IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 !f 2.2 I.I •- Ik ■6 J In m ^ ^ 1^ III 2.0 1.25 1.8 14 111 1.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation y A {/ :a C/i k :1>' ^ ^ ^N-^ ^\ U'^^'^ % ^^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ■y-^, .* <y ^ j^/ '-•■' ^ M. ^ (/j 7^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microroproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6X6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-§tre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur n Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur6es et/ou pelliculdes D Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I ~| Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 1^^ I Pages d6color§es, tachetdes ou piqu6es I I Coloured maps/ D Cartes geographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Pages detached/ Pages d6tachees Showthroughy Transparence r~7| Showthrough/ □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur □ Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'impression D Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du material supplementaire D D Tight binding may ca-jse shadows or distortion along interior margin/ Lareliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever po.:si»vle, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela etait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6X6 filmdes. 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 filmdes 6 nouveau de fagon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires; This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X J 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X plaire 3S details iques du nt modifier xiger une de filmage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library Acadia University The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grSce d la gdndrositd de: Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library Acadia University Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettet^ de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. d/ c|u6es Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont film6s en commenqant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commen9ant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^ (meaning "CON- 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 symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbole V signifie "FIN". aire 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 &tre film^s d des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m§thode. by errata ned to lent une pelure, fapon d 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 \'\ '« V ,1 •. V,'// ilKAITISMALIllMEIlSIOSij KOT OF GOD. ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON. EDITED TiY WM. SOM M E R VI LLE, A. M lii'furniiil Prishj/tcrifui Mniixtrr, WKST COKS W A I- r.IS, NdVA SCOTIA. ST. JOHN, N. B.: --Mil f^Jky PlUNrXD KOK TUK EDITOR HY M'KFI.LOP & JOIINWTON, ( ANTKIUU RV STKKKT. /%.b-\ »^g 1876. mP^ \ ^ \ \ 'i /f7 BAPTISMAL IMMERSION NOT OF GOD. \ \ \ ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON. EDITED BY WM. SOMMERVILLE, A. M., Rcfurvi'd Presbyterian Minist'-r, WEST CORNWALUS, NOVA SCOTIA. -• ♦- ST. JOHN, N. B.: PRINTED FOR THE EDITOR BY McKILLOP & JOHNSTON, CANTERBURY STREET. 1876. Pi .B37 - /^ff \ PREFATORY NOTE. Tun followin:^ j^ai^es are merely a reprint, with correction of typographi- ca] e.Tois and the addition of a short note, of certain articles on Baptism, which appeared in the Masengcr, the irUntss aiid the H'fs/cyo/., of Halifax. The desiffH of the re-publication, in this connected form, of the articles referred to. is to afford a facility to Baptists or Pedobaplists. which they might nol oiljerwise enjoy, to learn what has been written on both sides in the present argument : an l to introduce a series of tracts, if God will, in vindication of the claimi> of the Divine VV^ord, Old Testament as well as New, to be heard and ace*'pted. in respect to all thini.'-s which pertain to life and irodliness, in the tamily, the chnrch, or the world. I have the mf^t unbounded conlidence Li fiulmutting to the examination of Baptists my appeal to Scripture, of c4«l or in the present case, in opposition to their professional tenets on Bop- lisrn : and I am more thun willini^that PedobaptisLs should read and ponder what the Messenger or his allies have to advance airainst my argument. I have, in the discu.-jnion, studiou.~ly coidined myself to the consideration of the mo(k of Baptism, while the replies have mixed up the questions of iji*- mode and of infant baptism, which are .so entirely independent that a liiorougii Immersionist niiiiht be an advocate of infant baptism, and one cppo^ed to infar baptism might be in tavor of baptismal sprinkling. Tt may l>e that the Messenger and his fellow-labourers have the two things so b. ended in iheir minds that they cannot separate them, and seem to think ^ixax immersion involves infant exclu.*ion, TmA spriukliiis. infant baptism: or ji may be th.il they cherish the vain hope of dragging me from my position : <u it may be that they desired, when their supercilious assertions respecting J ;fdiil bajdism are disregarded, the impression might be made on the minds ©f Bapiist readers that their assertions were too I'ormidable to be met. The Messenger chiickles over the fact that I am left alone in this argu- ment, a'ld accepts it as an evidence that other Pedobaptlsts believe me to be in error or that the argun.ent is inconclusive. He was never more mis- taken than in supposing I am disappointed in that I had not the co-operation and !?upport of others. I neither sought, nor expected, nor desired their co- operation or aid. My appeal is to the divine testimony, and to that alone, and I accept its dogmatic statements and any inference legitimately drawn ifirtim its statements as sufficient and decisive in "Ul matters of whicli it treats. y53 SI 4 I'UKKATollY NOTK. I).ipfi.sm iucliulecl, jiiid ag!\iii8t all mi*rt;ly luunan testimony. a!,'aiiist all uii- iiispinul liistory, a^niiist all ecclesiastical piuclice not n'Lniiatctl by diicct iiispiiatioii. A ilioiisaml Fetlo-baptist vvitii(;sses couM uiUl iiotliiiiy to th» stieiiy^th of the evidence which it Mipplies, uor detract IVom its validity. The oidy iid'aililile interpreter, without ii^noriiiy his use •)!' luiinaii iii-stru- mciitality in discoveriii*,' his mind, is the Spirit who takes the things of Christ and shews tlitMii to lis, and who guides into all truth. Still, I confess to a disaijpointinent — a paiiiinl disappnintnieut — existing and felt before the present discussion corninenced, to timl men accepting, confessing, and pled;,'eil \>\ their ordination vows to the acceptan<'e of infant baptism, am) bai)ti>ii) by a-^persiou a« of divine institution and divine war- rant, sitting silent when tliuse orilinances, which they protess, preacli and observe in the name of the Lord, are ridiculed, denounced and contemptu- ously spurned. Is it |X)ssible that Pedobaptists are so completely prostrated by the Union Epidcinir that they are incapable of one vi^'orous ellurt in sup- port of a single artiide of scri[)tnral truth which is impugned, sali.-tied with that fraction of revelation which all parlies, who repose uniler tlie f.hade ot Evangelical liberali>m, accept ? There is nodithculty in dealing with Baptis,t loiricians. Bind them down to what is wnttcn. Accept nothing but what the Word ttstities. Grant nothing but what the Word demands. One source of weakness in Pedo- baptists is allowini; themselves to be ihawn into the indetinite region of unin- spired history and human testimony, which cannot speak with authority. For the sake of man\ in the Baptist churches, who desire to know the truth, and to work out their salvation with fear and trembling in all sim- plicity, I would be delighted to use all " meekness, instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the trntli :" but with respect to such as the Messenger, whom I hold responsible for the sayings of his nameless and unknown ;rs- sistants, who is resolved to adhere to his pof-ilion at any sacrifice of candour and truthfulnes , it remains only to '' rebuke them sharply, that they maybe sound in the faith.'" .■ill Sciiptuie is iiiven by inspiration of God and is profitable ; and I cheer- fully go out. beariiia" what reproach I max. without the camp of those who refuse the Old Testament as a rule of faith and practice, and of those who think they can cull out of the Scripture what is essential, and hand back to the author the rest as well-meant and useless trifles, which may not inter- fere wtth the confederation of the States of Christendom. BAPTISMAL IMMKKSION NOT OF GOD. AIiaUMKNTS PliO AND CON. I" MKssKN<iKH," .Tilly 28, 187."..] TMK VOICK OF III.STOKY OX BAPTISM. It is ciiri.iii.s to olisii'i'Vi' how viirioiis and coiitrailiotory art' many of tlu; ar},Minieiitf< takt-n up l)y tlic uilv()catf.s of Infant Hujttisni. 'j'lit' hold artirma- tions of .sonic oils, -lire rcdoliaptists as to what history says on tlie ^iilijct'l, fade away into tliiii air, when men wlio oii^jlit to know, ami lio know, speak. We ha\e mie just at liand, an nceount of whicli cnines to us in tlie hi.st No. of the X. Y. liidiiiinrr i^- ('/iruiiivlr. It .1, as follows, under tlie title STIUYIX(; iii.sronv to so.mk itrposk. The I'rofessor iif Clnircli History in tlie Raiif^'Dr ( Me. ) Theoloj^deal Seminary (ConfrveirationaliNt ) must lie a num wlio is more tIior(ju;,'lily imi)ued witli the historic spirit tlian uiany wl)o teiieli in tlieolof(ieal seminarie. lie lias the sense to see tliat Ids function is to report, not make history, and tiio candor to report what lie linds. Ami it uppears that his tindintf is to the effect thai " tlieaiMistle< and all thechiircii until fmir or five hundreii \( ars a^o under.>tood by l)ai>tisni immersion, and never sprinkled anyhody except 'he .^ick." Such, at lea-t, was the sidi.-tance of what was recited liy students at the last .An- nual i;.\aiiiiiiation, an<l was nut called in (|uestioii hy l'rofi'>soi' I'aine. Hut the Kev. A. L. Park, of Gardiner, was stirred up to write as follows to the ChriKtiait Mirrur : - At the anniver-'ary of our Tlieolonrioal Seminary at Baiif^or, a few days since, tie' class under examination in Church History j^ave some answers which struck me as extremely remarkahli!. The (luesiions of the Professor ami rejilies of the students -were siihstantially as follows: Q.- -What was the apostolic and primitive mode of hai)tism ? A. — By immersion. Q.— Under what circumstances only was sprinkling allowed ? A. — In case of sickness. Q.— When was the practice of sprinkling or pouring' generally inlroduied !' A. — Xoi until the fourteenth century. Q.— For what resison was the change adopted ? A. — .As Ciiristianity advanced and spread in colder latitudes, the .severity of the climate made it impracticalile to iinmer.se. The Professor of Church History ajiproved the answers, which faitlifully represented his teachings, and none of the clergymen present seemed to call these statements in (luestion, Vet if such are the facts, the l'ai)tists are his- torically correct, and we as a denomination are wrong, both in our literature and our practice. Our Puhlishing Society has issued a good deal of cliatT ahout the hroad interpretati<m of hfiptizo, and the iin[)0ssil)ility oS. immersing thousands of people in a single day in Jerusalem, and all other familiar argu- 6 MAITISMAI, IMMKllsroN N* >T OK COO. intMits in fiivor of .sprinkliiii,' my iiouriii); ns tlu' priiiiitivf ami Soriptiiml iiii-tlinil of Itiiplisiii, it it !>•> true tliat llii> Apustlc^ aixl nil tin* clnin'li until I'diiiur live Imiiilicil yt'iirs a^^o iiii'lt'i'.-tniid liy liapli-ni imiiD'r.iidii. ami never (^piinkli'il anylinily fxci'pl llic ."ick. ( >nr nsair.s ncfd ii't'urniiiiu, l'>r n-ariy all itur niinislfcs "liavt- a ilfcided pcrfi-renri' i'ur the un.xiTiptnral and nidiis- tiiiical nictlioil i)f aH'll^if)n, even in the MunimtT niontlis, when ininiersion in any river or pi>nd i.>^ attended with mi paiiin or perils. The vast (>rtlnidi>.\ t'lnindi lit' the Kast, \vhi(di has over ■^ixty niillinn coinnninii-ant.'* in the rii;or- oiir (dinnite of Kn.-isia, cuiitrive.s to immerse ail itx men, wnnii'n and children, and that thrice, and no donhl oiir ministers can lind means to hestnw tint rite jiroperly upon the tew jiersons wiio are vin'eived into onr churchi" dur- ing the winter months. If tlie iJaptists art! /iinfi>ri((illi/ ri^lit, and wo wruntf. I>'t w> dixconlinne our disputes with them a.s to the ineaniiiif of fJreeU verl»s, and u've due honor to til'- orij^dnal mode nf haptism Imtii hy onr preadiin:,' and practice. Let u« mliiiinister liy ininiersiipn as the rnle, and nse niethnds only in cases cd' iicces- .sity. If not, will some one tell ns wliy iKit ;•" 11 I'rofessor I'aine teaches tliat t/ie AfMHtlpn sprinkled .sick jiersons as a niiide of hapti/.in;,' tliein, lie has need to examine still iiiort! critically into the evidence. Hiil apart from donlil on that pdiiit, lie must he re(dioned tn have done a valmilile service to so imich of the risins^ Cnn^'re^iationalist ministry as it falls to his lot to instruct durinj^ tlitdr novitiate. And it may he safely iissiinied that others liesides his critic in the Mirror will ask further ipies- tions, and draw inferences. ["WiTNKss," Aiii?, ■.'1,1875.1 "TlIK VOICK OF HISTORY ON HAPTISM." nv KKV. WIM.I.Wf SOM.MKHVII I,i;. It is storied that a gentleman, passing along the street, found a lillle boy attempting to throw a load of coals into a cellar with a tire shovel, and asked him how he hoped to accoin))lish his task wilh that liny tool. lie replied, " By keeping at it. ' (^nr Baptist hretlirenseem to have taken a lesson from the boy, and expe-ct to secure universal assent to the exclusive claim ol im- mersion to be culled Baptism, by kccpiuti: at it. Kanatici.'^m was never posi- tive with less evidence than is the Baptist that immersion, ami immcr.'iion only, is Baptism. Even after ihey would have us believe that the (picsiion has been concdusively settled, they still kcrp at it. My attention was invited by the writer to an article expected to appear in the 3Icssen(/cr of July 2f<, the one, I presume, which came out mider the above caption. I understood the invitation to be a sly clialleiige, and I ac- cept it all llie more cheerfully that the Chanipioii appeared on the i;round very destitute of armour. It appears that the Professor of Church History, (Paine) in the Theological Seminary of Bangor, has been teaching his students, in etlect, that " the ApOiitk.i and all the Church, until four or five huiuhed years ago, understood by liaptism immcrsinn. and never sprinkled anybody except the si(dv." It further appears that the " Rev. A. L. Park, of Cardiner, was stirred up to write as follows to the Christian Mirror^'' — after giving some particulars of the examination of the students, whose statements, in answer to questions put to them, fully agreed to the doctrine of their teacher, — " that none of the i Ic boy I iisked ll \1[) to •uhirs of uo.stions lie of the Ai{(;rMi;vrs I'lio and con-. 7 I'lec'yrncii piosenf woumed to ciill ihosierttalcincnlsi in (iu»'stioii. — If the Hii|)- tiwls iirn hislitririilly liirlil, hikI \vk wiouj;, — Let iw admiiiirtlor by iiiimcrsioii OH tlio niU*, aii'l iiso (othor !) lUi'flioilK in cast's of iit'ccssiiy. If not, will Koiru' on).' tell ns why not i " I'lot. Paine, teachin:,' t^nch (loctii:ie in a ('on- f^retjratintml Seminary, i.-* not an hono!«l man,, anil his historieal lopoit «-ainiot be ai'cepted without examinatiim. History furnishes proof of slranj,'i) doings in tho Church. Tho ap|)eal to the tesiinmny of P.iine and Park, and to llie ^ilellee of the other cler;i;yinen prohont at the examination, is prelaced by llie fellowinii' staternonl : — "Tho bold allirniations of some obseine Peilobaptists, as in what history says on tlie ssubjeet, faile away into thin air, wiien men wiio onglit to know, and do know, speak." We liave here aspe<-imen of that eonten»i)tible triekijry wliieh is not inico.rrnon with our imjiiersidiiist fiiiMids. This closes the ears of Baptists to all that may be said on tin; opposite side, no matter by whom. He is an obscure Pcilubnptist. And weak-knetnl iV- dobapti>ts will allow themselves to be frightened into silenee, lest they should be eoimted nhsctirc. [ am perfectly contented to be nnmbered with ohsriirc Pcdobuptisff. and, as Luther said when he wa* represented as possess- ed with the Devil, ••eome, hear the Devil's ariruraents against the mass," I say, "come, hear the obscure Pedobaplist's arguments against IJajjlismal im- mersion.'' The writer of the article in ipiestion cainiot have read the re|)lies of Prof. Wilson, late of the Royal College. Belfast, and of Dr. Halley, to Dr. A. Carson, or he would not have made such an a-ssertion. The.se were not obscure Pedobaptisfs. If he read Wilson on the liisforical arfrument, he will beirin to suspect that Paine may be more doirmatie than learned, that Park is too easily coweil by the bold dicta of professorial irreatness. and that the other clergymen were too timid to express an opinion in the presence of their superiors. \\u\, so far as argument is concerned, (no farther), I am willing to give the Ba|)tists the history. The mystery of inicpiity was at work in the Churches before the Apostles dieil, — has been developini: in various forms till now. and at the present hour a far greater number, compreliending men of superior intellect and erudition, maintain the infallibility of the Pope — not obscure Papists at all — than all the immersionists in the world : they are ;is positive thev are rii,dit as Baptists are : are as much irritated as Baptists are, when their peculiar views are called in ipiestion, and are as zealous to brinir dis- ciples into their fold as Baptists are. It seems to be pretty well authenticated that there were persons in Galatia who were so zealous tor the spiritual interests of Christians in that region, so anxious to attach them more closely to themselves, that they sought to exclude Paul and his fellow-laborers : dial others, in the sphere of John's labors, refused to receive liivi and his brctkren, and turned them out of the Church who were willing to own them. Must it then appear impossible that there should arise, even under the eyes of tlie Apostles, men who, dissalisfied with Jewish sprinklings, thought lliis ad- vanced dispen.sation demanded something more grand and imposing, and insisted that the disciples shouUl all be dipped ? 8 BAPTISMAL IMMKRSION NOT OF (JOD. No man, ■KV'lii) liclievcs tliat all Scripture is ^ivcn by iiisj)iration of God, will accept uuinspired history as necessniij to tlu,' covvpct nrlcrpn'tdtion of Scriptiiro. Wo ])la(/e t\w Bihle with all conrKluiii't; in tlm hamls of men who know little or hoiliini,' of history, as ahle to mako wise unto salvation, -pro- litaltle tu tlu; extent of making the man of (lod perfect, tiioroiu^lily furnished unto all (jood ivorlcif : and are we to hold up liislury as a snpii!< ni.-nt to the V/ord witliont vvliieh it cannot he intellif^ently applii'd ;- '!',> lu'lii've Paine, or I'ark, even when they speak t)Mith, i^ not. to l)ulii've the Word of Goil. History may teach us what men from a^e to a^e have believed, professed, taiiglit : but we muot eoine to the Word to leani wiitther tlieir do. 'trine is correct. History may inform us what J'rofes>ovs did ; but we nuist cume to the Jrord 'o ieavn whetiier what they did was rii//n. If t'le Scripture does not shew i..., not onlv that we are to be baptized, but what bajitisui is, and how it is to be ad;ninistered, we ran know notiiinfj assuredly about it. If we are to be dirhie/i/ taui^ht, the irord must show us the import of the ordi- nance, wlu'ther we are to be immersed in water or to have water s|)rinkled on us, or whether either will do. ft is a pross inijiosition ])ractised on unsus- pectin^f man to It^ad away their minds from the }}'ord to liistory. The faith of God's elect rests on divine testimony. History ca)i add nothing,' to the strength of their faith. The whole ol t'.e Baptist system re.sts on the denial of two /'w/.s-, of which we have ample evidence in the Bible. 1. One fact is that - Btipti.'nn is an ordinance of 'lie former dispensalion. Of this we have the most direct and unequivocal evidence. Baptism was divinely administered and divinely enjoined hundreds of years before the appeoiance of .Tf)lin Baptist. The / postle is writint;- to a ('hristian church whose members had all been baptized, and of course knew wlrU bapiism was and how they had been baptized; and he informs then' il>i. the Israelites, havinfj come forth fi-om Egypt, were all baptized in the cloud and in the sea. When he writes to the Ihibrew christians, he reminds tliem that the insti- tuted rifs of the former ape comprehended divers haptis)ns. To assert then that bapi'sm is peculiar to this dispensation is to deny tlu' in!<j>irtii.imi of Paid, or to make God a liar because the record which He )iives concerning this matter is not accepted. With no levity, with a solemn .'.sent sense of responsibility, do I bring against the leaders of a cmiliding people the heavy charge of imputing to the Holy Spirit a bluli<ler or an error. With no spirit of bi'terne.--. ''o 1 bring the charge, but to lead to serious consideration in the light, not of man's testimony, but of the Divine word. Once brought to ac- cept the testin,(!uy— the plain and decisive testimony of the .Spirit, we are near an end of tiie assertion of the baseless and fanatical ceremony of ini' tnersion. 2. The second fact is that, — We can never learn tlie desiijn ur form of an or- dinance from the name yiven ?o i^, unless baptism is an exception to what is otherwise universally true. There are Circumcision, Sacrilice, Sin-offering, Trespass-offerin.;;, Passover, ]\feat and Drink offerings, liOrd's supper. Let the Ba])tist8 S'^lect the name wliich God h.-.s attached to any one of these ceremonial institutions. Let him tax his ingenuity or his literature. Let him call into play the vivid imagination by which he can condiine the waters of the Eed Sea and a pillar of cloud or lire to construct a baptistry, in which the .'itrat i'er\ hapt agr. Xoh ar(jump:nts pro and con. 9 n of Gofl, ret (it ion of men who idii, -pro- fiirnihlit'd ■ nt to the i'\ f Paine, •d of Goil. l)i'c)fesse<l, loi'ti'inu is It come to [)tiire does ism if, and it. If we f tlic ordi" (I'iiikledon on nnsus- Tlie faith in^' to the s, of wliich sntion. Of pti^ui was )efore the ian cliiirch .piism was snit'iites, n tht,' sea. tlio initi- ."scrt til en pifdlion of jncerning t sense of tlie hi'avy h no .si)ivit ion in the ;lit to ac- l, we are iiy of iin- t of an or- what is i-olfering, >l)er. Let of these tare. Let he waters in which the fleeinn; tribes may ^ei, as Carson says, a dry dip. And let liini demon- strate from the name, the nature or the material, or tlie form of the i)re.''cril)ed service. Tlie thing is impossible. As little can he determine from the word hapti^m the design or mode of tlie ordinances so-called. Liiigiiist>< are not agreed about the exact signilication of baptize. It is true, J)r. Cnimit tells us, No learned man will risk his re[)utation by inning that its jM-imary meaning is not dip, plunge, immerse. Tliis is (;uii characteristic, as notice<l already, of the I5ai)tist style of argumentation. It is a fearful rink, yet I will venture to ojfirin that the sea-coast is not dipped, or plunged, or immer.<id in the ocean as often as the tide flows in upon it, although Aristotle, as reported by Conant, eavs it is haftized. According to the rule in respect to every other ordinance, we have to learn from the Divine Word what constitutes baptism, ami tiuin, and not till then, we are able to discover why that particular name is appropriated to it. Ami we have a special right, we are under a special obligation to appt^d to the Old Testament, as it is an Old Testament ordinance. We find the communication of all the blessings of the Covt'iiaiit associated, iu the Scriptures, with sprinkling, whether by a natural or prescribed process. When the Levites dre to be set apart to their oflice or the Ifjier to be cleansed, the water <if seiiaration is to be sprinkled u^ion tliem. .Si)ei)k of the blessed efficacy of the divine word. "My doctrine shall droj) as tlie rain; my speech shall distil as the dew." What of the Mediator's work 'f " He shall come down like rain ui)on tlie mown grass ; as showers that water the earth." What of his blood that cleanses from all sin? It is " the blood of sprinklnii."' The saints are elect " unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." What of the communication of the S])iril!-' "lie shall sprinkle many nations." " I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground : 1 will pour my spirit upon thy seed an<l my blessing upon thine offering." " I will sprinkle clean water ujion you, and ye shall lie clean." Will some learned iwrn among the Baptists sliew us where, in the whole Hible, a blessing temporal or spiritual is reiiresentcid as commu- nicated in the way of dipping, plum/ing or immersion ^ God sprinkles. Bap- tists dip. Let the IFord alone. Give us History. Never mind Moses or Isaiah, I'aul or Peter. Give us Paine, Park, and their silent companions of Bangor. [" Mf.ssknuer," Aug. 25, 187.1.] "THE VOICE OP HISTORY ON BAPTISM." Rev. W. Sommerville, in the Preslnfterian Wdness of last week, exi>resses nmcli dissatisfaction with the teachings of Professor Paine, of the Bangor Theological Seminary, on the History of Bajitism. It will be remembered by our readers that in the Christian Messenger, July '2^, an article appeared giving the examinJition of Dr. Paine's class on Cliundi History. ^Ir. Sommerville ventures to ailirm that "Prof. Paine, teaching such doc- trine in a Congregational Seminary, is not an honest man, and his historical reiiort cannot be accepted witiiout examination." This is u short cut to the end of I'ontroversy, almost as effectual as the treatment served upon Roger Williams and others who in earlier days were sent adrift because they ven- tured to say wliat they believed on tliis suliject. There must have been a great many Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and other Pedobaptists who, in 10 BAPTISMAL IMMERSION NOT OF GOD. Mr. Somni* rville'g estimation, wt'i'e not lioneat men, seeing tliat tiiey liave said tlu! .suue tliin^.s. One of tile visitors at tiie examination of the class in Cliurfh History, at Bangor, where these facts were lirought forth, wrote, asking Prof. I'liino " whether if that t!iey were thtt truthful teaching of (.'hurcli History, a good deal of the argument against the iJaptists nnist not Imj given up I''" Professor Paine in his reply says: - It may he honestly asked hy some, AVas immersion the primitive form of baptism; and if so, what tiien ^ As to the (juestion of fact, the t< stiniony is am[)hi and decisive. ,\o matter if (diurch history is clearer. The evidtmce is all one way, and all church historians of any repute agree i'l accepting it. We cannot claim even originality in teaching it in a Congregational Semi- nary. And we really feel guilty of a kind of anachronism in writing an article to insist upon it. It is a jwint on whicii Ancient, Mediseval and mo- dern historians alike, Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Calvinist, have no controversy. And the simjjle reason for this unanimity is that the state- ments of the early Fathers are so (dear, and the light shed ujjon tlu'se state- ments from the early customs of tiu> church is so conclusive, that no historian who cares for his reputation would (hire to deny it, and no historian who ia worthy of tlie ^nam^^ would wish to. There are some historical (questions concerning tlie early church on which the most learned writers disagree- for e.xampie, the question of infant hai>tism ; hut on this one of the early prac- tice of, immersion the n)ost distinguisiie 1 anti([uarian8, such an Bingham, August! ((.'idenmn), Smith (Dictionary of the Bible), and hi-torians, su(di as Moshei.n, Gii^soler, llase, Xeander, iMilman, Schaff, ."Mzog n atholic), hold a common language. The following e.vtract from Coleman's Anti(iuities very accurattdy rxpresses what all agree to : " In the i>rimitive (duindi, immersion was undeiiidhly the comm(.)n mode of l)ai)tism. The utmost than can lie said of sprinkliiuj in that early jjeriod is that it was, in case of necessity, permitted as an exception to tiie general rule. This fact is so well pstahlislied that it •were needless to adduce authorities in jiroof of it." As one further illustra- tion we quote from Schaff's " Apostolic Church :" " As to the outward mode of achuinistering this onlinance, immersidU, and not sprinkling, was lUKjueslion- ably th(> original, normal form."' Hut while immersion was the universal custom, an aliridguuMit of the right was freely allowed and defended in cases of urgent necessity, such as sickness and apitroacliing death, and the peculiar form of .sprinkling thus came to he known as " clinical " baptism, or the bap- tism of the si(!k. It is somewhat signiticant that no controver.sy of any account evtn' arose in the CImrch on this ([uestion of the form of ba|;tism, down to the Reformation. And hence it is difHcult to determine with com- plete accuracy just when immersion gave wny to sjirinkling cis the comnum church practice. Tlie two forms were enqdoyed, one as the rule, the other as the exc(^l)tion, until, as Christianity travelled northward into the colder climate, the exc».^ption silently grew to be the rule. As late as the thirteenth century immersion still held its ground, a? is shown in a passage in the Sumina Thcohnjica of St. T]u)mas A(piinas. wlure the arguments in favor of the two modes of baptism are cimqiared, and the conclusi'Ui is drawn that immersion is the xiifer because the nu)re coiiniton form ((|uia hoc habet conimuniorem usus). Tliree centuries later, in the lime of the Reformers, sprinkling has become common, and even quite universal ; though Calvin speaks of the different forms of baptism in a way whi(di seems to imply that ininuAr.sion was by no means obsolete. So that Dr. S(diaff puts the date (juite early enough, we think, wiien he says that "not until the end of the thirteenth century did sjjrinkling become the rule and inunersion the exception."' It is to i)e remarked, also, that this change occurred only in the Western or Latin Church. In the Greek Church imnu-rsion has remained the rule to the present day. Mr. Souimerville makes strange work by liis attemi)t to formulate two propositions wiuch he regards as facts, en the denial of whicli he aflirms "the whole Baptist system rests." They are ist — Baptnon is an ordinance of ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON. 11 they have ilistory, at 'rof. I'aino ry, a ^ood vp form of stinumy is i;vi(lt!llCP is •(•i;]itiii^ it. until Se'mi- writinj,' an il ami 1110- inist, have . the state- hcftf Htate- i) historian inn wiio ia querttions ?a£;ree- for early prac- i Biiitjiiam, ,ns, yiicli as lie), hold a [iiitifs very iiimier-'iun ■ail he said , i)enuitted 10(1 that it ler ilhistva- ird mode of in(iue,slion- 1 universal ed in cases le peiuliar or the liap- sy of any haptisni, with coni- eonimon the other the colder >und, a? is lat^. wilt. re , and the re ((/iiDiion n the time nniveiNal ; lii'h seems ■haff puts til the end ersion the inly in the nained the ulate two he afhrnia (Unancc of the fonnor dispp7)snfion, and 2nd — • He can never learn the de>^ij)n or funn of an ordiiKduc from the n.dine </iven to it. Tiie first of these is, of course, desii^iied to support tile lonu; e.\j)loded idea tliat Christian Haptisni is a suhstitiUe for Jewish circunicision. With ref;aril to the second pi\)i)osition, perhapa the New Testament itself is the hesi expositor of what is the design or form of Baptism. We have much respect for Mr. Soiiiinerville, and are sorry to see him |)litce himself in a dangerous iiosition. In the warmth of his zeal to dis- prove tliiit imnu'rsion is baptism, he says, " ft is a fearful ri^l\ yet I will ven- ture to allirm that the sea coast is not dipped or jdioif/ed, or iminernid in the ocean as often as the tide flows in upon it, although Aristotle, as repurte<l by Conant, says it is baptized." Air. S. must believe himself to be a very clever manipulator of lanjT;ua}j;e, to think he could make other people believe what he thus aflirins. If the sea coast is overwdielmed by the risinj:;^ tide, it is surely immersed, submer<];ed, or baptized. 'j^ Baptists .are so often supplied with aninuinition by those who flitVer from them liiat they are not recpiired to do more than present it to jiuhlic view in the defence of their ])ractices. Other Fedobaptists should surely accept such testimony in preference to that f.om Baptist authors. Another autlior of no mean i)osition in the Church of Knoland, has recently appeared: Canon Liglttfoot of St. Pauls and Professor of Divinity at Cam- bridL^e, in his commentary on the epistle to the Colossians, writes as ilislinctly as if he were a Baptist in practice. He reco<j;nizes bai)tism as belonging only to believers, anil immersion as the only christian baptism : In the summary of his argument in ii. 8 — 15, he writes : This cirRunicisioii (\vroiij{lit liy the Spirit, Ac.) ye liuvc, heo;mse yi- weri' liuricd with Christ to yoiir olil selves bi'ue;itli the tiaptisiiial watrrs, aii<l were raised witli Him from tliose same ■Wiit'Ts to a iK'w and regenerate life tlu'o\i>fli your faitli in tlie powerful worl^llls of Uod, who raised Hirii froii\ the dead. On ii, 12, he remarks : Haptisni is tile i«rave of tlie old man, and tln' birth of tlie new. As he sir.lieth beneath the baptismal waters, the believer buries there all his corrupt affeetioiis and jiastsiiis; as he emerj^es tlienoe, he rises re({enerate, q lickenecl to new hopes and a new life. This it is, be- cause it is not only the crowninf; aet of his own faith, l)iit also tlie seal of (.iod's adoption and tlie earnest of God's Spirit. Thus baptism is an image of Ills participation both in the death and re.snrrection of Clirist. On ver. S :— The apostle's argument is this :— ^Vhcn you sank under the liaptiamal waters you disap- peared for ever to the world. You rose apiin, it is true, but yon rose only to God. The world lienei'fortli knows nothing of your new life aud (as a consequence) your new life must know nothing of the world. Perhaps that will do for the present. There is one American Congregation- alist Theological Professor, Dr. Paine ; and one Church of England Canon. Dr. Lightfoot. either one of wdiich will be quite equal to Mr. youimerville's affirmations and appeals to the Old Testament in support of a New Testa- ment ordinance. [" Messenukk," Sept. 15, 187").] "ANSWER HIM NOT." In fhp Prcshyft'rian Witness of Aug. 21, there is an article on baptism by "the Rev. William Sommerville," written in his accustomed .stykv If Mr. Sommerville were a fair disputant, it might be fit and proper to answer him. But he is not. He can charge us Baptists with " contemptible trickery." He can crowd his paper with sly insinuations and sophistical reasonings. He can dogmatise. He can slander. He can say " God sprinkles, Baptists t/tp." But he is not a man to be met on a fair Held of honorable controversy on the subject of baptism, being under the power of uncoutrollalile prejudice. " Answer him not." lie loinw that in apostolic times believers were " buried with Him in bap- tism," and in that ordinance did " put on Christ." Wc know tnat infant baptism is inconsistent with the spirit and design of Christianity, and therefore is not mentioned in the New Testament. 12 BAPTISMAL IMMERSION NOT OF GOD. The ^vcat Noaiider said truly that "weliave all reason for not deriving Infant baptism from Apostolic institution.'' That is enough. Pisgah, Sept. 1875. Hk/.kkiaii. Since rcceiviiiir the above we find the following in the Presbyterian Wit- ness of the llth : — "Till': YOKE OF GOD 0.\ BAI'TISM." ]1Y UKV. ,r, HUOWX, BAl'TIST MIM.STKR. Bcfir Editor, — Some years ago Mr. Sjiurgfon was assailed by an elderly lady shortly after tire service, as follows, " Mr. SiMtrereon, I think you were a little too higii in your doctrine this niornint;." " Wiiat was it," Mr. S. rt'i)lied, " that you didn't lilve '■;" She told him. " Wliy," said he, " that was a ((no- tation from Paul's epistle to tin,' Romans." " Ah wtdl," she answered, " Paul was a little too Ingh sometimes, too." Would it not be well for those who find fault witl> Baptists to he sure fu'st tliat tiiey are not finding fault with Paul, or periiaps Paul's Lord? I think if Rev. Mr. Sommerville (whom I have not the pleasure of kno. in^) had carefully read those passages in the New Testament that refer to Jhii>tism, and the 17th chapter of John, jiarticu- larly verses 21, 'Jl.', 23, he would have hesitated before committing what he has to jn'iut, and such unliappy expressions as, "contemptible trickery," •' baseless and fanatical ceremony of Baptism," I'fec,, wouhl nut have found place among his remarks. I fear Mr. Sonnnerville has taken upon himself a greater responsilulity than he is aware of. If he is nuro of his own ground, and if Bajitists are so very ^uiiy, conteniptil)le and fanatical as he thinks, should he niit be a little more gentle and forbearing and try to shew them the more excellent way 't Now as Mr. Sonnnerville ))rofesses to take th(> Ribie for his guide, and with the motto of the Witnps^ beft)re him, viz. : '"The Biide is our fjreat church directory and statute book," would it not be well for him to shew his consis- tency with himself l)y giving from the Bilde, and not from history, proof or proofs for tlu' doctrine and ])ractice of Infant Bajitism ? If he will do this lie will liestow a great favor on thousands who are an.xious to find it there, as well as on Y'ours very respectfully, Cow Uiiij, Aiif/. 