'n jo^t,: ritP » (Macdonald). ine ;'' ^ i^to which school ine 'tl^* the foW of teaching Xretr„„,e the examples, >y ffi we never '«». ' "' 'nrrHo'eKrhvinea these words. .,ieh,fortho«saudM.yars^ ^ ^^^^^^^ TVMTii AND INW^'TS, MmU 1(> . 2^,,^iX to fall.onthis "^T^ lom t Viewed in, .^t of wX'g V.raeles. Signs (n^'r^^^^^^fipS^^e of worW°S '^T^V2Vit '" sSt infants arc as capao ^^^^ n„t, W " Int 'i then, human race— oia or yu o « Scripture Baptism. it. would be absurd, and ivrong, as Baptists say, to baptize an infant who cannot exercise faith, because baptism and faith are connected in this passage; it would be more absurd, and a greater wrong to grant an infant an interest in that salvation which is alone by faith! ! Infant salva- tion therefore, is an im[)08sibility, according to Baptist theory on this passage ! The two doctrines would seem to have a logical connection ; and the first sect of whom we read that denied the lawfulness of infant baptism, and baptized adults, he'd that infants could not be saved. This iron logic has consistency, but it mingles a fiendish glare with the light of the New Testament, and shocks every pious sentiment of the human heart. It must be a horrible theory which, to preserve its consistency, and supposed sanctity, would number infants with unbelievers, dogs, and idolaters, and then chase them away in flocks from the gates of the Celestial City to eternal misery. (3.) To represent faith ^s a novelty, and as appearing for the first time in the New Testament, os a condition of church membership, is the result of shameful ignorance. Did not circumcision begin with the brightest example of faith ? Did the faith of any who received baptism eclipse the light of that grace, as seen in the father of the Faith- ful ? Is there not as much said to the praise of the church organized in the Household of Auraham, as is recorded of the Apostolic church ? of the family of Abra- ham, ?-■ that of Cornelius ? Gen. 18 : 19. Is not faith as intimately connected with circumcision, as with baptism ? Circumcision, the seal of the righteousness by faith. By evoking the exercise of faith, Moses commenced Ms Mis- sion, Ex. 4 : 31 — by faith Israel was delivered from bondage, and by faith, passed through the Red Sea ; by which act they were baptized, an instance of believers baptism, from participation in which it will be difficult to exclude infants. The inauguration of the Mosaic Dis- pensation was in connection with faith, Ex. 19 : 9; and the law was given in order to enforce faith in the pro- mises — the first command in the decalogue requires knowledge of God, and faith in Him. And were not infants included in all these arrangements? Was not faith the gulden link that united every rite and ceremony, i ia ail \>^ But wi^s years ati intants v part of t^ be argat" through among t were letl his bos Then, t Ex.4-. Kurtz patern obediei is boui duty « pledg^ Jchov Yet, 5 edU'CC princ treat caus' The and 8or, Th' dis set an do cc tV o i Scripture Baptism. 93 But was It ^^^' ' q( xedemption was ^^f^*^^^ ^^ ie argued ftog'g^,,, ^^^^ infants couU «ot^ ha through the Bed 6 , Heb. 11 . ^J^ ^^^ among that .^mP^ny^, given 'fP V^^^ters ! V'Tto ""nte to to sou f »:^&^«^' "f is bound to lenae ^^^^ . j„,,_ jftcre w ^^^ „d«ca«io». ./?"Ve^w«afc on the part of Isim, duly »/ ^f:XiS"m«dia{c 'f ««f T&nts? yte«9<' 'f„''"^rdoe^not the term I"^?^"^7God, and be 'jchovah ,^"';nsrael must have feith in uo , ^f • "fA^ra^ I'y, ^r/the^AUd is vie.J and educated ""eady explained, that *^^'"'" its parent, be- principle, alreaay " ^ .,vofes8ion as ii* i ,.„ |ty, Utea a^ >>'^'^mg the ^» \,„t, removes all ^^c^ Y and tne ci"^^» -r^ ^^^ i^ave sureijr w, ,, rjrevious ,0, is hap^^^^i JJ'ir being ^-[""g^V"^: pt ent repre- This great V'J^V viz., that tue p* j^j sents tue cuiiv*, Vi ad done m its owu t* . ^ipg ^ere and treated '^^^y^^t l^,^,^ when t^^.^rbapti™g done by the parf^'^' ^igciples of all nations, v fr^oSoKS. He-Ke, they ^^Xuse, are exampks Jailor and his house, L^^a^^ their commisBwnlau^ *°"^"! iXbet'po^^^yo"^ '^\r It :aB tp^^^ !»S^^^oLS"MllJt.e teaching, for 04 Scripture Baptism. centuries before, confirmed this view. No man can say otherwise, until he has learned to forget all that God had taught his church on this point for ages. But the Apos- tles did not do this. It required the interposition of a miracle to remove the effects of previous training, as to the relative position of Jews and Gentiles in the New dispensation, from Peter's mind ; and after that, they of the circumcision, even contended with him. Acts 11 : 2. They all felt that the principle regulating this relation in the Old dispensation, must still pass into the New, and regulate it, as it had the Old. Peter's vision, and subse- quent wonders, were required to settle this p^int. Would less be required to remove the effects of previous training from his mind, as to the position of infants in the New dispensation, were that to be different from what they occupied in the Old ? Where is the miracle recorded that changed the Apostle's views ; or where is the infant cast out of the Church ? That infants could have been cast out of the church, deprived of their former privileges without contention, or much agitation, is of all supposi- tions the most improbable ? They, who brought the Apostles' doctrine to the law and to the testimony, and tested what they said by the Old Testament, searching the Old Scriptures to see if what they said harmonized therewith, would not have, without a struggle, given up the former rights enjoyed by their infants. Where is there one word of debate found in the Scriptures about this point ? Nay, rather, we are expressely told that the former relation of infants to the church, shall be con- tinued after the Redeemer came to Zion. Is. 59: 20, 21, with Rom. 11: 28, 29. And that Redeemer says the Kingdom of heaven belongs to infants ; thus reaffirming their old relation to the church. The nature of the evidence we have been presenting in favor of infant baptism, is of the very highest kiTid. Some cry for positive assertion. I hold that the Scripture language on this point, properly interpreted, or under- stood in its true and real meaning, positively expresses reference to infants when, jt i^ said. The promise is to you and to your children, Lydia and her house were baptized, though not in the terms demanded t r \)y Baptists seutitig is i or deterim This is ^ Christ pT^ the end ties to positive how is th Beferenc of the of the (jenerall truth i! consiste whole. out of scope c wordc est po of our of gt' cauo asser' kin^ of t^ ther iu a itig sid* me mi th i\ 1 11 8 f ■y-rfmitmt^'* ' Scnptu^re Bairtism. 95 «,t the too of thougW^eh^el^enpJ^^; ^y Baptist. ^^yKositive ^Jj^e^^taUnt- or determine the tro " *^^^to alway, until This is my ^\ y^ with the Apost'^ ^^ ^^,„s. Christ proni-s^d to ^^^^^^^.^ t^e n« (.^^ t^^ ?^?i «^ of time seems g?^d ^^^^,y„„. But *^rsit ; ^aJment g rsu^CW ^^-"-1 C is the true meaning ^^4^,^ of o^^^^^v^er and Brference must l^e^^de ^^ ^^^ to the 0^ ^^^^^^, of the Church, of the reui ^^^ ^-f-tiew. The of the Head to all as ho |^ ^ '^f ^^le and ;Ural%, WH in «« ^^ ,t,tement m ^ se^ ^ the truth is. tV|ft "■°y ^^ be interpretM *>y we {^^^^ent consistent V'ook, mi^' ^j Qod. |fo positiv j whole. So m ^i^he analogy / f'^'^eanini of tV out of harmony ^^^Y"^ received as *«'?'? the strong- Spe of Scriptug'^^ ^^^ ^j^, «?, ^Tr^tion. Bapti^sts word ot God. tt«^ • tiian positive aSL-a doctrine est possible; ^Hrfhelieve in infant salvation ^^^^ete rf out day, say *?y^„f ^n infant l^aptism-f. timely oi greater imPO'*f ?L Kble he foimd, ^^1^^^^/ we this tJone Pf ^^^a» dtfSt is saved? Canjhey „ o^ _*^„!rXSSstin^onhSyt^^«S!-^ ''•r^jsm 90 Scripture Baptism. necessary to prove them, as Baptists hold must be pro- duced for infant baptism. The Promise in Acts, 2 : 39. Baptists say this promise cannot refer to the promise made to Abraham, '' I am thy God and the God of thy Seed." But if refer- ence is not made to this promise, there must be reference to something either g, eater or less. But nothing greater can be promised than God promised Abraham. God cannot promise anything greater than Himself. That the Pen- tecostal promise contained anything less than what was promised Abraham, is also impossible, for nothing less than what was promised Abraham can give hope of salvation. As, then, it can neither be less, nor greater than that promised to Abraham, it must be the same. Again, it will be admitted that Peter preached no other gospel on the day of Pentecost than Paul preached to the Galatians ; for there is only one gospel. But the only gospel which Paul knew, and which he preached to the Galatians, was the old one preached to Abraham — * Blessed with faithful Abraham.' Gal. 3:8, 9. If Christ's, then Abraham's Seed and heirs according to the promise, 3: 29, — a promise given and sealed both to parent and child. Is. 59 : 21. Christ redeemed us from the curse. What for ? — That we might receive some other blessing than that enjoyed by Abraham ? No I but that " the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ — that ive might receive the promise of the Spirit." 