3], 187 '\ J. Biiow.x. [WiTNKSS, Sept. 25, 1S75.] "THE VOICE OF HISTORY ON BAPTISM." Mr. EiUTon, — If I hail nothing else to do, the Editor of the Messenger would have heard from lue sooner in reply to his remarks on my comnumi- cation of August '21st. What a shame that the writer of tlie articles on which I offered a few strictures' shotild leave the burden ot his defence on the Ed. J/. / He might have told us the names of those obscure pedotniptists to whom he refers, whether they denied that immersion was very early and very gen- erally practiseil in tlie Chundie.s, -denied that the candidates for baptism were dipped three times, — denied that they were dipped in a state of perfect nudity, (one obscure pedohaptist at least, the late Dr. Samuel Miller of Prince- ton, has stated that " We hav(i the verif same evidence in favor of immersing divested of all clothing, that we have of immersing at all."^ He might have also infornu^d us why, when Baptists apptal to history, they do not carry out the evidence to its full issue, but give us a mere abndyenient of the baptismal ordinance of .:he ancients ; for certainly a sinffle dij) is a meat^re compend of their baptism. Tlie information would be curious, and, in many respects, useful. Yet no man, who believes that all Scripture is given by inspiration i AR(;UMENTS PRO AND CON. 13 deriving '.X£IAII. ?rian Wit- ilevly lady a-e a little ?. ri'i)lio(l, i-aa a ([uo- e'l, " Paul liose who 'ault with (whom I jps in tho 1, iiartiou- X what he trickery," live foiiml hini.«elt' a ,-n firound, he tliinks, k- them the ', and with ■at ciuirch lis consis- . proof or ill do thi» t there, as 3howx. omnmni- on which the Ed. to whom very f^en- hapti^ni f perfect f Frince- nmeraing ffht have carry out aptismal nipeiid of respects, fspiration i * I of God, will accept uninsi)ired history as authoritii respectinc; any point of Christian iloctrine or Christian i)raclice. When, some years affo, 1 puhlished a small work on Baptism, I omitted all reference to the historical argument, and the Ed. A/, generously insinuate ! that the omission wius owing to a fear of meeting that aspect of tlie (pte«<- tion. He had my reply, with wlu(di he may have lieen more than satisfied ; and 1 will not row suhmit to be ilragged from the firm ground of Apostles and Ih'ophets, where both Baptists and Pedohaptists can stand hy me anil examine all my statements, and plunge into a lahyrinth where compara- tively few can follow me, and from which when I come out, having made my report, tiiey nmst take mi/ word for what I have learned. 1 am willing to go to the Scriptures with the most talented and distinguislied Baptists,- with the Ed. ''/., if he chooses to occupy the luuuhle olUce of a screen " betwixt the wind and their nobility." One with God is a majority. A child witli (rod is aluiigiity. I am tliaiikful for the Editor's expression of respect ; doubly thankful that he has warned me that I have placed myself in a dangerous position ; antl would be superlatively obliged had he told me in what the danger consists. If my article in the IJ'itness admits of no more direct, ingenuous, and effec- tive reply than he has supplied, the danger cannot be great. Most people are familiar with tlie action of the tides ; aid to expect Baptists to believe tlial, because Aristotle says that the sea coast it baptized at flood, it is not over- flowed hut dipped, or phtntjed, or itnvicrsed, is to expect them to sacrifice their common ^^(>ns(! on the altar of their profession. To ^ay that the coast is dip- ped, or pln)i//ed, or immersed, as often as the tide Hows in upon it, i'i unqualifit^d nonsense ; and the Editor knows it, and when he would con- tradict my statement, (piietly dro])S the words dip and phuuje, and to the more eipiivocal word immersed adds submenjed aud baptized. If this is not deliberate and dishonest munipulntion of language, I know not what dishon- esty is. He dare not put the declaration that tlie land is dipped or plunipd into the ocean when the tide covers it, before his most credulous readers. Dr. Carson, whose theory is that baptize always signified dip and nothing but dip, expresses mode and nothing but mode, knew that the literal application of Aristotle's words would conti'adict his position, and elaborates a figure out of a very unadorned narrative of a plain matter of fact. But so long as Bap)- tists are content to i)e blindfolded, cabletowed, and swear what they are told, there i^ no hope. I am very unjustly represented as accusing Prof. Paine of not being an honest man " because ho ventured to say what he thought on this su!"ject" of Imptism. I never called Prof. Paine or any other man di>:- /lonest because he said what he thmiglit on Baptism or any other 8ul)ject. What 1 meant to say, and did in effect sai/, was that Prof. Paine, in a Con- gregational Seminary, and su]jported, as I suppose, Ijy the money of Congre- iXHticimihsis, teac/tiiuj t/te students -the probahto future ministers of Con</reyu- tional Churches, principles contrani to the doctrine and order of those Churchea, is not an honest man. All this is indicate(l liy emphasising the word tongre- qationalist in my statement. For the same reason, 1 would call a Professor in Acadia College a dishonest man who would take advantage of his position to inculcate upon his students Peilobaptist principles. Had Prof. Paine con- fined himself to the exhibition of the practice of the ancient and mediasval 14 JLVPTISMAL IMMERSION NOT OF GOD. oIiiutIips, he is free of Manio, but he is rcpresentefl as trachiiifj lliat " the Apusflpx and nU the church until four ur live hundreil years aj^o uri.lerfii()0<l by baptism immemiini, and never 8i)rinkied any bfxly except tlit sick " We don't ^o to uninspired history to learn what was the practice of the Vixtatles. We f^o to their own writiu^^s which are as oix'ii to the n).:?niliers of tin* ( luircli as tu Prof. Paine. We are willing to hear what he has to say as a teacher of history, but it would be verj' unwise to accept his liistorical report without examination, especially if it has a bearintj on Christian faith or practice. Even Dr. Carson who never, I am persuaded, made an incorrect statement intentionally, has so represented the views of Cyprian as to call forth the fol- owins from Prof. Wilson :— " A statement more completely at variance with ancient record we have seldom detected in tiie works of any autlior of character, and we are not, therefove, surprised at the strong langUitLif of Dr. Halley, when he says, ' Either the writer of the;,e assertions is not a reader of Cyprian, or he is not an honest man.'" Paul commended the Berians because they would not take his word without examination. To return to Aristotle's baptism of the African coast. I ajirm'd in a jocular mood never supposing that any one would be ridiculoua enough to contradict it, that the sea coast is covered by tlie tide, not by beiiii; dipped, or pluiiyed, or i)nnierse.d nxio il. How does the Ed. M. meet thish He op- poses to me the testimony of Paine that immersion was the practice of the ancient Church ! and of Canon Lightfoot who expounds Paul's word to the Colossians (liuried with him in Ijaptism, S:c.) as i-.p/i/ivf/ immprsion ! Had I stated that Saint John is not the Capital of N. Brunswick, there would be as nuich sense in opposing to me the testimony of Lord Dufferin and Gov. Archibald that Halifax is the Capital of Xova Scotia. In my letter to the Witness, I ejpressb/ stated tlat as far as aryument goes the Baptists are welcome to the history, yet as if history was tlie sheet anchor, a great part of the reply consists of a historical statement of Paine. It is this likely that has deceived i)oor .1. Brown of Cow Bay. who hiis fallen into the mistake ihat I was leaving the Bible to found on history, wlien I am pleading against an appeal to history in favor of the Bible and in op- position to Baptists. Suppose all Paine states to be true, except tliat the term primHive used by himself and Coleman, and the terms o/wV/m^'/ and normal used by Schaff, might be understood to nuike the Apostles responsi)>le for tlie aberrations of the ancient Church, we are no nearer to the solution of the (piestions — What is baptism ? — How is baptism to be administered;' Sui^ pose that it is fully ascertained and admitted that Baptism h;/ sprinUinf/ was ridiculed by the Devil's ministers, who transformed tlunisphes into the Apostles of Christ, an<l <)pposed Paul at Corinth, or by Diotrephes, loving pre-eminence, who rejected John, and thai through their activity, comi)ass- ing sea and land to make proselytes, it, was universally abandoned and im- mersion, with a\i its superstitious and shameless api>endages, substituted in its room, we must still come to the Scrii)ture to l-^arn whether the practice of the Church has the sanction of her divine Hea<l. The Israelites had not dwelt in Broths at the feast of tabernacles from the time of Jo-htia till the end of the Babylonish captivity, but the practice was revived under Nehe- miah and Ezra, because " they found written in the law which the Lord had eononanded by Moses, that the children of k-rael should dw>.ll in booths in the f. man We CI crow' AROUMEXTS PRO AND CON. 15 r that " the uii.lcrsiooil si.-k" We lie \i)0.«tle3. the Church a tPiiclier of urt without or practice, t statement Drth the fol- iriaiK-e with \ aiitlior of jua^'t' '>f Dr. not a rpailer the Beriana Urnu'd in a ? euo'iifh to eini; dipped, is? He op- u-tice of tlie word to tlie H>ii ! llafl I le wouM be in and Gov. .>! a)<jHment tlie sheet nt of Paine. 10 luv^ fallen ^r\, when I and in op- it that the iMd norinnl If for the ition of the red :- Sui^- inhlwij was 3 into the lies, loving y, compass- ed ami im- istituted in ie practice tes had not uia till the n<ler Nehe- Lord had booths in the feast if the seventh month." But concerning this incessant ajipoal to vum and to tradition I shall have soniethin;? to say in a future conimuniration. We cannot allow the thief to escape l»y the artful dmifje of minj.rling with the crowd and shouting " stop thief louiler than any body else. But what of my two facts ? The first is that Baptism in an ordinance of the former dispematioa. Does the Ed. 3/. deny this ? ile does not. He knows that the terms of the sixth commandment are not more plain than those in which the Apostle states that the divinely instituted rites of the Old Testa- ment dispensation comprehended divrrs baptisms, and that to deny it is to make God a liar. What is his reply ? " The first of these is, of course, desij^ned to support the lon^ exploded idea that Christain baptism is a substitute for .Jew- ish circumcision" '^ of course." Then there can be no doubt of the correctness of his statements. But how did he know my design ? He couhl not. I never once thought of the relation which baptism lias to circumcision. If I had been speaking of in/ant baj)tism, I might have thought of that relation. The Abraliainic cvenant h.ath nothing more to do with the mode, of baptism than the deed of a farm has to do with the mode of its cultivation, whether it is to be a sheep-walk, a wheat field or an orchard. He turns away the minds of his readers from the rpiestion by as; erting what he could not know to be true, and which is in fact untrue. His concluding sentence might lead the reader to disbelieve the fact which he dare not directly deny. " Mr. S. appeals to the (). Testament, in support of a X. Testament ordinance." I do not. I appeal to the O. Tf^^^taraent respecting an O. Testament ordinance which is perpetuated under this dispensation. Nobody denies that I'aptism is a N. T. ordinance. The Baptis^t doctrine is that it belongs exclusively to this dispen- sation. " The long exploded ideu that Christian baptism is a substitute for .7* c'/s/i circumcision." It may be very convenient to have Baptists think the idea long exploded. But it is amazing that one occupying the place of a guide of public sentiment should be so ignorant as not to know, that the idea that baptism occupies the room of circumcision has not yet been exploded. I blame the writer's intelligence to save his integrity. The second fact is that «e caw never learn the design or form of an ordinance from the name given to it. Does the Ed. M. attempt to meet this by the demon- stnrtion of the nature and form of any one ordinance from its name? No. He modestly states that "Perhaps the New Testament is the l)est expositor of the design and form of Baptism." The N. Testament does not lupound either-, but furnishes various references to the ordinance which imply an antecedent knowledge of both. After warning me benevolently of dangers ahead, the Editor glides away into the study of Canon Lightfoot, Prof, of Divinity at Cambridge— head quarters of orthodoxy — to get a supply of ammunition, and finds — a parcel of figs. My time is limited and I would not tresspass unreasonably on your columns. But you will permit me to add a grand idea borrowed from the C. Messenger of Aug. 1, not altered, but differently applied. " The fear of offending those who favour ihe practice" of immersion, " or any other not having the sanction of the Bible should not be allowed to hinder u from a faithful declaration of God's truth. While we esteem it no part of our duty to offend our neighbours, If) BAPTISMAL IMMKHSIoX N(»T oK (;(»I>. we must be careful nn» to ofl'end God by keeping back lii.-< wurd to y)lea:'e men." \V. Summku\ fi,i,K. :•' >lRSr>KX<.KU, " (Kliilier fith, 1S7.'>.] "THK VOICE OF HISTORY ON BAI'TISM. ' P,y a IcttfM' in tli^ fCj>/i<- 1.< of tiit- li.'ith iilt.. uii ttiis .-uhject, froui t!i'- Rev. Mr. SoMiiiuTvilit', it appear- tljat tlier»> is sonic ti.'lion in lii> niin'l aliont fiorne person liavin^r written in our |«ges iu t-oiiueciioii wi»li an artici" wliirli we •luoli'd fuuie time a^u from one of our extlianyes. Il ^avf uu acrount of I'rotVffov I'nine's teacliiu^s. an.i wliat he, a lVilo-l»apti><t, liad it-arneil from iiistory, respcrtinp priiiiitive liaptism. The cxamiiiation of liis .-rni!cnt>», it will he rempnihcn-il, (lHveloi)e<l tliat the result ot hi'* e.vtt-nsive aci|Maintance will) history wa-s that haptiaui is essentially an inuner.-ion of the lieliever. We niuile a f-'w introiluetury remark-, an! a'Me<l a I'fsv more. Hut what does Mr. S. int-an hy .-ayin_', "What a shame that the writer of tlie aniele on which 1 offered a few strietures should leave the burden of hi.s defence on the Kd. iVi.i'' What writer h In his tirft letter in the Wifiexs, Aiu;. "il-st, also he si« ke of '•the writer of an artieli- e.xpecled to a|>pear 'n the .Ve.'<,s«'n- i/er of July "JStii." We neither had.nor exjiecit d, any artiide from any writer, lie nii'st have ^ot hoM of some notion which requires explanation. Will he rise and exi)hiin r A.Kl yet, after all, that is i)erliaps of but little moment, c'oni])ared with the main (pieslioK by which Mr. S. is so deeply stirred. We mi^ht ner'.uips take our friend " Ile/.ekiah"s" advice, and "An>wer him Dot," but whilst we may not hope to suect-ed in rem.>viup his ]>r'' 'onceived oi)inions, Wf may pf-rhapfl be of se'.vice in ju'eventin:; him from d<.in;.' injury in "the fearful risk" into which lie appears willing to plun<(e (immerse) him.self. Mr. Simuuer\ille pays tlie Baptist* a compliment, yet nut iiUenti'jually, in bis little anecdote. Their task is to be accomplished by " keei)ini,' at it." We have "kept at it" for many centurifs. and are as fresli as ever. We are not in haste, while God tarries. But so Ion;,' as we have ttie H'ide, may the (lod of the Biide help all christians "to cry aloud and span- not." " to bft up their voice^ like trumj'ets,"' a^^ainst the s )ul-ilestroyint; iii,nneiu — in- fant bai>tism anil its appeudeil d'^lusion— sprinkling'. Jlr.Sommerville states that he was informed hy " the writer." ot the .ip- pearance of Dr. I'aine's teacliiniis. T/ie ivriter did not speak to Mr. S. on the suhject, consequcutly Mr. Sommerville received no " slv challenge'' from " the writer." But if this Wiis the only mistake that Mr. S. had fallen into, we mii^ht jiass it over in silence ; but he jtroceeds to make some other ffuesses, touch injj the baj It i.smal question, wdiich he nuist not be permitted to do with impunity. He unilerlakes to cuess ho'v immersion originated ! 'Men arose under the eyes of the Apostles, who were ilissalistied with sprinkliniTs, ^nd demanded that the disciples should be diijped.' Tie- man who conii)lains of the h ptist? for foUowiuj;:- that i.s wdiat they actually do — l)edo-baptists through the history of tiie church, to ascertain the facts re- lating to liajitism, sails riLiht "ff. without any ajtology, upon the open st-a of conjecture! Mr. Somnierville trne.<s.'S that immersion had its orign in the mystery of iniquity that worked in Paul's ilay. It is bad, for that guesa, that there was no disciple in that day who bad been sprinkled. If the gue.s.« .should be inverted, and alb -wed a century or two of timefiril? held, tiien the fact nnght be reached. Let the gu^ss be, that the mystery of iniquity was dissatisfied with inmiersion. because it was not convenient, in the ease of invalids, to sustain the lie of baptLsmial regeneration, and then the gue.ss and sober history shake hands. M'. S. shoul I not guess that i)eople were dissat- isfied with a matter in the cbristifin chundi, although ihey were "the devil's ministers" when that matter was not in the christian (diun h. Thi« is an in- justice, even to "the devil's mini>ter«." There is no neces-<ity for onjecture here. God tells us where christian bap'ism, by immersion, originated, and by whom it originated. Je^us wa^ inunersed in the Jordan by John— im- mersed at his own reque.*t aad by his own cumiiumd. "T tize- i» an it is or t^> Tb a^iiin iioii- Wf<a' have Batioi Cbri^ ordic. va^ Tt*ia L<ord had I Alier di»;per Bapii- t*^tin. IO<HJV ^^' AlUUMENTS PKO AND C'lS. r rd to j)lea!«e IKRVIT.LE. ■oni t!i'- R^*v. I iilioilt .-Oltl^; It' vvliicli we ) accouut of fiirnt-'l from . .-tiiiU'iit-', it i('(|iiaintance In- l)»'lif;ver. ■. IJiit what tif iiiiii'U? i>n a (IfftT.c;- on ,^, Aiu;. -21 ^t, t!iH Mi'^-ien- \ iinv \s lit'-r. ,n. "^Will he I'ctl with the i>t;r'aci|)s tiilxe i'.si: We nuiy iiKiy iifVhaiK^ fill risk "into |nlenti*-)iially, !ei)iiii:; at it." cve''. We H'iilfi. may Hut." ■' to ij^nioi.t — in- ot the ap- Mr. S. on challeutit ' hii.l t'alh'n ' some other jfermitte'l ii'iuinatetl ! ii.-lifil with Tht' man u-tiuilly <\o tiie facta re- open pt-a of iri;; n in the that yiie^^s. If the ^'iiesa tieM, then I if iniquity [1 tlie ease of It' {^ness avl were ilissat- " the (levila 'hi« i;< an in- r c.iiijecture ;inate(l, an'l John- im- "The whole of the Ihiptist sy.xtein rests on the denial of two facts," <lopma- tlze» -Mr. Soiiimerville. His tlicta lit-re are wke hi* ^'ues& ah.j\e. Hapti'^m iiy an oniinaucf of the former ilispensalion. V.-*, Mr. S., we ilo lU-ny it, ami it isi for you wlio alhrui it to [;ive tiie proof. Vou have not L'iven one fact or souH'l infert'i"e yet in pro'if of your hint; aiio fXplo-lj/Ml fiction- tiLtmcnt. There were tlivers hajitlsnis in the ohl di-ptn.^ation I Jus' so. We " bring apainst ihf leudtr of a coulidinx peojile the heavy charge of" teachinj." what <»od - word dot^ not teach. Let us strip away ihe flim«y fallacy from this j^m-rtion, that " Bai)tisni was an ordinance of the furnter dispensation." What do yuii mean liy Baptism, Mr. .Somuierville ? You mean, or you w<»uld hare the people t(. understand you that you viran, the Baptism of the New Testament — ('liristain Baptism I Was that an ordinanc-e of the t'ormer dispen- HH-tion ? There were divers baptisms no doubt: but were they New Testament Cfari-'iau baptism? Mr. S. oiiglu to know they were not. Was t!ie other ordinaijce—the Lord's Supper— an ordinance of the old dia|»ensatii'n? "Supper" wi'- an ordinance, the supp*-; of tiie paschal lanih, but war. that the New Tef^Utmeut, tiie Christian's Lor'''s Supper? .Mr. S. knows it was not. The Jjord tells us when he institutev it. lie ate the .**iip|>er himself, and tluis it had its origin. John, his servant, hejjan baptism, Jesus the Ma>tor wiis baptiw-d ; thus he made it his own, and commands his followers to obey him. .\lter Mr. S. has proved that the Lord's Supper wa* an ordinance of the old dispensation, because there were suppers in it, then he may try his li.uid at Baptism. "Once brought to accept the testimony — the plain and decisive testimony of the Spirit — we are near an end of the baseless and fanatical cere- iiHJoy" — p ipish ceremony of sprinkling I'nfl infant sprinkling. The Hecond fact — 'the Baptists affirm that the design or form of an ordinance cui he leaine'l liy the name ^ivfv. to it.' No Baptist ev^r saia that I .Mr. S. «ho«ld not coii-struct these straw-men for antagonists when the eulid facts aad ar;;uinents from God's word are before hiui. We have the name of the Supper in the Word of God; we have the " de- {%d" of the Jjord's Supper ; we have also an account of the taking of the Lijtrdt Supper by its .\uihor, and those who rtrst took it with him. We have tiie name — BajAism ;--we have also the de!»ign of Baptism— we have diftev- «iit accounts, even to particulars ot its administration. The bible tells us mho tbesubiects are, their qualifications: it also tells its what the fluid ia in which the person is baptized ; : . tells us, moreover, how the act was performed —tkie fnodu<i o/xrundi. Why should .Mr. .S. trj* to defend his Romish tig- aaeot with a liniment of his own begetting? The Baptists do not say the "d«PJ4rn6 or form" of an ordinance can be learned from its name. .Nfither do tlieir views rest upon this assumption. The .Spirit does not give us, in the teac'uings respecting the ordinances of Christ, riddles and enigmas. He luu told us plainly all that it is necessary for us to know of tliese matters. Mr. Sommevville allirms, at "a fearful risk," *^that the sea coast was Bot dipped or jilunged or immersed in the ocean as often as the tide llows in upon it." Was it s]n'int;leil r Heavy sprinkling!! S]»rinkle babies a» heavily and no Baptist w.ll complain about an uns^-riptural paucitj' of wa-i^T. And here is the twin argument of the above. Sprinkling monopolizes tk* *ionour in Scripture of symbolizing "all the blessings."' Does iti" Was ai»ere no blessing coniieited with the dipping of the bir<l in blood and irater.' Was no blessing connecli'fl with the dipping; of Naanian in Jonlan/ A3*6. one of the examples that Mr. S. gives to prove hi- as-ertion is the Mow from his logical a.ve that cuts the branch off on which he stands, and iri<*wTi he comes, arguments and all. Here it is: "I will ;wMr water upon him that is thirsty, and foods upon the <lry ground." Mr. S. italicised /war, we italicise /foods. ' Porn floods. Heavy sprinkling again for Mr. S. Tliis is a bit of religious dfilusion which h&a taken iK)Ss'_'Ssion of " poor*' Mr. .Sum luerville's brain, and behaving use<l it for years, ae an argiiment, 4 a^Uless, he has come lo tliink there is some weight in it. The counter- put IB, that immersion ia the universal symbol of judgment. Was Asher's 3 IH UWIISMM. IMMKKSIoN JTOT OF 0Of». M»'>,'>in(», HiMit. xx.viii. 24, a jii(l;jnn'iit H ln'ciuixc 1h> wn>* to "<lii» his font in oil.' \\ji- it a rwY-i' t<) Niiiimaii that he \vrt"i cMiiiiii.iinh'il tn ilip hiin.^flf 8»'vt'n tiiiii'.x ill Jurdnii. ScvfH ciirnt's, ;icri)riliii^' t<i Mr. S , Ih'chii.-i' tht-iv wt-re nevfii <li|»I I Ki'uily it is iiji'- 'hy of thf intflliu''"'"'' "nil Ifiiriiini; of Mr. S. to hf ih'aiiiii; in mich iiiL-tuhs. ils. " (iml D/ninkli"*, \\u\it\slr* liip." (Jixl (lid ."itrinkh. hut now iur i.mloi. h if. CIol diil <lij>, an. 1 .-till ilijis, ami so ill) Ihiiiti-t", iin'l so do IN'(l(iliii|., .>t.x, I'u'sh.N tt'rian,'*, K]ti,*<'o|(uIians, Mt-th- odisiH, Luth ■niM.'*. Conijrt'^atio-iali.st.s, an<l tlw (ircck and Uoniiin chiiiThf.-i eitiiiT pnirtically or ihi-orctirally art' dtpiifr.-*. Mr. Somiiifrville is a aprhiklcr and nolliin;^ hut a Kprtitklo'. A^^ainst liiui tlitT*' i." the Word of God, the ''hiistian world, of tlic llil^t and the j>ri'.st'iit, hut still Ii»' holds out. He will sprinUh- tho stray H'liitist that asks adniittanrt' to his folri. Let every man li.ave his due. Here i.-; ran' ihirint,' hut praiseworthy eonsisteney. " \Vliat i- IJaptism !' ll(tw is Hapti-iii to he aduiini.-tered ?' These an* pointed fair (piestions, put hy .Mr. S. .Ahir*. he Iteyins to j;u>ss ajjain I .V^'ain lie Would deal in hypothe.sis. I'ut aside the foolish conjeeture, faneit-d by Mr. S., hut no one flse, that the 'Devil's ministers ridiculed hapti.«ni hy Kprinklini; in I'anl'.s <lav y There were Devil's niinister.s then, n^ douht. hut alas for the i^iie^s, iieithnr hilile iior hi>tnry telLs us of any .s|>rinklin« for bapti.-iu as early as that, .\fter ptdtiii^ iiiiuself tliroui,di this tani,de of ;,'Uess- ■work, Mr. S. asks, "Does the editor of tlu^ ('lirisitinn Mf^xi'viiir Ayiuy that Baptism is an ordinance of the former dispensation?" It wa.snomore of the old dispensation than the fAird'^; Sui)iier wa.s the Lord's 8ui)per in the O. T. (lisi)en.-ation. Christian huptisni was not in the Old dispen.satiftn. There were ilipi)iii^.--, ''divers wasluM;,^!- " — but tiiey were not diver.** Christian bap- tisms - tlifiv wiw a sup]>er, hut it was not tlie Lord's Sup])L'r. There were meats, drinks, and divers dii)[)inii.s -yes, eatinys and sprinklinKS, but no christian huplisui, no Lords Supper of the New Testament. JJut to the (piestion, " What is Baptism l-*" Let (lod answer. 1 Peter iii. 21. " The like tifjure whereuiito even IJai)tism doth also now .^ave us (not ihe puttin;,' away tlie tilth of the flesli, hut the answer uf a pood oonsci'*nce toward <in<l) liy th" ri'surrectinn of .Fesiis Christ." Xow, for the other ques- tion, " iluw is baptism to be admiiiisti-reil :■"" L(>t (roil an.swer attain. Koni. vi. 3, 4. "Therefore we are buried with him hybaitti-m into death, that like as t'hrisl was raiseil up from the dead hy the f,dory of the Father, even so we also shoiihl walk in newness of life." t'ol. ii. 12, " Buried with Him in Baptism." X'c. What is done in baptism!-' .An additional question I "For a.s many of you as have been baptized into .fesus Christ have put on Chris.'." Anotlier (juestion ! And let God answer that al)*o. Mow many Baptisms are tliere:- Ephea. iv. 0. "One Lor<i, one faitli, one baptism." And still another question! Who are to receive baptism ? Mark xvi. 11. " lie that believeth and is baptized shall he saved." The U'or I of tiod answers all tlie tpiestions on the subject that recjuire re- plies. Here (lod tells us liow the act i.s performed; what is meant by the act; that there is only one baptism, and who are (pialitied for it. The subject is to he " burieij." And still another <)uestion ! Burie<l in what!- if (iter. Acts viii. .3(). "See here is water." No infants, no sprink- ling. BeluverH buried in iratcr and raised up to !r^///i'-- infants don't walk in any sense — "in newness of life." God "dips" believers, Mr. Sommerville sprinkles unbelievers. ["Witness," Oct. 9, 1S75.] "THE VOICE OF HISTORY OX BAPTISM." Mr, EiJiTon After the Clirisfiun Messenger has given abroad challenge on the mode of baptism, finding it met by blows too hard not to be painfully felt, his friends are coming forward to e.xtricate him, and, leaving the ground uf contention to descend to slanderous personalities, recommend him to quit the lie Id. This is wise. To protract the controversy ,with refer- AKOrMKVrs I'lto AND roN. 19 ip hif» ffM»t in I ili|i liiin.-4<'lf .-•' tht'iv wi-w irniiit; of Mr. ts lii/t." (iixl till <li|)<, uml iilian-, .Mftli- Itlll churrlie.* itTville is a tiu' Wonl of lit' hoIil» out. lis fold. Lft V fon.«istt'n(\v. y TlieH*- are a^ain ! A^'ain V. fani-it'<l by 1 hapti.^iii I'V no <i(iiiltt, i)Ut il>riiikliiii4 for rii^li.' of ^UfSJ^ ijir ileiiy that at* no innrp of ppt'i' in tile O. sat ion. There liristian bap- Tliert' wpre clink's, but no •. 1 Pf'ter iii. save us ( not o<l con<ei**noe other ques- rjain. Uoni. (leatli, that ''athtT. fven 1 1 with Hini il ([iiestioni lave put on How many m' l)aptism." Mark xvi. 11. rpcfuire re- cant hy the Burial in . no >i>rink- lon't walk in Sjmnierville a<l chalk-nge not to be and, U-aving rfconimeml .with refer- *>nro to what appeiirs in thf fVif.uci/i, nii^,'ht Ifail Baptists to cxftmine wliut ih said in your paper, and pifrhapM lead to u conviction that it ha<< more Scripturi' to sujiiiort it than would .ippcar from the replies. Itiit //•//// .-hoiiM the ( . .1/. ftire: lle/.ekiah s.ivs, ".Mr. S. is not u lair di.Hpiitaiit." i^et hini show wherein I am not. " llt^ can chur^;e u.-i iJaptists with confciii/tf.ihle frulii'iy." I have ^'iven two examples and can furnish more. " Ibi can crowd his paper with sly iiHJnuatioii.s and ."sophistical reivNonin^;s." Let him point them out. When the man, who is favoured as Moses lo ."»laiid on I'is- (^ah, a.ssumes the name of llu/ekiah, ami adopts his worils -".\ii.-<wer hint uot " it looks very like a s/y inxiiiuiifioii tho .Mr. S. i,-, us bad as Ualishakeh. And when Mr. Hrown .say.s, " It .Mr. .S. had carefully read those pa.ssa;,'es in the N. T. that refer to baptism he would have hesitated liefore commiitinrf what he has to i»rint," it smacks of an insinuation that 1 have not carefully read them. Perhaps it was not intended. Ilis letter is on the wlioif respect- ful and contracts lavouraldy with lle/ekiah's, and had I known wlio lie was, 1 shoiilil Hot have spoken of him so li^^litly in a former articde, for which I nsk his jiardon. Ile/.ekiah j^oes on. " He can do;,Miiati/e." Let us have ex- amples. " lie can slander." Shew^ examples. *' He can say, (»od .■</)riiikleif, Dapiists r//y»." Of course I (!an. God has of old coiiuitdiii/i'd Kprin/.liiiif. It is promised lliat Christ would nprinkle many nations, and that to cleanse his jieojile he would .sy^/vw/iTc (dean water uiion them. I defy lle/ekiah to shew that Clod has iiromised ! > liestow a spiritual blossin^' on any liumaii be- in^' in the way of (lij)/)iii(/, yet IJaptists (Up: would have all nations and all individuals dipped. " He is not a man to be met on the fair tield of honora- ble coiitiover.sy on the subject of bajilism, bein^' under the pow<'r of uiicon- trollalde prejudice." How does lle/ekiah know this r I3ut pursue not this subject farther. I leave tlu; viudi(,'ation, or reformation, ir condemnation of my personal characti^r with tiie searcher of hearts, before whom both Jlezekiah and I must one day stmd. The C. l/., Mr. Urown, anil Hcudciah, all appear anxious to briii;,' itiffiiit baptism to the front. I may offer some remarks on that by and by : but in the mean time I am occupied about tiie modo of b'liitifiii, and from llial i am not to 1)6 diverted by sitle issues. The radical error of Baptists in their reasonings on the subject of Baptism in general, and the mode of liaidisai in particular is that they found on human testimony. There is a shrinkiuf.?, it may bf unconscious, but a slirinkiiifj from a direct, an unerpiivocal and ex- clusive appeal to tlie Divine word. It is mrin, m(n>, this ifrent man and that great scholar. When they think they have found some inconsistent Pedo- bajitist, who professes one thing ami practices another, he is worth gold. lie is, of course, a great ami good iiian. The C. ^f. answers me by an ajipeal to Profs. Paine and Lightfoot. Xo matter what evidence the ohncurc I'cdo- baptist of King's Co. brings from Scripture, it is worthless, for Paine and Lightfoot are against me. Ilezekiah exjiects the readers of the M., lo com* paratively few of wdion* I am known, to believe, on /*'« naked irord, all he has said about nie. Bringing his letter to a close, lit introiliices these wor<ls, — '* We have all reason for not deriving infant Baptism from Apostolic institution." Are these God's words? Xo. X'o. They are the true words of the " (treat Xeander," and then adds "That is enough." The Messentjor of Aug. 4, after introducing the Baptist of ^leniphis iu evidence that, in 1874, \ 90 n.MTlsMAF, IMMKnSKJN NOT nF (um. flfty-foiir iiiidistiTs of dtluT <li'ni)iiiiiintintis liu'! rcnnimccil tln-ir " »'iTitrfl n/nl uiiiUid witli till' Hii|itislM,"i'.\|)ri's,st'»liiS(i\viicoiivicti(>ii Jliiit lo,(HH) liiy iimiiiltcrM from viirious .xfcts wtTo Imptizol into tlw Hiiptist Cliiirclir'M lnKt .vt-ar." IIfr»» nr« 1(»,U(H» witiu'Knt'8 tlmt llif Unptists an- ri^lit. What cliall wt> tliink of tlioiisaiiih tlial h'lWf Pnitt'Mtaiiism for tlu- ( liiircli of Hoint', laltfiti'il, Icariifil, siiict-rc, many of tlit^m J* Art' tlit'Hf to Im' acn'iitt'il an »o many proofH tliat Home 18 ri^lit y It is not strannf that the two processps hIiouM hn ^oinj; on simiiltanfoiisly. Th'To isn stron;,' l>on<l of synipatliy. rcliaiift' on human testimony. With Ronif hont'sl ariil jirononncpil rt'liaiici' on imman dictation. Willi IJaptists moro covert ami indirect, Init nut h'SM real. Dy tim way, are Pedohaptist denominations not Churches? Tiie various .iwy* are contrusted witli Hapti-'t Cliurclici* * This is almost, s-ome one would .<ay alto^'ether, as illiberal us a statement wlii(di I once made, not however witlmnl as.-ii^jidn^j a delinite reason and that reason was uot tlnit they dipped, --" Thfir Cliurches, (the Baptist), as corporate (xMlien furuino part of that Church which the Medi- ator will recot/nize as hix oiini." The articde to which I refer closes with the following; two astounding sentences. "This (the thousands added yearly to the Baptist chart hcs from other sects) to the tliou^,ditle8s is amazing, !)ut to the thoughtful it JN.itranfjrer that evfry re^'enerati-d jterson in those socicfirn do not leave mim and tradi- tions and fidlow Christ an<l his word. These residls should encouraj,'e us to l)roach Christ and his word. These results should encouraj^e us to preacli and write still mere faithfully, that the numlier may each year increase who acknowh^l^'e no kin^j l)ut .Ie.«us." Hear, nil ye Methodists and I'resl)yteriim», all peilohaiitists. You are following mm iiuA trad it iaris, iiiu] not Christ and his word. You have another king than Jesus. None follow Christ and his word, none have no king hut Jesus, except Baptists. Rome goes, can go no further. Is it a hearty concession that there are rf»generated jtersons in those Mcicfics/ They are a strange kind id' new creatures. Are tliey regen- erated at all, they must have heard and learned of the Fathers and yet they have another king than Jesus, f(dlow men and traditions. What idea can the writer have of regeieration, when those who are horn of the incorruptible seed of the word don't follow the word, when those who, taught of God, come to Christ and yet do not follow Christ ? But wo look particularly at the charge that Ppdnl)aptist-f follow >nnn and traditions. This looks very like the thief crying, " stop thief," for the accu- sation, in respect to the mode of baptism in particular, lies demonstrably against Baptists. We have seen the Messenger'' a appeal to Paine and Light- foot to silence me, and llezekiah's ai)peal to the (Ireat Xeander. These are not exceptional cases. What is the starting point with Bajttists in treating of the mode of baptism? It is the meavin;/ of the word baptize. How can the thousands and tens of thousands in their churches, who are not Greek scholars, know anything about it? They must take the word of some Greek scholar or more freipiently the report of it, by those who know as little as themselves. There is no reference to Scripture to learn the application of the word baptize. They are taught to repuiliate the only portion of Scripture that is adapted to give light on the subject. Paul tells them that there were divers baptisms commanded of God under the former dispensation, and the i najdi wori Let t hpnc evi' Te.-la every l)apli< the w who AHOrMKNTS PUO AND TON. 21 " errors anil Illy iiH'iiibn'i* \tnr." Iltrp ut« tliink of itt'il,lriirn«'<l, ; ])r()of>* tliat ilil Itf ^'oin^,' l(>t> oil luiiiiiiii nil (lictiition. tlu) way, are rc colli rusted ilto^'ctlicr, aH t iu>»i^iiinv; n fir ( 'linrvhen, ich the Medi' astounding /nirr/ifs from it in .■'traii^fr nil and Iritdi- :!oiirftf;<' us to ;o prciuli and in(Tt'a?<ij wiio rt'Hliytt'rians, t t'iirist and ist and lii» 't's, Clin go persons in tliey ref^en- uid yet they dea can the nenrriiptible (lod, come )w man and r the accu- iiion.strahly mid 1-if^ht- Tlie.