3:13, 14. Here the promise of the Spirit is one of the blessings con- tained in the Abrahaciic covenant, procured for Gentiles by Christ, and is imparted to parent and child. Is. 59: 21. When, therefore. Baptists admit that the promise, Acts 2 : 39, refers to the Holy Spirit, they neither exclude refer- once to the Abrahamic covenant, nor to infant children, from Peter's language. Now, this promise must include either the miraculous influences of the Spirit, or His saving operations. If the*first, infants are capable sub- jects thereof; for human weakness is no barrier in the way of miracles. And as to the specific miracle of tongues on the day of Pentecost, infants are about as able to speak ift Xf none a' speaU wit\i raise on tH "mfantB •, posterity, ^liracles if the sec no doubt receiving regenera Bedeem< hopeless infants to re\)e , them ti sumtfto penitep repent? then "1 ciassefl nation Bepei and:^ that i and ^ Ihe iielie the Ghc anc ad^ 8tr >ve C\ of T \] V i 1 Scripture BapUsm. .97 ^iseoottot^f^irto posterity. infanta-, <^^\fZmc\^ 1''''"^'^' Tt ^ft i'' *^ '^^''[m uostenty. 1 0' " to be a permanent g" . j^ ^vud, kiraoleH were '^f,,'* giving influen^^^^'Jfare capable ot \f the second o'^^ f^' viiw, tl'en m^a»f f-V- 15, wbo no douU is *« ^"^U in 'this sen^, l'^^^ c„iBt' then- receiving the Ho^y ^^ ites them to Jesus ^^ regenerates them and^ ^ ^^,,,^ o. th^v ^ ^ Bfidecmer. 1J>'' ^^and to repent, no m ^nd hopeless^ '^'^L Zmise ..f Pentecost, than » ^^^^^^^^ intos ivom ttit PW^„ clrcummion, Jei^'' 4, uotes to repent fo"'^f "ne Joel, , ctolttien. „ (j^gphler), anS yo«°S-r';» ,^°'-^ to vvater the ../jo^^ l''»*l;,gi\ as, upon thatisfvaoK-uslystM tendercst pkm^ '^^^ .^„t, „t and which falls upon J, ^^,^ ,,oubt tnai he stately t^e^ A^^te\l-tlmt ^^^^'^JZ^^'Z Holy '»^'^TJ*^n a( e Scriptiire Baptism. 99 with the Holy,^ • something '^^^''T ^ahe, at the ^"^^ Mjt emc^i- of the u^«>;>^g'>'^Un); and the Rvmpatuetwj, *^ „„,1 his Lord, k^"^- ^ . i,ave no conn- travellers, ^f^^^^Z ««*«' ^^ '''° brethren," to the reUftse, and ta°^^°°„„fi„e the I*'" ^Sdo, that her Lydia's house-. ^" % „ infer, as Baptists a ^ priueiples ^iff^'f ? *'?,e same vray,""* ^y.^^ifdescribed? S^rneVius o Lydi^^^f ° ent believing, an^^ J^^^Jieving, not only between the V ,^^^^^,„ the parent ^^^ of his household, but ^„„,e. Orod pio\« ^^ ^ and the behevmS fj^^^^ i, i„ force, not ovUy ^^^^ (^ such a household «o^*'; ^^^^^jj gro.nh^J^f„^^ patting the seal appl'«'l;,;^„//,;s ^eWi/ °» f X'ance, a«cJ fo evidence that &od w ^^ ^ee, uo ^^^^^^. y 100 Scripture Baptism. fore, if not baptized already, they should be baptized. If, then, it can be shown, that infants sustain the same relation to God as adults, they have as good grounds for baptism as adults. But does not God say that he is the Gt)d of all who believe, and the God of their children, also ? The expressed faith of the parent, not only deter mines that God is his God. but also shows that God is the God of his child, and, therefore, the expressed faith of the parent, is as valid grounds on which to baptize the infant as the parent ; for, by the faith of the one, we know that God is the God of both ; and, consequently, have no more right to withhold baptism from the one than from the other. Thus Paul treated the Jailor and his house ; Lydia and her house. Nor does the supposition that God is the God of the child, that it is, and will prove regt ne- rate in virtue of this promise to it, fail in regard to the infant more frequently than the same supposition does in regard to adults, when the number of those baptized in infancy, is compared with the number of those baptised in adult age. Froui the foregoing, it is evideat that believers' baptism does not exclude, but includes infant baptism ; the reason why tve baptize infants^ is because of believers' baptism. Holy Childrkn, 1 Ouu. 7 : 11. — Baptists maintain t hat holy in this passage means " legitimate." But the Greek word never has this meaning in sacred or profane literature. This view therefore cannot be correct. The translation of tlie >iew Testament made expressely in the interests of Baptists, did not dare to substitute legitimate, for lioly. But why not, if the authors of that book could translate (hayia) lioly, by legitimate? If Paul wished to express the idea of mere legitimacy, he understood Greek well enough to do it. Then, ^^holy" stands opposed to unclean, which never means illegitimate, which is expressed in good Greek. Ileb. 12:8. Again, the reason assigned why the child is holy, renders the idea of legitimacy simply absurd. To make u child's legiti- macy depend on the conversion of one of the parents, is a theory, which no nation, no court, guided by common sense, ^vill sustain. If a Toin Paine marries a Jezebel, their child father or l?ay, rfl^ sanctinett Baptists, holy or Kow, real ;For the {helie'O^'^ mate hy illegiti^ reckless Bible ? both tn the hoi lowness its own from tV unbelie 23-28. sage r< tural They lioly. to be right Thee tohs ash attl fori ^^ iti Ne' pri for Je th / Scripture Baptism. 101 II . . Bat Paul holds that either ,,,i, children a. Ug—^,,y^^^^ father or mort^m-"^^ that tne ^^^^^fJ.Aingf ^"^kfied hv tt^elieving P«f ^usW o wife, is mad« U or lf'^^,^^\Semeut -<"^'>^''^^ZtiZ^^'^' (believing) w'fij.^±Tl^l,and; else '"f^^^f^mbo iUegiti'Titate; o»' "'' , such a t»''s^**'"'°.;y;v.eorY, are Sfe Xt e f^d birth by *e Ba^Us t^eo^, ^^UV^St, Stu?^To «g>- th«S the holy B-J^LXp i^ d^gma, ^f^'^^^l & a^ose from the law w Is^^l^ ^^, ^ 9 ar>d 10^°f,j^^^^ ^^s- as he IS repre^^I^^^L vhen lie is entitled ana u ^^^ at the period o^^ ^^^!f^,^,tb^ to the ^^^^^^^^^ And for himself. Th;\^\^,eh is the same ^^f\Xr. of the his own act. i ^^e ^ ^ggrve ^^^/f .7 '. the erea* it is most instructive i^^, m-anted, that ui« h New Testament, quietly tf/^f^'^Vtisation, are sUU m • ninlps which underlie theuw i^ ^ treated as prmcipleswi^v^ children ot Je\v» gg as a 102 Scripture Baptism, Bpiritual, but baptism rit ' — that of water. This view is absurd. The baptism is liritual as the circumcision. If no knife or human hand wtvs employed in the one ; no bier or shroud, or earthly grave is seen in the other. The baptized are buried with Christ, and " rise in Christ, by the faith of the operation of God," and must have been buried in the same way. Surely this is all spiritual. We have already seen that it is impossible to bury men literally with Christ. The passage is intended to show that baptism performs th(5 same service that circumcision did. This reference was necessary in order to teach the Golossians, who knew the import of the earlier rite, the true meaning of the later, and thus enable them to see that it was unnecessary for them to cleave to circumcision with that foolish tenacity with which they did, since baptism does what circumcision effected. Just as if, to convey a. correct idea of u machine which working by horse i)Ower, cuts our harvest, to a husbandman ignorant of the nature of this new instrument, we were to tell him, that it reaps the field, and hence is called a reaping machine. The old word reap, would convey the essential ideas, though the process of the machine is very diflferent from that of the sickle. So the process of the sewing machine is very different from the old hand-mode of sewing, but the old word seioing, gives at once an idea of the true nature and design of this instrument. And Paul to enable the Golossians to gain a clear idea of the new ordinance, baptism, calls it by the old name of circum- cision. We have heard farmers say that they hoed their root crops with the plough — phraseology, which, at once, explains that that which the hoe once did, is now effected by the plough. And, just as certainly, as the idea that the plougli has come in the room of the hoe, is conveyed when it Is said, " the field is hoed by the plough" ; so, as certainly, is the idea conveyed that baptism is come in th« room of circumcision, when it is said, " Ye are circumcised having been baptized." The ideas here are that the circumcision was eflected by baptism, and that the latter takes the place of the former. To show how closely the Apostle views these two ordinancei|^we ought to remem- ber that the statement in verse 12, ** Buried with him" muBt be c| and be re" circumci^ niiBtaken. Greek, a^^l verBC 1^> \u that V ,\etevmui be\wj kd passage- referred washed. waH eflt fOUBtVU* t'\au»e t sit'iou V hi If^V cision tis'in." \deutit paseag tru..y ^ longei confti^ theC work 30: tlvel con« abV fori set of tic ta ci c r ( Scnpture Baptism. 103 I Ye ' in veree 11» ,„d be read th.« ■ Je^^ ,„^,„-„g of ^b-b oannot ^ ,^ '^"•TZn '' m-iedmO^:]»l X%«i. crrcLcised, in mistaken. •• . ^ to t"'^/,,,,„;,iea contained :'ete;™in:Bt'-"« ,ie;. t— .n o. be "«■«!' '""''X bave an idion. -'"''"I.'ViI^^Ld being PT^ 1 to in Englisb : Tbe b""se;^-^;' Je cleansing washed, i"^^ •'^ ;., /.,;*«/ ivash"- ivnuut i .