^e are III treating How can not Greek oiiH! (ireek as little as ition of the Scripture there were n, and the BAptirtt leaders <'lo»o the Old ToHlaiiieiit ftgaiiif*t tliciii. Tiiey nuiHt take tlio word of Dr. Carnon or Dr. ('raiiiii or of mmie otiier groat and leariieil man. I,et tlieiii 111- lis great and If.irned and /»»»«>» an you will, they are men, miin- Bpired men, and their lettiniony is hiimaii not divine teHtiiiiony. Here tiie evidence begins and eiidH- iiapti/e means f/t/> and nothing hut tlip. The New Testament i« virtually cloned, and a» peremiitorlly, m the Old Te-itanieiit : for every reference in the N. T. must he interpreted oii the assuinidion that liapli/e means dil>, expresses niutle and notiiing hut niMfr. No matter wiiere the water is to he found, no matter wiiere the operators, the three thousand who were baptised on tlie day of IVnticost must have been immersed, for ha/ilizp tiifdiiM fu ifip or inimi'rui'. Those who go down into the water to be baptized must have been immersed for haptintn m iuuiivr.tion. Not only cuiin, pots, and brazen vessels, but tnhlen or bfd»i, which were Itaplized must have been immersed, for liiiptisiii ix iniiurrsitnt. When disciples are Iniried with t'iirist by baptism into death, the burial must be immersion, for Ixiptizv ni;fui' Jien iniini'rua. iSo say the Doctors Carson and ("ramp. Now the miperstructure can be no more stalile than the foundation. If the foun<!ation is human testimony, the whole building rests on human testimony. Baptists may ju8t at once as well take Dr. Carson or Dr. Cramp for their Hibli-, (ju the subject of Baptism, for approach the ordinance they cannot m the faith of (/ml'K elect wliicli rests e.xclusively on the witness of the Holy One. I am now [irepared to return witli interest the comjdiinent paid I»y the C. M. to I'edobaptists, tliat they have another king than .Fesiis. As far as bap- tism i8 c()ncerne<l, Hiiptists have many kings, — Doctors Carson and Cramp and tlieir learned companion". O that I could deliver the miilti'udes of sincere, un.suspecting, and contiding IJaptists from tlie bond.s that their rulers lay upon them, and lead them to forin an indejiemlent judgment in the wliite light of the good word of God. The Lord will break their fetters in due season. Sometime, if (iod give mo leisure and strength, I may turn the attention ef IJaptists and others to the processes, by which tmmersion is professeilly e.v- tracled from the reluctant and recalcitrating N. Testament. It seems to me hinlily pvolnible that the (\ M. will take the advice of Hezekiah, and decline any farther n^^tice of the IVdobaptist Rabshakeh. When Baptists are left to occupy an uncontested field, they can boast them- selves not a little. The C. M. may conclude to have done with me, but 1 beg to tell him I have not done with him and his corresiiomlents. When Mr. Brown, who would have me more gentle, has been a little longer in Nova Scotia, he will be better able to appreciate the sharjmess T use. He will tiiid himself far removed from the Christian lilierality which ranges round .Mr. Spurgeoii and his school. Spurgeon is a decided Baptist, with the large heart of the Christian. Somerset, Sept. 21, 187r». W. Sommekvili.k. [" Messknuek," October 13, 187.^.] We promised the editor of the Weskyan some further attention tliis week. He seemed anxious to have " the question oi Baptism settled." Now here we have what we think ought to settle it in the mind of aiiy reasonable person .so far as the moaniuir of the word is concerned, and as to the practise of the early chriotaius. Here are the '20 HAITISMAL IMMEltSKJN NOT OF GOD. TKSTIMOSIKS OK TKN CYCLOl'.KHIAS. Till' fiillowiiiu' ixtnict from |imi wi'll-kiiDWii liti'iiirv iui<l si'iciitilii' ry(li(|i;i'i|i;is u|m,ii (lie siiliii'ut, will tii> iiitcn'stiiiff to fhoso nl'Dur ■•cii'lcr.f who may not have met with lliiiii In lore: — Tlic i^liiiburij J-Jiici/iin/i,/iliii buya : — "In lliu tinu' ol' tlu! aposili's tlif lunu of liapli^n vcrv simo !■. 'I'lii' |"'r«oii to 1) :'?; iilitiz"il was ilipi M'd III a nvrr or ves: il'l, with till' WnllK wliiili (.'Srist lia'l onlaiiu'il, ami, to (•x|)ri'?ia uioiv fully his rliange of chiuacti-r, j;i"mrally assiiiin'il a m'W ii:uii< /Ir iii'/'s Ci/rlnjio-'liri says : — " Baptism (Orci'k hn/itn, I ilip,) was ori;j;iiially ailiiiiiiistiifd hy immersion, whii:h uit is tliuut;lit hy somo ni'i'i'ssary to tln^ sariaiin'iit." (''i'iiikl,':',-s' ('■jcliqiii'dhi says: I (/,;/, phi ' Sonic arc !!aiitism,iii tliiMil(n,ry_ f, ,riiii'il from \\\f (ircck A'//'' ot <>| irhiiptu itrics. It was introdiu'cd into lJn>;laiii linioii that sprinkling, in A ///'/vm, was hcuiiii in cold ilioiit tlir lic.'iiiniiin of till' nintli ci'iil my." uViifiiiifil Ci/r/i'/Ki'i/iii : — "Till' niaiiiKT in which tic riti'was pirl'oriiird appears tohavchppn at first liv conipliti' iinnicr In ri'nanl to llie early (iistoin of the Ivii^'lish (liiireh it lys : — " ft was the jirai'tisi' of the I'',ii_lish, from l lie liiHiniiiii'.', to iiiinieiNe the wlioj,- hmly The A"//C(/<7'7;rt'//'/ y.')'//(/;i?t(c« (le.serilies the pi I of. a say> if our I'roti-stant ih in^'iiii.' from the priiiiiiive eu^foni. llyiiiK iiilo ( lei many ami Swii/ ■ilaml i luring lin^' home when (^iieen I'^li/aliiih rame to the the hlooily reii;n of Uneeii "^fary. ami retiiri crown, liromfht hai k witn them a utreat zeal lor the I'roteslant (•hiirehcs hevoml llic sea, wh ■re tliev hail lieeii shelienil and iveii ; and h ihserved that at ( leiieva. and other nlaees, 'iHptisiii was adMiiiiislercd hy sprinkliiij, they thonu'ht they could not do the < liiirch a practice dictated hy so ureal an authority -It was not of IOni;land a ^trcater service than hy iiitrodmiii as ( 'alviii." The ICIinliurcj KiirycluprBdui descrihed the change still more in detail. It says:- tilll.'ill that the Le^islatiin , 111 a co'.uiiil held at Uavenna. ih chii'd immersion or s)irink- lini; to he iDdifleri'iit. In this country iSrotland ), however, sprinklins,' was mver p run ised in ordinary cases liciore the lleformatioii. I'lom Scotland it made its way into i;ii.ilaiiil, in til' reii;ii of iCli/.alielh, hut was not authorized hy the lOslaMished t^hurch. In lie .V'-semldy of Divines, held at Westminster in liii:f, it was keenly dehated whether immersion or sprink- ling, should he adopted ; twciily-li v.' voied for spriiiklim;- and twentj -four voted for immer- sion ; ami even that small majority was attained at the earnest reipiest of l>r. Li.;litfoot, who iiad aci|uirc(l trrcat '. lucnec in the A.ssemhly.'' Siicakinu of ancient haptisteries, it says: — "Baptistery, in ecc.. siaslicul writers, a iilacc in which the ceremony of liaptiMii is perlorni- cd." '■ Baptist eri'S .1 re anciently very capacious ; hecaiise, as Dr. ( iiiie ohserves. the staled times f'f lia|)lisiii i-eluriiiii;^ hut seldom, ilcre wen' usually ^real multitudes to I"' liaptized at the same time, and then the manner of haplisint,' hy immersion, or dipjiin^' niiiier water, laade it necessary to have a lar^je font liki wisi'.' lii'i'x C;;i-li.j)cB Im says of haiilisiii : — " In primitive times this ecrcmoiiy was pcrforined by iiuniersion." t'lniiij Vyi'ii'}iic<lni: — " The nianner in which it was perf irmid appear.* to have hccn at fust hy immersion." Eiu-iniifjiadiii Metr(fpolita>i : — "He readily admit tliat the literal ineaiiin;; of the word I ipllsiii is immersion, and that the desire of resoriin;; a,'aiii to the most ancient practice of the (hiireh, of imiiiersiii'.; the body, which has heen expressed hy many divines. Is well Worthy of huinj^ considered." I-: ,ri/ri,.p,fil,ii Aiiii'ririinii : — " Baiitism 'that is dipidng, iinmorsini.', from the firei k hnptizi) wasiisnal with the .lews, oven hefore Christ." "In the time of the aimstlis, the form of iiaplisni was very simple. The person to he haplizert wa- dipped in a river or vessel with the words which Christ had ordered, iind to express more fully his change of liaracter, (juii- irally ailopted a new nunit'." We iiiii^ht multiply these testimonies to uliaost any e.vleiit, but thtise are stiitnliiijf authoiilieri lor other words and .--ubjocts, and we are itul aware that one (it tlieni lla^ the t-ligliU'.st leaning towards Baptists, but rather ihe leverse. Perhaps, however, our brothtn' will still say, " We cannot see that the tpies- tion is settled as to the real meaning of baptism." We are qnile content witli the New Testamont history. Tts teacbinus are for us tpiitc snlbcient. Thi'ii' we iind the persons baplized were belie\'ers, " men anil women,"' disciples, and tho.se who had repented, but uowheie infants. Not content with the arrangeinents made by our Lord himself that believers should bo baptized, (immersed,) our brother, and those who agree wilti him. must biing unconscious and unwilling intanis, and instead of baptizing them, baptizo their own lingers, and sprinkle the little innocents. As our contemporary has taken up our friend Mr. Sommerville's case, we mav perhaps be permitted to suppose that in tlealing with him, we also meet the case of Mr. S. He will perhaps havt; the kintlness to t'xcuse our giving .separate replies. It appears to be a piece of Bro. Nicholson's policy to come in with his captiousness and try to produce confusion. We cannot write for both the Witiirsx and WcsUynii and must simply addres.s our ow'u readers, and at th(> same time endeavom- to tell both of thesu gentlemen, the tiews our people take of their lucubrations. ThI Com suppti the.se subjeJ consel when I A sugg eccleJ li)])ii'(liiis ii))(iii the III llif'iii lii'tdrc : — rii 1)1' li:i|ili»iii ttiiM li till' u uiiN wliich :i'ii(rally iiMsiiriu'd ■ ndiniiiisti nil by k /)'i/ih-:i, •IV /inptii, was li.'v'iiii ill cold it li I'i'iii uiy." [ii'iirs to liiiv lioon Jij,'li.sli Cliurcli If, ■ llir \vliu|,0,cMly." Iiriiiiilivi- ciistorn. ivii/. rlaiiil iluiiiin !)itli rami- III llie IlI'VOIllI till- SCil, nllrva. AU'l iltlll'r ml (III Ilic ( liiirch ;i'eat an authority says: — [t was iKit ii'i>iiiii 111- s)iiiiik- is rirviT |ii':ii'ii.-n'd uitij Iwiiihiiiil, in III til • .\~<i'iiilily ii'isioii 111- ^in'iiik- viiic'ij lur iijiiimr- )r. I.i-litf.Mil. who i>lrri,'s, il >avs: — ptisiii is |i!Tforni- iM'i'vcs, t lie staled Irs til hi' liaipti/t.'d iiii<.' iiiuitT wator, ras iii'rforiiird liv lave liL'C'ii at first iiiK of the word ii'Ml iiiarlicr of y (liviiii's, Is well (irci k hiipfi; i) lis, till' liiriii of r iir vissrl with Il liarafter, geu- lul tliese are Kit ;uvaie that M ihe leveise. lilt the qiies- iiite content \v siiflifieiit. (I WdlTKMl." Not (■(intent ~ >h(iulii be I him. must )tiziii^r ihem, e"s rase, we \\e also meet r^ our giving I icy to come lol write for wit reader!*, n, the views ARGUMENTS PRO AND TON. 23 The editor of the ircs/ci/rrn says "the Baptist Church is a combination of Coiiyrcii-.itioiiiilistr, Presbyterianism, and Mcthodisrr ." That is to say. \\v suppose, the Baptist Churches (not Church) liave the best part of eacli of these denominations — the New Testament part. Brother N. returns to the subject ill his last, by quoting from our columns, but says nothiuir of any conseijuence ; we may therefore await his return from the Upper Provim.-et, when he may " reply if necessary." A tew thoughts may still be of service to our brother on the modest (?) sugirestion he ventures to make that " when baptizo is disposed of, the entire eecle^iastical structure (Bapti.st Churches) might as well resolve into its original t'lements !"' Rev. Mr. Sommerville hits his third letter in the Witness of Saturday last. Most of the points which he raises are met, by auticipation, in our article oi last week. We do admire his great respect for " the white light of the good word of Cod." and could wish that it were jwssible for him to reafi over the Acts of tin; Apostles for the lir.st time, and we do not think he would then find in tlnit book much evidence for mnking baptism a spriiikliiiL'' process. He piunii>es, " Sometiine, if Goii give me leisure and strength, I may- turn the attention of Baptists and others to the processes, by which immersion is professedly extracted from the reluctant and recalcitating N. Testament." Now suppose he. at the same time, should ' turn the attention of Pcdolidp- Hsts and others to the processes by wliich sprinkling of infants is jirofcs^edly extracted from the reluctant and recalcitrating New Testament,' especially in such texts as Acts viii. 12, 13, 26-40; Romans vi. 3, 4; Col. ii. 12. We fear it would be long before he would find sullicient time to do it effectually. Mr. Sommerville says "the idea that baptism occupies the room of cir- cumcision has not yet been exploded," and for our asserting that it has, he " blames the writer's intelligence to save nis integrity." Perhaps he will tell us how it came to be that circumcision was observed, even by the Apostle Paul, lonij- after Christ had instituted the New Testament rite of baptism. Ac's xvi. 3. Mr. S. ought to know that Professor Stuart, Dr. Emmons, Dr. Bushuell. and Dr. Halley, all representative Pedobaptists, nil ileclare that ''the covenant of Circumcision furnishes no ground for Infant Baptism." [WiTN-Kss, (M. :iO. isTo.i "TIIK VOICE OF SCRll'TCRE 0\ BAPTISM."' Mn. Editor, — I cannot entertain llic thought that the letter of Ibv.ikiah would he subscribeil by tiie Editor of the Mc-iyciij/cr, or that he did lu t in- sert it wiili rciuclaiice. Hut it comes irom risf/a/i. It is the utterauci.^ ol a greixt king, who may not be refused. The cununaiul must he oheyed, — "An- swer him not." Baptists are well pleased to keep us always on the defensive, and too often we accept the situation. They would not consider it fair to oblige theinU) assume a defensive i)osition. If God will, in whose hand my life is, I will give tiiein something else to do than to liglit una I'edohiip- tist against another, while they stand and look on, especially a.s the means employed to set them at variaiice are often neither fair nor liommrnblc. Tliere is something very peculiar in ITezidviah's letter. AVhilo he would exhibit my ])hoton;raph, he leaves it (piite doubtful whether Ids own featiin^s do not stand out more itroniinenfly than mine. It is not tlit> jiroducti'iii ^f an iincilucated man. lie is prohahly nundieri-d among thos(> mIio are lii'^iily educatel. There fs apraeision, an epigraiuniatic si'utentioiHue.-s, and, withal 24 BAPTISMAL IMMKRSION NOT ()F GOD. a precaution, which is quite distiii^'uisliinjjf. lie speaks like one who is lieanl witli deference, expects to l)e believed say what he will, would not be contented to occupy a situation where he is not accepted as master, and would avoid that wlu;re his real stren^'th iniL,dit be tested. I have said hard thintj;8, have hetird and reail them, but a more iiniahed specimen of im])eri- ous assumption and cool condensed malip;iiity 1 have never met. Is tliis my (/«/t/7^7'w«.')-;w,sj</M« to which the Ed. iV/. refers, that, if I dare to controvert Baptist statements or Baptist lofjic, I shall, by his assistance, be blackf/uarded over the lenjj;th and breadth of \ova Scotia, by somebody^who is ashamed or afraid to put liis real name to his reviliuijfs. I am too ohsi-nrc to be met in open debate, but of suflicient importance to be huiwurahlij slandered. However, whatever is the danger, I will venture to meet it in the name of him who was called a deceiver, a demoniac, a lilaspliemer, was crucilied as a rebel hut raised from the dead, who saitl many hard and provokini,^ thinf^s, which, when his enemies could not meet, they had recourse to the last re- sort of all who are silenced without being satisfied, — "He has a devil and is mad, why hear ye him i'" — "Answer him not." Does Ilezekiah hope to crush ? He cannot. Does he hope to silence me ? It is vain. Does he hope that, if he can do neither, he shall seal up tlie ears of all Baptists I-* This is his only safety and of the cause he advocates. You, Mr. Editor, are nut afraid to place Ix^fore your Presbyterian readers what Mr. ]5rowp lu^ to say in reply to me. That is saying the I'resbyterians are not afraid to look an opponent in the face and hear what he has to say. I thank you ; and will be well pleased to have you reju'oduce the letter of Hezekiah. I recxuest you to give it a place in the Witness. The Ed. ^f. will not imitate the example, not he. There are two sentences in H's letter introduced by an emphatic IFe knmc. To the latter I may advert at my leisure. The former is ae follows: - " We knou- that in Apostolic times believers were ' buried with him in Ba])tisni,' and in that ordinance did 'put on Christ.' " This is a wise sentence— a very wise sentence, because nobody denies it. It is as wi.se as mine, that the shore is not dipped into the tide but is ocerfloired by it, when it is baptized, which nobody denies except a wag, or one under "uncontrollable ])rejudice," or one who has a purpose to .serve. Ilezekiah, of course, assumes that here we have immersion clearly expre.ssed ; but have we not here a shf insimuitiun that we, bajjtismal sprinklers, deny thifi, or a oontemptihle trich to leave the impression on the minds of Bai)tists that ire do deui/ it. The statement of the Apostle to which IT. alhules I intend to analyse, to ascertain whether there is any immersion in it Meantinu; there is an im- portant matter to be settled, that we may know what is the extent of the ground we occupy in common, and on whiidi we may contend. All are familiar with the allegation that Baptism is exclusively a New Testament ordinance, and that we cannot fmrli/ appeal to the Old Testament in treating of it. But I want to know whether the Baptists of Xova Scotia own the Old Testament as a rule offdith and jmivfice at (dl. \ have a stiong opinion that thoji do not. I do not say that all members of Baptist Churches refuse to own it. I am fully satisfied that thousands and tens of thousands hold it as precious as the Xew Testament. I si)eak of the professiwial standing of Bapi .spire that i subje ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON. 25 :e one wlio ia woulil not be s niast(M', and ave said liard en of ini]>('ri- t. Is lliis my to controvert ■ hldckf/iKtrded is ashamed tre to 1)0 met Ui/ slandered, n tlif! name of IS criifitied as ,okin^ tilings, to the last re- ts a devil and ;o silence me ? ml 111) '^'"5 ^^"^^ I'ocates. You, 1 rea<ler8 what 'shyterians are has to say. I the letter of ic K(l. M. will xtic Wr Inow. Hows: - " IVe n in Haj^tism,' tcnce— a very line, that the t is haplized, le ])i'(»ju(lice," lies tliat here /'/ iiisiniuifion to leave the ) analyse, to lore is an ini- lextent of the lend. All are pv Testament jit in treating [■otia own the Iroiig opinion lirches refuse ■'amis hold it standing of Baptists as a denomination. It is not denied that the Old Testament is in- .»<pired and was a rule of lifw to saints in the former age. It is not denied that it contains very important and various and truthful inft)rmation on tlie subject of which I treat; Imt that it is tww a rule of faith and practice, be- ing .superseded by the X. Testament. Notwithstanding Ilezekiah's imperi- ous commaml, twice repeated, "Answer him not," I demand of him or of the Kditor of the Me)»ienyiT who lia.s assumed his responsibilities, whether he accepts the O. Testament as a rule of Faith and Practice, or to what ex- tent. I demand this in the name of all Baptists, who ought to know the grou.'' ' occupied by their leaders, and their creed ;— in the name of all other denomiualions, wlio are entitled to know. their relation to Baptists, espe- cially as the Canadian Baptist says, "Our country cannot do without Bap. list inthience;" aud if, acconling to tlie same witness, "We (Baptists) are a very retiring people," it may be necessary to draw them out for the public benefit. I hope, in replying to this demand, that there will be no evasion, no equivocation, no storming that such a charge as denying that the Old Testament is a rule of faith and practice to Christians should be imputed to honourable men, wdiile a denial or affirmation is avoided. Lest some Baptists or Pedobaptists should regard thin charge as the result of "uncontrollable prejudice," 1 shall give my authority. Wayland speaks for all Jiaptists. The title of the book from which L quote is, " Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist churches." His words are ( P. 92. Note) "The New Testament is referred to as our only guide in matters of religious faith and practice,"— lie "believes the New Testament to be the standard by which the precepts and teachings of toe former revelation are to be judged, aud that, thus, it is our only rule of faith and practice." " Thus if is our Qtdfi rule of faith and practice.'" Thi* places the Old Testament on the same footing with the writings of Dr. Cramp or Dr. Guthrie. The doc- trinal articles of the Baptist Churches of Nova Scotia speak what is in har- mony with this, but with less directness. In my work on Baptism I ad- verted to this, and I have no recollection of any notice of it in the Baptist criticisms on tliat [troduction. Dr. Cramp (C. M. Sept. 29) reports an English Association as holding "The divine inspiration of the Scriptures of th(! Old and Now Testament and their- absolute sufficiency, as the only aiitiiorised guide in matters of religion." This is allogethei- satisfactory unless there be something efiuivo.al in the word reli(jion, which might be intended to rule out the important duties arising out of the social relations of the life that now is. The Doctor states that " tiie plan differs in some respects from our own," that is, of the Baptists of Nova Scotia ; and as he has not specified the i)ariicular differences, it is fairlij oupposable that one difference is, that the Baptists of Nova Scotia do not, as the English Baptists, definitely place the Old Testamei;t on a level with the New. When the comparative claims of the Old Testame;\t are settled, we shall be in an easier position for discus- sing the various questions that may come up between Baptists and Pedo- baptists ; for the topics of the mode and subjects of Baptism are merely the salient points of systems of doctrine, one of which must be antagonistic to the Scripture and subversive of true religion. While I was closing the C. M. for Oct. G, came into my hands, which honours 3 2G BAPirSlHAL lArMKR-S'IOX NOT OF GOD. m<3 with nearly tliree coliunns, find to wliicli I hope to respond in due timev The reply i» so eiisy tluit it shiiU be pleiisant to t'lirniah it, hut not unmixert with sadness. Somerset, Oct. 8, 1875. W. Sommerville. THE VOICE OF GOD ON BAPTISM. Dear Editou, — I have been hesitatinjr whether or not to reply to Rev, Mr. Sommerville's communication of Sept. 25. He is so aluisive and dis- dainful, and mixes so much gall with his remarks, that one feels somewhat ditlident about rcplving. Mr. S. appears to be troubled because having written a work on Baptism he should be classed amoni? '■'■ obscitre pedobap- tists." Now he shouUl excuse the itfuorance of the man who did so, or if having read it, in not being acquainted with that work, he then classed Mr, S. among the obscure he ought to be forgiven hrs folly. If Mr. S. really deserves to become prominent and if he has failed in his first effort, then " If at first you don't succeed, Try, try, fry again." Will Mr. S. be good enough to copy into his note-book the following word* of Cromwell : — '■ I beseech you in the bonds of Christ, think it possible yon may sometimes be mistaken," and then those of Paul, •' I say through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of him- self more hiii^hly than he onght to think." And would it not be well if he would write as a Chiistiau gentleman, and not speak of a large number of Christians, among whom he may possibly have some i>ersonal friends, as " conteut to be blindfolded, cab'.etowed and swe-aring to what they are told.'' Such remarks do not become a Christian or a gentleman, for they are neither true nor civil. If Mr. S. knows anything of Baptists or Baptist history, he must also know that they are among the last to be blindfolded, cabletowed or take anythinij on trust, to say nothing of swenring to it. I shall leave Mr. Selden (if he thinks tit) to reply to what refers to him, and as Mr. Soramerville perceives that "poor J. Brown of Cow Bay" is de- ceived and mistaken in a certain part of Mr. S's letter, in which, by the way, Mr. S. is deceived and mistaken, I will try to put my question again in fi form that will not be mistaken. Wilt Mr. Sommerville please supply Scripture proof from the Old or New Testament for the practice of Infant Baptism"! As a public teacher and having studied the (inestion and taking the Bible for his guide he should be able to give an answer that will require but little time or space. Yours truly, J. Bkowm. f" Witness." Xov. i:i, 187.5.] THE VOICE OF SCKIITt'RR ON BAPTISM. Mk. EniTou,— I congratulate the Editor of the iVf,y,«m/fir on hift indepen- dence. 1 was mistaken in supposing he would take llozekiah's advice, " Answer him not." If I was as much given to guessing as ho says, I iiight ywes's that it is not independence but abject fear which inqwlled him to answer ; guessing that both Baptists and Pedobapli.sts nii^ht draw an inference, from his silence, unfavourable to his power ami his principle.s. But I will give him the credit for imlepemlmce. and that he will not be commanded even by his //•?>«//, speaking from Pisgah's toj). Before entering on a reply to his editorial of Oct. Ifith, 1 would premise, that I will not allow him to prescribe to me the hind of evidence to be ad- ARGUME>rrs PRO AND CON. 27 in due tfme', not unmixed IMKRVILLE, reply to Rev, isive and dis- els somewhat cause having cure pedobap- did so, or if n classed Mr. Mr. S. really : effort, then llowi.jfT word» it possible yo« \y throu^rh the think of hira- be well if he •ge number of iial friends, as they are told/' ley are neither isl history, he eabletowed refers to him, )W Bay" is de- h. by the way, )n as^ain in a ease supply tice of Infant Ion and takingf it will require J. BuowM, hift indepen- |<iairs advice, says, I ■night Iwlleil him to Wit draw an [is principles. will not he Uikl premise, mice to be ad- •<lHced to show how, and to whom, baptism is to he administered, or the form in which my armiment is to be presented. If I did, he mif^ht deny that femaJH menibevs of the Church have a riglit to come to the Lord's talile, that the first day ot tlie week is the Christian Sabbath, and demaml of me an ex* press warrant in sujtport of female rifjjlits and tlie chaiiiie of day. It is enoutrh tliat I [(roduce sujicient evidence in support of my position in my case, and that I present my argument lucidly. It seems that an explanation is re(iuired for imjjutin;!; the article, to which my first letter was »», reply, to another tliau the Ed. M., and I am liajiijy to ^ive it. In conver.sation with a Baptist minister, with wlioin I am well ac- quainted, he wisheil me to look intr .^n article on bai)tism whicli he expected to appear in the next Messenf/er. From the conversation, the impression was left upon my mind that he claimed to he the writer, and that impn-.'^sion was not removed, when, at the close of our interview, I saiil, smiling,', that I sup' posed he was reading his recantation, and with an answering smile, he re- lilied, yes, a reply which I did not misunderstand. However, the Kd. M. claims to have been tlie writer, and, in this purely personal mattf^r, 1 cheer- fully accept his word, and confess to a misapprehension, for I am sure my friend would not intent mMlli/ lead me into a mistake. Still tlie impression is not less decided that, in bringing the matter under my notice, lie considered I would tind a nut too hard for me to crack. Now that we know the writer, and his admiration of the baptismal ceremonial of antiquity, he will be pleased to tell us by what process of spiritual chemistry Bajitists have discovered that one dip is the esv«t'ntial element in Baptism, to tlie exclusion of Mowing the Devil out of the water, and to avoid vulgar Saxon, fi.rwm.wj, unction, three dips, and the performance of the ceremony, the candidate being, whether male or female, entirely naked. Baptists appeal to the fathers and will not follow them. I hud glanceil very hastily at the editorial now before me, when I ex- pressed my anticijiation of pleasure, mixed with sadness, in replying to it. I have now read it carefully, and tind nothing but unudxed sorrow, notwith- standing the facility in answering. I am represented by the editor as say. mg,-yu.essin(j hi" calls it,— 'Men arose under the eyes of the Apostles, who were dissatisfied with sprinklings, and demanded that the disciples should be dipped.' Here we have, in inverted commas, what professes to be my words. I never used these words- 1 never used words intended or cah-ulated to express the idea which these words convey. They are not even a correct exhibition of a part of a sentence which I wrote. They are an untruthful representation of both my words and my ideas, I will not encumber your columns with a bald repetition of what has been already printetl. The readers of the Jftt- ness can recur to them. The statement of the Messenyer is intended for Baptist eyes and Baptist ears,— for persons, not one in a hundred, perhaps not one in a thousand of whom ever see the Witness. After this I would not accept the word of the Ed. M. concerning anything that a I'edohaptist has said about the suliject of Baptism. In such a case I hold him utterly unreli- able. I would not lie surprised to find him come out, ([uote my words, and coolly ask, " Is there here anything different from what I saiil I'" Let him place my statements fully and fairly in the columns of the Messenyer side by side with his own. There are among his readers intelligent, honest, and 28 KAPTISMAL nr^ERSlON' NOT OF CU/D. honoiimble men, able to compare tlipni.aml who will rise from the discorfrrj' of the injustice done to me, and tiie iniiiosilion i)mcticpfl on his Baptist teailers, with no less indignation tlian i feel, and do not affect to repress or to conceal. Presently we shall see th»\t he (|iu>tPB thi HiMe with as little honesty as lie did my ivimis. Bnt if I have sadly blundered respectin;:^ tlie origin of immei-mon, the Ed. M. will tell us all about it. Hi.s wonls are :- "There is no necessity for con- jectnru here. God tells where Christian bnpti.'<m, by immersion, originated, and by whom it originated. Jesus wa"* immersed in the Jordan by John — immersed at his own requed and by his own command." Here you have the whole in a nnt-shell— and frmn God. I have not read of the tommnnd, but the reqned of Jesuit is as g(Jod as a command. I have not read that Jesus came to be iintnersed, asked to be immrrsed, or was immn-Ked. I read that he came to be hnjyfized, asked to be httptized, and wa* Ixijrfized, but in what mode I do not rend in the history of the transaction. This is the qnt>stion to be settled, and the Ktl. M. as.sumes the tiling to be proved, — and makes God responsilde for his dogmatic assertion.—" God tells us" But the newest in- formation—to me at least — is that here " Christian baptism by immersion on'ffmfited." Christian baptism originated years before the Christian dispen- sation ! Luke tells us that" /fV/pw rdl the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also being baptized and praying, the heaven was opened." - I have a strong opinion that Jesus was the last person wh.nm John baptized ; but I would not dof/mntize, as there is room for doubt. But it is certain that many, perhaps thousands, were baptized by John before Christ's baptism, and of course none of these were immerned, but were all liaptized after ths Jewish mode, or rather Divine mode, by sprinkling, for baptism by immerKum wigi- nated with the baptism of our Lord. 1 do not overlook the magic word Chris- tian, which is so carefully kept in the front, and which introduces a distinc- tion of which the inspired writers are i)erfectly innocent. Christian baptism could not possibly exist, if it must be considered distinguishing, before the christian <lispen.sation was introduced. Jerri^^h baptism was baptism ailmin- istered by a Jew. Johii'i^ baptism was baptism administered by John. Chris- tian baptism is baptism administered by a Christian. But of this we have more to say anon. We must bring the C. M. to closer (pmrters. TTard work. I have stated that baptism is an ordinance of the former dispensation and challenged him to deny it ; and he an.swers : "Yes, Mr. S., we do deny it.'' Wk do pk\y it ! He calls it a //«r.«t.««, a /'?";»,<;/ /"rr/Arc?/. l^et us .see. Paul informs us that the •iivinely instituted vites of the Mosaic economy com]trehended "divers bap- tisms." These were, of course, ordinances of the fonntr dispen.sation. What have I said ? " Baptism is an ordinance of the former dispen.sation." He that denie.s this denies the wonl of the sjiirit and ninkes God a liar. But after a little he a<lmita, in terms which inilicate great reluctance, " There were divers baptisms no doubt." To his above denial he adds, — " It is for you who affirm it to give the proof. Vou have not given one fact or sound inference yet in proof of your long ago exploded figment." Now this is all mere banter, an insult to the intelligence of every Baptist, — to every one of common sense who reads what has passed between us. He seems de.<irous of insulating me from every Pedobaptist in the universe. He talks as if I was the onlv one who tlie ^ huiiil) additi Ed. .V I the .• bulioi (thf I ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON. 29 the (lisrovery in his Baptiot t to repress or with Hs little lei-ft'ofi, the Ed. ■essity for con- on, oripinated, dan by John — e yoii have the command, but iad that Jesus I read that Y, but in what he question to id makes Goil the newest in- by ininiersion ristian dispen- zed, it came to ras opened." — Fohn l)aptized ; is certain that |fl baptism, and ter ths Jewish imn-ftiim oriffi' ic word Chris- uces a distinc- isfiaii baptism n^, before the ijitism ailmin- V Jolm. ('hris- this we have I have stated lenfjed him to DO I)K\Y IT ! s us that the " divers bap- ■ation. What iisation." lie (I liar. But " There were for you wlio imd inference mere banter, lommon sense insulating me the oulv one who holds and teaches that liaptism was an ordinance of the olden time, as if the (loetrine has been lonp ago exploded h;/ all ppdolKipti^^fg, excejit tlie. humble Hefonued I're. lyterian o^ Kin<j's. Say 1 stand aluuu, do 1 need any additional proof to the unequivocal tesHmonij of an inspired wnter, wdiich the Ed. M. is anxious to pusli aside ? I am not ignorant or unobservant of the door by whicii lie would escape the charge of impiety and infidelity. I saw, when reading his former contri- butions, the door ajar : and now it stands wide open, lie asks, " Were they (the divers bapti ms) New Testament Christian baptisui ? And again,— " Was that (the Paschal supper) the New Testament, the Christain's Lord's supper ? Mr. S. knows it wa.s not, The Lord tells us when he instituted it. lie ale the supper himself, and thus it had its origin. John, his servant began bapti-iui. Je.sus, the Mjister was baptized ; thus he made it his own." \ little below he says,—" We have an account of the taking of the Lord's supi»er by its Author, and those who first took it with him." The questions above are so singular and betray such confusion of thought that it is painfully em- barrassing to frame a grave answer. But he is profoundly serious, and I shall answer him seriously. There is no difficulty in discovering what he would be at. The statements which ft llow the questions are still more e.xtraordinary because inconsistent with the fact. With much cliri.itian benevolence and courtesy, he wishes it possible I could read the Acts of the Apostles the Jirsf time. I have been reading the gospels which come before the Acts, (I shall read the Acts shortly for his benefit,) and I find that it is not true that our Lord "ate the Supper hiui'^elf." We have no account of the "taking of the Lord's supper by its Autl.or." lu that ordinance the Lord put into the hands of his disciples bread and wine, but addressing tlieir faith, and assuming his death as an accomplished fact, he gives himself, his broken body—" Take eat ; this is my body"— and his blond shed — " Drink ye all of it; this is my blood of the New Testament," but, no more in the world, he does not partake with them — he did not eat himself in symbol or in fact. It is their privilege to eat the ilesh and drink the blood of the Son of man. The idea runs through the whole argument of the Ed. M. that a change has l)een made, not onlj- in the circumstances in whicli it is administered, but in the ordinance of baptism itself. " God did sprinkle but now he is done with it." This implies a fair admission, if he has not spoken at random, that baptism of old wa.s atlministered by sprinkling. " John began baptism, Jesus was baptized ; thus he made it his own." Of cour.se baptism, according to the Ed. M. is immersion. What then became of the constant assertion that baptize always signifies to dip and nothing but dip ? What becomes of all th(^ rant about baptizing in Jordan, in Enou where was much water, going down into the water and coming up out of the water ? No immersion before the baptism of Christ, according to the Ed. M. The argument l»y whicli the Editor wouM prove the change from sprinkling to ininiersion seems to be this. At least I can make nothing else of hi.-^ anal- ogies. Because the Pasnoier- An ordinance which could not as a divine institute, possibly outlive the O. T. dispensation, as the pasciial lamb repre- sented Christ to come ami put away sin. -has given place to the Lord's Supper -an ordinance which necessarily belongs to the N. T. dispensation, a? l>oth its institution and observcmce presuppose the death of Christ, who has conu 30 BAPTISiiAL IMMERSION NOT OF T.OD. and put away sin, therefore a similar clianfje lias jiassiMl on baplisin, and Hpruiklituj has heen eupcrs'^e'I by iinniersion. "(iwl did uprinkle. Out now hn m done with it,'^ so says the Eil. .V. Now, as I camiot sho tlie conrit-clion Iwitween his jireniises and conclusion, what 1 deMch-rute is an tMiually iint'(|iiivo«,ftl evidence of a change in the mode of liiipti.-m as we iiiive u triiii.tition from the Passover to the Lord's Supjter. He does say, " We have different ac- counts even to particulars of its administration. -The Hihie tells us how the act was perfor ued — the mudu* o/*erandi" This is all news to me except he refer to the Old Testament, and I will l.u tliankful if he will tell me where to ^et the information, in the New Testament. 1 can find it in liie olil myself. But the Old Testament knows no immersion of persons. The Ed. M. considers it "a bit of religious delusion" that I liave represents immersion in Scripture as universally an emblem, not of mercy l)ut judgment, not a blessing but a calamity. 1 never said that " immersion is the uniifrnal Hynd)ol of judgment." He asks. " Was there no blessing connected with the dipi)ing of the bird in blood and water!'" 1 answer, i/es : there wa:* a bles.*- ing connected icith the dipping of the bird but no lilessing in the dipping of it, more than there wcnild be a blessing in the death of Christ separated from the application of his bloo<l by the Sjiirit. The blessing was in llie uprinklinff of the mixture on him who was to be cleansed. This was the hitpfi.i>n. Again, " Was there no blessing cnnnectetl with the dipping of Naaman in Jordan ?" I answer, I cannot tell whether he was tvimemed or not. He says, " Nfiaman was commandetl to ilip him?elf seven times in Jordan." This is "handling the word of God deceitfully." Naaman Kaa not cotnmanded to dip sevf^n times, or once in Jordan. We have seen that what Paul explicitly asserts, the Ed. M. as plainly denies ; and now he says tliat was co)n)nfntJed which wa.■^ not commanded. It is painfully manifest that the word of God or m;in may be trampled under foot, but immersion must be upheld. Tlie prophet com- manded Naaman to icnsh. When Naaman imlignanily repels the ''aim of Jordan over Abana and Pharjtar. he thinks to vasl: in them would do „s ,.ell. When his servants n-monstrate with him, it is to persuade him to j/ym/*. The mode of washing is not prescribed. He is at perfect liberty to perform the ablution as he pleased. He might have ilipped himself under the stream. He might have dipped the part afTecte-l. for the disease appears to have been local. He might have laved the water over the diseased part. He might have learned something of the Mc^aic ritual and sprinkled himself seven times. But to prove that he dipjjed himself after Bajitist fashion is nothing to the purpose. He might have erred through ignorance or recklessness ; the character of the God of Israel may not suffer because of his sin. Moses wa<j commanded to speak to the rock. Through inconsideration or irritation he smote it twice find for his sin is excluded from the promised land. But Israel had been promised water, and Moses' sin cannot bring tlie faithfulness and power of Israel's God into suspicion. Two or three fragments of the editorial are yet to be throw tuto the fire : and then to the stronghold of Baptists. W. Sommfbville. P. S. — I have just read Mr. Brown's second letter. He has mistaken the subject. It is Baidism and not the character of Mr. Sommerville. He is making rapid progress in the school of scandal. Whether Mr. S. is deserving of « IT H 1 AlKiUMEMTS PRO AND tX>S. 31 I hdjytism, and ', hut now li^ is clion li^;tween y unequivocal rainition from ' ilitt'ert-nt ac- lls u.s lujw the rue except he 1 me wlipr« to ii; Ulil mjfielf, vc. Teptf^pnt^l hut iu'lfjni*»nt, 8 tlif uni vernal •pted with the e was a blea.^ hn ilippin;,' of eparattil from the sprinkling ptism. A^ain, n in Jordan ?" ays, " Xaaiuan \ is "handlinpr to dip seven y asserti?, the (l which was or man may •niphet com- tlie ''aim of d do »s ,»ell. U'difh. The ptn-fonn the tlie stream, to liave heen He niicfht iin.-jf'lf ■♦even HI is nothing iessness ; the Moses was irritation he 1 land. But faithfulness ilo the fire : MKRVILLE. iiistaken the ville. He is is deserving of % <t)ronet or a ^ihhet does not affect the qaestion of Baptism. my anf^wer. [" Witness." Nov. 27. 1H75.} "THK VOICE OF SCRIITURE OX BAPTISM." He has Mb, EiHTOR,— I am not well stored with aneoJotes, Imt take anotlier. Tvo men, in company and sitting; on opposite 6ide« of the table, (;ot into a k^^n 'li>cussii)n. One of them, feelin}? hard preaee*], threw a glass of wine in the other's face. He took out his handkercliief, wi|*ed Lis face, an<l coolly repii*^!, "That was a digression, now for the argument." The Editor of the 3ltMfcnyer and his friends may he as personal, as di-'respectful, as insulting as tliey ]»]ease ; to their personalities, rudeness, and . ult*. my rej)ly is, — " Tliat it a digression, now for tiie argument." Let him be as amiable, excellent, auad honourable, personally as his fomlest ailmirers couhl wish, I have to do •»ith him tis a hjgician and an accepted exponent of the spirit, the principles, siixi tl)e order of the Baptist Churches, and I will not spare him. He sliall hare no honeyed words from me, as I heartily a<lopt the sentiment of Dr. J. C. L. Carson, whom I highly esteem and a<lniire, not less that he is a Baptist :— " For my ]>art, I have no idea of passing a practical censure on the conduct <jf Christ, by attempting, or pretending to improve upon the infallible example ■irhjch He lias -et uk. Jesus never said — 'ye darling hypocrites; ye beloved liare ; ye ireU-meaning Pharisees ; ye glorious seqients : ye dearltj beloved gen- eration of vijters;' and neither will I." A few words more respecting the 3fe*genger« "bit of religious ce- litwon " that as the paschal .nipper, which must cease with the former <ii*ipen8ation, is very different from the Lord's .Supp^-r, a corresponding ishasiize has passed on Biqdism. God did sprinklk bit now hk is IKJNK vvnii IT. In atteini)ting to establish a i*arallelisra between im- w»«r#i«n,— liis form of Christian baptism as opposed to sprinkling, the 0. T. iuode,— he has perpetrated two blunders. 1. He tea^-hes, in terms too plain to >»e misunderstood, that itnmerxiun originated with the Imptism of Clirist, vfd^iJi he doeii not believe, and did nut intend to teach: and 2. That Christ i)ar- v>ok of his own supper, which is not a fact. There is no evidence of such a (chaxige as he supposes. There is one Spirit, common to both dispensations. "Cbrii^t hatli redeemeil us from tlie curse of the law, — tliat the blessing of Abra/i/jm uiight come on the gentiles through Jesus Christ ; that we might raeeire tlie promise of the Spirit through faith." There is one hope The 0. T. wdntt- desire<] a heavenly conntrg, and their GrxJ had prej«re<l for tliem a city ; nB'i our citizensjiip is in heaven and we look for an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away. There is one Lord. The Cliurch of ©id is addressed witii reference to her Divine Saviour, the Christ of God,— "He is thy Lord, and worship thou him." There is one faith. The gospel was preached to Abraham. He believed, and his faith is imputed unto him far righteousness. The gospel was preached to the Israelites, and believing, jigjjteousness was imjiuted to them also. They which l>e of faith are blessed wiiL faithful Abraham. There is one God. The Go<l of the Jew^ is the God <.>f the Gentiles. There is one hiii>tism. If there is any consistency or cohe- reuoe in the Apostle's language, the baptism here spoken of is common to '•.^L dipj ten sat ions. And are we tamely to connive at a gross perversion of 32 RAI'TISMAL IMMKUHKjN NOT OK GOD. tile Wonl, anil to liavb this one btipfium, lioiinil up with one Spirit, one liope, 'jne Lonl, one faith, one (loil and Father of all, frittt-reil <luwn to immerniun, wliicli confesHcilly ilid not belong to the former a!j;e, its ilistin>,'ui>hfil from any other form of the application of water 'f ()f tliis Imptism, hapti^m with water '\i< a iign, am! if nothing mort; than a sign it \.* iiutJiiuif nt all. Ihit a« ilio thing signified is eonimon to both diHitensationp, so is the sign. All the dif- ferences in the surroundings of Haptism, of old and now, are referable to the difference between Christ to come anil Christ (t/reaili/ come. Has God done with sprinkling F So says the ('. .1/. " lie will uprinhle many nations. " This points to the New Testament dispensation. " I will sprinkle clean water upon you." This refers to these la.'*t day«. I)oe.» tliis look like (lod having done witli sprinkling ? Where does the Scriptun- in<li- cate that a change was to take place in the modeof Ijaptism, or ha.s taken )>lace? Nowhere. When the Jews sent I'harisees to ,)ohn, they have no que.'-tion to ask about a new rite introduced by him. With tiie baptism which he admin- istered they must have been perfectly familiar. They ask, " Wiio art tiiou ? — why baptizest thou!''" That is all. When Christ commai.'led the Apo.-tles to baptize all the nations, doe.>- he give tliem any hint that they wvre to ailminister the ordinance differently from that with which, as Jew.s they had !)een familiar ? Not the slightest. When Paul speaks to the the Corinthians or Hebrews about the baptisms of the former age, does he teach them that these baptisms were different from that of which they had been the subjects? I read with no little surprise in tiie ('. M., '■ The Baptists do not say that the design or form of an ordinance can be learned from its name." And again, " No Baptist ever said that." Here again he mis-i[Uotes my words. My second fact he puts thus;— 'The Baptists athrm tliat the design or form of an ordinance can be learned from the name given to it.' Very likely, "No Baptist ever said that." J3ut I never said it. .My second fact is that— "We can never learn the tiesign or ft)rm of an ordinance from the name given to it." I never said or supposed that Baptists, reckless as are many of their statements, would say that thedesign orform of any ordinance whatevf-rmay be demonstrated from its name ; but it is too notorious to he denied that their main argument in supjiort of iniinersiou is derived from the meaning of the word baptize, and that Dr. A. Carson has laboured, in the greater i)art of his work on bai)tism, to prove that it has but one meaning,— to f/i/>,— that it ex- presses mode and nothing but mode; and having, as he supjtoses, jjroved this, he considers that he lias fully and finally settled the nunle of hap'itm. The Ed. M. makes very merry over the bapiism of the coast by the tide and says, "Was it sprinkled P Heavy sprinkling!! Sprinkle babies as heavily and no Baptist will complain about an unscriptural paucity of water." Now after all, we have here the real distinction between dippiiif/ nnd baptism. To dip is to plunge the suftject into, say water, and hajitize is to apply the water to the subject to be baptized. Cattle on the brink of a river may be overflowed by a sudden freshet, and are baptized. An inflatetl bladder on the surface of the wf.ter does not sink, but the waves may dash over it, and it is liaptized. It may please him to say, ami I do most clieerfully say that, so far as the word bajrtize is concerned, the object baptized may be as completely covered with water as if it were plunged fifty fathoms deep. The wonl ex- presses covering, wholly covering, but still covering, as oppi...ed to dipping, I AlXni MKNTS PRO A\0 TON*. r<n lirit, one liope, to immersion, i^iii»h*-*l fi'iiiii , liapti^in with all. But as the I. All th.' <lif- efomlile to the will uprinhle ition. " 1 will ys, Doo.i this f^criptun* imli- a.-< tiikt'ii pliice? no (jue.>tit)n to liirh lie ailniin- Wlioart thou? I'd the Apostles ; they w»-re to Jewn, they had the Corinthians 'ach them that n tl>e !>ul>jfcts? lo not !»ay that nanip." Ami my wurls. My <'\\ix\ or form of ry likely, " No i;< that-" We name <,'iven to many of their hatev^r may be nif'l tliat their lit iiniii;; of the tvr part of his ;»,- that it ex- s, i)rove<l this, a/).' ion. »t by the tide kle liabies as city of water." If/ and bnptism. 8 to apply the river may be [bladder on the |er it, and it is ay that, so far as completely The word ex- d to dijjping, r\T iriimt'Tsion. The E'l. jf. may imw jtrepare himself for .10013 rare fun. •low will .Mr. >. fi'iluce tlie overtlowin^' tiile to n few drop- -prinkled on the, ■ iliji'ct to b.- bapli/ed 'f The proci-ss [.* pi'rffctly s^imple. f't'/ifii tn/ffr m *(//«• ■'j'tlirally npjJitd, a pnrtial (ti)plicalion,aj'ew dropn, the Hpmtj diuhed ft m » bunch 'if hij*Hi>p, Kill (tnfiiUv nnfivrr Ih' C(nidHiou.>i a/ Itnpti.iw, in iln vident M-nm, an nil thi- irnffi' of thf Alhiiih'f. Tile d'hilf iKdii is piiritifil or 'iipti/t'd \i\ thf spriiikiin',' of 11 few drops- a very partial ap[»lii'alion. " He he jirient) t*iiall ipriiilh upon him that in to l»« cleanststl from tli« lejmjuy «e\en times and -.hall ]iroiioiiii('e him drmi.-Tlw. miiTi tlidt shall be nnelean, and nhall not purify liiiiist'lf. thiit soul .sh«ll be cut otY I'nuii among the coii;>rf;j;ftt ion, because he has 'It'tih'd tlie samliiarv of tlr» Fiord; l/if wafer of Keparafiim laith not ln-vn aprinlhd kjitm liltK." When nur Lit 1 washed tlie disciples' fnot, and I'cter wished his hands and his head vvi\-hi»d id.^o, h<> said in n'ldy, "IIiMhat is washed need, til not save to wash h\-* feet, luitis deanevrni u/iiL" TlKdaii^di mu.st now betinne i against the God of Israel and tlio T.ord Josus. As for the deansiii^' process which followed the sitriiiklJiig by the p^il'^t or by any clean person, such a.* shaviii;^' off all the hair, balliing the wliole pei'son, and wa.-*h- ing the clothes, witli due respect to decency and shaiiierf) hiess, which fan- aticism alway.s disregards the person clean!»ed was left to perform tlie viperalinn on himself. The I'M. M. must put in cajiitals I'oru rr.ooi^s. I empliasised /><>«?•, and he seems to thinU tliat 1 liad some misgiviug.s in omittiu^lo uiiderscoic /hnnh. lilessed be ignorance ! It saves a man often from a red face. If be docs not understand Hebrew, some of his learned friends couM tell him that the word here reiidered/'ow/.s' would apply to .s/io«rr.s- of rain, dnrs, streams of water, or fhi' floiriiujfule. Let him ask any farmer whether parched ground is to be rendered jiroductive by showers and streams, or by a tidal inundation. IIi.s learned friends can also tell him wliether the word renderedy/ooc/ tn-Jluodn in our translation, is ever the same witii tiie word in the vtU'se before us, except in Ex. XV. 8 and I's. Ixx. 44. I do not know that it is. My recollection may be in fault. Under correction of his learned friends, I would tran.slate the verse thus: -I will jtuur water upon him that is thirsty, and showers iijion the dry ground. I hope to survey the Baptist stronghold in my next. W. So.MMKIlVIl.I.K, Somerset, Nov. 10, 187"), ["WiTKKss," Dec. 4, 187.^.] BAPTISTS AND TlTK RULE OF FAITH. Mr. Ei>itou,— In your jiaper of the 30th ult., Kev. William Sommerville says, " I want to know whether the Baptists of Nuva Scotia own the Old Testament as a rale of faith and practice at all. I have a strong opinion that they do not. Please note the words emphasized with italics. From the .Articles of l\iith and Practice of the Nova Scotia Baptist Churches. I now quote the 3rd Article. Here it is : '•The Holy Sftriptures of the C)!d and New TcMtaiueiits are the Word of Cod, in whiidi he hatli isivi'ti lis our only rule of faith and practice. 2 Timothy, iii. lii— 17 ; John, v. ai>." Further on in the same letter, Mr. S. refers to some statements of Dr. Way- 5 34 MAI'TrsMAL IMMKRSroN NOT OF OOD. laml, in hU " Noti-n on tin- I'rinciplcH and I'riicliffH of HuptiMt C'hurcheH," in jiiHtiliciktiiiti of his ri'tiiarkH, Mr. l",(litor, with your jurnnHKion, I will juit the iittiranroH of tliat diH- tinniilHlKfi Hclidlar ami writer bi fore your rtaiU'TH niuri' fully, \vM from the |>arii;»l ^tatfint-ntH alrcatiy pivt-n, scmic of tluin may infer tliat tho Old Tcnla- nu'iit in iijaci'd by him "on the wanie fooli k willi thi' writingH of Dr. Cramp or I)r. (iiithrK'." On paj,'f sf) and SC, Dr. Wayiand savs. "'J'lii' fnndamtnlal principhf on whirh oiir didi-niicc from other t'var)m'ficiii di nominalioiis deptiidx, in thin; ^V^' profi'HM to take for onr uniih", in all matters of reli^'ions lielief and prac- tice, till- Sill 'riMnmint, tile h/o/c New 'I'l'Htameiit, and nnthinti hiil the New Testament. Wiialever we lind there we onteem Idndiiig upon the eonneience. ^Vhat i>* not there commandtd, i-< not hindinu." Then follows ahout a page of disavowal, on the gronnd of New Testament aiitimrity, of the unsanctioned tea('liinf{i« of traditions,- (diuicils, Katliers, and CliMrches. At llie close of ihe chapter from which this extract is :nade, Dr. Wayiand inserts the following note, from which Mr. Sommerville makes his (|iiotation : " III tliis ami II I'mIIhw in;; miiiilur, tin' Niw 'ri-ciimiii i> icfirrKl In ii?* imr only tiuiili' iit rnaltirs cif icliniiiiis failli 1111(1 prarii. r. It was intniili I hv lliN n^iscrtinii. as ilic nuitrxl nil! .-'Ikiu', to i'xrlii(li> till' aiitliorlty i<t' iriiditiuii iiinl hi all iniiii>(|>iri <l rmii cliiliiiiiiK' the iiowcr to |i'i;islal" lnr lliicliunli ul' Christ. .Scvcnil writi'iK.iii idiiiiiiinlim; <>ii iIiihc niimrks, liiivi' IIiiiiikIk It tlii'ir duty .•> stati' lliiit tlie aiithnr (Iciiiis tin- (liviiii> liis|iir:iliiiii «l' llii' Old Ti'stiiiiii'iit To >ii(di nil iiiiiiiitatliiii lie docs nut lliiiik liiiiiMill raUid nii to ri'|il _ 1. .1 I i I. . v.. _ •!.. . . . I . .1. I t I I. it. . I I On page 1.% Dr. Wayiand further remarks: " \Vi' (tlic n,i|plisls) liavv always licld (o (lie (nrfrct siillli iriit y of the .Sii|itiir. ^ to tcaili us ill all matters inTtuiiiiiiK t<> ri'lii;ioii. \Vr, liiorcovi r, IhIIi'M' lliat the Ni'W Tcstiioicut.llie word s|i,iki'ii liy tin- .Son ol' (tod I'idtii Hiiivcii, and tiy the .\ihisi1cs wlioiii lir liliiiielf iii- s|>ii'i'd, was uivoii. nut to oni' nation Imt to tlii' whole liiiiiian riiee lor all coniiin: rnie. .\iul thai liy tills Word we are to dee id' ■ iiiioii the n/ilnjiilfh-iniss of every part of the nl:' n renin I ion. It is therefori' in this ^ense our only ru/i' of faitli I'Md praetiee. 'I'o every preeeiit of it we how iiii|>lii'iily as (tod's last, lust, aiiil Itiial revelation of Ins will to iiiaiikiiid." Of the four words italicised, 1 am respon.sible for the lirst three, the author himself emphasized the fourth, Mr. Sommerville siiys, " The doctrinal articles of the Haptist ("liiirches of Jiova Scotia speak wluit is in harmony with this but with less directness." lie also makes tliis strong statement,—" This j)iaces the Old Testament on the same footing with the writings of Dr. Cramp or Dr. (iiithrie." I may further add that in his " Scriptural Theology'' Dr. Cramp says : "The Inspiration of the ( )ld Testament foUtjivs from that of the New, since it is always tippealed to as divine authority by our Lord and his Apostles." Doctor Hovey, jjrincipal of Newton Theological Seminary, stales in his printed "Outlines of Theology," that "The Old Testament Scriptures were declared by (Jhrist and his Apostles to be the Word of Ciod." After discu.ssing the above declaration. Dr. H. concludes by saying "That the sacred writers were moved and a.ssisted by the Holy S(»irit to put on record all which the Bible, apart from errors in the text, now contains. As to the Old Testament, this is taught by the Saviour and his Apostles, and an to the New Testament, it i.s established by evidence previously given," A lolph Saplier, a converted Jew, is reported to have said " That the New Testament is the Holy Spirit's Commentary on the Old Testament." I'lap- tists, in common with other denominations of evangelical Christian.s, profess to regard and use it for this purpose; and by it they are enabled, to use Dr, Wayland's exact words, " to decide upon the obligatoriness of every part of the olden revelation." Truly yours, E. M. Saundeks. I (III th.' to yo and aclci feel i I I hup try III dncli tna o untoii tiadiv aiciii than frii.'iH of C niillir In aii^ put ■.i\ a vit'N fet'liii dip in AUOUMKNTS IMWl AND CON. 35 Clinrche«," in M of tlint (IIh- l«'Ht from the till' <)1<1 T<wta- of Dr. Cramp )>riMi'i|il(* oit (iciiil.x, in tliiA : lief ami prac- 7 liiit thi' Now :lu' t'oiiHiit'iice. 14 ahuut u page e unHntK'titmid , I>r. Wayland Uix ijtiotation : )ur only guiiic in 1, lis till' (illlti'Xt nil rhiiiiiin^' lht> ciii llii'sc ri'iiiiirks, niliiiii (if the Old irply. lit', llilW- iiikI tfiirliinns tif iiitli mill prurticc. I(iitiiiir> ami Ini- lii' iincrdilij; iwl- t I.H my iiituiiiiiin lit," ri|>liir. ' ici tcacli w 'l"r.-.Iii(j|('llt,lh(« lie iMIilil'lt iii- liiiu riiu-. And III'.' -n rerihitinii, iircc'lit of it we (I." •ee, the author Cliurcht'H of • lirt'ctneps." Tcstaruent on 1 Hay,'< : " The \v, since it is istles." states in liis riptures were saying "That it to put on •untains. A.s iostles, and as iven." 'hat tlie New neiit." r>ap- itians, profes.s to use Dr. every part of Saundeks. DiiAR Editor, — It was only last j'viMiiiii? thai I saw my secontl Ifttcr in \\w Wt//if.<(,'i ot Oct. 30, and Mr. Soinmervillc'rt ri'fert'iice to it. I am oMiyod to vou tor its insertion, ii.s I had ihouylit it found its way to the wa.-^tu lia.-l<t!t, and Hcciiit,' tliat Mr. S. has ([uite misiiiuhTstood it as an attack upon hi> cliar- actci, I sliould not liaft? been sorry if it had, a.s I do not wish lu hurt his feeliiiafs. Hu says I am " rnuliiiiij? rapid prot,Mcs.s in thtf school of scaiuhd." I hnpi! that it is not the ca.st*. If it ho roally m), I am very .sorry, aiul I will try lo 1)0 a lictter boy in futuiu. .Mutual recrimination i.s scarce ever pro- ductive of any f^ood, and I cannot help sayiiiff, .Mr. Kdilor, that it seems to jne one of the saddest things under the sun to see standar<l-bearers tiyhting atnoiii? themselves. The " Church militant'' is a term that is becoming nadlv true in a most umhrsiiablc sense, and no les.s stranjxe and .sad is it that around the two ordinances of Christ there has raged more religious discord than around any other two thin:,'s. " I was wounded in the house of my friends' bears a terrible si:!:nitication in these days, and the very followers of Clirist himself aie in great danger of '' cruciiying the Lord afresh and nutting Him to an open shame' through their bitterness toward each other. In any further communirationson either side, "let all bitlernessand wrath be put away," and let the matter in hand be considered coolly and caludy with a view to (Joil's glory anil not our own. I regret that rnv letter hurl Mr. S.'b feelings, there was perhaps too much aceibily in it, and henceforth I will dip my pen in honey instead of <jall if it be possible. Yours faithfully, Milton, Queen's Co., Nov. 2t, lfS75. " J. Bkown. f" MKSsEi.NiiKU," Dcpi'inlif r Ktli, 1S75.] Kvpr pjiii-e it l)ecanie so publicly known that l'rofe.«,'»or Paine, of the Con- grepitionalist Sennimry in Hangnr, taii;ilit his Theolo^dcal .students that the voice of History shewed tliat iinniersion was the original ami proper nindeof Christian lpa|)tisni, our venerable friend the Kev, Mr. SoniniervillH lias, never- theless, lieen endeavouriui,' to demonstrate tliat the voice of Scripture is op- posed to such teaching;. If he ah)np were concerned in this matter we might let all he lias said puss witliont a word of remark, but lest his bold aflirrna- tions and his confident tone should lead any iiersup to suppose that his teachings are as correct and consistent as he seems to suppose they are, wo may devote a little space to examine what he has said during the discussion, our reader may then judge for themselves as to what is the true value of his views and arguments. Mil. SOM.MKKVILLK's ('ONSI.STENCY IN COURTKSY. ITere it is, " Poor .lohn Hrowii of Cow Bay ;" there it is, " Had I known who ho was I should not have spoken of him so lightly." " I a.sk his pard'in." .Mr. iJrown complains of .Mr. S.'s style and asks him to produce, frmn the Old Testament or tiie New, proof for infant Iiaptism ; Jlr. .Sommervilie re- plies by telling him that " he is makinu rajiid progress in the School of Scandal." Refuri'ing to a Baptist Minister, but mistaken in his man, he asperses him with the chartje of " contemptibiL' trickery ;" and the elegant simile of " stop thief " is made, />y j'/<e liev. Mr. SununeniUe, to do ilitty in cliiiracteri/ing us, yet the same Mr. Sommervilie complains that it is insinu- ated that he is Rabshakeh, and that he has not yet read the Acts fif the Apostles carefully ; yes, it is the same Mr. S. who makes these complaints, that charges Baptists with being " blindfclded, cabletowed, and swear what they are told." WHAT Mil. SO.MMERVILLE DOES SEE, AND WHAT HE DOES NOT .SEE. He sees that Jesus did not command .John to baptize him, as we had said, by the way, and not critically. When the Saviour applied to John for baptism, "John forbad him," and, on Jesus saying, " Suffer it to be so now " — a verb in S6 BAPTISMAL IMMERSION NOT OF GOP. the imperative — he baptized him. To sift all the impemtive out of tfii8 ie sharj), we will not ,-ay hypercritical exercise in exegesis ; ami il is ahu iiotablj' supertlnoiis ; iis the matter of its beiiif< a command out and out, or a re({ue3t partakino; of the nature of a command, does not touch esf*enliully the matter in hand. We had inferred that the Lord took the Supper with his disciple?, and so expressed ourss'lves ; not, however, t^roundin^ on the Htatemt-nt tl;at the fact we had undertaken to pstabli.sh, and did indeed establi.«li. Our inference that our Lonl particijtatfd by ealinfjf and drinking', in the Supper, was drawn from the exprest^ion, " 1 will drink no more of tlu' fruit of the vine," etc., an ex- piession used by our Lord hi the dose of the Supper. Mr. S. •' finds that it is not true." Here a^ain is evidence of nice and lalxmred diHcriniination on a matter tliat in no way affects our ar^nuuent. Our statement was, by tiie way, Mr. S. ileclares his decision as the ilecision of acriti(! after critical txauuna- tion. He is jioailive. In fact, as Ile/ekiah says, " He can dogmatise." Asa mirror, in whi(di to see the arrogance of his own ipi^edixit, we will hold up to his eyes the opinion of no less a man than the dis.tinguished and sciiolarly Abbott—Pedoluvplisl -of Harvard L'niversity, who says on the point, " Hi's (Christ's) own paitakinu of the Eucliarist }j;iive still further sanction of His injunction tint his disciph's," etc. As we cannot be trustetl, we refer not to our impartial and intelliijent readers, but to Mr. Sommerville, who says, "I hold him (Ed. of Me/<!^.) utterly unreliable," we take the lil)erty of directing the attention of the Rev. Mr. S., that he may verify our extracts, to the article on Baptism by ^Ir. .M)bott in Smith's 13ible Dictionary. We may also take tlie occasion to remark that we do not feel certain which of the two learned gentlemen is correct in this matter. Furthermore, on the authority of (nul's word, 2 Kings v. 10 — " Go wash in Jordan seven times," and 14th verse, "Then went he down and dip|)ed himself seven tinu-s in .Jordan, according to tiie saying of the man ot God," we stated that >i'a'iman was commanded to dip himself seven times in Jordan. Mr. Sommerville says, Naaman xnis not cuimiiinnhd to dii) seven times, or once, in Jordan." He surtdy did dip himself, and it was done acconling to the say- ing of the man of God — «'. e. according to God's comniiind. We fully agree with Mr. S. tiiat all human assertions should be tried by the A\\)rd of God. He shall iiave the full benefit of it in tins case. According to the saying of the man of God, Xaaman rlippprl ,• acrording to the saying of Mr. S., '' He is at perfect liberty to perform the ablution as he pleased." According to the saying of the man of («od he dijjpcd /lintself ; according to the saying of Mr. tf., " Ha nnght have dipped the part all'ecteil." How dof'S Mr. S. know that the disease was local !' According to ti)e saying of tiie man of (iod he dip/x'd /ii>nsc/f t*i'\vu times in Jordan ; acconling to the saying of .Mr. S., "He might have laved the water on the diseased jiart." Accin'ding to the saying of tiie man of God, he dipped; according to the saying of Mr. S(nnmerville, " He might have .s/^/vW.Vrt/ iiimself seven times." What he did do was "according to tiie saying of the man of God ;"accoiding to the saying of Mr. S., " He might have erred through ignorance or reck- lessness." For saying that Xaaman was commanded to dip in Jordan we arc charged by Jlr. S. with " liaiidling the W(jrd of God deceitfully." Mr. S. will have Scripture interpret Scripture. He is shy of human literature, especially for the sake of tlie people. Wo object not. Here (lod commands Naaman to do something. King James' scholarly servants dress the command, as given, in the word ' wasli," the command as obeyed, in the word "dii)ped." Mr. S. gets out on the " Fi.ooits " ot these translat(M's by going into tlie " showers," a rendering of his own. We might suggest " bathe " for " wash " in the case in hand and jierhaps be more coiTect than Mr. S. is in his attempt to get rid of " Fi.oons ;■' but we shall leave things as they are, and remind .Mr. S. that he ignores (iod's detinition of the comiuand given to Naaman, for tlie obey- ing of it is graphically described and endorsed by (iod, and sub.-titutes in its place a series of conjectures, having not even reason, but simply fancy as their self. for a and il is (I .s/ dipii UliUi' dark I Til no UH to hoi nectei ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON. 37 e out of tfii'fl h- I is al;.u iKttahlj' lit, or a retjuest ully tlie matter isi'iple?, ami so It U:at tlie faot r iufcrenct' that vas drawn from 111'," etc., an ex- ' finds tliat it is 'iiiiinatioM on a k'a.s, l>y tilt! waj% 'itical fcxaiiiina- ;;niatit(e." As a will liold up to [ and sc-iiolarly he point, " His sanction of His ve refer not to !, who says, " I 'ty of directing ts, to the article lot feel certain — " Go wash in dip|)ed liiniself -iod," We .-lated n Jordan. Jlr. time.^, or once, lint; to the say- \'e fully a^ree AVord of God. ; according to ablution as lie ppcd himself; l>art affected." to the saying cordinf^ to the liseased part." ordinj4 to the .seven tiniea." 1 ;" according ance or reck- e are charged S. will have especially for Naanian to do ii.-< given, in l"'d." Mr. S. If " showers," in the case iipt to get rid id y\v. S. that I'lr the ol)ey- -iili.'litutes in uply fancy as their author. Air. S. does not see that God commanded Naaniau to dip him- self. DICTUM FIRST PERISHKS BY AN OPPONENT. Naaman dipped and was Messed ; the priests dipped the ltiv<ls and blessings came. Ashers foot was dipped in oil and his house was blessed. Prie.'its di})ped themselves, in the temple-service, and were blessed in it. Alas, Mr. S., for a score or more of years, ha.s, we are informed, been ringing out, in private anil in public, from the chimney corner and from the puli)it tiiat iuimer.iion is a si/)iiliol of irn'medi((hle dcstnicfii))) ; hence these desi)erate efforts to divorce dipiJings from l)lessings, and yoking them with judgments and cursings, and, uiider tlie I'edobaptist lash of "sprinkle forever," to drive dipping into outer darkness ! Tiiis dictum however old, however dear, is gone, let us hope to be heard of no more : and it would be far better for ilr. S. to bid it adieu, than to try to hold it l)|V quibbling about the blessing not being " in " the dip, but con- nected " with " the ilip. WHAT VVK DID TEACH AND WHAT WE DO TEACH. Mr. S. says we teach ' that immersion originated with the liaptisni of Christ which be ( wp) does not believe, and did not intend to teach ? ' Mr. S. states what he cannot substantiate.* Agiiiii we are coiiii)elled to confront Mr. S. in his huge efforts to escape the pressure brought to bear upon hiui. We cut all his ancient dippings, wash- ings and siirinklings from the gospel-day church baptism, and we challenge him to bring fi-om (loil's word a command, an example or authority of any kind by which to link the bai)tism of .Kilin and Christ with anything that went before ; and he finds himself face to face with a hoi»eless, impossible task. We are not ai a loss to understand the veiled meaning of those dex- terous ex])Iuits in interpretation of such matters as to wdiether Chri.-?t ate tue Supper himself, or whether he requested or commanded John to bapli/e him —matters that touch not the vitals of the ([uestion. The main ([uestion must not be trifled with ; it must not be evaded, .\gain, we atlirm that the Lord's !>ui)i)er of this dispensation did not exist in either of the old economies. Mr. 8. admits this. Again we alKrm that Christian baptism, tl e ba|)tisni of Christ's church of this dispensation had no existence in the old di^})ensations. God ordered, for the tabernacle and temiile-.service, si)rinklings, dii)pings, anointings and various perforuiauces ; but the ba])tism Of the Christian church is not there. We do not d.eny that the Jews had a ili]) unto Moses, that birds were dipped, that priests were dipped and sprinkled ; but what we say is that, in the old dispensation, there is no liaptism recognized, of which John's liaptism is a recognized and ac- credited extension ; of wdiich the baptism of Christ by John, and the baptism of Christ's ilisfiples by Christ's disciides are declared repetitions. Here we are pleased to hold Mr. Sommerville to his own terms- Keep in t^ie Hiide. Will Mr. 8. give us from (iod's word biqitism such as John's and Christ's be- fore the day;; of John and Chri.-t i-" Mr. S. must remember these bajttisms were away from the tiunple, igmu-ed the temple-service, and were, in the one case, unto repentance and for the remission of sins, and, in the other, w hen *I can. As in suljsciiuiiit li'tters it is not particularly noticed, I now mcot tliis assertion. Octolier (■), 1S7-"), we road : — " Ciud telLs us wlieru Clirislian l)aiilis; i originated, and liy wlioui it originali'd. .lesii.s was immersed in llie >Iiirdan liy Jolin." ('omi)aic witli this:— "He aie tlie sup|i"r liiinsell', and tliiis it liad ii-i (u-i),'in." He is a(U'mi)tinK to indicate an analogy be- tween tlie origination of lininefsion and tlie Lord's Stipjier, and tluis iiniiitciiti'niiill(/ teaelus tliut imiiiersion liad its beginning in Cliri.st's liaptism. Without confessing his mistake be tries to notify it on Decemlicr S. " I5a|itism was institiitccl by Cluist— to prevent tin- o|ii)u'-- tiiiiily of (|uil)liliiig— let us give tlio wliole" space, troiii the lirst dip uf Jidin to the first dip on the day of I'entecost as tlie lime In wliieli ('luistian liaptism originated.'' The wisdi :ii of the wise ! 1 38 BAPTISMAL IMMERSION NOT OF GOD. \ fully developed, were in the name of tlie Fatlier, and of the Son, and of the Holy (Jhost. Tn his letter of November 19lh, Mr. S. attempts to jtrove liy some sort of analo<j;y between "oneboi)e," "one Lord" and "one faith," whicli strfieh away back over tlie old diHpenf'ation, tliat "one baptism " synfhmni/.es witli them. JUit his i)aptism is sprinkling here, and it is cireunicision when he dt'als with infants. Here are two. Whi(di one does Mr. S. f;;ive uj) on the 19th of November, IS?;')? Show us that either of them has eome to Christ's church. lioos Mr. S. knoiv zvhat he himself believes, what he does fcdck, and vhaf. he (lopa nut intend to teach i From the Bible we try to hold him obligated to show where there was baj)- tism in the Mosaic dispen.sation of \vhi(di the baptism of John and the bap- tism of the Christian cduirch is an extension 'i The Lord's Sui)per was instituted by Christ on the eve of his crucifixion. Baptism was instituteil by Christ — to jn-event the opportunity of (luibbling — let us give the whole space, from the first dip of John to the first dip on the day of I'entecost, as the time in which Christian baptism originated. Back of that Mr. S. niiiy show us, if he can, from the Bible, a man preaching as John did, men preaching as the apostles did, anil, apart from temple and tab- ernacle-service, bai)tiy.ing those who received their doctrines! ! Will Mr, S. please dispose of that bit of labor, before lie goes into the scenes of bleeding beasts and sju-inkling priests, to find the definition of a rite that did not have an existence in that day. DICTUM SECOND Pli:ilISIIES BY THK ir.AND OF ITS .AUTUOIl. This is the one ruled out by its author as useless. Here it is. " We can never learn the design or form of an ordinance by the name given to it." We <lenounce it as unbaptist. Mr. S. says he does not state that Baptists, " reck- less as are many of their statements." ever held to such a doctrine. Who does hold it? Do l^eilo-bajitists!-' Mr. S., taken as a representative, does not admit it. Why lay it down then ? Why write a long iiaragrai)h of (dial- lenges to Baptists to prove immersion in this way? Mr. S. seems unwilling to reveal his design. The attempt was to leave the impression that Baptists obtain tlieir views of baptism from the name of the ordinance; for Mr. S. .says, " it is too notorious to be denied that their main argument in support yyi immersion is derived from the meaning of the word haptizer To ascertain the meaning of baptize in all its actual relations and uses, where it is used in .scores of places, many of wdiich are detailed and graphic descriptions, and to get the nu'aning from the simple name of the onlinance, Mr. S. himself will not fail to see, are ipiite different things. We thmg back the insinua- tion ; Mr. S. pleads innocence, and so pronounces by implication, the dictum itself useless ; and so the insinuation and the thing that insinuates go out of existence. WHAT MR. SOMMKIIVILLK DID .SAV, AND WHAT WE DID SAY. Here are the words of Mr. S. in his first article, " Must it then appear im- possible that there should arise, evenunderthe eyes of the apostles, men who, dissatisfied with Jewish sprinkliiif/s, thought this advanceil ili-ipeiisation demanded something more grand and imposing, and insisted that tlie di.s- ciides should all be dipped?" In another article Mr. 8. says, " Suppose that it is fully ascertained and admitted that baptism hy sprinhhmj was ridiculed by the devil's ministers * * * abandoned, and immersion * * substituted in its room." In referring to this and giving the substance, not the exact words, we said, " He (Mr. S.) undertakes to guess how immersion originated." ".Men arose under the eyes of the apostles who were dissatisfied with sprinklings, and demanded that the discij^les should bo dipped." These words, says Mr. S., " Are ftn nidrnthful rrprrsentrition of both mi/ W(,rd« and 1111/ ideas." But this Mr.Sommervillo, wli ),on account of Hie above, makes sweej iii'.ke acci'p and from tists Tlie »{ from back AR(;UMENTS I'liO AND CON. 3f) i Son, and of the )y some sort of ' wliicli stretch nclirdiii/.es with iicisioii wlicii lie fjive up nn the c!ome to Christ's 'li, and what he, e there was hai> lin ami the hap- his crucifixion. ' of (luiMiliiiy — first (lip oil the i^nnatcd. P.ack an preaching as Leniple and tah- !! Will Mr. S. les of hleeiiing lat did not have UTiion. it is. " Wo can ven to it." We ?aptif*ts, " rt'ck- loctrine. Who sentative, does a^'raph of chal- eeni.s unwilling n that Jiai)tists nee ; for Mr. S. lent in support To ascertain e it is used in ^criptions, and Mr. S. hiiiiself \ the insinua- )ii. the dictum ites go out of III SAY. on appear im- tles, men w ho, di-<iieiisation that tl.'e di.s- Sujipo.'