•\auHc " y«'f ^ 'i • . clause of vevse 12, '" '. r;,. circiim- It IS said tn^V Vi, were practised by ^^^« J«77the T'^rt^ltl^^^'^ ^^^' *'«eS believer^ ot Jerusalem by Titus, a «i \ lOJf JScriptur^e Baptism . only kept tbe Fassover, and the Lord's Supper, the seventh day Sabbath, and the Lord's day, but observed nil the rites of both dispensations — Old and New. *' They con- tinued daily in the Teraplo." Acts 2: 4G. " Their attend- ance at the temple, was as really a part of their religion, tts their meeting elsewhere. The probable design of this (^double or two-fold) arrangement, was to shield the new religion from the charge of being hostile to the Old, or essentially distinct from it, and to show the identity of the church under both dispensations, by allowing one, as it were, to overlap the other, or the two to co-exist for a time. A precisely similar relation had subsisted for u time between the ministry of John, and the public minis- try of Christ, and may be said to have prefigured the one mentioned in the case before us." (Alexander). See Acts 21: 20, &c But is any i)ersou so ignorant as to deny that the Lord's Supper lujs come in the room of the Passover, and our Sabbath, in room of the Jewish ? Even in worldly matters, the old does not give place suddenly to the new. The farmer who long used his sickle, to reap his fields, did not all at once abandon it for the scythe ; neither has the mowing machine yet displaced the old instrumentality whose place it is destined and fitted to take. While adopting the new, men will cling with respect to the old, which has been* a faithful servant. To this mental law, Paul refers 1 Cor. 7: 18-20, on which SchafT says correctly, " The object of this was to leach that the abolition of the old ceremonies must not be effected, suddenly or forcibly, but left rather to the inward development of the spirit of the gospel." Only by com- paring the old rites with the new, could the Jew come to a clear perception that the old truths given by God, were taught by the new rites. Having reached tliis point, which, however, would require time, the Jew, with true Christian liberty, could cast aside the old ceremony, now knowing that the old truths were not only retained, but more fully developed. But since all the rites of the Mosaic dispensation were abolished by Christ's death, the assertion made by some, that circumcision was not a reliajbus ceremony, because it was practised in the face of this abolition, if true, would rel is T1 m V Senpture Baptism. 106 . -A riteB of their teligioM <'^^*^\ ,0b »U the other Jewi* n«' »,, wlee, and the Apo. for they ''^ ifofflVa"^ "^"htme and assured tolio cbnrch. though a h^ ^i, „^oieed "o^^;!"" fit them others. >f they w ^^^^ ^^,^„,^ il.ej as«g ^ ^^^j « uothm^f r>. ,^ circmcwon NM « ^2) that o«s, VIZ., (I,) iniurious o»(/ '''T'd \s to remain .ereraony, ».";\;^*;;"; a national -"'">;■ XWovh". 1„ tl>e -lew '•' T^f.-aK thev remain a »^V'"";'^,{ ffevence oi action < r "'''i,,"d«e teaciiers »«« t^«vt ^ j,^ xct. civcnmcision. ^»[,; ,,, nation of '{f^y .^fu ^y ^''"l- " ^" r T In the anguase of «>« R-^itjireumci^e nnder .,i,e„m8tance8wh«h^"^,^^„ there ;^««,;^% Aching to snK'1 ^''ia V-son migW he ^^7«tj^ ^ „'^cise. B"t circumcision 0' » P«. ^^,,1 vefnsed to --'""^ tniction this pernicions dpctrint , ^^ *°^ ""LtV to set that when' c^rouXloIuUuedid notto^^^^ „„ contrary to 80 mtic .^^^^ ^'l^r ",^^^o»w«o''"■«!7• seai on a ^^>'^r„„u9e Paid says, C'twam"^^^ , religious value, l^cause ^^ ,,,ge of the sam l^ ^ la worse *="* I'X Avostolio TT \ nort " -f^"''"'''- Paul applies ^"^^t the very lug^f^' ™l'S .^aterelh." salvation, rtien, ^^^J^^^^cisiou, M't'™',rted for living »« '^ l*"?ie«ed e"^««al. and ^"^^f they have n'o ^nces «lf" ;.S Himself, arc.uothmg^ i > ^ ;ous faith, or for Christ ' ^^^ *r,'pn Wlien Paul merit, are woirtWess a ^^ ^^^^^ „ en. « ^^^^ -^"^ ^"Sout nothing, he/^^^^^^^^ 106 Scripture Baptism, thing as essential to salvation, which is not, but in this sense is worthless, becomes a snare and a curse to the soul. Hence, Paul shows that circumcision, in the view of it which he is opposing, is destructive to all — whether Jew or Gentile — who cleave to that view. This is evi- dent when he says, I testify to every man that is circum- cised, that he is a debtor to do the rvhole law. Gal. 5 : 3. This testimony, mark, is borne (1.) to every man — Jeic as well as Gentile. (2.) The testimony itself is of doing, oviuorh, which is evidently put in contrast witli believing ; human merit by means of circumcision, in opposition to Christ's merit by faith. (3.) Circumcision, on this prin- ciple, is not the only thing required ; there must be per- fect righteousuw.^s, tlio wltoh law must be kept or fulfilled. But (4.) tlie debtor f.o do tlie wJiole law is under the (■arse : For as many as are of the worl's of the laiu are under the curse. Gal. 3 : 10. Tlie use of circumcision which Paid is opposiug, is, therefore, damning to the Jew no less than to the Gentile. And, if circumcision was a mere national sign, how, when transferred to the Gentiles, does it become all at once religious ? And can the reception of a mere national sign ruin the soul ? If an Englishman adopts the Ameri- oan sign or flag, does he do it on " religious grounds," and lose his soul ! ! ! Then, after the destruction of Jerusalem l)y Titus, the converted Jews allowed cii-cumciHion to fall into disuse, and finally to disappear. They du the same now. What unconverted Jews did, or will do. can have IK) bearing on Apostolic practice. And it is simply un- true to say that circmncision was 'confined to the family of Abraham. It had a world-wide aspect when first .applied to Abraham, whom it contemplated as the father ol many nations. It was placed on persons of many nations in that patriarch's household. Proselytes were always circumcised. What the unconverted Jew thought circumcision was in his nwn case, as sucli he wished to transfer it to the Gentile, i-eligious in \)o\\\ cases. On no other principle can we account for his zeal in this matter. Indeed, if the true nature of circumcision was not religi- ous, as given to the Jewish church, we cannot understand how the erroi", which the cai-nal Jew grafted on it, could c V ScTiptiire BapUsm. 107 n have originatea ai V Circumcxsiou co^* J ,,s from oth^^^^^ national mark to ^^.^^ing ,i,ed. / "^l' fens and for other na^'X' So were many of « e ^SJ^^ ^ffjca. IndaretotWay So ^^^ Ka&W Sout^ ^.^^^^ Ethopians, ^'^"^^'"^onites and Moa'>'r,:„ture view of The IdumKans Ammo ^^^ ^v^e ^^^^^ ^, cised. Havmg alreaay ^^ ^,ere reveat. »^'^^ ^.^ect, as oircumcision, ff neert no j^,,, «„ tms « J ^ i^orant about the euo b o ,-,^,,^ ,„u ^ _ 1^,, J^^d to the i?™'=''/J^",;e they I'^^'o^'^'^.'i'.ered, to «ay *e circumcision, because j^^ ^^^^^ f ?*"ffieation by faith. ,,ved ^7^*°"*jf^e„\ai doctrine oi ^^^f ,X.lmg «i«^ '^"''•' *^f toSment ^ve 'l'°^„„tist says, 1ms oi" jUstinguisVi- Fuller, a»?^^^\,,^Srity of ^YfThovah and tohich ordinance. .^,j^e Th^lak word of (Jod. L "^"^ ■ ^^„i„uc sU'^f'"' error of that ery is the "S*o"' ''' f .S done. Turn ,Uuv..h, ( ra - ^^ .,,_ ,,,1 decreed, ad ^^^^ ^^ Rome m all i:.VH._ ' , ,,„d let I'W * iufallibiiity, infants ouf oi tl ' .^'^ wcanliuie, ho d,n^ l.a ^^^ ^^^ :,5 Hon>e won < « n OUurch , ''-">«^ UhoriUtWe fuHy noted that i ,^^ ^j i, J. V'"^ -^^ipie-it is .^" 108 Scripture Baptism. the outgrowth of His wisdom and love, and is represented in the Bible as a very precious truth, — one of the comforts of God's people for two thousand years. If infant church membership be wrong in principle, and popish in its operation noic, it must have been so, from the first, for principles do not change. Christ was a member of the Jewish Church when an infant eight days old : Accord- ing to Baptists, this was " the ground and pillar of popery " I ! Christ declared infants to be members of His Kingdom or Church. Did He in this utter a popish cry ? He was '" (jrievoiisljj vexed" with those who dreamed that His Kingdom liad only to do with grown up people. Paul pronounces the principle which Baptists condemn as pernicious, to be profitable, 3IUCH every way. Rom. 3 : 2. Hearing such aspersions on our principles, we can turn to our Heavenly Father and say, The re/proaches of them that o-epi'oach thee, are fallen on us. Ps. 69. And in defence of infants whom God claims as His, Ez. 16: 21, we may ask Baptists, How they are capable of doing so much evil, though utterly powerless for good ; giants, indeed, of Satan and the Pope, but God and His Church can do nothing with them ! If infants are such mischievous creatures, how can they ever find themselves in heaven ? And how such a bad principle on earth as infant church membership, can become a good one in heaven, we leave Baptists to determine ! ! But where is greater purity of doctrine, discipline and practice, than in Pedo-baptist churches ? Certainly, not in Baptist churches, of which one of themselves has said. That it has all kinds of doctrine, and all kinds of preachers, within its pale. But the Waldenscs, the Bohemian,, or United Brethren, and many other Pedo-baptist churches, are proverbial in all these respects. Infant baptism pledges parents to give a Scripture teaching and training to their children. It is the right of all baptized persons to receive such. The training infant church niembcrsliip involves, may be seen in Dent. G; Gen. 18: 19 ; Ps. 78, and Ei)h. 6: 4. As Fuller says oi: infant circumcision, .so \vc sav of infant baptism. It binds its subjects by a special obligation to obey God. All sensible persons nuist see that this line of action is the very best, the only secure guarantee, against the inroadsl thyOod,j precedes ita and will I appeal- to whom faithful nl trary app] true lUO^'H than the! each is te^ child cac whicii it adult ca And thi oppose t men is ^ of chuK theiv pe testimo they w€ the VIS Baptis —A < popery with I carna whicl ring beloi sour ossci 1 Bee hov hoi pa: tai th Scripture Baptism- 109 ^ • (( T fi'ifl, carnal s^<^^^^Yi^.