*!' that was ridiculed ■'iihstituted in ords, we said, " Men arose •inklinf.i;3, and hoth mij words above, niakea I 4 sweeping charges, does not fail to disjilay rare courage in an atteni])t to ni'.ke the readers of the Prcxhytfrian M'itne.'is believe that Baptists do not, accejit the Old Testament as divine authority ; and, to sustain this audacious and heavy ciiarge, adduce.s a garbled extract, wrung from its connection, from Dr. Wayhuid's writings, and a hare reference to the arti(des of the Bap- ti.-^ts of tlie.se provinc(!s, l)ut does not give even a garbled (jiuUation f.vom them. The K'!v. Mr. Saiinrlers, in the TrZ/H.^.s-.s- of last week, gives some full e.\lra(;ts from accepted sources, wdiich rolls thi:* unwarrantable and monstrous charge back ujwn its aut lior. \ H.M.F AD.MrssiOX. HALF A l.O.VF HKTTKR THAN NO BHKAD. "The word," (baptize) says ]\[r. S., " expresses covering, wholly covering, but still covering as opposed to ilipping or immersion." Tlien he adds, " Tlie Kd. M. may now prepare himself for rare fun." In the same connexion he undertakes, having in mind the overflowing of tlie shores by the tide, to ex- pre.s.-i which Ari.itotle uses tlie word baptize, to show how sprinkling can coiiu! into tile phice of the word tiiul means " covering and wholly covering." lie thinks it is easy and simph\ This is the solution. " 11 /mi vafer is f^yntholicdUji applied, a parfud apjilication, a few drops, thp sprai/ dashed from tlte branch of liyssop, unit as fui/i/ ausirer the conditions ofhaj)tism, in its widest sense, as (dl the waters of the Atlantic." Mr. 8. tlid the italicisinf/. To justify this Mr. S. refers to the ordinance of sprinkling by the priest to cleanse the leprosy. But the word directing tlie jiriest meant sprinJde, the word that directs .\fr. S., according to his own delinition, means to corer, to wholhj cover with water. Now we shall ask Mr. S. two (|iiestions antl he will deny neither their ])ertinence nor thtdr importance. Would the priest have obeyed (Jod. had he covered the leprous jierson with the fluid instead of spruikliiig him P If not, does the Rev. Mr. .'>ommerville obey God, when, in- stciiii of covering the subject of baptism, he only applies to it a few drops of the fluid 't Neither the priest of the old dispensation, nm- the preacher of tliis dispen- sation has any authority for adding to or taking from God's word. Out of his own mouth, we convict Mr. Soiumerville of departing from the phiin lit- eral instructions, received from the highest source in tlie universe, and re- ceived in connexion with the greatest mntter that engages the mind of God, angels and men. It is futile for Mr. S. to further attempt to darken counsel by vain reasonings; and we hope, in the light of the following fact, he iiini- self may lie convinced : -Rev. .Mr. Boggs, one of our missionaries in India, rotates that while on a tour to a distant part of that field, a young man was found who had olitained the Scriptures, and by them had lieen h'd to Christ. lie asked for bapusm. Rev. Mr. McLaurin en([iured how he wished to be baj'tized. He was confused and did not understand. Mr. McL. explained to him that some Christians baiitized by sprinkling, etc. It had never entered his iniud. He saw in God's word that it was his duty to he baptized, and that immersion was the mode. He was bajdized. Iliid Mr. Soiumerville been there he would have felt it his duty to have led this converted heathen back to the ohl ilisjiensation, through a dark ftu'est of iinsulistantial reasonings to show him that what he had plainly seen in God's word did not exist there, anil thai he must be sprinkled. ["Witness," \)w. 10, l.s";-;.] THE VOICE OF SCRIPTURE ON BAPTISM. Mn. EniTou, — It iiiay have been observed that in my last letter T have taken a staml in direct opjiosition to Dr. Cramivs pompous and dictatorial as- .sertion respecting the mode of tiajitism. He imts the (iiiestion, " 1]l((d do the Lexicons say about Bai'TIZO P They all say that its primary meaning is to dip, plmiye, immerse. No learned man will risk liis reputation by aflirming the contrary." A good Oriental scholar, well learned in Hebrew and (Jreek, -to HAl'TISMAL IMMERSION NOT OF 0(>n. in a tiiict lieacU'd, Baptism lersus I.mmkhsiox, wyn, " I really iln iidt know any heresy (which wonl I use in its proper ()ri<{inal sen.^e, i. v., oi)iiii()ii), in the Christian church tluit lia.-^ less to l)ase itself upon than that of iimnvr- sioii, yet its ailvocatea are found usini; tlie most reckle.-s statenu'nts, wliieh liave i^aineil <,M'oiin(l among critics and lexico^'raphers (wlio ^'enenilly fol- low each other like a flock of sheep)— entirely by the hoMiu'ss of the as- sertion." To say that Dr. Crani]), as a linguist, is inferior to the author from whom I quote, is not to (lispara<;e his literary re])Utation. Tiiere has been a great deal said respectinf; the concessions whicli l'e<lo- hajitists have made to Baptists on the subjects buth of immersion and in- fant ha})tism. This is a department of controversial literature to which I have jiaid very litvie attention for several reasons. (I.) I'edo-l)ai)tists, as well as others, have said foolish tilings; ^ome from ignorance; some from inconsideration ; some because others have said the same things before them. I have said numy foolish things myself I I and proliably would have said many more, oidy that I have had the ]jrivilege of being carefully watched. (2.) I am not to be held responsible for vviiat other Fedo- baptists have said. (3) There is still another reason. My library lias not been so extensive as to enable me to verify the quotations nuule from I'edo-baptist writers, and inverted commas are not suilicient eviilence that citations have been fairly made. "We have no hesitation in saying that such fatal concessions as our opponents preten<l to adduce have never been made by Pedo-baptists, and that the authors referred to have been unfairly treated." (Thorn.) I accept this testimony more readily because the Ed. M. has ascribed to nu^ words, j'lacing them under inverted com- mas, which I never used. He has ascribed to me sentiments which I never uttered. lie has represented the Saviour as commanding John to immerse him, when he did not command him even to hai)tize him. His mind WHS so preoccupied witli the conceit of an analogy between the origination of the Lord's supper and i»imersioii, that he completely forgot himself, and taught that .iesus was the ^/irst permn immersed, and that; then and there, God ceased to sprinkle and substituted immersion. lie has mis(iuoted the Bible by representing Xaaman as commanded to dip himself when he was only commanded to wash. I can easily excuse the addition of himself, as in 2 Kings, v. 14, the word is supplieil by the translators witiiout being printed in italics. He ha stated twice that our Lord jiartook, with his dis- ciples, his own supper, of which there is not a particle of evidence in ^Lat- thew, Mark, Luke, or Paul, or anywhere else, except in \.\h>. Christian Meii- seiapT. Will the Kd. 3/. come out and fairly, ftdly, and iionorably confe.ss that he has done me injustice by miscjuotingmy words, and misrepresenting my sen- timents ; that he has sinned against (lod by a false translation of his word, and ascribing to the Lord .Iesus actions which he never did h We shall see. A frank and full confession, such as the case demarids, he dare not make. It would shake the confidence of his Baptist readers too nuich to be soon re- covered, if ever. Ile/.ekiah says I am an unfair disputant. Is it beca\ise I cannot accept Baptist assumptions as yV/c^s; because I point out the fallacy of their reasonings, detect blunders and call things by their jiroper names ^ ATl(',UMENTS PRO AND CON. 41 i- (In not know !., opinion), in lat of itnincr- Muents*, \v!iicli pjenfi'iilly i'ol- U'.S8 oF tlu' as- lo tlio Hiitlior inn. 1 Nvhicli I'edo- eit-ion and in- re to whic'li 1 o-haptists, as •e ; sonif from tliin<jf8 before y would have iiif^ carefully : otlier Pedo- lirary liad not IS iiunle from evidence tiiat n saying' that e hftvo never to have been [adily because verted com- nt.s which I ing John to His luind r)ri;^dnation of liitiself, and n and there, lit-iiuoted the when ht> was hiiitaclf, as tlioiit being ith his dis- iire in ]\Iat- Itristidii \]ei)- ifess that he iiij; my .sen- if hi.s word, rt'e shall see. it make. It l)e soon re- it because I the fallacy ior names 'i i If not, let IT. point out iu wliat I am unfair. I have challenged him, but he makes no sign. Before entering on the N. T. references to liaptism, I presume (1) that I do not e\i>ect to fin<l a direct statement of the mode of baiitism. .A le Ed. M. has been foreed to admit, it is an ordinance of the 0. T., and to that we must come to learn its nature, de<iign, and form. Still, if the X. T. furnish conclusive evidence, 'Hrect or inferential, in favor of immersion, I hope to be ':!uaiiled to accept it unhesitatingly. (2). Symbolii'al ordinances are addressed to the underddiuVm'g, not to the mifujiiutthun. The ancient church must have a pictorial representation of spiritual things, and therefore immersion was in favor ; and canilidates for l)aptisi'i must be divested of all clothing, be dipped, and put on new garments, to represent the putting off the old man and putting on the new. And Rome, destitute of spiritual senses, must have her images, crucifixes, pictures of the mother and child, and of the s.tints. Chambers of imagery are always .icceptable to those who are strangers to the simi)licity of the gospel, and love sensational and exciting scenes. The present prevailing love of excitement and parade will explain the modern rage for dipninff. Xoah and his family were saved by water. Their salvation was a figure, not vf ajiijtire, but of the baptism whici. saves us by the resurrection of Jesus Chri.-t. They wvre saved by escapii.g immersion. The world was immersed &\n\ perished. To this /Vrc* we may have to refer in connection with infant baplism. WeAvfo//- that the Israelities, after leaving Egypt, were baptized in the cloul anil in the sea, and we /cnoiv that there was not one of them im- mersed. —Dr. Cramp says, " Neither did they enter the cloud, nor were they wetted hy the waters of the sea ; but thej nssed under both." I'aul saj'S the Israelites were all /?; the cloud, when they were baptized. -IIow ihey could he in the cloud without erUerint/ into it is above my comprehension. The Apostle says also, they were in the sea when they were baioti/ed. I can- not understand how they could be immersed in the sea and not netted hy its waters. Then John might have immerseil in Jordan, and yet none of the peo- ple been wetted with its waters. This is a notable anil very pleasant discovery, if it could only iie reduced to practice. Paul says, all passed through the sea. Dr. C. says they were under the sea. This is new. The waters must have been tunneUed. But the plain prosaic language of the Apostle is all a figure, — an alleyory ; but " the allegory is obviously not to be pressed minutely." This is the sword by which the Baptist controversalist cuts every go'dian knot which he cannot loose. "The Israelites were not literally baptized," saj-s Dr. C. Then, it follows, they did not literally eat mannp., did not literally drink the water from the rock. I prefer the testimony of the Apostle to Dr. C.'s. Their />ffy)<is»i was literal. Their food was literal. Their drink was literal. And all these have spiritual import. It is a fact, as well authenticated as that the Israelites passed tlirough the sea, that, when that event took place, "the clouds poured out water." " God did sprinkle " the Israelites — he baptized them. If Dr. C. hail recollected this he would have been spared umch em- barrassment, but he would have lost his dip. John baptized in Jordan ; and in Enon because there was nuich water there. Not to dwell on the prepossession in the Jewish mind arising out of their familiarity with the ceremonial law in favour of living water, — water from 42 BAl'TISMAL I.MMKRSION NOT OF GCU). tlio rivtT or tlio sprinp;,— if watpv was needeil for no otIi< . .4 .pose than ha[>- tisiii, tlip HL'lL'ction of Jordan or Kiidii niiii;lit fiirnisli a plausilile, tlimi^di not decisive, evidenoi' for iiniiiersion. We uiiiMt fjive John, or rather the Spirit hy whom lie was directed, cretlit for a measure of common sense. Wlien tliou- sands were attendinijf his ministry it would liave Heen worse than madness to choo.se a phice where tiie people couM not tind water to d.rink.or for purposes of personal ahhilions, John, however, was not the only bapti/er. During our Lord's ministry he, (or ids disciples,) as rejwited to the Fliari9<>es, made and l)apti/.ed more disciples than John. Hut iv/icre tiiey haptized we are not toM in .Scripture. The BaiitidtiXviU tcU us. After I'entecost we have refer- ence to baptism in Jerusalem, in Saniari((, in a prinon, in a private /lonse. Whenever persons are brought to a knowledije of the trutli they are baptized. There are no ditliculties, no pre])arations to be made, no want of water, even insinuated. Ail are reaily. Tlie baptism is iiiinifdiate. How do Uaplists reconcile all this with immersion P liy uddiwj fothe word of <iod. If that word is not sulUcient For its own iuterpretaiion, it is not a lamp to the feet and a lij;ht lo the i)ath. Nothing can be n»ore absurd, improbable, and arroi:ant, than the suppositions that Baptist advocates iutroiluce to e-xjilain the records of baptisms consistently with their practice ; nothing more pre- sumptuous than their additions to the Divine narrative. Assuming tlie per- manence of the instituted motle of baptism, everything is plain, simple, and the scripture narrative is sufficiently full and i' ellectual. If Haptist reason- era are justified in introducing uninspired records and bcdd and baseless assertions to make the Scrii)tur.s teach tlieir d(u trine, why should Rome be denied her apocrypha and traditions I-' "Deceiving and being deceived," they proclaim thejjerfection of the Divine word, and are not satisfi-d to be limited by its facts. They hey'm by a^suudng that immersion is the mode of baptism— is l)apti8in, and God must accept the assumption. A very popular, but not very comdusive, evidence in favor of immersion, is derived from going down into the water and coming up out of the water. I give the Baptists the full benefit of the authorized translation info and out of. It is manifest that going into the water is noi the baptism. Tliat is something which takes place between the going into the wat'^r and the coming out of it. '* They went down both into the water, both Philip and the Kuuuch, and he baptized him. .Kiv\ when they were come up out of the water—." The argument is this : if baptism is ailminislered by sprinkliny there was no need of going into the water, or even to it, and therefore baptism must be immer- sion. A hasty inference, certainly. Most people think that to drinl means to swallow some liquid ; but this is a great nuslake. The word may mean that sometimes, but sometimes it means to be immersed. A horse goes into the water, he drinks, and then comes out of the water. But as a sufficient quantity of water, to quench his thirst, might have been given him in a pail, therefore, when he goes into the water it nuist be to t)e immersed, and drinking means in that case immersion. Q. E. D. — Some n)ay say, O, Mr. S., this is all nonsense. I know it is -nonsense — unequalled nonsense; but this is the nonsense that Baptists are exiiected to accej)t as scriptural teaching and sound logic. This may be called unyentle- manh), has been so called. It seems a gentleman may talk nonsense and be a gentleman still, but to hint that he has talked nonsense is unyentlemanly. A non awe yen Wi Hit- uf an. olos •4 ARGUMKNTS PRO AND CON. 43 ..pose tlinn bap^ il)le, thouf^h not ler tlie Spirit liy p. Wlieii Ihou- tlinii iiiivlius.-< to , or for jnirposea ipti/er. During I'lmrisfts, nimle izfil we are not we have refer- a private fionse. ley lire baptizeil. t of water, even low do Uaptifits f (ro(L If that imp to the feet ni probable, and (hu-c to explain tiling luore pre- ;u!iiin^ tlie per- lin, simple, and • Haptist rcason- ild and baseless hould Runie be leing deceived," .«ati:^fi:'d to be i.* the mode of ' immersion, is the water. I itifo and out of. lat i» souiethiug iiiinLj out of it. luiuiL'h, and he water—." The ■re was no need luist be imnier- uid ; but this is •ometimes it and then comes ench his tlurj^t, into the water \mersion. Q. E. is — nonsense-- re expected to ailed umjeiitle- isense auil be a entlemanbi. A voiinensiral (jentlemnn! There are lying gentlemen— rfw/foncs^ gentlemen — swedriiuj gentlemen -rfy«HA;p« gentlemen— //«/>(«/•<> gentlemen accepted as gmtlrincti by professing Chri^tians and in a Christian land. I'ugh I If Jesus were to ajipear in Xova Scotia as lie appeared in Palestine he would not be accepted in the ranks oi yentlemen. You might find him dining at the table uf a rich Pharisee, but he would not get a second invitation. Ilia impudence and rudene.ss would exclude him. Bapthnuil Ouruil in my next, and unless something new coiiie up tluit will close uiy argument on the mode of baptism for the present. Somertiet, Dec. 3, 1875. \V. Sommkra'illk. [" Witness," Dec. 18, 187,5.] "THE VOICE OF SCRII'TrRE OX BAPTISM." Mr. Kditor. — Not having seen three or four of the \as\.Jl'ltin:ssis, 1 do not know wlieu Mr. Sommerville chan^ied the title of liis lettei.« on the above (subject fiom •' History'" to •' Scripture.'' aiul fur the same reason ilo not know what Sciiptuie he advances in favur of infant baptism. With your pcriiii-s- nion 1 will say a little ou his letter of Xov. 27th; and as i am tuld Mr. S. is '• along in years considerable," and as Paul says. '' Rebuke not an eld'.M'. hut entreat iiirn as a father."" I will be as gentle as poi^siblc and follow Paul's advice, for wliile iu -^ome things •' it is more blessed to •jive tlian to receive,'" in others it ii more blessed to receive than to give such appellations as are sadly abundant iu Mr. S.'s letters, to wit, when falsely applieil. The Saviour has a wortl on that subject in Matt. v. 1 1, 12. But this is a digression, now for an aimiment : 1. ••One Baptism,'' Eph. iv. 5. The connexion in which these words stand show that moile is not at all referreil to, but the thing itself. Paul is for mtinn. and uses this among others as an aiirument, "baptized into Christ, " Gal. iii. 27. 28. If this be coitect all that Mr. S. has built on the meaning he gives it comes to nothing. 2. .Mr. S. ([uoles Isa. Hi. 15, •' He shall sprinkle many nations,"' adding, " This points to the New Testament dispensation."' Does he mean b) this tliat we are therefore to sprinkle children? \Vl)"»ever he may mean, that verse, according to the LXX. has nothi ig about s irinkling. The word tran.s- lated sprinkle is thauma-^ontai, so that it might read thus, •' So shall inanv nations wonder at him, and kings shall sfiiit their mouths," etc. In Coverdale"s Bible. (1535). it reads. '' Even so shall the muliilude of the Gentiles loke unto him." Parkhurst puts it, " So shall he cause many nations to leap ( for admiration and holy astonishment)." 3. Mr. S. (piotes Ezek. xxxvi. 25, " I will sprinkle clean water upon you," adding, •• This refers to thf:.'e last days." The word here is rano not baptizo. and does not refer to these la.st days. Reading that chapter and forgetting baptism, it will be ea.sily seen that the •' House of Israel " is meant. Verse ;W reads, ''In the days that I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities. I will also cause you to dwell in the cities, and the wastes shall be builded."' Read from verse 25 to the end, and I think it will be prettv clear whether Mr. S.'s conclu.<ion is right or not. 4. Mr. S. .says again, " Their main argument in support of immersion is derived from the meaning of the word baptize." For my part the meaning of the woril itself is enough, but whatever .strength there is in that, my main argument is founded on the adaptation of immersion to what it is intended to represent, as shown in Rom. vi. 3-11 : Col. vi. 12, lo. 5. The quotation from Isa. Ixiv. 3. "I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and showers upon the dry ground; I will pour my spirit upon thy 44. BAPTISMAL IMMERSIO!^ NOT OF GOD. seed," etc.. according to LXX. reads, " I will give water in (tiieir) thirst to those travelling in desert laiid, I will pour,"' etc. I do not profess to be araoiij; Mr. Seidell's learned friendfi, nor do I write in his defence, that he is himself well able to tlo if he please. Imt I pre^-ume he is actini,' on Hezekiaii"? advice. I have a wish, however, to be amorirr Mr. ^.'a/riends, esp<»cially in the light of the first paragraph of the letter referred to, particularly the end of »aid parasrraph. Yours truly, J. Browm. ["Witness," Dec. 25, 1873.] Dkar Eon or — Before you finally decide to 8tt)pthe discussion on baptism will you do me the favor of preseiiiing for tlie benefit of all whom it may concern, a few passages bearing on the subject, t should tlirn be obliged if Mr. Sommerville will present those bearhig on Infant Baptism, and let your readers jutlgo for themselves who >hoiild be baptized and how We profp*» to take the Bible for our irnide, and 1 cio not tbirk there is anything unfair iri mv propt).-ition. Here thev are without note or comment, Matt. ill. '-17. Mark xvi. 15, 16. John iii. 22. 23: iv. 1, 2. Acts ii. 37-42; viii. 12-16. ;l5-3(); ix. IS; X. 44-48: .vvi. i:}-15. 40; xvi. 32-34: xviii. 8. 1 Cor. i. 10, 17; xvi. 15. Romaus vi. 3-5. Gnl. iii. 27. Col. ii. Vi. I have omitted some for the sake of your space ; your readers can find them by their reference bibles. Yours, faithfully, Milton, Queens Co.. Dec. 14, 1875. i J. Browx. r-WEsLEyAX," Jan. 1, ISTfi.] Dkar Sir,--! thank the olitor of the P. Wifness for tlie insertion of my previous letters. But as he thinks the arguments not likely to do any goo<l. and wishes to close his columns against the discussion at the end (^i^ the year, you will oblige m^ t»y giving a place in i/our columns to the following in- tended for tlie Pri'.'^bi/terum Witness. « BAPTLSTS AND THE RULE OF FAITH. Mr. Editor,— As the Rev. E. M. Saunders, in his letter of Dec. 4th begin?" with a rept-tition of my words, a<!orned with all tlioir italic flowers, so do I. " I want to know whether the Bapti^ls of Nuva Scotia own the Old Te-*tanient as a Rule of Faith and Practice at all. I have a strong opinion that they do not." If I had a strong opinion before having read his letter, I have a stronger opinion now, — one amounting to full conviction — that they do not. \q,- customed to look upon my old friend, Mr. S., as possessed of a large mea.*uie of "simplicity and go<lly sincerity," I am inexpressibly pained to find that he is breathing an atmosphere unfavorable to the maturation of either, and that he is capable of sul>scribing a communication so evasive, so unscrupulous, and so deceptive. His letter is a siiecimen of evasiveness as i)erfect, as if he hafl been educated in the best equipped school of Ultramontanism. The editor of the Messenger has blundere<l so excessively, and committeil himself so fully, that an effective vindication of lii.s position is iinpoasihlf, and to confess his errors would ruin his reputation and influence. The prof)ability however, is that he will, some of these days, attempt the impossibility, and make brass do duty in the absence of argument. For the nieautime, Mr. S. vo- lunteers, or is stimulated, to make a diversion in his favor, and give him leisure ARdl'MKNTS PRO AXD D)X. 4'» lieir) thirst to r do I write iu F presume he ti amoriir Mr, letter reterred J. Browv. in on baptism whom it may 1 beohlii^ed if and let your We profes* hiiifi- unfair in att. iii. .',-17, ; viii. 12-1»>^ 8. I Cor. i. can find them J. Bro^tn. 3rtion of my lo any good. i (n'^ tlieyear, ol lowing in- 4th begins ers, 3o do I. ITejstament that t/iei/ do ve a dronyer NOT. Aq- ■ge measure find tliat he er, and that ipulous, and as if he had committed yoa-'.ihlf, and lirohahility ■iliility, and Mr. S. To- hiiu leisure lo recover Lis composure, or call in his distant auxiliaries. Let him do what he cam ; 1ft liiin secure wliat assistance he luay ; he shall not escape. The unscriptiiral, and stMui-infidel liapti->t system is before me ; obstacles tlirown in uiy way I \\\w^ aside ; to calls on the rijjht hand and on the left, 1 reply by an answering call : my eye is tixeil on my object. I owe tiiis to thousands of cau'liil ("liristian IJaptists who never are tau>;ht to look l*«yond the quest iou» oi immersic 111 and infant baptism as distinguisliing. The present tactics are twu obvious to be <lisguised. This argument vamX he conhned, as far as po8- «b]e, to tlie 1'. ]]'Unp!*s, to wliich Baptists >eldou have access, and if they lm<l acces-. tliey would not care to rt-ai it. T!iey ma»t not s«e any thing but ilie tremhant j.^jdies of the Messenyer. Tu know the charges preferred against tbeui. and the evidence by which they are sustained, miglit eicice a spirit of iuyuiry. The luanceuver will not do. Mr. .S. would leave the impression ujwn the mindf of his readers, that I ha\e given a false statement of the doctrina of BaptUis, respecting the place assigned to the Old Testament ; j-et I have sought in vain, in \\in le'ter, for a dehnue declaration tliat the Bapti.sts of N'ova Scotia do own the (Jid Tento- iMfnt (IS a Rule of laith and Practice. Such a declaration is t'l*^ le<tst thai we ■would expect, in the circumstances; but tl.at little we do not tind. We must be satisfied with a reference to the tAird of their Doctrinal .\rticles. " Here it is." " Tiie lioiy Scriptures of the Old and >'ew Testaments are the w rd of (iod, in whi( h lie has given us our only rule of Faith and rractice." I never thomjtd that the Baptists deny the in^tpiratiaa of the Old Te>t.'imeDt «iItliou;;h from the place they a»sign to it, w hether it is inspired or not is of little moment. Let the word " in," with which the second clause of the -in cle lipgius, be left out, and mark how differ-rntly it reads : " The lioly feeri]itures of the Old and New Testaments are the WopI of God, which He hiis given us our only rule of Faith anrl Practice." Here the Old Testament, a« anilf* of faith anil practice, occupies as high a place as th*' N'ew, and every Presbyterian. Methodist, or Congregationalist, wiU cheerfully accept the wlKjIe: but let the word " ix" be retained, and the way i- open to deny that the Old Testament is a ride ; and every Rationalist in Germany or elsewhere mill acc;ept it. The Rationalist denies that the Scriptures are the word of tjrod, but atlmits that the word of God is in the Scrifture*, and his reason will separate the gold from the ore. Baptists, while owning tdl Scripture to be iufpired, do not say tlwat all Scrii)ture is the rule of faith and practice, Imt the Tale is in the Scripture. Here, then, by the inirojsiction of the little word "IN," which not one in a thousand would notice, we have an example of the " deceivaldeness of unrighteousness." — Jesaitisni. Jesuiti^m. The compilerv of tlie Bai)ti8t Articles did not want their own peojde or others to know the degraded place to wdiich they relegate the Old Tt-stament. Mr. S.'s letter \» comijletely deceptive. The third Article, which he ha£ brought in to contra- dict my assertion, ia perfectly consistent with ibis, — that nothi.ng hit the Xe-w Testament, is a ride of Faith and Practice to the I^apfi^^^ of Nova Scotia. Mr. S. is very unscruplous, when he represents me a-^ giving "partial state- H»eDt«," by which readers would be led to form incorrect ideas of Dr. Way- lands views. I deny that I have kept back a tinfjie word necessary to show Ihi^ doctrine of the claims of the Old Testament. Ills word= are these : " We 46 hAiTlSMAL IMMKUSION NOT OF (iOD. I profens to take for our giiiil\ in all niattcru of ri'liKioiis belief and practice, the Sew TrMamnit, the whotn New Testament, and nulhiinj but the New Tet«la« ment." These words need r o comment. They are too plain to be nii^nnder- stood. They exclude " Councils, Fuhers, Churches ;" but they exclude the Old Testament as decidedly is they do the Tridentine and Vatican decrees. Mr. S. favors us with a large' extr icl fruin Dr. Waylaml, and so far trom convicting us of error or injustice, he has only made the Dcx-tor's case worse. We read : " We believe that tlie Xew Testament, the word r^poken by the Son of <Jod from Heaven, and by he Apostles whom he himself in-pireil, waa given not to one nation, but to the wlude human race for all coming time." There is here a sad amount of dirkness that may be fell, and confusion. Can we learn any word spoken by the "Son of (tod from Heaven," exiept by the report of the writers of the New Testament ? Our Lord never wri>te anything. Did Dr. W. really think that the words spoken by the " Son of O.mI trom Heaven" were more divine than the words of any innpired writer ? I )i<i the Son of God " himself" impart a higher inspirati(m to the Apostles than others enjoved who spake by the Spirit ? Did he inspire any one by himself imd not by the Holy Ghost? Did the Dr. not know that the Old Testament prophets spake by the Spirit of Christ f Did he not know that all Scripture, O. T. as well as N. T., is protitable now, that the man of God may be thoroughly fur- nished unto all goad works? To both ports of tlie above sentence I jujt in a decided negative. I deny that the Old Testament w.is given to one nation, to the exclusion of the inter- est of the whole human race. It was not (jiven at all to .Jews, in the current Hense of f^u-*'. It was a tru.»t coiumifli'd to them for all-coming time and for all nations. From the first days of their national existence, Israelites had l>een instructed that in Abraham and his seed all nations would be bles.sed. To the Prophets it was " revealed that not unto themselves, but unto us, they did minister the things which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the Gospel unto you." The Old Testament was no more tjiven to the nation of Israel of old, than it is given to the " Commonwealth of Israel " which now is. I denj that the New Testament was given to the whole iiuman race. It is not yet given to the whole race. It is a trust committed to the church as the Old Testament was and is for the nations for all coming time. With the exception of Matthew, Mark and John the whole New Testament is exprejisly addressed to persons in covenant with God, whether churches or in- dividuals. Dr. Wayland has placed the Old Testament ' on the same footing with the writings of Dr. Cramp or Dr. Guthrie." Mr. S. does not wish Baptists or Pedobaptists to think this, but if he is capable of understanding Dr. W.'a very precise language he knows this ; and as he has expressed nothing but a hearty approval of the Doctor's doctrines he seems to have no higher opinion of the Old Testament than the Doctor has. Dr. W. " believes the New Tes:ament to lie the standard by which the precepts and teachings of the former revela- tion are to be judged." And again, — " Ry this word (N. T.) we are to decide upon the obliyaloriness of every part of the olden revelation.'' The writings of Drs. Cramp and Guthrie are put into my hands. I read, examine, it may be I with i| judi; a« 1 (1 the p to be A ment they ii| from 8pira(\ ation Testa I Testa il was ei^ Chrw; from I to liie and 7i( they t( Bap ariick tionali ments Soni V.i- Dec. }i cisms, impoi Hteppt h} Ca AU(;uMENTS I'UO AXT) fOV. 47 f and praclice, the Niw Teola* l>e nii-<iin<ier- f'v exclmle the atii'an ilecreefl. i<l «o far from ir'« case worse, ken hy the Son f Jn-ipired, was coining time." onfii.-*ion. Can ' ex.ept hy the krote anything. 1 of (J.mI from ter? Did the les than others hirthielf and not ment prnpheUi )tnr>; ( ). T. as loroughly fur- it ive. I deny 1 of the inter- n tlie current lie and for all tes hml l)een bies.^t'd. To o n-i, they did em that have ore given to th of Israel " w iiole iiuman II it ted to the :;oming time, ro-itament is rches or in- ns? with the Baptirit-" or >r. W.'-j ver}- hut a hearty in ion of the ' Tes lament nier revela- re to decide writings of e, it mav be 4 i with interest, pleasure and profit, hut do not ncpcpt them an authoritative. I juilye of their olili(jitlnrinfnn by the Hilde, and accept or reject their teuchingHi a^ I consider theni in unison witli the Word or a^aiuHt it. Thin in preci.-*cly the place assigned to the Oil! Testament. Its "precepts and teachingH " are to be brought to the ntandard before we decide. Ah according to Dr. W. all " the preceplw and teachiT^s of the Old Testa- ment are to hf jii(l(jt<l by the New Testament, bef(jre we can decide vliether they are oliligalory on us, or how far, the (piotalioiiF, which Mr. S. has luaile from Drs. Cramp and Hovey, go to nhow thai Haptintfl do not accept the in- 8pinilii)n of the Old Testament witlioiu an antece»lent knowledge of the inspir- ation of the New Testament. It is true that if tin inspiration of the New Testament be assumed, a clear and cogent proof of the inspiration of the Old TeKtamenl can be derived from it; but the inspiration of the Old Testament wiis established, proclaimed, and acce[)ted before the Apostles wrote or .JesuB Christ appeared. I defy any ■>. D. in all the IJaptist Churches to i>ro(hice froui llie New Teslament one passage where our Lord or his Apostles refer to the (Jld Testament for the purpose of teaching or confinnintf it.H innpiration, and not (its inspiration assu.'iieil) for confirming the truth of the doctrines wliich they taiKjht by an appeal to the testimony of an accepted inspiration. Baptists diHer from all who are acconnted evangelical in the very essential article of the Rule of Faith and Practice. The rule of Methodists, Congrega- tionalists, and Presliyterians is — T.he 'scripture of the Old and New Testa- ments ;— of liapti.sts, " NoTiiiNC* but the iVtfi' Testaintnl." .Somerset, Dec. 17, 1875. W. Sommervili-e. P. 8. — 1 had Kuished a rough draft of this letter before the Messen(jer of Dec. 8ih cMiue to my hand. 1 cannot say I have yet read the editor's criti- cisms, but, iftiod will, he shall have a rcp!}i. In the meantime there is an important point to be discussed. I have fiaensed right this time. Mr. S. liaH ptepj)ed in to give the editor time to recover himself. He is what Dr. Jas. C. L^. Carson would call a "slippery customer." The Rev. W. Sommerville. a veteran minister of the Presbyterian (Re- fornit'il) body, ami a skilled controversialist, has soui^ht our columns for the comi)letioii of a scries of letters bei^uii some time ago in the Prcs. Witness. We are quite Mire the terrniu'itiuii of this (ii,-cussioii will be pursued iu a right spirit. The great object of all such argumentation is a fair apprehen- sion of the truth as it alfects the Church of the Lord Jesu» Christ. Any one verged iu history can seethe elfects of spirited discUs-ious iu whi(;h our fore- fathers took part. The Churches are more tenacious of sound doctrine to-day because of land-marks erected generations ago. Qui pioneers sleep, but their successors are awake and vigila A. Our confidence in the jud^^nient of tho>(; now waging this paper war, as well os oit own youth and experience, both restrain us from adding a single word of either advice or caution. t".MESSKX(;KR." .Ian. •>, 1876] Mr. Editor, — As the editor of tap Witness wishes the controversy on Bap- tism to close in his columns with the clo^illg year, out of deference thereto I will a«.-k you to insert what 1 should otherwise have sent to the If itncss, viz : a few remarks on Mr. Sommeivil!e"s letter in the Witiuss of Dec. IS. Iu his reffcreuce to the concessions made by Pedobaptists. in quoting from I 4K MAI'TISMAT- TMMKUSION NOT OF (iOD. n» have been (iiioted liy Biijv vert, the wordh of Thdni me, Thorn, he nays vulually tiiat sueh ronoesrtionH tists from I'edoliiiplis^tH, they inaile theniHeh " Wo li;ivo 110 hehilatioii ii> styiiij( that >\u'\i lalal coiu'i'iifioiiH iiH our oppo- iit'iilrt pit'ti'iivl to atlilui-e hare nevniittn viuiU by Pnlnhoiilists. (il:ilic.s mint',) tml that tlu" auihoirt releufilto have hct'ii luitaiilv tieatci Ml. S. k iiinrs llii> is iittt tiue, (or he is iriiich more iiriioranl ol' ins siilc ot the (lue.slioii than he seems to bo) abhoiii^h lu! adopts the .iuiitimeiit, uiid even il what he says ot the Kd. MesscHijer is irue. Oil 'die same sid)j»M't lie says, " I have said many tooli^h thiiiij!! myt«elf ;" thai is truejt'iTi/ foolish ihintrs; and very iiaiifility thiiiy«; and very unkind and very uiiyenth'inaiily ihiiiirs; lioast ot his i,MMitlenianline>s as lie id he adds, "ami probably would have said many nioie. onK that 1 thiii: muv ni ul ttie pm ileye ot tu'iiii,' caretu dly watctifd h( ipe he is duly lliari kful to those who have prolt-cU'd him from himself. That hi,- needs watcliiiifj, especially in his irtatment of Scripture (as I may show by and by) is very obvious. He has told us thai the modern rage for dipping is to be aeeounted foi by "till! present prevailing love of excitement and parade."' Why does he not .shout " Kureka, Rureka!" Ami as he has made this valuable discovery, will he next discover to us the reason tor the modern \;vj.v. for sprinkling in- fants ? I know he (cannot, still 1 should like to see his attempt. Mr. S. generously informs us that Noah ivnd his family wen; suveil by escaping immersion. (O for Priscilla and Ai^ijuilla). The world was im- mersed and nvrishcd. Does Mr. S. really mean that Noah ami his family were saved because they escaped immersion, and the world perished bitausc thev were immersed ! No, he does not, for he knows or ought to know his Bible bi'tter; and I may remind him that according to his oirn ^liowinu: in !i recent letter, in which he sought to prove that the shore was not immersed when the ticle rose over it, no more were the people of the old world immer- sed, because the water rose over them. But any one can see the grave insinuation contained in Mr. S.'s remarks; still if he persist in such soft arguments and lianl words, he will find in Gen. xix. an account of a man and his family who were saved by escaping sprinkling ; but the thing is too childisli to waste time over, and the dark ungenerous " slj in,-.iiiuatiou " coulil liavi! emanateil from no pen but Mr. Sonunei villcV. We are not going to believe that Ooil i)e.stro3ed the world and saved a few in order to show the mode of baptiMU. Hezekiah says, " He can dogmatize." Yes, Ib'zokiah, he can. For in- stance, he says, " It is a fact as well authenlicati.'d as that the iMaeiities passed through the sea, that when that event took place the clouds poured out waters.'' " God did sprinkle the Israelites, He baptized them. ' He i|uotes from Ps. Ixxvii. 17. The word is plural doit(/.s, it was a '• c/oiw/ " that ac- companied Israel. Moreover, is Mr. is. very sure that the passage refers to the crossing of the Red Sea, and not the crossing of the Jortian '! [f he will read Josh. iii. 14-l(i and Psalm cxiv. he will get a little light, and for his further help I may tell him that in the original it is " The wat(Ms overflowed." The crossing of Jordan look place at the uverllowiiig of ihe river (Josh ;3. 1")). The LXX render it " the great sound of waters."' Referring to the same subject, in quoting Dr. Cramp (who seems to be much in his way| " the allegory is obviously not to be pressed minutely." Mr. S. says, " This is the sword by which the Bapti>t controversialist cuts everv ii'ordiaii knot which he cannot loose." Would Mr. S. believe me if I told him that Dean Alford, one of the most eminent of modern critics and scholars, and a Pedobaptist, used that same sword to cut the same knot on 1 Cor. X. 2. and were all baptized unto Moses, he savs, "The allegory is ob- viously not to be pressed minutely." I think Mr. S. will now tiiid \he sword tunic vvhetl Hail dodic it is el thev v| Tlul ever P«. l.vl AHGUMfc:\TS FIIO AND f'OX. 4li (jnotod by Bap- (il 'IJk III me, M IIH our (ipjH)- , (italics iniiit',) Ml. S, kitiiv's IP (|iit'sii()ii than il uliiit lie says liiii;.- myself;" ml very unkind lliUllilll•^^ as 111' K.MC, only that I ^ (inly thaniitul I'fds \vatcliiii;r^ iiid bv ) is very counted foi by /hy does he not liible discovery, ■ Bprinivliii}^ in- )t, / were saved by world was im- autl his family relished hcantse ix\\\ to know his f'w showing in a not immersed I world immer- see the yrave t in such soft jMuit of a man Ithe thini; is too nl^i^uation " \Vu are not w in order to can. For in- jiaelities piissed ids poured out 1.' Hi' (juotes ■loud '■ tliat ac- ksa;re re I e is to 1 r If he will It, and for his iove I flowed." ,M (Josh 3. lo). seems to be 'd minutely." [versialist cuts dieve me if I Irn critics and lune knot on 1 jllegory is ob- lind \he sword turned airainsl him. I have not the Dr.'rt work on Baptism so I cannot tell wht'tlicr he has been fairly Irealeil m thai relt'ience. Barnes (a I'edobaptist) very {jroperly says il is lo betaken in " theBeii«eof dodicatinir, consecratin;;, iniliatin;^ into, or bringiiiir under obli;,'ation to, and it is eviilenlly in tliis (latter) sense the word is used here, as deiiotiiifj that thev were devoted to Mosei as a leader, etc," There i.^ no more evidonce thai die cloud that accompanied the Israelite ever let down water than that it showered iio;.'s, and any one who aruues Ire n Ph. l\.\vii. 17, or 1 Cor. x. 2 lor infant Bprinklini,' must be very hard up ir argument. Mr. S. eharses us with adding lo the word of God (his are tlje italics), He should then have (pioted Rev. .\.\ii. 1><. Alas. Mr. S. is terribly ynilty of this very thing ; he declares that lo be scriptural which i? unscriptui.-d and tliat unscriptural whi<'li is scriptural. 1 commend to his careful study the words oflsaac l'eiiiiiii;^ton. "lie that givethaiiy other meaning of any Scripture than the true, proper meaning thereof, he both addeth and diinini.-helh ; he taketh awav thf true sense, he addetli a sense that is not true." And those of Buiiyaii in " Crace Abouinling :" — " Now also I should labour to take the word as (lod had bud down, without rostraininir the natural force of o.ie syl- lable thereof," i~n(.\ the almost la.st words of Inspiiation in the passau-e just referred to. And as I hope to meet Mr. S. in '• the holy city," notwithstand- ing his infant opinions, I recommend him to amend his ways; to seek for- giveness for what he has done ; give up adiling to anil taking from the word by giving up unscriptural infant sprinkling and taking up scriptural believers' baptism, and doubtless, as he is doing it in iirnorance he will lie forgiven. To save Air, S. any furtlu.-r labour in this matter I may tell him what he cannot do. He cannot pr(> e that the sun does not shine, nor that believers' immersion is not in the Hiiile, toil at both !is long as he please. He cannot stop the course of the Mis>issippi, nor the piogress of the truth of believers' bap- tism. He cannot see children in the moon, nor anything in the whole Bible ' such, search as Ion" as he like. Ji sprn You ipti IS, J. B lunvN. P. S. — I had promised to dip my pen in honey, if possible, but Mr. S. up- set my jar. [" Wksi.ey.vn," Jan. 22, ISTfi.] THE VOICE OF SCRI1»TURE OX BAI1ISM. Mil. KniTOii, — It seems to be imi)0.ssil)le to l)ind down the Mesaenr/or to the Divine Wold, in the exposition of the Doctrine of Baptisms, and to the ac- ceptance of that Word as its own interpreter. The old Testament affords no countenance to the baleful superstition of which the Baptist leaders are tlio advocates, and tlie people are the victims ; and, therefore, as a rule of fnith and pntctice it is wholly repudiated. A perspicuous (leclaratiou to that effect is evaded, for it would be dangerous to place before the great body of Bajjtists that they are jirofessionally pledged to reject the Old Testament, as a rule, while they admit its inspiration. Testimony in favour of immersion extraneous to Revelation is greedily seized When our Lord was on earth, he appealed to his works as his Father's testimony, and to the Old Testament, in vindication of his claims and of his doctrine. He would not accept the testimony of devils even when they spake the truth ; and Paul followed the example in dealing with the girl possessed by a spirit of divination. They commanded them to be silent. To have accepted their witness might have excited a suspicion that there was i- 50 BAPTISAIAL IMMERSION NOT OF (50D. i , some Mafonio or 0(Mfellovvs' comiiiiinion hetween them. But tlie editor of the Messenger i? willing to accopt concurring testimony, come from what quarter it may. In ih^. Messenger of Dec. 15, the testimony of Cardi.val Manning in favour of iiumersimi, and that sprinldhui was introduced by ecclesiastical authority, is very ostentatiously paraded before us. Now who is Cardiiud Manniiiy / He is the sworn slave of tliat " man of sin, — wliose coming is after the working of Satmi, with all power and signs and lying won- ders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish." The Cardinal's testimony is the deviTs testimony, which ("hrist or an Ajjostle would have peremptorily refused. The editor of the Messenger enniestlg begs the attention of his Peclohaptist brethren to the Cardinnrs words, and he will now see tliat I have not turned ,i deaf ear to his earnest petition. Among Christians the complete sufficiency of the Divine word should be tenaciously held. We have no more right to a'ld to it tlian to substract froni it. That man should 1-e ashamed to call himself a Christian, who will not give as high a place to the Old Testament as to the New, in the determina- tion of all questions of a religious belief and life, knowing that in e.xpound- ing to disciples the things concerning h'mself, the Lord leads them to ifoses, the prophets and the psalms ; and that Par', in demonstrating the character, the offices, anu the work of Christ, and the way of salvation by him, constantly appeals to the Old Testament. I'edobaptists should press on Baptists the ne- cessity of an explicit declaration that they own the Old Testament Scriptures to be a rule of faith and practice to Christians, The testimony of Mr. Saun- ders is not enough. That is a jjersonal testimony. Let us demand a plain, full, unefiuivocal and uncontradicted statement to that effect in the Messenger, More still is w.anted— a change in the third doctrinal article of the Baptists of Nova Scotia, to make it speak an unequivocal language. Pedobaptists are profoundly ignorant of the mass of error and infidelity involved in the Baptist system. I firmly believe the great body of Baptists themselves are ignorant of it. The current idea is that the only difference between the parties is in respect to the subjects and niode of Baptism. This idea I once entertaine<l and often expressed, till I had examined the matter more closely. The Old Testament, in being shut out of doors, wheti it speaks with authorilg, is treated witli more respect than the New, which is invited, with a smiling countenance, to come in, only to be placed in the rack and tortured to com- l>el it to .speak like a Baptist, and cry out immersion, immersion .' Come in here, Mr. Eiiitor. The Messenger has been putting the question, and we will read the minutes of the examination. " The subject is to be buried. Buried in what ? Il'ater, Acts 8. 36. " See here is water." No infants, no sprink- ling, lielievers buried in xvater and raised up to walk —infants don't walk in any sense -in newness of life." (Oct. fl, 187.'>.) liuried is not used in con- nection with baptism, in the gospel or in the Acts, liuried in water is not once found in the whole New Testament. ' Buried in baptism " is found in Colossi'tns, and " See, here is water" is found in Acts. The editor of the Mes- senger drops the word " in baptism '' and substitutes " in water," and reports the New Testament as saying " believers buried in water," lie is a smart man, and affects to say smart things, lielievers are raised up in liaptism to "walk in newness of life," aud he says, " infants dou't walk in any sense." In any ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON. r,l t tlie editor of aie from what of Cauuixal introduced by ua. ^'ow wlio 3f sin,— whose xnd lyinpf won- 1 that perish." t or an Ajwstle r eamestli/ begs h, and lie will in. ord should be mbstract from who will not he deterniina- t in expound- hein to ifoses, the charaoter, ini, constantly aptists the ne- lent Scrijitures 'f of Mr. Saun- mand a plain. the Messenger, le Baptists of )baptist8 are in the Baptist are ij^norant parties is in entertaine«l ith nuthofity, th a smiling red to (;oni- / Come in and we will ed. Buried fi, no sprink- on't walk in ed in pon- icater is not is found in of the Mes- and reports smart man, m to "walk beiise? "The children of Israel walked upon dry ground in the midst of the sea." Either there were no infants among them or they ^calked in the midst of the sea in some sense. The man who wrote the sentence I have (pioted above from the Messenger ought to be ashamed to walk the streets of Halifax, or to lift his face among honest men. A viler attempt to imjjose upon the credulity of readers I have never met. I would not liave stooped to criticise it were it not that I fear there are many of his reader.-*, as Henry Alliene is said to have ilescribed one of his converts, who would .swallow boots with spurs on them if he preached them. There is burial in baptism or bi/ baptism. Every Christian .sprinkler admits it with reverence and gratitude, with joy and praise. Not one of them would wisli to have one word altered in the God-given phrase, " buried witli him in baptism." The editor Messenger cunsiilers it decisive in support of immersion; so much so that he tloes not judge it necessary to add a word of comment. Let the Word be its own interpreter,— not Dr. Chalmers, not Canon Lightfoot. There is baptism wit/i water, and there is baptism icith the Holy Spirit per- fectly distinct, but sustaining a precise relation to eatdi other. To which of these does Paul allude, in the Epistles to the Romans and Colossians 't We need not occupy much time on Col. 2: 10, 12. The Ajiostle spoke of a " cir- cunH'isu)n made xvithout hands.'" This is not the circumcision executed by Abraham or Moses, but that which God performs ; it is "the circumcision of Christ." To this we find an allusion in Rom. 2: 28, 29. " lie is not a Jew, which is one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the llesh : but he is a Jew that is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter." Next we are told that " the circum- cised are buried with him (Christ ) in baptism, in wliich also (the}') are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." There is here set before us the gracious truth that the Apostle in another place more directly teaches us, that the same exceeding groat power by which Christ was raised from the dead is put forth in the resurrection of every saint who has been buried with him in baptism. But if our friends are still determined to find here an allusion to the mode of bap- tism, a demonstration of the scriptural character of immer»ion, I pray them not to overlook the last clause of the 12th verse. The resurrection is not by the physical power of the administrator, nor of the person immersed, but by simple faith. It is no difficult matter to conceive of a crowd of curious or interested persons on the bank of a river or a pond, to witness the obscene ceremony of immersion, which familiarity and the avoidance of the nudity demanded by awtiipie wisdom render only a little less disgusting. The oi>er- atfir addresses the candidates ; " My dear friends, I am here to bury you with Christ in this watery grave, but with this my province ends. P^xpect no assistance from me in raising you out of your grave. The word baptize re- quires me to put you under the water, and to this the command limits me. Baptism is a positive ordinance, and I must do precisely what I am com- manded, no less, no more. Vou must rise and come forth by faith." The can- didates look at one another. One says, He shall not immerse mo unless he promise tfi take me out of the water. A second, We might get ilrowned. A third, Let us go home— the man is mad. They move away. The idle and 52 BAPTISMAL IMMKRSION NOT OF GOD. profane disiwrse with slioiits of derisive laiisj^hter ; and sinceiu poiils, \v!io are niin^jled witli tlieni, return witli sliame ami sadness. Tile statement in Iloni. : 3, 4, is more extendeil, but I quote it in full : — " Know ye not that so many of us as were hajttized into Jesus Clirist were bap- tized into his death ? Therefore we are burieil with him l)y baptisra into death ; that liks as Christ was raised from the deatl by the ^lory of the Father, even so we also should walk in the newness of life." Let us now consider, not wliat this or that man has said about it, but what the Ajjostle has said. Obstirve (1 ) ho does not tpeak of ever// member of the Church. All members of the Church are bdp'izedioith water. They are thus, according to the com- mand of Christ, ad<ied to the Church. But tliis does not necessarily imply that they are real Christians. Simon was ba[iti/ed with water, yet still i,s in the bond of inicpiity. lie had nei'er been bapti/od into C/trist. Therefore the Apostle says, " As vinny of us as were baptized into Christ," This shows he is not spealaug of baptism with icate.r. Some may say, this is pressing the words of the Apostle too closely. I recogni/.e no loo.>e phraseology under the direction of tlie Spirit, I would not wish to overlook one jut ox one tittle of what God has given. The same form of words is used in Gal. o: 27, and with reference to the same subject, with a difference which not only shows that the Apostle speaks of the baptism of the Spirit, but that there is no re- ference to the mode of baptism. " As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." No two things can be more unlike than death, burial and resurrection are to puttimj on a garment, yet death, burial and resurrection with Christ occupy, in the mind of the Apo.stlo, precisely the same relation to the baptism here spoken of as the putting on of Christ. In the mind of a Baptist, the former are involved in the ordinance, the latter is a remote result. The exigencies of the immersion doctrine demand this. Observe (2) into wh.at we are baptized. Il is into Jesus Chrid. We iuive here set forth, by the grai)hic pen of inspiration,that incorporation with Christ which makes him and his peo])le one, in consetiuence of which he bears our respon.^i- bilities, and we onjoy all the blessings Ihnving from bis fulfilment of all ri;^ht- eousuess. This baptism, which no scenic representation could portray, no man was ever commanded to administer, no man could administer, no man, under the guidance of the Siiirit, ever professed to administer. The frecpiency, the flippancy, and the blasphemous arrogance, with which Baptist ministers re- Iiort that they have buried zvith Christ such and so many, make the llesh creep. Wlion baptism into & person is spoken of, our attention is directed to a work of God. The Israelites were baptized into Moses. God administered the Bajjlism. lii/ one Spirit we are all b.'iptized info one body. So h(!re and in Galatians. How different the language when Baptism with water, admin- istered l)y man, is spoken of. Then we see nothing but the assumption of a name, — a profe.ssed acceptance of the Lord Jesus and subjection to him Tlie Apostles are commanded to baptize the nations " in'o the na)ne oi the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." ( Mat. 28 : 19,) Of the be- lieving Samaritans it is said, "They wore baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus," (Acts 8 : 16j, Of the disciples of John, whom Paul met at Ephe.sus, we read, " They were baptized <Hi!o M? »«/«c of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19: 5). Paul asks the Corintliians, "Were ye baptized m/o ^/je nrt?»e of Paul ?" an I sa.N an I m ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON. 53 )iils, w.'io are it in full :_ isf were !»ap- >iil)tism into i" theFatlier, •w consider, 1*^ lias ,iai(l. ill nieml)er8 to the com- (irily imply it still is in Tliercfore This shows >re8siin^r the y uniler the II' one tittle 3: 27, and only shows '0 is no re- n baj'tized nlike than mil, hurial ecisely the /hrist. In latter is this. ive hero .^t wliich ospnn.^i- II ri-ht- iio man m, under ney, the t(M\s re- th(! ll,>.sh scted to is'i.'i'ed :i'e and iidniin- on of ft to liim )f the the be- Lord •liesus, ts 19; 'aul P" and expresse.-i his thankfulness that lie had baptized so few, lest any should say he had baptized info his own nnme. The Divine word never represents an Apostle or Evangelist or any other as baptizing' into Chrisl. Observe (o) the change of state which originates in our union to Christ, by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He wlio was dead in sin is dead to sin. He who was of the world is now separated from it, as the dead are buried out of our sight. He who walked accordim/ to the course of this tcorld now walk^ in neioness of life. How is all this to be theatrically represented, according to the Baptist theory,— so lucidly and fully represente<l, that all who are not stone-blind must see it ? lit/ plnmjin;/ n person into the wafer mid pullinr/ him out again! To look at this imaginary picture more particularly. The bap- tized into Christ are baptized (according to the Baptist vocabulary, immersed, buried,) into his death. Tlien the burial goes before and death is the eftVct. To make the picture perfect, the immersed must be buried in the watery grave til! they are dead. But the Apostle teaches that the baptized are l)uried because tliey are dead. They have been already immersed into death ; there must be another plunge to represent the burial. To picture the burial of the dead and tludr resurrection, we have a lioint/ body put under the water and the same livinr/ body taken out of the water, not at all improved in appear- ance. Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, and the buried wUh Christ rise by the faith of t'ue divine 0])eration ; but in the Bap- t St ceremonial, we must see, if we can, the glory of Gotl and the faith in tlie strong arm of the Immerser. What our friends call baptism is an impious caricature of the work of the Spirit set Iiefore us in Kom. 6. 3, 4, But is there here no allusion to l)ai»tisra with water ? Yes ! The language is borrowed from that ordinance. The Apostle's jiroposition is that real Christians have been baptized info Christ. What follows respecting death, burial, and resurrection, is all inferential. By baptism, by the institution of Christ, we are introduced to the church and the fellowship of its privileges, and therefore we are said to be baptized into Christ when the spiritual bless- ing of which baptism with water is the sign, is introduced. Sometimes, not here, the Spirit's work is spoken of in terms borrowed from the mode in whicdi the water is applied, and accordingly we read of the Spirit being shed forth, poured out, or falling on. We look in vain iov immersion in 8crii>ture, as descriptive of the baptism with water or with the Spirit. Is it " cool ar- rogance " in (-'ardinal xManning to assume I'apal infallibility, as the basis of his reasoning in favor of Rome ; and is it not "cool arrogance" in the Baptist to assume, the very thing to be proved, that baptism is immersion and no- thing else is IjaptismP The Ed. M. was not prepared for the "cool arr();.:ance'' of tlie tV»-(/if7a/, but I was fully prepared for /n's and hin felloics ! Hear, as rephrted in a paper which lately came to my hands, the words of Dr. Bright, at a invention in Saratoga: — "There can be nothing permanently salutary in the existence of any other denomination than the Baptist. 1 utterly deny that it is good for the world that there should be any other Church than the Baptist in existence," There's thunder for you. \^'. SOMMKUVILI.K. ' k m 54 RAPTISMAL IMMERSION NOT OF GOD. / [" Messenger," Jan. 26, 1876.] The Rt^v. Mr. Sommerville has witlnlrawn Irom the Preshi/terum WUneas. The editor of that paper e.xpressed himself dissatisfied with the prospect. This severe reliection indiieed Mr. S. to move into the coltinuis of llie Wes- leyan. As ever, his contributions are liberal in the extent of space tlicy <'over. We trust our venerable friend will not conclude, from our Ion:? .silence, that we are neglecting him. We like for him to set up nearly all his nine-pins before we roll the ball of truth at them ; for truth well directed will take down half a dozen just as easily as it will take down one. Ahvs for Mr. S., the Bible is against him in this matter. Nearly all f'edohaptisis of r.'putation are more or less on our side. All that it is really necessary for us to do is to take a good Pedobaptist extinguisher and put it over Mr. Souimerville's can- dle ami out it goes. W'e do not ahvivys avail ourselves of this easy method of meeting our Pedobaptist friends ; but we lead him to the ]ilaiu Word of God, trusting that God will enlighten his eyes, so that he may > eual)led to abandon Infant Baptism — the worthy offspring of tlie Man o, "in, brought forth in the dark ages to curse the churches ; and, mirabile dicfii, to I)e fondled iu the besoms of those who have an open Bible. Truth is eternal. Truth is omnipotent. Before it, Infant Baptism shows signs of increasing weakness. The beginning of the end can be discerned ! May the time soon come when this delusion shall cease to blind immortal souls ; when it shall no more lead those whom it has blindfolded into the ways of darkness; when it will be no longer available to the adversary for pot)pling the world of darkness. [" Presbyterian Wiine.ss."1 The Messenger says: — "The Rev. Mr. Sommerville has witluirawu from the Prexhif erian Witiiesi^. The editor of that paper exjjressed himself dissatisfied with the proL<pect. The severe reflection induced Mr. S. to move into the columns of the Wesleymu As ever, his contributions are liberal in the extent of space they cover." It is due to the Rev. Mr. Sommerville and to the Messeiu/er that we should ex]>lain. We have a strong repugnance to long controversies, and we ex- pressed a hope that the Baptist controversy in our columns would end with the year. We did not intend to interfere with the series of very able articles in course of publication by Mr. Sommerville, and we hope our readers may yet often have the pleasure and profit of reading the productions of the vet- eran Reformed Presbyterian minister. Rev. William Sommerville. [".Wesleyah," Jan. 29, 1876.] LETTP:R FROM REV. E. M. SAUNDERS. Mil. Editor, — About twenty years ago, over the fcignature "Roger Wil- liams," a series of articles appeared in the "Examiner,"- a New York jiaper — which were afterwards presented to the public in book-form, entitled — " ^^''of.es an the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches, by Francis Way land." Some newspaper-writers charged Dr. Wayland with denying the " inspira- tion" of the Old Testament. Particular statements in these articles were pointed out as affording the groim<l of this charge. This was the Dr.s an- swer: " To such an im/mtation he does not. think himself called on to reply." The abfaurd charge dropped into its uidionoured grave, and has remaioed there, so far a.s I know, for about a score of years. And perhajis it might have rested undisturbed forever, had it not experienceil a resurrection at the hands of the Rev. Mr. Sommerville. As is usual, this frivolous charge has come forth in anew form ; and is now not brought against a single individual alone, as at first, but against the whole Baptist denomination. ^fr. S jmnierville, although a man somewhat advanced in life, will, most probably, outlive this charge he has brought against the Baptist body. When ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON. 55 first niaiU; against Dr. Wayland, it was doail, unilor the contempt if l)ivS dior- nitit'd silence, almost as soon as the ink \vn.s dry tliat was used to make it. The cliarije, as re-shaped in the hands of Mr. Somnierville, ami sent out on the pa^'fs of two reli^^ioiis newsiiajier.s against the lJaptist.>*, is not that tliey ileny the innpivatiun of the Old Testament, but that they deny it to lie a rule of faith ami jiractice. It is not proliable that any Baptist will rejiard it necessary to refute this charge for tiie intelligent public who have had, as well as Mr. Somnierville, the opi)ortiinity of knowing the truth in this matter. I see, .Mr. Kditor, Ihat Mr. Sonunerville has occui)ied not a little of y()ur space in giving your readers his views of Col. 2. l<>, 12, and Rom. fi. 3, 4. In Langes Com. on Rom. page 2(L', in a note. Dr. Schaff states, referring to Rom. (5. 3, 4, "All commentators of note (e.xcept Stewart ami Hodge) e.v- j>res8ly a Imit or take it for granted that in this ve^-se, (ver. 4) especially in buried trith and raised up, the ancient prevailing nio<le of baptism by immer- sion and enimer.sion is imjilied, as giving additional force to the i<lea of the going down of the old man ami the rising of the new man." As suggested by your correspondent, it may be belter to set aside the opinions of Mr. Somnierville and all other commentators, and let the Divine Word interpret itself. Truly yours, Halifax, G2 . en .S";. E. M. Saunder.s. ler Wil- paper Liiled — Way- [nspira- 3S were (■r.'s an- repliir Imaioed might at the is now [nst the 111, most When f" Messknoer," Fub. 2, 1876.] Mr. KniTou, — .Mlow me to give expression, through the Messentfer, to the surprise and grief with which I have read an article in the \^\;^\. Wexleijnn, written as an attack on the Baptists, liy a man whom a memory of the re- gard I once cherisheil for him forbids me to name. Tlie spirit of it is such as never could have iieen expected by me from the writer As far as I can understiind his belief, he hohls that in the Apostolic times Baptism never was performed by immersion. Now, if this is his view, why .should he single out the Baptists and dire-t the violence of his arguments against them alone, while he must know that if they are in error in this matter, they hold the errors in common with nineteen- twentieths of the christian world ! Is it because he loves us so much more than all the other benighted victims of superstition that he is so vehement in his exhibition of what he conceives to be our absurdities? This prophet who conies to reclaim the Baptists, attempts to interpret the first verses of the sixth of Romans in harmony with his peculiar view, and to show that in the passage there is no reference to any mode of baptism. In this he is opposing the interpretation of many of the ablest men of his own denomination, and the general opinion expressed by writers of other denom- inations. We may take patiently all the biiffetings of this eager controver- sialist who, in striking at us, first hits the leaders of his own church. Bui it is sad to think of this man, who has been a power for good in his day, pa.ss- ing into a gluoiny old age. compelled, as he observes the growth of the Bap- tist denomination in his section of the province, to feel that a cloud of "bale- ful superstition" is gathering and settling over the people — sad indeed. Nevertheless, wisdom is justified of her children. The want of candor on the part of the editor of the Wesleynn in ailmitting the article is about as conspicuous as the disingenuousness of the writer ; for he must know that the djctrine of his correspondent, presented in his paper as if to brand witii absurdity and indecency the belief of the Baptists, is opposed to tiie accepted teaching and common practice of his own church. Wesley distinctly says that the form of expression used in the first part of the sixth of Romans ha*i reference to the ancient mode of baptism by im- mersion. Our brother of the JVei^lei/ati has been writing some severe and unreasonable things about the Baptists ; and, now, as if he felt the need of some assistance, when this ally comes in from a different denomination ready to fight a good fight, he leads him out into the crowd to strike ri^iht 5(! BAPTISMAL IMMERSION NOT OF GOD. ami left, ami in hia desire to see the fray go on, does not mini.1 bein^ knocked down bv Ids own champion, if only some Baptist can get a guu 1 rap. And so the milleniuni of love and peace is coming, — is almost here ? AVell. N. ["Wesley AN," Fob. 5, 1876.] We do not usually notice anonymous writers, whatever may l)e their spirit: but one in this week's Messenger must have a moment's attention. Alluding to y\v. Sommerville's letter he says : — "Our brother of tho Weslkyan lias l)cen writiuji some sevore and iinriin (iiablo thin;j9 about t\w H:\i)ti.tts; and now, as if he felt tlii! ni.'ud of some iissistanee, whvii this ally eonu3 iu fii>ni a ditlerent denomination readv to li:.,'ht a ijood tiiiht, lie lead.-, liiia nut into tli'e crowd to strike riglit and left, and in his desire to see tho fray go on, doi's not mind boin'.; knocked down by his own champion, if only some Baptist can get a good rap." This is neither elegant nor truthfid. The fact is— and we hesitat-^ even now to avow it, and do so only because compelled in self-defence —wt^ had reason for suspecting that Mr. Sommerville was riglit in respect to at least a portion of our Baptist friends. That they— as a Body — reject the Old Testa- ment as a rule of faith and practice, we cannot iiolieve: and yet a represen- tative Baptist minister, in a celebrated discussion within a few years past, to our knowledge, refused tthsolufel;/ to receive passages from tJie Old Testament bearing upon Baptism, as quoted by his opponent. And if there be a limit thus to the authority of the Bible in one thing, who knows where t!ie line is drawn by our Brethren ? We have not yet seen a direct tlenial of the charge. [" MESSENfiER," Feb. 9, 1876.] BAPTISTS INSULTED. Mil. EniTOR,— I was told the other day that thCiO was a i)aper on baptism in the iVowVioia/ Tres/f.yr/n, signed " W. Sommerville,'' in which baptism by immersion, as administered in the Baptist denomination, is termed an "ob- scene ceremony." I was not disposed to believe it. I said, " No gentleman would use such an expression— and Mr. Sommerville has the reputation of being a gentleman ; besides, a Christian minister is bound to be cuurteous and charitable, and he would not employ words which would convey offen- sive ideas to brethren of another denomination." 1 felt disposed, therefore, to conclude that some one who knew Mr. Sommerville to be a monomaniac on tliis subject, had got hold of the paper and inserted the piussage in which the above-cite(l words are found, feeling assured that the forgery would pass T.iuster, because the style closely resembles that of other .-Nrticles, bearing Mr. Sommerville's signature. If my suspicion be well founded, Mr. Sommerville will disavow the para- grai>h. Should he not do so, let him not be surprised if Baptists henceforth treat him as the author of an insult to their denomination. But what shall we say of the Editor of the Wesleymi? I understand that he is a minister of the Wesleyan denomination. He has permitted the inser- tion of a paper in the organ of that denomination in wliicii bai)tism as prac- tised by the Baptists — commanded in the Church of England— and observed in the Greek, the Armenian, and other churches, is stigmatised as an "obscene ceremony." Should this pass unrebuked, or should there be no ajjology for it? Can the Wesleyans expect'the Baptists to unite with them in prayer- meetings and other exercises ? No, Sir! It cannot be! But be it remem- bercil, xve were not the aggressors ! Feb. 3, 187(5. A Coinxhy Baptist. .ptism ism by ob- eaian ion of .irteou3 offen- ■fore, i.iniac which I pasa ug Mr. para- :;eforth k1 that iu.<er- s pi'ac- erved bscene gy for prayer- emeiu- TI8T. AROUMENTS PRO AND CON. [" Wksi.kyas,' K.-b. 12, l«7(i.] THE VOICE OF SCKIITURE. 57 Mk. Edit jR, — The situation becomes alarming, lud dark clouds are gath- ering on tlie horizon, wiiich will burst in thunder some of these days. Jour- neyint; uu Monday, preaching on Tuesday, and having to-day read more carefully the MesserKjer'n editorial of Dec. 8th, I had sat down to reply ; when lo ! the Mfsenacr of •itjtli Jan. comes in, uttering in loud tones a warning of danger ahead, foreboding not only utter ruin to me, but extermination to all the Pedobaptists in the universe. He talks mysteriously of my setting up Pome rtme-;)in8, and of his rolling the bull uj truth to take down half a dozen of them, (why not the whole nine) at once. I have not nine pins in the world. There are some clothes-pins in the house; but what the ball of truth has to do with them I cannot tell. I suppose he alludes to some game or other which idleness plays to kill time. He is more intelligible when, " in great swelling words of vanity," such a.s all readers of the controversial literature of Baptists must be familiar with, he threatens to put over my candle a good Pedobajitist extinguisher, " and out it goes." He says, " Nearly all Pedobaptists of reputation are more or less on our side," but I do not pretend to know what all Ped<>l)(tpti.itn of repu- tation have said, and that he knows, 1 do not believe. A told B, B told C, and Y told Z, and from Z he may have learned a great deal. He trades largely in gossip, as he has been inj'onned of what I have " been ringing out, in private and in public, from the chimney corner and from the pulpit," for more than twenty years I ! But the concluding sentence of this editorial note should be in the hands of every Pedobaptist of Nova Scotia. It is in the form of a prryer. " May the time soon come when the delusion (infant bap- tism) hhall cease to blind immortal souls ; when it shall no more lead tiiose whom it has blindfolded into the ways of darkness; when it will be no longer available to the adversary for peopling the world of darkness." This is plain Hpeaking. All Pedobaptists are led blindfolded into the ways of darkness. Pedobaptist ministers are instruments of the Devil in peopling the regions of eternal woe. Hitherto I have not suffered myself to be bantered or brow- beaten into mixing up in/ant baptism with the discussion of the mode »f bap- tism. I have not written one sentence in defence of infant baptism. And if the Presbyterian Witness, the Pedobaptist Kev'ds and D. D.'s of Nova Scotia sit silent under this grave imputation on their principle.'' and standing and labors, if they prefer their ease, and popularity, and character for liberality, to the vindication of the truth of the Gospel, the Messenger cannot be much blamed for insinuating or saying they do not believe what they profess and preach and practice. Then is the in6delity that is bound up in the Baptist system creeping into the Pedobaptist churches. But I turn to the Messenger of Dec. 8th. I will not contend with the editor on the subject of courtesy. If to ask par- don of a man of whom you have spoken disrespectfully be uncoiirteoast unless you take oft" your hat to every dog who barks at you as you pass along the road, then I hope to be over found uncourteoua. According to his own rule, the Messenger is a most courteous gentleman. He has ascribed words to me, 8 58 BAPTISMAL IMMERSION NuT OF GOP. placiny them between inverted commmt, which I never used. Does he ask pardon? No. When he represents me a.