^nv of professors is not ine uouj _£ '' The external body ^\V}r' ^„^ii ^ regenerate. -L^^^t-.i l.KANTS AUE SOT AWi""^?" ?;" '^ew Testemont tbat -- . . iO^W^** *^'' no Scripture Baptism. of the Lord's Supper, active." As in the state, so in the church, all who are members have not equal privileges. Females are church members, but they are not allowed to speak in the churches. Children are members of the State, but cannot vote. So children are church members, yet cannot have the privileges of adult membership. ''Baptist Childuen as good as the Children of FEDO-BArTisTS," though unbaptized. Baptists, who make this statemcTit in order to sliow that infant baptism is without effect forget the view they take of Pedo-baptist Christians. Baptists hold that we are all unbaptized. Bat will they pretend to tell us that we are destitute of a long and glorious history, as God's people. Look at our Waldenses and Huguenots, our Reformers and Martyrs, our Covenanters and Puritans, and the thousands of Saints, men and women, old and young, in our commun- ion, whose distinguished piety Baptists dare not deny. But, according to Baptist theory, not one of these was baptized. Is the Baptist communion, with its boasted immersion, better than they, more honored by the Great King than they? What theu is the good of immersion, or the Baptist theory ? Pedo-baptists who reject it, arc as good, to say the least, as Baptists who love it, and com- pass sea and land to make to it proselytes. But the argument carries us farther. Baptism gives visibility to the church, and without it there can be no ministry of the Word, no dispensation of the Lord's Supper, no right use of ordinances, no visible people of the Lord. Yet Baptists arc forced to ndmit that piety, as pure as that which exists witliin their pale, is found outside thereof. It their principle of testing the orthodoxy of our infant baptism is correct, what, we ask, is the good of their church, their ordinances, tlicir ministry, or inimersion ? Aye, we have heard men say, that they who do not attend gospel ordinances in any church, arc as good as those wh<> do. Baptists must abandon their [)rinciple on tlie point in hand, ere they can correct this error. Their objection to our infant baptism rests on a false basis. For, bo it remembered, that the good of any ordinance depends on the right use of the ideas or truths properly, or by Divine appointmeni is the Bibl The gospel ^ who hearii Bible, or Gr use Jihem, i man who o not the lac Baptists e) same styles by an opt performan baptists C5 Henry, v/ work upo ^, (Lchioi ml tin Scripture Baptism. Ill . . +>.nt ordinance. What good use ^hem, it no «^n^ ^ ^,ed m P^^ f i^ y Do bTau V "'1'i""l;r" 'do 'ku^w, that u,any P-V > 'Tmm, Matthew Henry, Cf "'^.^ion o£ uian^ S«^ Th» .tatemeut « n^ U.e, ,, ^^j^W on names are concerned B.Wn ^j^,^ ^^, ^fP'l^Z Acts 16 : 31, «^y^'^^i,^J .^d them, (the ;o";«\ 'it^ fee hring thee, (*'',/' T'^ads nothing which tan ne^^^^^^ . r? "ilue't Matth-v Henry e>^-ty,rtt of •'"ftnlK both in the l>^f\° ,4s "were baptised by ;tt& acW« %. ^* 'tcnii« 1-usehold -e T^^^^ "-^ '''f ;"l./v^atcA in these . ..-- itct that infan^ are X^, X V -s-^- ,-?.'T, S Iduds of argument w«e ,ood,^^ ^^^__^ ^^^^ ^I^^ti^e^to U 112 Scripture Baptism, principles. When such exposure as the above can be so easily made, who can have any confidence that Baptists quote accurately from Pedo-baptist authors on this sub ject in any case ? Says the Hev. T. M, Dimmick ; " I know a young man, now a Pedo-baptist clergyman, wh(j was once a Baptist, and was led to Ree his error just by the garbled quotations found in the ' Scripture Guide to Baptism/ by Pengilly. He was one of thoac^ very lew leaders who desire to look up the quota- tions, and to decide for themselves; or who are so situated as to be able to do so. Jn comparing the repre- sentations of Pengilly, with the true views of the authors, he was so disgusted that he went into a thorough and pjindid investigation of the whole ground ; which led him to see tliat this peculinr iiiith of the Baptist denomination is unscri})tural and nnchristlike." John Paul Perrin, wrote a history of the Waldensian Church, in which we lind the following: "They (the Waldenses) kept their .Sabbaths duly, causing their children to be baptized accord- ing to the order of the primitive church." Jones, a Baptist historian, in quoting avowedly from Perrin, omits the part of the above sentence which refers to children, and writes the passage thus : " They kept the Sabbath day, observed the ordinance of baptism according to the order of the primitive church " ! ! ! For such conduct there can be no justification.. This Jones is said to have been a good man. Thus we see how much denominational prejudice will influence even good men to strive uiilawfully. In the" Apostolic Constitutions, B. vi, 15, we find the follow- ing : " Baptize your infants, (nepia) and hring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord" Dr. Cramp refers to the " Apostolic Constitutions " in his Catechism on Baptism, p. 24 ; but contrives to do so in such style, as to leave tluj impression that Uv^.'iing is found in those celebrated documents of antiquity, favorable to infant baptism ! ! ! Dr. Cramp, also, calling attention to tlte statement, men M\^ women were baptized, Acts 8 : 12, adds, "Mark it well — ' men and women," — no children ! " How superficial for a doctor and professor. He might as well quote, If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of B pointing — no chi bath " : 1 refers, is eighth df Sabbath i not to ad infants e: not und( scriptura Kingdom not appl; can lean Acts 8, f intended the new iemale." The His Ch BaptistJ right t< people 1 bers; 1 and tr( drawn in cont therefr cision. exclud author parent Baptis Whet ,\ Scripture Baptism. 119 be so faptists |is sub ik: "J in, who >r juf?r ^riptuiv qnola- |are so lepre- nthors, gh and ed him i nation Perrin, lich we >t their accord- Baptist lits the en, and th day, )rder of can be a good ejudice 'U- In follow- f' up in Orauij) Bchisiu I style, i those infant t, men t well lal for , If a t the law of Moses .should not I.o broken, John 7: 23, and pointing to the term man, add, " mark it well — if a man, — no child eight days old was circumcised on the Sab- bath " I ! While the fact is, that the law to which Christ refers, is the command to circumcise the child on the eighth day. If this law is to be kejit, all born on one Sabbath must be circumcised the next; the reference is not to adults at all. Here is a law specially referring to infants expressed as if applicable to adults. Baptists can- not understand this, simply because their theory is un- scriptural. Except a mant he horn again he cannot see the Kingdom of God. Will Di*. Cramp argue that this does not apply to infants, because the term man is used ? We can learn nothing as to the age of the parties baptized in Acts 8, from the terms "men and women" — they are intended to show that all distinction ot sex is removed in the new dispensation, — " where there is neither male nor lemale." The Kesult we ueauu is: — Grod placed infants in His Church, and attached to them the seal of initiation ; Baptists exclude them from their church, and deny their vight to that seal ! God positively commanded His people to regard and treat their children as church mem- bers ; Baptists infer that it would be wrong to so regard and treat them! God has shown that all arguments drawn from regeneration,- faith, repentance and obedience, in connection with baptism, ought not to exclude infants therefrom, for all these did not exclude them from circum- cision. Baptists esteem these (considerations sufficient to exclude them from that ordinance. We have God's authority for classifying infants with their professing parents, and placing on them the seal of initiation : Baptist authority for rejecting this order and rule ! Whether it be, right to obey God, or man, hearers, judge ye. ? 