-» prufew«ing to determine tlie time, tlie manner and the person liy wliom imitier.*ion wa* introihict'd he j^'ivcs an untnUhful represoiffifion of botli my wonl* and my idea^. Does he ask pmdon ? No. That •woiihl be nncourtetnts. He pare the Juhstance. And when he gives my words, they are so separated from the connection tliat my views are not fairly exhibited. At the cost of repetition, 1 shall state what I did say. Urging the exchisive authority of the divine testimony, as against the anticpiity of immersiwi, and the peneraJ practice of the ancient church, I stated that, if it couhl be shown beyoml the jMSisibility of contradiction, tliat baptismal m- mersiati was practisetl in the days vf the AjtoMles and hvfore their eye,*, we are no nearer to the determination of the mode of ha}itism, unless it is proved that the Apostles themselves preached or practicetl iiiifttergion. That there were in the days of Paul " False Aiwstles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the Aixjstles of Christ," ice know. That there wt^re in John'is days an ambitious 3j)irit who refused to recognize him, and forbade such fis would, we hnoio. I have no stronger conviction that none but a minister of satan was capable of changing the simple, expressive, universally applicable, and divinely institutetl ordinance of purijkatian hi/ »prinklin(j, into personal iinmermon, for which there is no evidence in all the Bilde. The phraseology of my former letter proceeiletl ujx)n thie knowleilge and this conviction. The Messetu/er is sorely troubled by my appeal to the fact that immersion in water is uniforndy introtluced in the Word, as an emblem or means of des- truction ; and he lal)ors hard, recurring to it again and again, to find cases to neutralize the appeal. I took no notice of Asher dipping his foot in oil, (an example of personal immersion !) as I never supjxwed he was silly enough to recur to it. But he has again brought it up. Asher is immersed in oil for hisyW has been dij)i)ed in it. Will the Messem/er accept a person as really baptized, when he has dippeil one foot in the water? If ho voll his ball against this pin, I'll stop it. The Messenyer does not deny that "birds were dipi>e<l," but he is careful to suppi'ess the fact that this dipping was not for its own sake, — the Idrds were not the baptized, the ble^ed,— but that the fluid into which they were dipped may be sprinkled for the purijication of tlie unclean person He was baj)tized. He does not deny that "priests were dipped." What is the evidence? He says it. That is all. We know they were washed. We turn to the case of Naaman, the only other case he adduces to prove that immersion is not always expressive of ruin beyond remedy ; and here we discover a reckless trifling, — a deceitful dealing — with the divine word, which it is painful to contemplate. We are tempted to ask. Is he a Christian at all ? does he fear God ? does he tremble at His won! ? I hatl advised him that, in the narrative of the transaction, the word himself is supplied by the translators. Naaman is not commanded to wash himself ; is not entreated by his servants to wash himself; is not represented as dipping himself. We have simple toash, wash, and dip. Yet has the Messetitjer twice emphasized himself. He seems to have ha<l some glimmering that this word himself had a bearing on the making good his case ; omit it, and tlie com/urt/i// .and the act extend no farther than the diseasetl part. We have similar language in Jno. 9, 7. AncrMKNTS PRO AND CON*. 59 Oar Lord says to Hit' lilin<l man wh<j.>»e eyes he had ameare'l witli clay, Go to tLe ponl of Silouni aii<l wmth, und lie went and tca$Atil. Will the Mes4euije.r my lie immfrxnl liimself P or that he wa«lie«J hi* eyes only r He wiTl not say li* inimerPHcl, hut hf niij^ht ask, •' How does Mr. S. know he did not iniiiierse Liiufielfr In such terms he asks, " Ifow do»^ Mr. S. know that tlie disease < of Naaiuan) was local r*" By the clearest evidence Naaiuan wai* ilir^aitjwinted l.>ecaiir.e tlie projilict did not "come out,— call on the name of the Lord hi« <io(l aii'l Mrike /i*.s /unul over the /tlare, and recover the leper." There is an- -oliier evi<leure. If the disease /tad not been lortd he i* clean. We have a few words more respecting Naaman's cure. The yfeaewjer nms»t Lave a Hing at the tratinlators of our PIng!i§h Ter»iun of the Scriptures. " Eiiig Jamep' scholarly servants dress th? conimand, a« given in the word • wash.' " Here there is an insinuatii>n agaiast l»oth their *eholai->ihip and their integrity. Here is a tlenial that the original word signifies to xcash ; jmd he lla^ the ignorance or the impudence broadly to ini^inuate that if the tmufc-laiors ha<J l)een honest men, the prophet would have Ix-en ma<le to say, "Go aad dip in Jordan seven times." His rule for fixing the signiticance of M. word few scholars will adopt to make the significaiion of a general term <lfj^»eDd on a particular application of it. A man is murdered. He was *t*ljl»ed through the heart. To murder signifies to ffab fatally. Or, he is jrfoifawned. To munler signifies to poison. Or, he is etrangled. To nmrder signifies to strangle. Such is tiie process by which the tchoUirly servant of the Bapiistfci proves that he was right in5»aying that Xaaiiian wae commanded to rfKJp /<'(//<Wf seven times in Jordan, and discovers his groa? ignorance of He- lirew and the laws of languages, or -that he is determined to uphold the doc- trvw uf immersion at the sacrifice of Scripture, Literature, character, and com- luon b^Hii!'^. 1 challenge any person who has any chiims to be called a Hebrew etcbolar in Nova Scotia or elsewhere, to state over hia own name that the ijrvfimjd iiord used by the prophet does not properly and invariably signify to ■KKxth. I challenge such person to say that the oriipnal tcord implie.* any one nijde by which the purification may be eflfecte'l. Ji'tifiing may be performed f T,- dipping, scouring, rirising or sprinkling, but vrash does not signify either dip, Bcour, rinse, or sprinkle; and when the process is not prescribed, the per- son commanded to wash is at liberty to use what means he pleases adapted 1* the end, and is still acting according to the mying of him who laid his com- naaiid upon him. I have jusi as good a right, upon the ^lessenger's rule of lexpoeition, to say wash signifies to sprinkle a* he ha* to say it signifies to dip : amd the word ot inspiration does not necessarily I^rad to the conclusion that >'aaiuan <lid anything more than dip the part affected, or even lift the water mith Ms hand and apply it to the part. We may now look at that half loaf over which the Mejuenger chuckles. He is Terj- ungrateful. I gave him a whole loaf, in stating that so far as the tmrd is concerned, baptism will cover the whole person as completely as if be was plunged fifty fathoms deep. In every caie baptism contemplates the puTJficatian of the whole person. The baptism of the leper, of any other un- clean person, is the jmrification of the whole man. The prescribed mode is iitniJJiiuf. This is the symbol of enttre cleansing. The editor asks me two us which he considers both /)e/ym<'rt/ and important, but which I con- 60 MAlTISMAL niMKllSION NOT OF (JOP. sider an indicntion of great confusion of iileas. " Would tlie priest hare obej'pd God Imd lie covered the leprous person '\'itli the fluid instead of spriiiklinj^ him!-" Cetiainli/ nut : for h(> hail lieen iTwiHe instructed ; hut the leprous j>er.<on was wholly cleansed, or he wc. . have heen njvinhletl without hein^ hapti/.ed. "Does Mr. S. oltey fiod, wi.t;n instead of covering the subject of baptism, lie only ajiplies to it a few drops of the fluid P" tVr- ffiiit/i/ I do. My object is the xc(tAlimj-i\\i: htiyHitm of the whole i)er8on, an»l God has ordained n/niiiJ,li>i(/ as an adecjuate symbol of all this. The Mpi^Apntjcr chalh-nges me " to bring from (iod's Wortl a command— by which to link tlie baiUism of Joiin and Christ with any thing that went be- fore." TnK.itK Is NONK ; so lie is right, it is impossible to bring it. My au- thority for linking the bajjlisms of the former age witli baptism uuic '\> the tot(d absence of <m\j siuh cominiiiul. When something neic, as the Lord's Sup- per, is to be introduced, we have minute instructions ; but where shall we find a command or other authority, such as we have in that ca.-^e. for introduc- ing iinmersiwi ? JJfij>tisj)i was administered in the olden time; John hai>tiz- ed: the disciples hojttized during our Lord's personal ministry ; and the l>onl after his resurrection, sent the apostles to hri/ifize. Nobody is taken by sur- prise by a novclti/. They have no information to ask and none is given. If baptism is unto repeiitmue, we are told. If it is for the ren^iim of sin, we are told. If it is with pure center as distinguished from blood and water, salt water, or water mingled with ashes, we are told. If into the mime of Cfirist, we are told. Hut where is a iiint given of a change in the ordinance of which styrinklimi is the symbolic rite ? No where. Absolutely no where. *' We, aflirm,"says the Mesienyer, "that Christian baptism, the baptism of Christ's church of this dispensation, had no existence in the old dispensation." Thi* is boM; but all resting on a false assumjttion. It is most true that what he C(dls " Christian baptism, the J>aptism of Christ's church of this didpen»ation," the Old Testament is perfectly innocent of. So also is the New Testament. It is not from (dtove. liy thetr rite. Baptists cast in their lot with the old world who were I'm- mersed and perished, while Noah and his house were ha j>t izetl &ni\ saved, with the Egyi)tians who '• ere immersed in the Retl Sea and died, while the Israel- ites were IxijHizetl, and saved. Whenever, wherever, by whomsoever intro- duced, the doctrine of bajjtiMnal iiumersvm had its origin, as it has its jjer- petuation, in a rabid fanaticism, which is well described in the words of Robert Hall, speaking "fa kindred evil I juote from memory— " A thick- skinned monster of the oo/.e and the mire, which no argument can convince and no discipline can tame." Mr. Editor, I shall trouble you with another paper, not, however, to clo$e the argument. W. Sommkrville. [" WRSLin-AS," February 26, 187f..l A correspondent in this week's Messenger calls attention to a severe ex- pression employed by Mr. Sommerville in one of his letters, regarding the custom of immersion, and asks whether Baptists can now unite in public meetings with Churches which hold their modes up to ridicule. It is very easy at any time to raise a cry of f>ersecutJon. We could have done this long ago had we been disposed to treat with anything but pitiful silence the AHGl'MENTS PRO AND t'ON. f)l allusions which have often bt?fii uiado by our neiirtiliours to " baby sprink- ling'," etc. There is notbinn <,'ainu(l by ha^ -h words .it any linio ; bnt it thev ait' to be notioHJ at all. perhaps it would be a> well to fake the acconnt to the Mercy-Seat, and, in the sellhirneiit between tlie Methodist and Hap- lisl communions, if the balance which is found to the credit of the former be freely for;(iveii, the latter may in»?et thorn in jjublie worship with abouiidiii:.' gratitude. W c advise an entire Methodist forgiveness. |".MKssi;x.ii;n," Fcl.. 10, 1K7G.] THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. Mr. EniTOR, — I lind the Editor of the Wcslnjan refuses to inf?ort my reply to Mr. Sornmerville's last letter, wliich of course he has perfect ri;j:ht to do it he so please. His reason is that the matter lies between Mr. S. and .Mr. Saunders, which is not the case; so far as I have observed all that Mr. Saunders took part in Wius the question whether the Baptists hold llie Old Testament as a rule of faith and practice. In a former letter Mr. Soinnier- ville spoke of me as hii> opponent. Mr. Saunders has shown more s(Mise than I have by a i^ood way in not replying to Mr. Sommerville, for I have already perceived that tliat wouUI have been my wisest course. I presume it is the silence of Mr. Saunders and others who Mr. S. sou'jht to drag into the controversy that has raised the ire of the latter gentleman to such a white heat. However as I followed him thus far 1 will try to follow him out, if Mr. Editor, I may obtiain your permisson to put mv replies in the Mcssvn'^cr, The following is, in substance, the letter which Mr. Nicolson declined to publish. Milton. Queen's, N. S., Feb. 7, 1876. J. Brown. public IS very )ne this nee lire To the Editor of the Weslcyan, — I thought by the slowness of Mr. Sommerville"s long threatened at'nck on the " Baptist stronghold," that he wa« either unwell, or that in his survey oi the said stronghold he had discovered it to be impregnable, and so altered his mind. I see however that it is neither one nor the other. I for one am obliged to you for giving room to his communications, and hope you will have the goodness to give him all the .s^ace he reijuires. You ask, Mr. Editor, for some Baptist to speak ex cathedra in reply to Mr. S."s question — Whether Baptists hold the Old Testament jis of equal authority with the New. First, we have no cathedra (that institution is found at Rome) consequently we have no one to speak ex cathedra. We have no man who considers himself a mouthpiece for the Baptists, nor do we consider any one as representing the l)elief of the denomination. The question proposed is entirely new to me ; and you, sir, virtually an.swer it for us by saying that you are •' inclined to think that the Baptists generally would revolt at the charge of tiirowing the Old Testament overboard," Surely, sir, you do not mean to ask us the cjuestion after that. However, speaking personally, and you cannot gei anything but a personal testimony, I refer you to 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17, for my answer. " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable,"' etc. Or in words of Dr. Cramp (nomen memorabile et prtccla- rum) in his Catechism on Christian Baptism, the very hist sentence, " The Bible, the Bible only, the religion of Baptists." Had we a cathedra, no one would be more fit to speak therefrom than the worthy Doctor. Mr. Sommerville says, ^'As a rule of faith and practice it is whoU) repudi- ated,'' and then asks llie Messenger to say whether it is po or not. Now isn't that cool 1 He, like yourself, Mr. Editor, ha^ answered the question alrea<ly, though differently. LO>i «i2 HAI'TfSMAL IMMKRSION NOT OF (JOP. May I liiMf W allitwod lo ask wJiclln'r l't'(i(»hai)tisls ackiio\vl('(|y«! ihe New Tisliniieut ii> 11 riil(! ut" laith and [jmctioc ! ! ! tollowiiiif llic prcvioiirt ox- a> iplf.s 1 will aiiswtT my tiwii ciuc^tioii : — In pmlossiuii they '/", in practice llujy do not. And licit! is anolhtT ((Ufslioii which I leave thfrn.iclvcs to aiibwer to Him who liist and still puis it. '* Why call ye mo Lord, l,ord, and ilo iHit thf tliiMi,'is which I say !'" (I.ukc vi. 16). Ml. S. intoiiiis Uri that both liaptists and IV•dohapti^tsa^L• pKirtiiiiidly ij^nor- llic Uapli"«l system." ant (it UMl " the I can mass of eirur and inlidelity involved in ., . ..... only hope and expect that he will >el alunil cnliuhlcniuy; both as Hoon as possible. I try to belitne Mr. S. i?* sin<!er»* in what he says and be- lievtjs, but I lind it hard to credit that he really undorslands certain pa;»Hai;es of Soriptuit a.s he interprets them. I have alrt^aily shewn both in Ihe il/c.f- scne^i r and the M'ihuss several ca?es t)l sad pci version ol the Word ol (io<l. It was done in ii,niorance no doubt, but that is iioexmise, ,ind Mr, S.'s silence is an admission ot the tact. If I misinlerprel any scriplure and the same be pointed out I will at the earliest inoiiieni acknowledife it, anil ihanktnlly. 1 hope Mr. S. will henceforih try to shew what tho scriptures he relois io do mean, or lot it (juite aloin;. 1. His e.vplanalioii of IJnried with Him in Baptism, &c., is entirely his own, and I am sure will be endorsed by no out;. Wo are asktnl not to over- look lh(! last clause of verse I'i, (Cor. ii. Vi). He says : " Tlie resurrection IS not by the physical power of theadininistr.itor, norof the person iniiiier,sod, but by simple /'((r//i. ;'' ami then draws a |)icture which does verv Utile cretiit to his power of painting. The Uible does not teach common sense, but lakes for i^ranted that men have that necessary commodity, and fttc it ; it Mr. S. has it, lit.' has ctMtainly not usinl it here. Immersion or dippin;.5 all die world over means putting into, tind ta/ciug out of. 2. The explanation of Rom. vi. ;5, 4, is as false as tho other. Ho says ihe apostle " lines not speak of every member of the church." Yes, Mr. S.. he does. We can sei; with half an eye what you aim at but you mi>s the mark. Paul, I presume, nruiersiood as a matter of course that all who believed were baptized. If Mr. S. means that there were some unbaptized in the church to wliich Paul wrote. I want him to .see th.at it was those who had been bap- tized into Chri.st. had put on Cliri.st, the allusion bein<^ to the chan^finy of garments. I take PauTs vwanine; thus : — " We have believed in Christ and therefore died to sin, and have been baptized as a representation of the same, how shall wt! that are dead to sin live any longer therein! Know ye not that so many of us as vvere baptized info Jesus Christ were baptized into the likeness of his death, (v. 5.) Let us not Uveas those who have not believed and been baptized into Jesus Chri.st." The Bible is clear enoui^h on the subj(!ct of baptism to those who really wish to know either the moile or mean- wg of it. 3. In referring to Gal. iii. 27, Mr. S. remarks : — " There is no reference here to the mode of baptism." This is tru(i, nor in any other place does Paul refer to the ;n.o(/t', by way of distinction, but to baptism itself ; he knew but one mode, neither is there now, nor will there ever be any other recognized by the Bible. It is well for Mr. Sommerville thai Paul is living in Heaven and not in Somerset. 4. Mr. S. proceeds: — "The frequency, the flippancy, and the blasphem- ous arrogance with which Baptist ministers rejwrt that they have huvied with Christ such and so many, make the flesh creep." Does Xha frequency of such reports trouble VJr. S. ? Is he really sorry that so many are obedient to Chri.st's commands '. Fiercer opponents of the truth than he have been so reported of ere now, and I am not without hope that some day somebody else's flesh %vill creep in reading of his baptism. When Paul was going to "bombard the stronghold" of the christians at Damascus the Ai!(;rMENT.s ruo and con. «53 as 8 the . S., he iiuirk. I were hnrch Lord met him ; who kiiowH hut Mr. S. luny be near seeiny a •' lisjhl lioiii HeaviMi " oil the suhjoct of Itaptiitin. '' Bhi-phi'tnoiis Jirro^faru-Mj' it'miiulr* one of a similar nharpe hroiiyht ai^'iiiiist our Lord. "This man l)hiHphem(!lh. " Matt. ix. 3. "He hath >|)tikeii bhisphemy." Malt wvi. 05. Ami the master hil^ spiil : "The disciph' is not aliove iiis Ma-iter, nor the servant abov(f lii.-t Lord, if they have persecuted me thtjy will alr-o per^eeule you."' It is not tfie first time that some of the professed Iriends ot Christ have wounded Him in Mis osvn house, and fullilled 8ume sad prophecies. '• But ths Scripture must be fullilled." Just here allow mo to say a wonl to the ministerial readers of the Afrxscugcr. Dear brethren, if you have a ly reufard for Mr. Soirunerville d(j not send any more reports of ba[)tisms. why make the good manslleeh creep ! And you, Mr. Ed M. if'liey Hi7/send, then ple:isedoii"t print them, lest Sir. S. shoulcl hee it, or if y( must, then just leave a bla.k on Mr. S.'s copy of the Aks- scnger, or if yo. .rill print th(;m on every copy, then the only other remedy or riither preventive for that peculiar sentiation ib for Mr. Sommerville not lo read them. 6. Mr. S. calls baptism an "obscene ceremony." Tlieappearaiue of the ceremony will very much depend on slate of the mind of the him who wit- nesses il. In si.v places in the Bible we read of " an evil »'ve,'' iiiiil -'To 'he pure all thin^^s are pure." And we read, 710/ in the Bibfe, '' Honi soil qui mal J pense." 6. \lr. S. speaks of a person "being taken out of the water not at all improved in appearance." This may be so, but thev have '' the answer of a good conscience toward God.*' Mr. Sommerville '• looked at the oulvard appearance but tlie Lord lookelh on the heart.''' Were the priesfs of old im- proved ill appearance when preparing the sacrifices ? 7. Wo ail! next informed that: — '-What our friends {•' B'riend, I thank thee for that word) call baptism is an impious carricature of the work of the Spirit set before us in Romans vi. H, 4." When will Mr. S.'s immense fund of liard and l)illt;r words be e.vhansted ! However, when he gei» more light, and lifcomes a B.iptist, he will think and spe.ik very dillerenlly of baptism, and possibly call it a Divinely appointed, and therefore titling, re- presentation of that work. I hope Mr. S. in his bombarding will send some solid shot into our camp instead of mere smukn and sound, and, by the way, I wish he would hurry up with those few passages on Infant Baptism which I have askcil for so citen. Or, oerhaps. as he ha:j his hands full, some ijood brother will tender him a little help in that direction. I commend to Mr. S. and all others un- baptized the first article in the Messenger of Jan. 2t)lh. Yours, very truly, J. Brown. nence s Paul w but gnized leaven !" MEssKNfiER," March 1, lS7fi.] Mr. Km tor : — I sincerely hope that nothing that Mr. Somaierviile has said, or may say, will cause any disunion Itetweeii hrelhreu of the Baptist and other (ienoniinalions. Surely no one supposes that one in ten thousand en- dorses what Mr. Summerville describes as the " otiscene ceremony of immer- sion." And altiiough tiie offensive term appears in the Wedetjrm, I do not suppose the Kditor himself approves of it, however he niaj' seek to excuse it, which appears to be on the ]n'inciple of an " eye for an eye." By no means let difference of opinion make difference of feeling, however harshly some may express those opinions. If our heads differ, our hearts must not. Tiie letter in the Messeiujer iroin " A Country Ba|>tist," will sliow Mr. S. the tendency of his hitler words. If he will read Prov. vi. 1(5. 19, he will see what is said of him tlial soweth di.scoi-d among l)retliren. lie may thus read hcicp over, Matt. 18, 7, -" It must needs be that offences come, but woe to tliat man hy whom the offence cometh,"- and then his first letter on this coiUro- n-i UAITISMAL IMMKIISIOX NOT OF GOD. versy. lie iiiiist !)« aware tliivt he himself lias stirred up all this strife and liittpriii'ss. (Jrare lie with liiiii notwiihstiindiii;,', and as lie is advanced in life, it would perhaps he hetter to lay di)wn tlie weapons of war ami be jire- parinj^ for home, than to he tlriii;,' poisoned arrows rii,dit and left. A< an old soldier of the crosM, and one wlio it appears has dime some ^oixl sfrvice. he shiMild he esteemed very highly in love, and sliouhl therefore hedi-altwith all ihe more faithfully. In his letter in the JfWcy^m of Feb. 12tli, he tpiotes from \hii McsitfUf/cr, " May the time soon come when the ilehision ( infant hapUsm ) shall eeas" to hlind immortal souls; when it sliall no more lead tlinse whom it has hiin 1- folded into the ways of darkness." To this I add a solemn a.nl hearty ' Amen.' Hut Mr. S. gives this a dexterous twist and says : " all Tedohaptists are led blindfolded into the ways of darkness," and then utters a lou<l cry for help to the Wifni'MH, the I'eilobaptist Kev'ds iind I). D's of Nova Scotia. Is it iwt ii (h-/u.iiou Z Does it not. blind immortal .-^uiils ;- Does not tlic enemy of souls avail himself of its helj) to people the world of darkness :- Look abroad and see how widely the doctrine of " baptismal regeneration" is taught, believed, and trusted in. I?ut Mr. S. must not make us say that all who practice infant baptism " are led blindfolded into the ways of darkness." When from the IJible we can be shown it is of (iod, and therefore nof a dvla- siuii ; when that (luntatioii can be proveil to be unlriie, I at least, will cancel my en<lorsenient of it and teach ami practice Infant Baptism. Hut there in not a man living, let his pretensions to learning be what they may, that can j)oint to a single pas,sage between the two covers of Hit; lUlile that Iv'ach.s infant baptism unless it be that in Matt. ir>. 9, " teaching for doctrines the commiindments of men." Ihit why does Mr. S. cry so loml to tiie I'rcshi/fi-- viait WihiPSA, the I'edobaptist Uev'ds and D. D.'s of Nova Scotia for help, when the arrow struck him, and almost threatens to bombard thnn if they don't!' lias he not Ay //(■;//.<(('//' undertaken to bring the " strongimld of tho Baptists" to the ground )' (Jo on, Hro. S., all the greener will l>e the laurels that will encircle your brow when you will have won the victory, and then wdien standing on the ruin of " the stronghold" that .some think is foimdeil on the Uock of Kiernal Truth, Yell inny wiivo ymir liannor Iiigh, Ami like Imlil Cirsur iry : (.'^lioutin^' triiiiii|ihaiuly) " Vciii, villi, vifi." Perhaps Bro. .S. forgets that hi.s brethren are so anxious that h- should have all the honors of victory that they hold hack, or ])erhap8 they > an see he is chasing a comet. Nearly a column is occupied in discussing .Vaanian the leper, '1 Kings, T), and as usual, rw ilhihI, lie handles scripture very recklessly. He says: — " Naaman is not commanded to wash /liitiKcif ; is not representeil as dip|)ing /(///(.sc//"," and further on, " the word of inspiration does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that .N'aaman did anything more than dij) the part affected, or even lift the water with his hand and apply it to the part," and then issues a challenge:- •" I challenge any jiersoii who has any claims to be called a He- brew scholar in Nova Scotia or el.-<ewhere to state over his own name that the on'f/iiKil liord used by the projihet does not pro/wr/i/ and iiir(iri<tl>!i/ signiliy to inis/i." 1 take Mr. S. to mean uui/i/i in the sense of applying water to any object. If mistaken I am open to correction. I will now try to shew: 1. That .N'aaman was commanded to wasli /liinsclf. •J. That he i.s repre.>»ented aa dippiinj /ilnisc/f nntl'iwt the part affected. 1 take my arguments i)rincipally from the Septuagint and the Hebrew scholarship of the lj\X, Mr. S. will hardly (piestion. 1. That Naaman was commanded to wash /lintnelf. The original word is *iieri'c/iefset.h {waith thyself) from the root reehfts. "To wash, (deanso the [' Mr. Urowu yivps llie word in Hflirew cliiiriutcrs, Iml us we luivc no Kolinw type, we liavc ln'tii oliiigi'd to omit tliuiii. \ii\t. J<. ul.-jo writi'H tlic Uruclt eliurucli;r», wliitli wu are oWigeii to oiall.— Eu. C. M.] llduM an see >in^s, .'., ,'*iiy»: — ilv It-ail IV'.'Ct.'.l, II issues cl ii lle- luit tlie nitly to )l)ject. hi. Ill ("brew jsvoid is Imso Uio iv|>t', «■« I'll wc niy ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON. 65 surface witli water." When used as a noun feminine, an inst<ince of wliiHi is fimml in Sol. Sun;^ 4. '2, it means, "a bath, lialiiinj,', or washing." The LXX have translato'l it by tlic word *(ousfil, from lotto, which moans, "To wasli, especially to wnnh the hodi/" When used in a middle sense " to wash ones.df, bathe." (See Liddell and Scott.) Our word lave is probably derived from this. The (lerman is " waschen dich," wmh thyse-lf, 2. Tliiit ht' is represented a.s (lippini/ /limself and "not simply the part atfected. 2. Kin<js, .0. 14. "Then went he down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan." The word translated dipped is ebaptisato, from baptizo, to dip. (L. and 8.) The wonl is in the middle voice, and therefore means, he dipped niinsi'lf. Of course if this be proved it disproves that he only dipped or wa.shed the parts affected. Mr. S. says that wo have similar lanj^fua^e (wash) in .lohn 9. 7. " Go wash in the pool of Siloam." The lan^uape is similar in P'n^Iish but uot in Greek. In John the word is nipsai, from niso, " To W(t.^h especially tlie liands and feet. Niso is properly used of rvnahinjf part of the boily lononiai of bathing. (The italics are Lid- dell and Scott's, which see.) The latter, as shown, is the word useil in 2 Kin^s, 5, 10, and the former fnizo) in John 9. 7. This distinction is observed in otiier places; Kxodus 2. .'). "And tiie daufjliter of Pharoah came down to wash at the river," lousesthai, to bathe. 2 Sam., 11.8. David said, "Go down and wash tliy feet ; " ni[)sai, to wash & part of the lK)dy. Many other cases could be proihu'edif renuire(l. So much for Mr. S.'s challenge, and I hope he will i)e a little more cautious henceforth in his dealing with Scripture and not manifest (to quote himself) such " reckless trilling and deceitful dealing with the divine word as is \>m\\- ful to conlemplute," and show a little more brain and a little leas boast, more sense and less sound. We are again told tliat " The Lonl after His resurrec- tion sent the apftsth'S to baptize." .Mark says. Ch. 1(5. IT); "And he said unto to them, Go ye into all the world and frrearh the t/ospel to ever creature," and Paul the apimtle .says, I Cor. I. 17 : " For Ciirist sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel." Has Mr. S. no conscience that he can make such sUite- nients i-* Or has he no friends to counsel and advise, it should not be left to a stranger to warn him of the evil of perverting the truth. He is determined that all Baptists shall go \.rt the bad place, " with the njd world wilt) were immertted.'' Hy Mr. S.'sown teaching in a former letter tliey were not immersed, by the teaching of (ien. 7, 4, "it rained upon the earth forty days and forty night"." I answer Mr. S. according to his folly. We are further t'>ld tliat " Noah and his house wt-re baptized and xaved." Tlie Bible teache« us they were saved and Mr. SommerviII;» they were baptized. I have been told that the large rocks in tlie neighl)orhoo<l of Milton and Liv- erpool are tlie ballast that was used for Noah's ark and tlm one is as capable of proof as the other. When will he have done with his 'sly insinuations' and perverse torturing of the Bible ? Has he no friends Y Does n i one care for liim ? Never have I seen such a number and sucli glaring perversions of Scrii)tiire as have appeared in the course of letters from Mr. Sommerville, and he grows wor--e as lie procemls. One more (juotation : " Whoever (says >[r. S.) wherever, by whomsoever introduced, the doctrine of haptiitrntd immersion (whatever that ma\' mean), had its origin, as it has its jierjietuation. in a ral)id fanaticism," Of Christ who (ptve the rotniiunul to hantize, (Mark 10, 1(>.) it was said (Jno. lH, *2<>,) "He liatli a devil and is mad. ' Mr. Sonunerville and the Jews are of the same mind. We are promi.sed another jiaper, but 'not to rhxe the argument," Well, it is some relief to hear that, but why not finish what he has begim, his work is not half (lone yet, and after having made such 8ucces.sful attacks on the Ba|»- tist stronghold and levelled so numy fortresses, it does really seem a pity to Btoji now wlien victory seems so near. But unfortunately for him and ids can.se he Inis been at a great disadvantage, for the Baptist stronghold is ia^ilde the Strongliold of the Rock of Kternal Truth, and wlien he succeeds in over- turning the latter he may then perhaps succeed with the former Yours, J. Buow.v, i» 9 66 BAPTISMAL IMMERSION NOT OF GOD. X [" Wrat-KYAN," Mar. 5, 1876.] THE VOICE OF SCRIITURE ON BAPTISM. M llr.'tTOR : - Many thanks prennseJ for the promptitude and generosity witli wnich you opened your columns for three, or at most four letters. (I a.«ked and now ask no more) ; I thank the Eilitor of the MeAseixjer also for the tii-st article of Feb. 2, copied from the Wntchnum. It liiw tlie true rinj;,'; and I am much mistaken, if the author i? not the tidentcd. t'dncated, and uol)le Baptist wife of a Baptist minister in Boston ; one win. ould scorn to drive an opponent from tlie fields bj' sneers, lies and ."iunder, or i'\ 'dean argument by tlic " let alone, things-are-well-enougii " allej^ation. Things are not well enough. Our denuininatiunnl Christianity is not ot (tod. Different churches, occupying different localities, are but different churches holding their several peculiarities in doctrine and discipline, are nof recognized in Scripture. For this we should strive, to this we must come, that we all speak the same thing, that there be no divisions among us ; but that we be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment. Professors in Galatia had turned aside to another gospel, and are addressed simply as the Church of Gidatia. Mr. Saunders has taken up his pen again, but, strange to say, has not even attempted to s<'t a><i<le the evidence by which I urged the charge against Way- land and the Baptists of Nova Scotia -^hat they deny the Old Testament Scriptures to be a rule of Faith and Practice under this dispensation. This is not the old charge raised from the dead, and reshaited ; but a perfectly <listinct charge. Dr. W., after declining to notice the imputation of denying the inspiration of the Old Testament, goes on to state precisely what he does l)elieve ; and in terms as definite, as lucid as the English language can sup- ply, has stated that nuthiiuj hut. the New Te.stament is a rule to Christians in this age. And Mr. SauntlerH has accepted his doctrine, lluw does he propose to meet the charge P The charge against Dr. \V., it seems, fell dead "under the contempt of his dignified silence," and Mr. Saunders would copy tiie e.v- ample of dicjnijied »ilence, as he thinks. " It is not prol)able that any Baptist will regard it necessary to refute the charge." This is ijuite a convenient way of evadimj a precise statement on the subject. The charge is not, as he says it is, frivohua, and it is founded; and a declaration of Baptist views nnist be eluded if possible. He seems to think, old as I am, " He (I), will most prob- ably outlive tins charge he has brought against the Bnpiiot body." If I do live, I fervently hope to outlive it. Let us have a piddic, explicit, and au- thoritative declaration that the Bai)ti8t8 of Nova Scotii do own and acknow- ledge the Scriptures of the Old, as well as of the New Testament, to lie their rule of religious faith ami practice ; and, although my judgment of Dr. W.'s views in that matter shall remain unaltered, 1 assure .Mr. Saunders and all whom it may concern, that I will have more pleasure in withdrawing the charge than I had in liringing it. The withdrawij sliall be juonipt, heartj', and joyful ; imtif such decdaration is proudly and couteuiptuously witldield, I shall still consider the charge as just, not however, because the declaratijn is kept back, but on the evidence on which it is grounded. How I aui to out- ARGUMEN'l^ PRO AND CON. ()7 lot fven i9t Way- stament n. This iprfectly idenyini? lit'iloert j;an sup- Hi sins in propose " under the ex- [• Baptist jient way li(! says must be >st prob- It I <lo and au- acknow- h^'. tlieir Dr. W.'s |s and all ing the It, ht-arty, jvithlield, Iclaration u to out- live the charge, if the Baptists refuse to speak out, is a accroK I am psr- 8uad(*d they are afraid to place their views of their allegiance to the (Jod of the Old Testament before their own people or ua. The Messenger deals more toisehj with the subject than Mr. Saunders, and with more of Jesuitical cunning ; and he raises a new question, siily intro- duced. Many readers would suppose it the same. He c^lls my charge against the Baptists "audacious and heavy." But what is it ^ According to him it is " that Baptists do not accept the Old Testament as d'vine nufhoriti/. Ob- serve r/iyj»c «M</iori^f/' This is not the charge at all. I never ciiargeil them with not accepting the Old Testament as divine authority. 1 treat of the e.r- tent to which that authority is binding. If the Old Testament is inspired, of course it speaks with authority. The historical and biograpliical reconls contained in it are ilivinely authenticated. With divine autliority it settles the civil and ecclesiastical polity of Israel ; the constitution of the Cliurch of old, its laws, ordinances, officers and discipline. In one word, it was loith divine nuthority, the rule of faith and practice to Israel ; l)ut is it, in connec- tion with tlie Xew Testament, the rule of faith and practice to the faithful u)i' der this dispensativn i This is what I say the Baptists <lo not acknowledge ; upon this point we have nothing but shulHing and evasion. Mr. Saunders is not satisfied with my exposition of Rom. H, and Col. 2: He thinks " it may be better to set aside the opinions of Mr. S. and all other commentators, and let the divine word interpret itself." This is a good tlourish with which to close. This is precisely the rule I have adopted. Has he applied his own rule? No. .