1 ^■1 i 1 I r-tfi^-^i.-yf IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) '/ A {./ ^.% WJ>., / ^ '(/. % 1.0 I.I yo M 125 IL25 ill 1.4 10 1.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. M5B0 (716) 872-4503 \ .# ^ iV *•«•«■»••■■•-«•• ■■*••*< nces B^ JAMES MtJERii ex-m; H. A. ^' ST, JOHN'S, N. F. J. W. WITHERS, queen's PI r896. 5 2.3- i THE IN iWFOUNDLAND. Consequences and Cure. i"i>«it» ••'••■•« •■(►*«■ ■ ^■4f-*>i>fcir.. Bt JAMES MimRAY, BX-M. H. A. ST, JOHN'S, N, F. J. W. WITHERS, queen's PRINTEB 1I96. Co Cau! TT THE Commercial Crisis IN NEWFOUNDLAND. Cause, Consequences and Cure. r.Y JAMKs :.iriJKAy, F,X-M. H. A. ST. JOHN'S, N. F. J. W. WITHER-^, QITE'-N'S TBINTEH 1895. ■i"i ^«^^ CAUSED THE , "V ./A.,,,s , '^^ CRISIS : ~ '^a *v.;i SS;^, SS:r that liuu' failure '»!' less than tills alter 'I'll mil teiii, can island sli linn, wlii lalion in cl(»si' I •y ( t.lia,t w.' 1 and ill'' 1 the Sniiji lislierv |i ill tilt si' Thr iii t.hal stn inticiliM't visions 1) Pri('r to loaiK'd a )>lv ill it- of fn'i*ih hy steam small de; lionr. ins 8teaiii IV' tlu' niniK ITe ill rally f..l ])racliee prine.i]tl( SvKleni. JIUTciill Next j)i'egre;ss liere of ; the reiiii tein Irai Mereaiil slant iull ^^isis > 'y '////}>,.. "M no/, 'i'i'/r- ''''''•'>'f.,'.S' Hot ^n nul t],o }>v ■IS t ■M S tlmt limn no hm^^w exists; aiul iIk; hisLiuy id" tin- ice, ut failure (»f the- Supplyiiijj; System is vi-ully notliiiij; moir nor Jess than ,i traeiii;^ of tlie eliungi'S wliicli lia\e l)i'on;_,hl anout tins alteration in its j)osition. To Illlike eli>ai' what \ am al)()nt to detail h'! me state ri^dit ht'K' that tli*- natural exi^eiieies of tin' Snpph inu' Sys- tem, e;iriitMl out t<» their lo^nral e(»iu'lusi(ii, ie(|iiire that this island should he the exclusive ]ir(tj)('ity of one Sn)»j>ly)u;4 liiiii. which should em[tloy the ahlediodied )»i'odnrti\e popu- latinn ill ( anyin,'; on the lisheric:. of iho i-laiid. under such close (-!• f\ciusi\(' lilies, or legislation, as nmiuM ]ii"eclude all tha,t wc know under ihc names nf rommeK'ial competition and iho uiodern ri*2;lits of ( i\i! citi/.en■^ilip In slioit, t(.i make the Supjtlyini;' System a siiccc-s impli''-; N'lw luundland as n lisheiy ))lantatiiiii, iiiid-'r an r^i^lja'cs and li-hiiiu' a(hiiii;ils. as in tla siMcetith ccutuiy 'Idii' li rs t vit'cat c<'mmfici,il '•JiiinLic willdn my cx|:tt icm<; thai stiU'-k a death Mow at I ln' Siippl\ inn' Svslci.i was the intiodiK'ti-n here of steamers a> iinhn ;ry liciulilci -; of pro- visimis he.l \' et'/i lliis fountry anl ihc Aiieiii'an cinlinenl l*ri(:r til that. r\ery merchant who impnrUMl pKwisions loaded a saiiini;" \ess(d nf his own, ;ind ha! mraio- ply in it - carv:". When '^tfanuis wen- pui i>\\ ai \^>\\ lates o[ freiji.'ht. after i! hecame iieiicial ie sUj,erccde sailiic.:' \-essels hy sicaiii ciiiiers Iniilt maiidy '{>■]• !reijj;htinLi' ])urposos. eveiy smi!]] dealer cduld imjMiit his ew n iweniy (cr iifiy i-arrels (.»f Hour, instead nf huvin'j' tlu^m i»f iJie local mcicli.uit. The Hlcam fi'ei;j,!)lers, in short, hecame disl i ihiuoi.-. ami hroke u]> tile moiiMimlv of ihe larger ca.p'talists al! nvrv the island The iie.vL step of commercial proure,-s. and nnc ihal natu- rall\ ftillowed the othei', was i!ie itit I'oductioii heic of tlu.; ]>raelice of sellinir tkair raid (•liier pioxisions mm the c. f. i princ.ijile. TJus ea\e a further hkiw lo the old Suitplyin^ System, hy Itrin^int: the miller of ()ntari»t into direct (om- mercial relations wit h the smallest retail dealer in SLdolm's. Next we lind this advance followed up liy ;inotlier step of [H'o^'ress that it naturally sngL-ested. That was th<' arrival here of special afjents, who w'ent all o\'ei' the island, and into Mie i(Muotfst outharhiir, pkiciug the small independent e\- leiii trader on the same plane of advanta^ue as tlie largest Mercantile capitalist in the metrotiolks. Tliese changes sub- stantially meant the introduction and general dillusion of Tin-'. ( iVsti svrtTtvM in Xewfoundland 2M 1'^^ i w..;;';'f:;:^^i::::;\:!;;;;i:'>-^j;^^e,. ,,.,„„„ „,„ (0 iMiy ),is I,,,,,, „f ,1 r .; '"II >'"t oo„„„,..,„l (I ,„|, •'-•^';.:i"-M,.|n,,,, ,,,, .;,\'/'' ;l''f ."I av,.,,,.,.., ,„, 'litems „f ,|„, ,K.»Iv.;iiir,r 0, ,,,''''' ""■, I";l'"«il'lc .■„„- ;'« plan. «8 tlu, ,„«o „„ 1, ,;! .:.•,'"■ "■'"'■'' ^'"'' '" I'i'" •"torosl: ..ro,v,le.l out bofom t it;'':,'''''''''' i""' "»l"-'' Century •l» <^ "''^^ '" l'"= ^"P- already exterminate.). ' '""'"•■t"' "f l*Si' |,ad „o( m my opinion onr Suppl4,'/Arn" " ^ ''"'"'' ■'''•'"e'l that tl- «an,e fiuaneial po.ilU a.Mho ■ , rmvhfVi" T"'^?'^ , 'HL iioAv in at least twelve i whi'H Oi Onv SI ton ,vf.i»| as \n'rA\\ waH u"t| ;l'.\('b\Sl| • •ulv val the lattj uicvils I ness. s\J •,v New; l\\B Oil Tilt' ii of llu siuiil ;iiu\ ' men. \a\u are 1 ihcr Uay val Fis for Ira 1 "''■'"fw,,,,, 'e.s nr^r. tkh tor '"'• than 'I fvv )- t vears ii;^n. I m-IccL tliiil )»Mrli(Milai' Wale Kccaiisi' ii was in ISSl' thai \\i' adnjiit.i llic railway |M»licy, which math* such a iiiaikcd ' iii'W era,' not only in niir political, hut also, as I hhall show, in our i-onnnurcial lilc a-; well. The liiht two years after that date, ISSL' and 1SS;3. wr-n; eoinpaiat i\ el\ tiimd years with the general trade ol" Xew- Toiiiidland, as nii;^hl ha\e heeii expected in a relalisely small comiimnily i»y the expendil nre-i in connection witli the con- struct ion oi' the railway. Then came the leaction of hSS^ when the Hanks lirst hcj^ian to ^d hack, and this decline has steadily continued I'vev since that time. Our sea.l lisheries have notoiiouslv faile(| during' the past ten years; t he n(!wly-re\ ived Hank lishery has a<_iiin heen ]»ractically al»a?idone(l, not s », lo hr remunerati\e on its merits ;is an independent enterprise. 'i'lien aLiain new arranj;x'm<'nts and nunles of doinif laisi- ness. such as are always (leeurrinu; in connection with the commerce of every eountry, have inti'rvene(l to draw oil" the attention of our jteople fi'oni our l-'isheries. There is mtthinu; a New foundlander will not sctoner do than l(<» tishinu;: and llie only cliance to net that done a> a successful industry is hy exeludiuL!: -ill other luodes of industry alon*^' side of it. The introdiu'tion of railway lahor. foi' instance, \insettled tho nunds of the men who t'UL^aned in it. and. in c(MMain sections of the country these men never went hack to the Fisheries The introduction of the [.tjlister eanniuL; industrv liad a similarctl'eet : lishermen w ho enpi^ed in it lost tlieir <;ear, and iiracticallv abandoned their calliiiL; as ordinarv lisher- men. MiniuLi; industries have the, same ellect : whatever value they have as heljiin^f the general lahor nunket they are no help to the Kishinu; industrv nor to tho.'^.e en^a^ed therein. The introduction of steamers very li-enerallv in oui' Hays and alontjj our eoasts has also helped in the .same ^^ene- ral direction, namely, by diverting the men's nunds from the Fisheries and t^ivini'' some (tf them incidental emplovmenl for cash at other pursuits. Any one of these separate dis- tractions in itself niav be tviHin<4, l^ut combinedlv thev ha\(^ :•"'>• -"f ^- //^/.y ^.. „• ' .^. " ';"" '^"^•^^•'^^•^ ^'"^' !.'■ will """''"an.ial s ri t^ ,. i' "''•'■'' "^"'- ^vl..,, (I,. 1;„,,., ,,,,, 7'-(<-'I Ikt.'. Mu. nwMvlK, u ' : ' . ,r '"".'"""li'H.as .vcM.itlv ^^'^•^•' takes pains m kn,r u / "' '" ''l" ^'"•"■^" P'"" ^■'»'"K^^"^'xi... (in-, it (<,,/,• ''"" <^"''^^'»-' c'Mst ami "■ ;|^'l'^-^'^'*t-l val,u. n ho c^': l'"" v^''^''" ''''"'^ " <^'^«<> goni- renmrk. It i? n, . r^"' ^" ^'^''»«^^'^ ^vith the lore- «amo artiolo .bout or ].'s ^i i^i ' '"^ ^""'^^^^''''^ ^"^- th*. lJmn$4por .p„„tal Those /i.ai- .•IS. l\'^ ^^^'1 vet ()1^»^'»-'' \» 'Ut \v<\ i^^y ^'>1 m^ceesa i\| as a <'V«H irnn '»>' >" to \tiVViUl| is, ill ^^'' mil' <'''^^^" a\ul '-^^ ; not ou^ c,pe('iiA If i nee(\»;' in N'^" the i ;| oda^ r feul it 1 ivoi J/"' "" Ih. r '" his '/ " '''•'•^"' r '"' hj7/ Jnk'c tho tho Hi}: ill tit u,l 'so H I. % res ;irr r<)ii'*li and oiih ii'liilivf, fur the sake of coinparisuii. lluw tl(» I arcoiint fur tho upiiaiciil jtaradox :* In tliis way! The (lill'ncincc consislH in //v/.sA -the \vaHt(» imidrnl t'l i\w- Suj)})lyin^ Systi'in.liy reason of ilu- (li>lion('sty of sonic dcal- »'iv-!, tho incaiiii'ity or njisrort imics uccess dcjicnds. Heic. then, we hasc thi> cxlraordinarv anonialv, which the iceords of industrial eeonomy must he searched in vain to paiallel, of a husint.'ss cH»-(»j)erative system dependant for its success upon the L!:<»od-will of persons every one nf whom is, in tlie nature of the eaf-'e — that is. in ohedience to the natuial hiw of self-interest -li^htin<^- ae-ainst it A system, moreover, which has outlived the temporal, soeial and eeoiio- mie conditions which «»ne<' made it sueeessful. And, lastly, a svstem so inherentlv unsiamd, from a moral point (»f view, and as an evolutionaiy process, that every stroke and move- ment of proj^r<'ss in the ;_^eneral industrial world around it is n(jt only a Ljeneral stroke and movement apiinst it, hut a special instiument for turning more acutel}' against it that' particular })rincii)le inherent in itself which is already the <'au3(! of its unsountlness and decay. If instances and (waniples of tliese fundamental facts are needed the\ can hv furnished in volumes — and hecatonihs of volumes --from the experience; of every Snp[)lyin,L!; Merchant In Xewfoundland As to its chances of commercial succes.s, the foes of the system- -natmal and incidental — are now so numerous that gamhling blindfold on the Turf, or taking lonj]; odds against the hank at Monte Carlo, are a safe enterprise and investment when compared with it. And the worst* feature of the thing after all is said and done, is the fact that it makes had men, had citizens or comnuiniHts from an eco- nomic poijit of view, «nd a had —that is, an un.sound ami 8 perilous— c'diulitiou ol" society us u whole. This is tiu; iii- (Uctiuont the stale has a.^ainst it : — its failure etbicall.y and econoiiiically: and every advancing year— every forward luovcnient of general progress — drives home that indietnieid with over-increasing and relentless force. As I have alr(iady said, the systeiu leciuires for its success a perfect JiKaiopoly of sonu! selected area of operations; for its s\d)jects a class of nion who are id(Mlly honesL and in perfect hurinony with ihe System itself: and for its environmelit sucli a total ex- clusioii of all tlie ev v-expandiug features, conditions and conserably as if he vvei(! the wounded member of a pack of cavnivora. liis eiVecls disappear; liis assets, in the shai)e of outstanding debts,, mol; away from meridian to zero Even his fellow-merchants ami rival traders in the ^^cality of his operations aid Ins dealers in their elibrts to rob him, and his estate becomes siiddeidy transformed from a vineyard into a graveyard. Thus the- death of a ])ersonal Supplier is fidl of peril to his estate; ane; therefore thoso who gi\ e him credit, aware of this ghastly fact, do not always fetl safe in doing so uidess the extra- hazardous risk is covered b}' a [toliey of life insurance. Thus the System, the natural tendency of^ which through life is to devitalizast %; I. both of these e concerns on oui were once in ac ])age of this pj Mi{ Sthphkn II the old and wea ,so many years, i foundland busi managing i)art] Sthwai'lT "tlu^ means the tirsi interest in thai incidcnits that be multiplied a so inipr(^ssively losses, relicts a nient in this ] are strewed ^v ness life attent losses, l)ut of a tlis ensigns of i inert, dead -c( tisnre), monldei The known f lag fishery tra( pectively — are The oxtc'iisive supplyiui; house ia ilurhor I J race that alloi'ds iisliing facilities to the greater part 'if (.'oiieei>tion r)ay, lia* l)eeii largely (lependent upon outside Hiiaiieial aid for many years, without vvliich it could not have carried I'U its husi- ness. ^'et tliis firm was once w<> ^H)iJ, at least. The large .supplying house of \\ Ck L. Tksstk , which went down two years ago, was li;ft, ahoutten years hefore, i»y its oiigina- ting [)ro])rietors. with a ca[)ital of -LSiijiUd. Another largt; linn — tliat of J. iK: A\'. S'ikwaki' — voluntarih withdrew from t. Inisiness aliout tiie same time at great sacrilicc. and assnm- edly to escape the entire loss of its means in Xewftauidland. If we survey the linc! of coast from Point Mav li> (aix^ Hay, we shall lind it strewed with tiie wveclcs of old sup]>lying houses that have gone down before tiie l»last. Ihit one of thes(^ old houses yet survivt'> that of Nkw.man ^V To., (.f Harbor lUiton and (laultois and its proprietors have for some years past entertained the idi-a. o*" (dosing up one oi both of these establishments, Tlie names of large lishing concerns on our south and west roasts, no\\ defunct, that were onee in active and llourishing operation, Wf)uld till a ])age of this pamphlet. Tlu' writer ren!endK'i> the lato Ml! Stki-hkn Kknuki,!, rel'errinu to a veai' in the history of the old and wealth}' house with whieli he was connected for so many years, as being on the point of idosing uji its New- foundland businers in the "sixties"' and the last active manaeiuu' partner of the now extinct firm of .1. \- W. Stkwaut — th(^ late .All;. !{ni;i;i;r Ai.k.xAXDKIi lost all his means the first year or t\vo after he was admitted to an interest in that firm. Tiiese fads, and other e.vplanatory incidents that throw sid.elighls upon the sit.uatioii, might be multii)li(Ml a iinndred fold wen^ they not so eloijuently, so im[)r(\ssively, known— in fact, rnf/rared — in the S(jrrows, losses, relicts and derelicts of every ever-|)o[)ulated settle- ment in this Island, in fact, tlu^ strands of oui' fslantl are strcnved with bones —the bones, not of vigorous l)usi- ness life attended ]»y incidental init lomparatively trilbng losses, but of a business life that was once Ibi.sh with all ths ensigns of active health and bloom, but is now stagnant, inert, dead -consumed away with dry rot, (to alter the figure), moulded into fungus and postlnnnous decay. The known facts with regard to the projU-s of the supply- ing iishery trade — of modern and f>ld-time experience, res- pectively — are abundantly confirmative of these general 10 -<:oiK.']usi()MS hi llio ]>;iliiiv (lays of the Brazil triulc. Itefoio telegraphs and railways had iiiiiiiiiiisod i)r(»Hts ;dl over thf world, it was not iineoiiiinon ff»r a shi[)piii(i; fiviii in New- ionndlaiid tn clear from Ji'lJiOi) to .■fHopoO stg on a singlt^ (.'argo of dry codlish in drums A pound stg. per drum {Wl lo 12(S Ihs.) was not unfrrMjucntly made on the cargoes of our fin(^ {'li[)per Newfoundland i)ar(|Ues, hrigs and hiigantines, thai were kept up in tirs.-elass trim for the purpose of run- ning our great staple to the c.uisuming markets in good shape. . Where now are the iuimense fleets of these vessels llie Mik'or.-i, Ikilrintlid.s, I\h!jii>ix, EtJich, Hfrmionex, Htui- ■niinmh'M, (tc , tVt'., that were tlu» ))rid(^ and hoast of thnusands of seafarinu' families in St,. John's alone '. and whost^ eomings an«] goings made up the animal rahuukir, not only for tiieir iiiiniediat(^ owners, hut for a whole islaiulful of hright eyes am! hounding pulses, that "took an interest" in onr mercan- tile marine. The same general eonelusions ean he arrived, at and f this < '«jlony, Fishl six and eight milliol tl actuated hetween .d action per ca})ita II F.UT 2.- -That till lias risen from zer<» last TWELVK years hi Fa(,'T 3.-- that th in the same tinu^ frj maile up as t'ollows : Due Savings' FJ Due IVmk XoL*! FniKled and Fhl Year's deficit ll Ditto 1S1 ( )utstanding Fi; Fact 4. -That th( ,oi the Cohmy for eai to ten millions of do and /-s imnifdiairhi j Fact o. That of lation, as exported, red for the ordinary Fact 0. That tin is thus ahsorbed (o years. Fact 7. That m diture is made in St the population. Fact ."^ --That tl producer and his fai century as compar ;!,(!( >(),()00 1,21)0,000 12,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 ,SOO,000 i?20,000,000 Fa(T 4. That the total sorbed (or an equal amount) every four or live years, Fact 7. 'i'hat MMv iknitis of this governmental expen- diture is made in St, John's, iniuibited bv onlv onk TKNTH of the population. Fact 8— -That tlu; position of an averagt^ inde})endent producer and his family (five in all) in the early [lart of the century as compared with now, is as follows : — SCOO ,.., I Year's earnings I hen I I-ess year's taxation V I \'ear"s earnings (Less year's taxation 15 S585 ."$1130 . 50 $100 12 Coniinnation of ilie.so f;irL-; in dclnil will l.»e f.;r,ml iu Ih 1»agC'S <'ii)j)0ii(1e(l at the end of this piiiuplilcit. The contrast l.tftween tlic i^tatc ol' afiliiio as legard.-; ou puhlic linanccs any timo prioi ti) 1882 a:. J thi; [iroseut is so' j;lai'ingly startling tliafc it Ccinnot fail to fix the jj.ttention of all ]iersons conversant with the usual modes of arriving at iJio ccononiic conditions of a country Thus, assuming that all earnings, adl taxation?', and all accnnndafiotis are eciuallv (listrihuted, we arrive at the fact that in tlie llrst half of the closinu centurv the average inliahitant oi Newfoundland earned one hundred and twenty <]ollais a year at his calling, i»ut of which he paid a gradually increasing sum of taxation up h' ahout TjiliEE Doi.LAijs, wliich sulliced lo ju'event the .'iccumulation of any puMic deht aginiist the Colonv. Were that luan living to-dav he would find himself earning TlIIltTV I )()M. Alls annually, out of which he would ])ay ten dollars of taxation per head of his family, and that lie would re- present OxK llUNDllEJ) DOI.LAK.S of I'ciii.ic Dk!;!' to he i)aid by Romehndy that comes after him. This general concdusion we ma> iiistlv draw from the very altered ccimomic circumstances of older times, namely, that a large percentage of the animal i'arning»j of the people, not l)eing ]'e(|uired for their current necessities, became accumu- lations Thest^ aceumulatious (properly called ' pntfits ' in tlie true use of that term,) either remained iu [he hands of the common people, or remaine(l in the hands (if the ca.jiitab ists of that time, or, which is most likely, partly both. How did this accumulaliou of capital manifest itself to tlie onlinarv observ(;r / In the ca.