\gainst my exposition, he dues not apjteal to (iod's word, hut to Dr. Schoff's. How does " N." meet my argument 'i By a reference to nmeteen-twetitieths of the Christian world, — " the ablest men of hi« oirn denonuiiation, and the general opinion expressed tnf wri. rsof other denominations." Does the Messenger dij) his pitcher in the waters of the sanctuary to put out uiy candle ':' No. He proposes to use a I^edohaptis> ex- tinguisher. The same song all round. Not the testimony of God, but unin- spired record ; not tiie judgment of (lod, but uninspired opinions. According to the same rule of judgment, when I stattnl that our Lord did not i)artnke of his own supper, the Messenger (Dec. 8) does not found his reply on an I'.van- gelist or an Apostle, but on " the opinion of no loss a man than the distin- guisheil and scholarly .Mthot, IVdobaptist, of Harvard University." I ffxess ho has found out that 1 am right and Abbot and himself are wrong; for now the "ujatter in no way affects our argument," and " we do not feel certain which of the two learned gentlemen is correct in the matter," very different is the langiuigf he hoMs when the subject is introduceal. He asserts ^?nVr that our Lord partook of the supper, and by that action made it his oini, as he is supjmsed to have made immersion his own by being immersed. The reader who wishes to know the facts will l(!arn nil that the most learned can teach him, ity comparing Luke 22: ir)-2(), with I Cor. xi : 23-30. The great- est nien often talk loosely and without thinking, even the Messrnt/i'r, who sometimes provokes his readers to think he knows less of the Bible than of learned, elevated, and honored Professors, Doctors, and Historinns. But there is still hope that evfU I may he convinced " in the light of the following fact." What is it? Some fact from inspired history which I had 68 BAPTISMAL IMMERSION NOT OF GOD. overlooked, and in the light of which any " further attempt to darken coun- sel by vain reasonings" must end. Is it from Luke, or Paul, or— P Nothing of the kind, It is an Indian story with which the Rev. llr. Boggs, associated with the Rev. Mr. McLaurin, is credited. There is not a thought in my heart which would lead me to question the veracity of either Mr. Boggs or Mr. McLaurin. But I cannot accept the report of what they have said from the Mcbsenger. I have so much evidence of his capability in that line, that I can supposo the story very carefully manipulated to suit his purpose. The story is this : "A young man in India had by the Scriptures been brought to Christ, and wished to be baptized. " It had never entered his mind " that there was any other mode of baptizm than immersion. " He saw in God's wor<l that it was his duty to be baptized, and that immersion tons the mwle." I .shall take for granted that the story is true ; and that this report of it is accurate. I have frankly and promptly answered two questions put to me by the Mes- senyer, and now I have two to ask him. Had that young man received no previous instruction from a Baptist minister, or member of a Baptist church or other person holding Baptist principles, which might have created a pre- possession in favor of immergian ; or was he ilependent on the Scriptures alwie for his knowledge of Christ and of Christianity ? What version of the Scriptures did he use,— the Serampore or Bengalee version, in which, by ren- dering the word baptize by one et^uivalent to immerte, Ond ia made a Baptist whether he will or no ; or a version in which the word is transferred, and the reader is left, by comparing passages where the word occurs, to learn the ap- plication of the term ? Passing o\ .: many things evidently said for effect, there is only one mat- ter on which I would animadvert. The Messenger has an insinuation to fling back. What is it ? " That Baptists obtain their views of Baptism from the name of ordinance," — baptism, as he explains it ^i few lines below, " in all its actual relations and uses." This I never said or insinuated. He seems utterly destitute of discrimination; or his prejudices have so blinded him that he can- not do justice to the plainest statement of an opponent ; or he is a conscious 30phi^t. My statement is limited to the mode of liaptism. My words were before his eyes. He has quoted them in this immediate connection. They are, " It is too notorious to be denied that their main argument in support of i7nmersian is derived from the meaning of the word baptize." This is true. Carson, p. 11 1. " He may call upon me to rtnd a place sufficient to immerse a couch. But I will go on no such errand. If I have proved the meaning of the word, I will believe the Spirit of God, who tells me that the Pharisees baptize their beds.", P. 272. " I care not where the water is to be found ; if they wore baptised they wero immersed." P. 274. "The Jailor and his household were baptized, therefore they were immersed." Crawley, p. 126. " If this (the word baptize) be found to possess a single specific meaning, everyone of course perceives that th^s nmst set the question forever at rest." Will Ihe Messeiiffer refuse the doctrine of Carson and Cmwley P Though this is my last letter to the Wesleyan, let not the Measmyer sujj- pose the argument is closed. He has been itching to get at baby-sprtnkliny, and if not hajjpily anticipated, I shall help him to a remedy. I am soxTj' you have been exiwsed to reproacli on my account. There ia an ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON. 69 influence creeping abroad, not originating in any love to Baptists, or their principles, which from its character, is exercised " liy the walls and in the doors of the houses," and which will, if possible, make IJaptists the uiicou- scious inatrumants of a revenge premeditatetl for j'ears. I would say to my Baptist friends, - and they are many, warmly attached to me, and to whom I am warmly attached,— " if you read only what the MessftKjer says in this controversy, you will never know what my views or sayings are." W. SOMMKIIVILLE. P. S. -"A Country Baptist," the »uih opponent with whom I have to do, has crawled behind the fence and raised a yell so fearful that folks are ready to start to their feet and ask, " Is any one being murdered Y Baj'Tists ix- 8ULTKD ! Baby sprinkling is ridiculed. Nobody insulted f Infant baptism ia hateful, a delusion leading to darkness. Nobody insulted f IV-dobaptist ministers, as such are helping Satan to people hell. Nuiionv insui.tkd J* The 7*. Advocate of Saint John (Feb. VI) is rosponsible for the folk-wing:— " By an overwhelming vote of the Bai)tist ministers of New York and Brook- lyn, one must not only be immersed to be a Christian ; he must also be a mem- ber of a regular Baptist church." If this l)e true, then according to Baptist votes, there is not a Christian in all the Pedobajjtist churches. But nobody 18 iNSt:LTEi> ! When I represent baptismal imnicrsion as a disgusting, inde- cent ceremony, the character of the right is transferred to the subject, and Baptists are insulted. 1 am confident that there is not in Nova Scotia a Baptist lady of cultivated mind and refined sensibilities, — ami there are hun- dreds such, pure in heart, pi -i in speech, pure in life,— who would have sub- mitted to immersion, had it nut l)eiii thundered into her ears, loud and long that it is necessary if she would follow Christ fully. It is a cross, felt to be a cros,»,— confessed to be a cross. To my Baptist mothers and sisters, I would Bay wiih all affection: "This is not a cross which Christ has laid upon you. That Lord, who requires his female members not to appear in Christian as- semblies unveiled, who enjoins modesty an<l shamefacedness as woman's orna- ment, does not stultify himself by requiring you, out of doors, in an undress, to put yourself in a stranger's hands to be plunged over head and ears, before a gaping crowd. Custom and fashion will reconcile us to anything. The person who would come into his friend's house and proceed to treat his wife or daughter with the freedom that, as I learn, is used in the waltz, would be turned oot of doors, W. S. h/er m\y- tnnkliny, lere is an L" Messenger," Mar. 15, 1876.] THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. Mr. Editor : — I have read with no little interest the articles that have ap- peared in your columns and in those of the Wesleyan^ respecting the ques- tion wlr ther the Old Testament is held as a rule of faith and practice. And I have wondered that some one of your correspondents has not given a plain aniwer, and a decided answer in the negative, so far at least as the fatter part of the proposition is concerned. Does not every one know that what- ever be said in the heat of controversy, neither Baptists, nor Presbyterians, nor Methodists, nor Congregationalists, nor Episcopalians — to stop there — 70 BAPTISMAL IMMKRSION NOT OF GOD. L'o;isidei the Old Testament a rule of " practice"' for the Clnisliaii Church! A.ni though all tlie.se (ieiiorniiiatious were to do so, the 15th chapter of Acts, and ihe epistle to the Galaiiaus, lo say nothing of Hebrews, would convict them of deadly heresy. The books of Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus, are essential and funda- niental portions uf the Old Testament. Let us see a few of the practical injunctions these commanded : "Tell me, ye that desire lo be under the law, do ye not hear the law?" Read Leviticus cheaters 1, 2, 3, and 4. Da the (lenominations referred to oiler all those sacrifices ; Read also Lev. 23. Are all these festivals enjoineil upon all the Christian chinch? Do the Baptist keep I ham ? Do the i'resbyterians ! Do the Methodists ! Do the Episcopalians? Read from verse 10. "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. Also in the tenth day of the second mouth there >hall be a day of atonement: it shall be a holy convocation unto you, anil ye shall alllictyour souls, and oiler an oU'ering made by lire unto the Lord. Ami ye shall done work in that same day, for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the Lord your (hn\. For whatsoever sonl it be that shall not be alHicted in that same day he shall be cut oil" from among his pt;ople. And whiitsoever soul it be that doelh any work in that same day. the same soul will I destroy from amon^ his people. Ye shall do no maimer of work : it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings." See also chap. 16, for the sacrilices that weie to be olFered on that solemn day of atonement. Now would it not be idle to iisk if the I'resbyterians, Baptists, Congregationalists, Methodistp. &c., keep that feast, and at the ex- act lime, and in the exact w.iy in which the Old Testament Code of Laws enjoins it ? Again, take the rite of circumcision. No law, commandment, precept, rites or ceremony, is enjoined in the Old Testament, with more rigid severity than this rite. Here is the law on that subject: See (len. 17, 9 — 14. Now read in Acts 15, what the decision of the Holy Ghost ami the Apostles and elders of the Christian church, at Jerusalem, was, when this subject was then anil there agitated and settled as also the whole (iue>tion whether the Old Testament is to be a rule of practice, that is, whether the Gentiles should be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. See al»o Acts 21, 25, "As teaching the Gentiles that believe, we have written and concludeil that they onsERVK mo such thini; '" [as circumcision and the ceremonial law of Old Teslamerit, see verses 21, 22, 23 and 24,] "s.ave oni.v that they keep themselves from things olfered to idols, anil from blood and from fornication." Now another word from (ialatians 6, 1-4. " Stand fast therefore in the lib- erty wherewith Christ hath made yon tree, and be not entangled ai,'ain with the voKK OF uoNo.viJK. Behold I, Paul, say unto you that ik ve bk cikci m- cisEU Christ shall pkokit \ov nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law vk akk kai.i.en FKOM (!KA( E." Now I put the queslion in all candor to any man, or every man who claims that the Old Testament IS "a rule of faith aiid practice ■' for the Christian Church, since the death of Christ in whom all the types and shadows had their fuUilnient, and who is " the end of the law for righteousness lo every one belicveth,' Rom. 9, 4 — and I ils/c him What can you inimi Inj these terms ! and epecially I would ask, hi what sense can the Olu Testament be consider- ed a rule of i)riictice ? If the right of circumcision has been M'ta.-ide, and the sacrifices and festival days are no longer lo be practised : and if even the law of die Sabbalh is in a me;usure abolished, so that the seventh uav is no longer to be kept, nor the jleath penultv to be indicted for its violation, as Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and I may sav all others hold, and prac- tice, and t)elieve, anil teacli — I say again, since these things are so, in vhat sense — I am tempted to say, untk what face, can any man of .sense and know- with claims iri^ti.m us liail J every terms f iisider- iiul the en the V is iio tiiiii, cUi piai'- iii vhut know- AROUMKNTS PRO AND CnS. 71 l«"dge of St-riptuitf. anil Ihe praeti(^es and creeds of the aforesaid denomina- tiotis, say that the Old Testament either is or shonid be held a.> a rule of " practice Mor the christian diurch ! Is there then no ditlerence between the " ministration of death " and the " iniinstration of the Spirit" — (hat is between the law and the gospel I See 2 Corinthians iii. 7, H. VV;is Paul wrong there ? Are the Jewish and Christian dispensations identical? and so I'anl wrong again in Heb. x. 1. N';'.y verily " Let God be true, but every man a liar.'' Certainlv there is no ((uestion as to the iji.spira/ion of the Old Testament. What is here denied maybe summed up thus: I. The Old TeslanuMit taken as a whole is not the Christian's Rule of Practice, for many of its pre- cepts and doctrines have been abrogated by the same authority that enjoined them. 2. Neither Baptists, nor Presbyterians, nor Congregaiionalisis, nor Methodists, nor Kpisco[»alians, believe the Old restainent to be for them as professed Churches of Jesus Christ, a rule of practice in any sense that re- (juires them to adhere to the letter of all the Jewish riles and ceremonies. And my ([uesliun is this: Since you manifestly set all these a-side, in u-hat sense do vou consider the Old Testament A Rule of I'ractice ? A Christian. [" MKSSKSciEK," Miirrli 22, ISTfi.] FROM RKV. JOHN BROWN. Mr. Editor, — After waiting three weeks for Mr. Sonimcrville's last effort, it has at length appeared, and is like the wine in feasts in olden lime, with this ditlerence. tlint Mr. S. "swine was in*/ and .so»r at the begiiniing, and his v'orst and sDnrcst he has kept till the hist. I e.vpected a little work with this his Hnal eilurt, and primed myself accordingly, but lind that there is in fact no argument to reply to, inasmuch iis there is not a single passage brought to refute Believers' Baptism or confirm Intant Sprinkling notwith- standing the caption, "The voice ot Scripture on Baptism." He has taken my hint and is •• letting Scripture alone."' He talks of Mr. Saunders, Mr. Messenuei", Ur. Wayland, Dr. Crawley, and some others, but we look in vain for Old or New Testament names. As ."e.vperience ought to teach,'' it is gratifyin;! to find that Mr. S. is learning, inasmuch as he knows or might know, that the writers of the ' Book of the I.aw' are opposed to him as directly as the Ea^l is to the Wesf. He is still determined that the Baptists of Nova Scotia shall answer at his bar as to their belief in the Old iis well as the New Testament as their rule of faith and praclic^e. This is as if a sweep were saucily to ask a gentleman if he believed in soap and w.iter. When Mr. S. pulls the beam out of his own eye, it will be time enough for him to seek to take the mote out of ours. His rea-sons for bringing the charge are about as distinct and sensible as Tom Smith's were of jilting Mary Jones. "Why somebody told me as how somebody said, how somebody else had somewhere read, in some newspa- per as hitw you was deail." if Mr. S. should oe tempted to refer to this charge again, I recommend him first to read a clause of three words towards the end of the tenth verse of the si.vth chapter of Amos. And as a reason for the same, I will ijuote from his own letter : — "The greatest men often talk loosely and without thinking." He says, " 1 would say to mv Baptist friends, and they are many, warmly attached to me. and to whom I am warmly altacheil, if yon read only what the Messenger says in this controversy, you will never know what my views and sayings are." We should not have known that Mr. S. loved any Bap- tists if lie had not fold us, I suppose that will iccount for the great trouble he ha'i gme to to show them their error, as well as the gentleness of his Ian- 72 BAPTISMAL LMMKRSION NOT OF OOD. guaj^o towards them. And as re^rds the views and sayings of Mr. S. the readers of the Atrfsenger knuvr quite as much of ' his views and sayings ' as they ciivo for; especially the; latter, and 1 hope he will give me some credit for informing them. Baptists are 'fanatical enough to be content with the plain toucliiMgs of Inspiration on the subject of Baptism. I may here say to my Pedobaptist friends, " If you read only what the Weslcyan says in this controversy, you will never know the weakness of Mr. S.s arguments, nor his ability to twist the Scriptures to mean what its author never intended them to mean." He says the Messenger " has been itcmng to get at baby-sprinkling, and if not happily anticipated I shall help him to a remedy," I presume the rem- edy is silencr.. That is wise, very leise of Mr. S. I have been itching for it too, inasmuch as he promised twice to entertain us with his views thereon. If he is wise he will keep as siUtU as the Bible does on that subject ; but he should keep hispromue. 0% rood brother seems to bid for sympathy in his reply to "A Country "^fitisl"' when he informs his readers that this is the sixth opponent with ! S h' ^a-^ had to do. With/fc of those he has had something to do, and tss listake I am myself the favored one which he has spared. I am, i - jkj, tL"'.':ful that he has let me say what I pleaded without calling me into question. I'here is a seventh opponent which Mr, S. appears to have overlooked, from whom nothing has appeared in the reli- gious papers of Halifax. "To my Baptist mothers and sisters," says Mr. S.. " I would say with all affection — This is not a cross which Christ has laid Truth is sometimes told without intendinij it. It is not a cross upo:. you." Iru \''.iich Christ has laid upon them. His commandments are not siitvovs. My yoke is easy and my burden is light. It is disobedient shoulders that feel the yoke. " I^oTc will make our willing feet In swifl obedience move." And now if I could only gain the ear of Mr. Sommerville I would give him this advice : 1. Never again write or speak on Baptism as you now %iew it, unless you wish the Baptist Cause and scriptural Baptism success, 2. Never fight a Baptist. Sttre to get beat. The Chairman of the Con- gregational Union of F^ngland last year said "he would never fight a Bap- tist." Wise man. Bro. S. be as wise as he. 3. If you do take this matter up again, don't spread it over six months. Let your letters be a little more regular. Controversy should be bhort, sharp and decisive. 4. Don't suppose that hard words will serve for hard arguments. 5. Don't fail to let me know when you brijg on the subject of Infant Sprinkling. 6. Read Acts 5, 38, 39. Be sure. In closing I beg to thank the Editor of the Witness for finding space for all my communications so long as the discussion continued in that paper, and to congratulate him on his wis4lom in discontinuing it when he did and on escapinjf the letters of Mr. S. that have appeared elsewhere. Thanks too to the Editor of the IFcf/ei/an for giving Mr. S. the space he needed, while I cannot help thinking that if he had known anything of the letters beforehand he would not have granted Mr. S. the favor of inserting them, and feel sure that it was with considerable reluctance he sent them forth to his readers. I have oidy cjnoted, in the Messeitser. a small part of Mr. Sommerville's revilings and[ scornful remarks. Worse things he could not say than he has said. I leave him in the hands of Him who judgeth rightly. The cause of the truth of Believer's Baptism will not sBffer bv anything he may say, and in his attempts to overthrow the truth he has injured his own cause and helped ours. nor Con- Bap- [tifant or all ■r. and iiul on too to fhi\e I jhand ■ille's he has use of and AIKil'MKXTS PRO AXD (MS. 73 It iti trt hf liopeil tliHt wh»»npv»»r he or •ny oihf-r Pt^lolwptiPt ininiAler i>]irinklfH a iliild, li»> will iijairiiy an<l <Ii-tinctl}- tt-ll tlin peuplf hy what kulLonty lin <lof« it ; niiil if this j> not •Ion**, that tliey will m'k at tlif itrdptr tinjf ami ])lai-e tor tlifir aiitlmrity ami not l>e |iut off by ruch an ans^wt-r an a (rrtatn wn'mVcr, onct- yavf whewa^ke*! a» a teamfd man what tli»' word baptize nally niHiins in thf original. re|ilie«l, " If I t*-II ymi yuu will only have my wonl lor it. ' Wlu-u I sc»' Mr. Somuit-rAille 1 umy i>cTliain< a^k him if lie koowi> that ^entlt'iiian, i. e. if lu- i.i in a guo*! aittO'i. 1 MID Surry if I have hecn thmiKht to ha^ »■ any Imnl f«*Iinn toward IVilo- fi&jitii-tg I have tho.«e who know niH to judxe. But atfain>t the dutirine aj)d i^rac'tite of Infant Baptism, or more correctly Infant Hanti-m, 1 am ver>* iltK-M*-'!. It IS ahsoliitely unknown in the Scriptur»-» of Truth anil thin i.-* ikduiitted 1 .-iipiMisc hy a very larye prjjjortion of IVlofiapti.-ts. Thfn- are tliouHan'JH who lielinve it is Scriptural no lioubt, th*; re*i>on»ihiIity of their l>f]i»'f must re.-it mainly on their InMructor*, hut there are, 1 pr' siune, tens uf tiiou8an<ls who do not believe it, iml a>lmU that only In-lieverp should he l>ai>- tiiwi. Some will nuv '• It is not e.».«ential tw.-aIvation. and »o doec not nuttter ;" which is another way of saying, " 1 will not of>ey '"briht any more than 1 can Lelp, /so I can g.-t to Ileavon." " IJaptists in pnn •ipl".*' tii^y are ■i'lu-times called, which in other words would he "Tho-e who An<«r their duty hut dn not do it." " Blessed are they that do his coniman«lm»-nti«.~ " If ye A'fv me. k kf.1' my commandments, lie that hath my coniatan>inienta. ai^d X-a 'h them, he it if that loveth iMe." *• To <jbey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of ra^.. " Your.a, J. BxtOWN. f'MKssENOER.' May 3, l»T<.; FROM RKV. JOHX BKuW.V. Dkah Ki»it(»r,- It is interesting to observe the refKirtsof . .ptipnis,i»o called in Pedofiaptist churches. We fre(|uently r*««! ».f jkj many aduUn l»eing Impl tand. It thus appears that they art* becoming S.nptuml as to the Knh/ectf aad in the use of the word baptizetl they recogni/'r thai mluU iMtftfiKnn i.- right, Th*- misfortune, howe\er, is, that thewonl i« aitogetlier miMip]>li> d inaxiiiich MM it ie UH'd when the persons have only f»een ranti/iMl or gpriukled. Kvery imnieler of the gospel who han the slight»fSt knofile<iige of the orfjBhal might Ih- (supposed to know that in the Greek lantruag*- the word dip is i<ifjtizo. for ywtr.ifiev; Unxoas/i or batlir, louo : ior a ftnrtial va^hitui,— nt/jfo : iur njn'iiik- Utuf, rrnidzu. Now ftir any one tu say a man ha* l.w^n Ixiiitize^i when he hais onjy been rtrntized, is exactlj' the same a.- saving he wa> atpped when he was gprimkled, which Ip certainly not the truth, whatever el^e it may be. and if I were to say that the moon shines by day and the win by night, 1 shmild heap Bt-ar the truth as those who say sprinkling is (j«pti^m. It i? surprising that njejj who are jiublic teachers, and therefore ajught to kn<tw the meaning of « ords, epjiecially siudi as that under notice, can make Mich statement- as they do. JJajiize means upHiikle, or it floes noi ; if it doe*, why does not someone plwnly Hay so ami give the proof r and if it do«:« ud. then why in the name •of cf^nimon sense do they say it does. We say it means to dip, or immerse, aod are prepared to prove it ; will any I'edobapmt state tJie opi»<)site, and Bay baptize means to nprinhlv, and that he can bring proofs r If not, then let ih+'m use a word that means sprivfJe, viz., rrm/izo, or to make utable. iMttize, and not lietray such disregard for truth in calling darkness light and light daj-knesp, when they have been imtner-^ed with evidence from nieu of their ©WD ranks that to baptize means to immerse. an^J that this wa.** the primitive ui >de. C>ne of the most recent cases of oblirpiity in thb matter is as follows :— " I have baptized five adults, none of whom deyirt:*! to be ' buried under tlie waies of the .Ionian.' but chose the most excellent an*! more Scriptural way «f being baptized icith water." (See IVetleyan, April 8.) Xow, all chribtians will rejoice that these beliered in Christ. If devils are 10 74 HAI'TISMAL I.MMKIISION NOT OF (lOI). (■tu>t out none uf us hIiouM tinl the Hli^litest fiiiill with Uiohi* wrlio are the niHiiis of iloinn it. '"'t ratlier prry tlitit tlwy >»'*>' liftve ^''''''l'"' H'li'ceiw Htill. Next, (hut tli»'M»' tivH ili<l not ilenire to ho " burit'il iimU'r tlu) wiive« of the .lortlan" ^liow.-i ;;r»'iil wis'loin nii ihfir piirt, coiixiihniii^i tlit- liiiril tiiii»'«, h» the jmiriify wcmhl Itt- ii contly oni'. It lia.s Iwcn nu^;gottt>'il that the Livt>r|M>ol livtr would hiiv»'iiiisw»'ro<l tlit' jmriioHt' iim vvt'll. And next, il wouM l>e inton'Htin^j to know wlicther tlii( clioift* of l>t»ing l)ii|iti/»fil «■«//( wiitJT wits tlicir own, or iiiiotht'r's tor thfin ;' IJiU it is the dtHlfiot'nt I want to^call attention to. I-'imt : thurt* is no Htn/i tliimj a.^ Iin|>- tisiii irith WiittT in th»' sense of xjirinkliwj. If it i» liajitisni at all it is haptiHui IN wiittT. And Ht'coiid, to say that sprinkliiii,' is " more excfih'nt and more Seriptuial " than iinniersion is sinijjly monstrous, and when those wonls were 1)enn»'d I cannot roni-eive how the writer satistle I Jiis (•oiiscienct\ If he knew »etter, or if he did iiuf know l»eiter telLs ei|ually a.;ainst him. It is very easy to make sutdi statements, lull we never lind tlie proots fortheuminjj. The " iimre excellent and mort- Scriptural " way is on the Sirii>turv temhet, which all may know who wish, aiiil the writer of that paraijraph, if he look into the matter will find the doctrines of Tur^jatory, .Mariolalry, I'rayers for th" Dead, Woi^hip of Relics, \c.. as "excellent and scriptural" as the sprinklin^j of either infants or adults, and if he or any othir will tind one case of infant or adult x;»/i//A"//w// in the .New Testament, or one of both, I will undertake to prove that helore it took place, the child wiih treated to a little of " Mrs. \Vinslows Soothing Syrup" to keep it quiet, and in the other case that the candidate was treated to a hox of " Brown's Hromdiial Troatdie.o." That the.-e arti(deH ar<' of modern date, does not matter, 1 will undertake proof for proof, the one is as easy as the other. I have understood that my late remarkH on this suhject have jjiven some offence to those who hold to Infant Sprinkling. To mich, with all res|)eet, I have only to >ay. " Repent (of tiiis error) and he txtptizt'd, every one of you," and then our remarks will not apply to you ; for although in my hust I inti- mated my intention of stoppiny I have alteitMl my mind >incp. I have thouj^lit it well, .Mr. IMitor, to sen<l you a list of jta.ssapes on Haptism and would su>f^;est that your readers copy them out on the fly-leaf of their Biltle, or insert a leaf for the purjiose. They can then he used for easy refer- ence when needed. Let the reader see that they are lorrent hefore copying them. It would he a >;ood jjlan if some one wouhl seu'l a list of passages on the other side of the question to the representative papers for the same jHtr- pose : — JififttiKm In/ John the. JiiijUUt. Matt. iii. ft-lli. Mark i. 4-8. Luke iii. 3-H. .John i. :i.*i--'i<. Ji(i/>fimit (if the San'oiir }»/ Joint. Matt. iii. 13-17. Mark i. 9-11. Luke iii. •l\-'2\ John i. 2<.t-.'U. (ttlter iut**nqes referrv\(i to Johv'i^ lin/ttinm. .fohniii. 'J3--(>. Lukt :H). .lohn X. 4'<i. Matt. x'xi. •-';•. .Mark xi. .'!(». Luke xx. 4. Acts i. .'. 37. xi. 1(5. .xiii. '24. xviii. •_'.">. xix. 1-7. Jitriifixm hif tlinripleK of VhriM in Hi* lifetime. John iii. 2'J. iv. 1, 2. T/ie l'o>nit,ii*Kion. .Matt, xxviii. lB-2t>.' Mark xvi. \f), 16. Jtiijifixni on the dinf of I'euteioM. .Vets ii 37-42. Jia/>ti.t>n (if Saninrititni*. .\its viii. 12-ltt. JlojttiKni of the Eunuch. .\cls viii. 3ri-35). Of Vdul of Ihimnxcu*. Acts ix. 1(5, 1)^, 22. Conie/iu.* (tnd liuH.^eholti. .\ctp x. 44-48. Li/(li(( and hoitnehold. Acts .xvi. IS-ir), 40. Jailor and h(ntxehold. Acts xvi. 32-31. Crin/m-f "lid household. .Vets xviii. 8. I Cor. i iSfrj)h/ino.i and household. I Vot. i. K), 17. xvi J{fi/)fiKin of Corinth. -Acts xviii. 8. I)eKi(fn of linirtinm. Rom. vi. 3-0. Oal. iii. 27. Kpli. iv. 1,3,5. Col 12. ri'et.iii. 21. l'i(furntive and other references to Baptism 39. "Luke .\ii. 50. 1 Cor. x. I. 2. xii. 13. vii. 29, 22. X. 1.3-1.'). I.'). u. .Matt. XX. 22, 23. Mark x. 38, XV. 29. Heh. vi. 2. AIlOUMfcNTS I'UO AM) CON. 75 Tlip following may be of servipe :- Matt. iii. ir». IiUkevi.4fl. .Inlin xiv. "Jl. Ht^y. xxii. IH. AN OKKKR. To tlio one wlio fiinlH tlic jjrciitu.Ht imiiilicr of jmshaf't'H in lln' New TcsU- nit-iit, ill i)r(iiif of Infant llu)>tiMn, or Kanti^ui.or Ailiill liantisni, witli wiitcr a» now |lrlt(•t'^e(l, 1 will fonvaril a coniiilft*' nvt of 4 voIh. of Alfonl's (Jri'i-k TePtnni»'nt,inl\tiii»t'il in tlit- Statt'H at .*.1ii. To the next, two vuls. of Trench on tlu) raral)le and Miradch, xaluu 11 4h. Htcrlin^. To tin- tliipl, " lloilmf'H Tlit'olony " 1 vol. and to tiif loiirtli, " Barnes on tlie Actf*." ()tl:er>, if aiiy, will l)t* rewarded aecnrdinf^ly. As a teniptatinn to nur l'fd(iliiii)lisl (I mean I'edorantiHt) liretliren 1 may f^ay thai Alford iiml Ilod^^e are x«///(//(p on Inlant 8i>rinklin^;, Uariies iH not tar liehind tlu-ni. .Now, lirothers, you have a yood chance of ^ettin^ come putd Itook.x ciieap. Tliey HJiali lie forwarded freo of cost. In forwarding,' your " proof.s" wend also name and addre>« to Yours, .1. HitowN. P. S.— I use the word " Kantisn: " in no offensive way, it nieann s^niuklhitf aft Baptism no an:< iiiinierMiun,Mul to call Inlant Sprinkling', Baptism, is a coinpromiMe 1 cannot make, [" WKSI.KYA.V," May 'iO, is7f..] RKV. JOHN BROWN IX TIIK "CIIBISTIAX MK.'^SHNOKIJ." 3-H. .loliii Brown in on tlie war-jiatli, and, to judp; from lii.s letter in the Chrix- tian M> HHenijer of the 3rd inst., he anlicijiate-s an ea.sy anil wpeeily extermina- tion of the ncrciy of baptism with water. That Mr. Brown ha.s fallen iiitt the niit»take> of many of his profe.s.sioii, who ha^e prtn-eded him from the Old Country, (w to the character and itilelliyence of the jieople <miI here, is e\ ident from his manifesto, which t'liows him tu he yet in his A, B. (', as a contro- versialist on the bapiisui question. When Mr. B. makes himself familiar v ith the literature of this coiitntversy in these I'luviiices, he will, no douht, feel ashamed of having written such twaddle as he has put forth. Ilisar^^ument, if there is arj,'umtnt in his Ipiier, is, I, .lolin Brown, say h'tjitize means to dijj, an<l hapti.'^iii cannot ho administered without dipping', which 1 am pieparetl to prove ; and all who dare di.^pute what 1 say, ami teach contrary theretn, are untruthful are calling darkne.ss light and light darkne.ss, and have departed from moral rectitude. The style savours greatly iif luaggardism ; and as to the proof, men \astly Mr. B.'s superiors, in their acipiaintance with the ancient languages, and in their mastery of thn.M' hraiichen of education and study, which lit for controversy as to the mode of haptisiii, have laboured years to establish lielief in the do;:nia of diiijiing, and they have been alHiUl as 8ucces.>»ful as the I'ojie of Hone mi eslabli.sliing belief in his infallibility ; and it is just ridiculous that this new adventurer, in this wide field, po(uly equipjied as he is, should expect to receive serious attention from masters in this branch of theological literature. He will be more successful in advertising him.sell in some other way. Without departing from my design in writing, which was not to attempt dis<-UPsion with Mr. Brown, I may safely remark uw the following exju-ession in his letter : " First. There is no gmh thimj as bajiti/.e with water in the sense of sprinkling. If it is baptism at all, it is'baplism in water." Now I read in Mark 1, 8, " I indeed have baptized you uith water, but he shall baptize you with the Il(dy (Jhost ;" also in John I. -0, .Tl, " John answered, saving. 1 bap- tize tcith water ;" and again. Acts i I , l('», " Then remembere<l I the wonl of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptizeij with water, but you shall be haptiz-t'd with the Ibdy (Jhost." While I fail to lind the exprts.-imi bajitized t« Mvrfcr in the New Testament, and consetjuently I conclude that whatever may be the meaning of the original word rendered baptize in our translation, yet Mr. Brnwn's theory of bai»tism is un,scriptuial, ami condemned l»y the p< r- tions of Scripture to whicli he tallsthe attention of I'edobaptists ; and instead 7H JJAI'TISMAI, IMMKUSION NOT OF (JOD. of tlu'rM buin^ " lUDnil <ililit|uit,v" in tin- ailininirtimtion of tlio tlvH I)a|)ti8ni8 with irnlrr tn wliuli lii> icft'lM, tlii' iiinnil Dlilitjuily is all in liiiiiHHif. In Vt<iW i>t' tlii< |iiirt I wiiiild iiixo ii|)<iii Mr. It. tin- consiilfnitioii ol lii.ttiwn (luoiiition, " rf|)ririt " iind if In* thinks iinulln'i- •lipping' is m-cfAMtiry to piii itlcHtion It't liini take it l)y nil nu'ani<. Tlit$ xlnillow wiiiici^ni attcniptt-il on tin* woniH " JMirii'il uU'liT tilt) wiivi'H of tlif .Ionian " has poiiil unly for iIidhi' wIio a'lv('itj-<n lln-ir hijiti'iii.- in till! (hriiftiiiii MfHiteu(/fr, ami no ijoultl llii'y will ri'iiii'nilu-r tlio iinkiinlni'SH. As to Mr. Il.'s novfl niodf of ail\fitisin^{ liis c.vtia siqiply of hooks. I woiiiil sii^;^»'st llic possiliility of a " rainy ilay." lit- mav livt* to want liis Itooks, or his niuiiey, (iiiiluu*t niia-h iw thoso to whom lu-otTtM-M thmn. May Olli, 187(5. l'i;i)uii,\i'Tisr. I" MicsHKSfiKB," May ;il, 187(1.) FROM UtV. JOHN BUOVVN. Mn. EiiiTon, In the Wenleijmi of the UOtli in»t., some one who siynM liiriisulf " I'l'iloliaptisl " attt'ini»ta lo n-ply to my letter that ajipeared in the Mi'-otnii/cr of tile i3r<i in.>*t., altliou^'li lio .say.s iie does not desire diwuisHion. Why doen Im tear!' and why does lie not put iiis name to his letter ?• I lie^j to say in reply and as hrielly as possiliie: I-'irnf. 1 made no such mistake iw 1'. iis.serts as to tiie ciuiracttT and intelli- gence of the people of .\o\a Scotia. My e.-itiinatt) was liii^h hefore I rame, and it lias risen cniisi.ienihly since, and I ;,Mve an honest opinion when I say that after two years' re.-iideiice amon^ said peojile, I consider they will not ••oiiie one wiiit hehiiid any people I know Itoth for (diaractur and intelli^jence, but 1 must ai|i| that my estimate of the iiitelli;;Hiice of some writers on Infant Sprinklinjj is very shaky, and many of the ar>;iiment.'< used to estaldi-di that do^jma iiave lieen the weakest I have ever seen or heard of, still I suppose they are as strong as the writers could llnd. What eHlimate of the inlelli- jjrpnce of tiie peoj lie of .Nova Scotia have they who advance suidi ar\j;uments for Infant Sprinkling; a.<* I have pointed out in the courseof this discussion !^ Sitiond. V. does not like my doj;;matism. That I cannot help, hut I can as- Kure him tliat lia)>ti/e means to dip, only to dip, and nothing luit to dip, and can never he made to mean anytliing else ; that immersion is theoiily mode the I5il)hf knows anything of ; that of sprinkling it knows notliiiig, lieing a human invention and will therefore come to an end someday with all other false doctrines ; ainl I repeat, tliat when any one who might know li(>tter, says that Sprinkling in more excellent and Scriptural than immersion, it is a clear case of moral ohlifjuitv. Third, v. argues that liapti/e cannot mean flipping hecanse learned men havi- failed to estalilish general htdief in that doctrine. Would not this argu- ment tell eijually against Sprinkling i' And if l*. will optiii his eyes he will see that it will tell with eipial force against almost any New IVsiament doc- trine that might he named. P.'s argument seems to he tluH : I'liiess a doc- trine lie lielieved hy everybody, it is false. We are told, however, tliat IJaptists have been about as successful as the Pope in eNtalilishiiig belief in his infallibilit*. Thnmks to I', for tiie news, for we did not know we were so successful. Fourth. V. (jiiotes thrcM verses to disprove the following staleui"rit, "There is no 8U(di thing a.s baptism with water in the sense of sprinkling; if it is baptism at all it is baptism in water." The three refer to .lolin's haptisn, to qiu)ti- one will l>e siiMicient. " I indeed have baptized you irith water," etc. To this we need only reply, .lohn's iiapti/iug i.v water and wi tii was one and the .s;mit> thing, and if lie hail si)rinkled, or pourtjd, he would not hii\ e baptized WITH water. The word " with " has confused 1'. Perluipa an illustration of its use invy hip him. In a certain church a real baptism was to take ])lace on a c'rtain eveninr, it was found, Iwiwevorthat the water-pipes were frozen the Itaptism therefore did Dot take place, because they had no water to bap- tize rcith. Fifth. P. suggests that I keep my books incase of a "rainy day." lam KOI lik am hir nes the ten the AIUJIMKNTS I'Uo AND fON. 77 tl... truth wl,ld, IfnSuy HhallVrJaSr^ '"" '""'' "'"^ '''^'•^'' "'""« ^''«» *' rii.-ii l.'t 11^ i)riiy Hint i ume it may A^ loiiif it will icr a' that." 1 am, yours, j. Brown. 1 am