^e of the ca}>iialist or Sujtplyiug Merchant, he would liuy or })uild ships, take on more dealers, improve his ])remises, or else perhaps send juirt of the money out of the country and invest it els(wvhere. < )r, taking note of other articles tliat could be made in the country, he might Join with others to start factories, i^cc. In the case of the Fisherman or I'lanter, he would ret)air his boats, paint his house, take in some more garden ground, e on more sharemen. Or he W(aild put a few hundred o r tals dolL irs 111 the Si ivmus Hank, or perhaps take a share in a hanker, or buy a cod-seine, or what not. // c)i (( man or a ^cUlaMut is iiwsperiiKj, ^vithout lianks oi' wh hook-learning, and, alas ! the siL'us of decadon apparent. ^s (V/..s_?/ to -sf'' e are equally ll(jw many forti of this island duri| Where are all the liay I'oberts, Cai Admitting that th| untouched by the navista to Cape St miles, including thi ing, and from ('I secluded llermilal covers all that rt'ii| Colony, and (.'Veii ,stroy(-d long ago b they not so hulwal that th(\y cannot si I have made tin duced, a crucial d; the date and that our li nances from one leap revolutioi land. It is useles! all to enter upon divergent from f>u same time so irre We were beset at 1 in the pri\ate tislu indicate -a lid in ff limitations in that at the parting of Would we elect 1 they reached niatu we, the older oneS; way, a\"oiding all \ natural manifest d we blanch out mu \\^\\ way into new tion, and, ]>ossibly agricultural lines, between the two l Well, the idcji y motive. The fiiiei •>' Of com'si' t1ii> il'""- 13 How many fortunes have ))ecn lost on the Southi^iii Shore of this ishuid (hiring the past five and twenty or thirty years ( AVhere are all the wealthy independent planters of Uri^us, IJay r*o))erts, (Vuitonear, llarhor (rraei^ and Trinity i^ay ^ Admittinj4" t l^at the Northern part of the isbind is. so far, most untonehed l>y the jj;nawing tootli <>( decay, yet from ( "ape Bo- navista to ("ape St. .lohn, a coast line (jf less tliiin a hundred miles, includinji; the most secludeil part of the island remain- ing, and from ("onnaigre Tleaay, a span <»f less than fifty miles, covers all that remains of profital)le vahu; to us as a Fishing ( 'olonv, and (,'V»Mi these limited aieas would have heen ulwarked all arouml hy ]troie('ting fastnesses that th(\v cannot so readily lie invaded* J have luade the year 18S2, when the ilailwav w.is intro- duced, a crucial date in the present retrospect 77/r/^ was the date and f/ict the event which, in my opinion, converted our finances from a sound to an unsound condition, and at one leap revolutionised the econoinie position in Xewfound- land. It is useless now discussing the motives which led ub all to enter upon an experience so new, so expensive, so divericent from, our ordinarv haidis aii'l \v;).nts. and at the same time so irretrievalile in its result;>, for gocul or evil. We were beset at tlie time with commercial emharrassment in the private fishery trade of the country, which seemed to indicat(v- and in fact did indicate — that we had reached our limitations in thatMirection. It was for us then to decide, at the ))arting of the ways, which path we would take. Would we elect to see ossil)ly, the founding of a gi'aud new ("olony on agricultural lines, if not also of a Ne\\foun(Uand highway between the two great continents.'' Well, the idea was good, and hv also, no doubt,, was the motive. The question is have we reached a temporary halt ^' Of course (lii.s ^Im'h not tile in llio Frcnc'.i Sliore or Treaty Coast, 1^ '^^n'tx:::;;,:^^^^^^ - -n^an,i will ;i,,„,,;i;:::;;;',;;\';,^';-'-i''iv ^yaiia.,v,,i ,,,.,- 1 , . ""'( (\.i(! nlu.ii ':i iiiii *; I, ,. • ». 'INI, II '■■""' '" ""■ >■<■•■'■ I'w.i «i.;.„ , . """ :" >^"vf"i"Ki- «!"■" II,,.. lu,,ar.v',,:... ;;';!, "'','■''"•■'' '" ^i.W'W. i"^('/w. „f wi,i,.i, £.,y; ;„„/;,, ,:■'■'' ' ■"'';''■•■" '^ ;"/"*' a,„i '"i"« ti'-o '■!■ a fair ;.,;^';;'"V'r, ■,'■'''■■■' •■"'■'•'■''"- had „„ ,i„,,,„ „,. . ■ I' ';./;""il S., r„vtax,«.a,„l v«. /»..• --.V.,,.//-, ./,,.,,„,/ „,,,-„;," '"yI "■'■""'■ ''-''<''»'aM. t*x,... ,.„al has ,mo„ ,„',,:,; ' : ' '■ ,'? If.V -^lO f..,- a,„u,,U '"."■'• ".ilpuris „f ,!,is ■,",,;>"" '■■""^'"■'"l .■M.-i(> soui and d '»y I lie trunk \ <"ont)'iiiutes a mi iwifl" H millions w allot licr Wiiy. win produces tlio wjio] only aoout llif ;.; .•i.U'c, is !v.|uin (1 In i« (juito easy (o s( iHust onsiic. There is ani'lhci ;ind linancial ' hreo with a com})arison ha vim.' othcj- (io'i,,- to the. recorded im Vi-Ai: r.ooK for ih «ive. The eomhim lows : - - rm])orts I'A'iHtrls I) II The nii)ar;iti\(.'lv) luxii- Tioiis iiiU'i'iiiodian' (.'las^scs, who, iiiidtM- the wiii,i,' of tho .50- callc'il Lijciieral ;j,ov«!iinii('iil , i'ariii the uul[)oi'ts, s<» to speak. for their (Avii ailvaiitai;i', and ha\t' so ciioniioiisly over- W('iuhti'(l the ordinai'V i»ro(l;K\ivr caiiacity of tin's hshin^' <'oloiiy with the cxtiaoi'diiiai y cxiiciiditurc siiju liiujiosci! ii])oii the pnxhicci'S. that the oiitsi-ii' mt'iuhcis of (he hodw whose soiii and (ciiti'o is St .lohii"s. ait' literally coii uiiiied hy the trunk When t!iat part of tlif |toj»iilati(iii which v'oiitrihiites a million and a-half of dollars <^v[< less ihan ill lan H niiilioii s woi Ih u;o\erniiu'iit IxMielits, t,i\ |n put i| aiiothoi- way. when that porlion of t.ie poj)ulaliun which produces the wh(»le export rc\('iiU'' of the cnloiiy, ami l;cIs only aooul the same exleiit --f leturn as a hundred years at^c, i> rctpiiiid to eontrilaiLe .CI'MlJhM) i.f ..//v^ laxati iii, it is (juile easy to see t ha! s must ensue. i»iii( liiiM' arison of (nn- annual imjuirt.s and t\x]>o]t-^. \oi 1 )OSi; laving other ligure- h}' nc, 1 am cnniined foi' this purj to the I'eeordcd im])orts and exports in the XKWl"nl'Mi[.AN[i Vk.vi: lioDK foi' the el(;\en v^ars. |S7, to IS' !ii.| incli .sive lows 'Idu^ eomhiiied t>lals h»r tliesc rlevtMi ^e,lls ai'' as t'nl- Ini])orl: 1'A'port! 'OjUG,;:;:.' 1) lUeieU' e SI . I t I ,'' , The (inestioii naturallv aii-cs wiiei'e diil we ort the n;onf\ to make this excessive imjx'rt of nearly T\vj-;i,\',". mimjcns of dolU irs 111 eleven vears 01 conrse pan lias 1 leen *'oi hy increasing oiu' pnblie doi>t, and part of it ///"// Ic repre- lait at all <;vents it indicates an son ted l)V incorrect hgurc-^, almost total alisenee of money saved and Ijanked within the Colon V. This tallies with such other facts as are. kn(jwn to iH t)aiiked. fctr the last oO or 60 vi.s, f( )r, \N hil e our savings^ i years, did not excoed SI 5 per head of the ]'opiilation, these iiiQs, to the extent of at least five or six millions of dol- .St'lV ■i-> ' lars have l>eon si>cnt- have gone into general cinmlatirm, in 16 tlic lirst iiistaiict'. ami ultimiitelv lifivc lioon sent out of tin; C'ountrv to l»nv miods ii<'iiiii.st their owirts' will. ;(( -A: ^t :i: :!; >;: * sj: iK I set foilli tlicsc facts and statrincnts a.s an lnnnl)lt' hnt' ^'aruf'st contiiimtion towards llic s' )lution of tlic prolikini wliif'li now confronts ns, ! have written of it hecause I find 1 hat writing cf it 1m>s1 o]»ens ii]i an intricate snhject to tlie niind, and ! jtuhlisli the result of my researches in ))ani[)hU't form heciuse party lines are so li'-htlv diawn here just, now tliat 1 am precluded fr(»n! piddisliinn' them in any (»f the onhiiaiy newspajiers of the countiy without seeming to tino- tur<' the |tuitlieation witli ]»oh'ti(.'al i)ias. I have s|)ecially I'eferred to the year 1 SSL' and the intro(hiclion of the rail- way projcrt not hc'ause I heJicNc the ado] tion of that new (le}>aiture was the cause of our commercial disast<'rs, wiiieh it was not. < )n the contrary the railway ))olicy was ado[)ted, I l«elie\(', as a. sincere attempt to j)rovide a solution of the very same iinjldem that met us in J 882, 'i'hat it has not unfortunately proved a remedy for the disease is now, afl,cr ten years' exjierience, hut too a.[»paient, and the worst of the matter is that, liy the adoption df railway ex}>onditure,. we have cut (ill from ourselves' those means of retrieval that lay open to us twelve y(^ars w^o. It is iin])OS:ji])le to believe tliat this possiliility wa^ not for«\seen : hut whetlier or not, tlie fact remains :hat our prol.tlem ha>< come hack to us an unsolved as it was in 1882. it is now pro]lO^Jec supervision, at 1(| a sinking fund This in time maj tion of sound pu As to the .seco Britain will enei as an isolated C( gested is siiaply alternatives, or p As to the tliii assiatanc? of tht persuade Canadia half her present debt, she will hav blems tliat now « restrictions that i and democratic r Even then the ( under the first al involved, will be i whilst the ' other ')f old iled from a rule slaves for no the larger door o{ the permanent ist the condition of f beginning of this the rounded Vict( pansion t( rger up Hke tlie scul with our tail in o ring of a surretid 17 There ar^j three iiltenmtivea open to us, and by niiui}' people thi-y are le^'arded as a choice (tf evilj : (1) To remain as we are ; (2) To l)ecouie a Crown Colony ; (3) To enter Confederation. As to the first of tliese alternatives, it involves the .han- donment of fuither ijiilway expenditure for the present, the reduction of our civil expeniliture to a })oint below the million dollar notch, and the imposition of as high a degn-t' of taxation as our attenuated population and resources will i)ear, — the object being to lay by regularly, under strict «upe"vision, at least one-third of our annual income, to form a sinking fund for the redemption of our past liabilities This in time may get us back to . miething like the condi tion of sound public finance we occupied twelve years ago. As to the second alternative, it is not proitable that (J real Britain will encumber herself with the management of this as an isolated Colony, and, therefore, the middle course sug- gested is simply a/i euphemism for o.ie or other of the other alternatives, or probably for both, As to the third, if the Canadian Government, with tlie assistance of the imperial proprietors of this Colony, can persuade Canadian taxpayers to assume Newfoundland, plus half her present population, and twenty million dollars of debt, she will have the future privilege of solving the pro- blems that now afliict us, without being ham])ered by the restrictions that the fancied demands of universal suffrage and democratic necessities impose upon oui own legislatons Even then the conditions imposed upon us by ourselves under the first alternative, i. e., the economic retrenchment involved, will be the only beneficial results of that change, whilst the 'otherwise" results will be such as the Israelites of old iled from and the Egyptia xs enjoyed. J^eople do not rule slaves for nothing, politici^lly or any other way ; and the larger door opened to the ambition of the few may mean t;ho permanent isolation and abandonment of this Colony to the condition of a primitive fishing station, occupied at tlu^ beginning of this century. It would be strange, indeed, if the rounded Victorian cycle that has brought so much ex- pansion t( rger states and all civilization should wind us up Hke the sculptured snakes of mythological Egypt— with our tail in our mouth, our mouth in the dust, and the ring of a surrendered political independence around ;«11. \9 Population oi Newfoundlaud .at different periods from 1833 to 1891. 1823 1828 ! 83(5 1845 I8r>7 1 8»;i) 1874 1884 18!U 62,157 , 58,088 75,004 S,703 288 i»t;,r):ui 1()I,43« 107,M35 202,010 Number of Forei^-n Vessels arrived at Newfoundland at different periods from 1823 to 1843. (FuoM PiiiMP TocQi'E'H "Waxdkuino Tuovcuth.") 1822 1823 1826 1827 1821) 1H:ju 1331 1832 1834 1 83(5 1 839 1840 1841 1842 Ton*. 81,022 84,478 U3,4(i6 yo,38o 91,030 94,42{ 96,569 95,242 108,548 98,830 91,661 112,181 114,200 118,679 Kumber of ^•'^""'fcflm wf to ^Msl* "^ ^""'"^ «'='^*' (From p. 'PpGg.i?E'8 mWandeuino Thouuhts.") 1814 1815 1820 ■ 825 1 830 1831 1832 1833 1834 18:j5 1836 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 156,000 141,370 221,334 ..... 221,510 300,681 559,344 442,003 384,689 360,16^ ..... 557,490 384,321 ..... 375,361 631,385 .... 412,641 .... 417,11« 344,683 Newfoundlan (Kkom Piiilii. Torcjtr; 1822.. 1826 .. 1827 .. 1830,. 1831 .. 1834.. 1836.. 1838 .. 1839.. 1840.. 1841.. 1842.. 12 years Average imports ea hjuual to . • • • Avorago exports oac c-oual to • • • • Yearly excess of ex] ^. * Tim year tlie^value •"•tiwated the same. Newfoundland Ijxpo (FjtoM Tin 1879 mo 1881 1882 [ 1883 1884 1886 1886 1887 1888 1889 '. '.'.'.'.[ The value of expoi Ine value of expoi The average of these th raiTwdy had ceased. The oit8. i.729,198 Htg. .... 752,305 I82r) .. 512, H3 1827 .. 881>,'2()I 764,586 1830 .. 1831 .. ... 7H8,416 829,3r.3 .... 685,680 803,532 1834 .. fil 8,757 826,659 183fi .. 579,799 .... 808,066 1838 .. ... " ()0(i,0(iO 788,629 1839 .. 710,558 901,385 1840 .. 784,045 .... 983,961 1841 .. 1842 .. • • • ■ • each 800,423 694,337 952,. 155 844,375 12 yi'ftrs . ^8,655,144 je9,840,fi31 Average imports Kuual to year year rts e«iual to .... 4721,262 8tg. .... $3,462,056 .... ^^820,078 8tf{. $3,936,372 Avorago exports Eiiunl to each Yearly excess of expo .... $474,316 • This year the value of imports not being given by Mr. Tocque, i h^y«< r^«timatelJ the same. Newfoundland llixports for eleven years from 1870 to 1889, inclusive. 86 The value of exports in 1877 wais 6,841,582 The value of exports in 1878 was 6,630,891 The average of these thirteen years is between six and seven milliouii. •gi, Ip 1885 the expenditure in connection with the building of the raitwAy had ceased. The three previous years, it will be perceived, during which the railway was being built, were gpo4 years. So was the ye«r 1881, immediately preceding the railway era. The population in these years ranged from 150,000 to 180,000 people. 20 Public Debt of Newioundland for thirteen veari, from 1877 to 1889. (From the Newfoundland Yrab Book.) 1877 11,320,652 187M 1,347,692 187S» 1,451,290 18H0 1,450,990 1881 1,350,5)8 1882 1,498,777 1881 1,549,3 3 18«»4 2,149,1.3 1885 2,149,5'7 1886 2,288,3.»l 1887 3,005,010 1888 ...... 3,335,519 1889 4,133,2)2 III 1884 and 1885 thn railway debt began to accrue, and in 1885 and J 886 the exports fell from an average of $7,000,000 in the four preceding years to an average of Ichh than $5,000,000 in 1885, 1886 and 1887. The pojtulation in these years ranged from 150,000 to 180,000 people, Value of Exports and Public Debt from 1890 to 1894, both inclusive. (From the Newfoundland Year Ijook.) Value of Exports. * Year of the last extensive tire in St. John's. Population, according to Census of 1891, whole Island, except Lahrad/tr 100,775 Males Females Labrador 97,159 4,106 202,040 people. Total .... Of these 79,920 under 15 years cf age. Average Imports for a series of years will be found on page 15. 1890 $6,09 sbid 1891 7,437,158 •1892 5,651,116 1893 6,280,912 \6.i U'tt yet obtainable. Public Debt. 1890 $4,138,627 1891 5,223,363 •1892 7,0O9,74J 1 1893 9,091,395 i 1894 11,124,877 1 SYN i TiiK Siipplvinif ti ••nd U.M i, p,n in;^ ,.„irrp '^ TnK iiailwiiv puli '•'">'"K t\u- I ,,|',. „,„| •' '''llAT . XpiTiMlcllt "I»«''1C.| „,, ,„.„ culKliti,, •* '*" I (lid |„,t ,|,.v,. ■"i»li.'i,.rit to i„k,. its ,,!„ •'"> TlIK Supplvinjr t|„ iinpn.v.Ml ,,11, 1 eh, .,,,,,.„,., «itliii. thf island, in, •.•,.;, " Vi.i. ,,f ulii,.), ,|(v. "*■♦'!• the island. ' TiiK SnppjviiiK >v.« ■< V.ST KM. ^ In< KK.vsK and ,i,.vt.i ^■••r.'ijrn profits ..n « li shi !> TllK pii,.,. uf fish uii '" -litlicultirs. dcpn-ciat,.: " orld. 1" iNi'RKA.SK of popiil, Siipphiiig tradf. H Inckkask of laxfs 'ii- l''.SJ'K■ Whm ci'itK? Tlirt' 20. (1) IndepeiKleiiee. 21. " lioVAL CoM.MKs.sioi 22. IIalj--vvay hou,se to ( 23. Cjiown Colony. , 24. Onlv real remedy : li 26. Stati.stics. SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS. I TiiK Siip|»lvinK tniilf ww -o criiipliil in |hm2 a> tn !»«■ iinicticully at ;ui ••ml us a piiyitij? cnti'ipri'*!'. 2. Tmk lliiilwiiv |iiilicv \Mi> tlifii intrdiliiccil to ;i<*siiri'il fH\>(!t, hut opciifil up new (>onilitiou> which ftVcctiiallv 'kiili'il' the Siipplyiii^ Iriult'. 4 lii I iliil not iit to take it> place 5 TiiK Siipplv iii>{ trailc ln'camc unprotitahic from other catiscs, Huch »?• iiiipid\ii| ami cliea|iineil rales of troltthl for provisions, better iliMtriiuitioii within the islami. iiicr»a.sei| t'oinpetilioii. >.<:(•., itc. *i. Am, of w hicli i|evel«)pei| riiK r\AH systkm to an iiicreas«>>l extent all over the islainl. 7 I'm-. Siipplyinj^ system caniiol siiccessfiill\ co-exist with riiK camh H VST KM. H. IxcRiCASK anil ilevelopnieiit of teletfraplis ami railways have ile<*reaseil foreif^fii profits on ^.: h shipnieiits. !). ThI'; price of fish made in St John's, to suit the exi>fencies of Mercliatili* in ilillicniiies. ilepreciales the value of New foumllanil coiltisii all over the worlil 1(1. Incrkahk of population, t.i.xes an I ileht have further hamiicappcil the Siipplv \\i^ traile. II Inckkask of taxes ami ileht has heeii rapid of late years; 12. Khpkciai-i.v since 18H2. IH. Uki.ativk earnings taxation ami delit. per capita, now and 100 yearn 14. Nor much increase in value of exports. 15. I.Mi'oKrs ndativt Iv excessive. Ul. This accDiints for some portion of public debt. 17 Ufu whole debt is now ai)out .'$20. 000,000. 18. ()u will be when railway completed end of 1897. 1!). What citkk? Three alternatives befort' us : 20. (Ij Indepi'iidence. (2) Crown Colony . (8) (^onfrukration. 21. " llovAi. (^o.M.MLs.sioN : "' What value? 22. IIam"-way house to Confederation. 23. Crown Colony. ditto. 24. Only rt-al ri'ineily : Hktrench and Hkfohm. 25. Statistics.